ml wrote:
hi


i am pondering this again after thinking the odds of being about to put
a beam up are slim

currently i have a nice dipole CF horiz via a topside sgc , i am happy
w/it


i think i might be able to get a verticle (all bander) up there but then
i wonder

overall if it would really pay from just a performance point of view

the reviews i see i personally average as some signals would prob come
in bettter on one and some signals the other 'depending'

And HOW!
I've been running some experiments comparing the two, and frankly have
been having some problems simplifying the experiment enough to make good
sense and be valid at the same time.

Some times the vertical works better, and sometimes the horizontal
works better. I'm having a heck of a time correlating exactly *why and
when* (I'm not the only one - some Dutch amateurs got some surprising
results when they tried to decipher what would be the best antenna to
use in the PA contest. Some signals predicted to come in Groundwave were
coming in Skywave, and vice versa - this was covered in a recent QST)

What I have seen from my experiments has led me to believe that the
answer to "dipole vs Vertical is an emphatic, no question about it one
answer only - YES!


You want both antennas if you can do it. Anyone who declares one or the
other the winner is simply wrong.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:15:00 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:


Some times the vertical works better, and sometimes the horizontal
works better. I'm having a heck of a time correlating exactly *why and

Mike, we need a clear definition of the meaning of "works" in your
data gathering and analysis.

Owen
--

Owen Duffy wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:15:00 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:


Some times the vertical works better, and sometimes the horizontal
works better. I'm having a heck of a time correlating exactly *why and

Mike, we need a clear definition of the meaning of "works" in your
data gathering and analysis.


Yeah! I'm trying to come up with a good test protocol that will allow
me to define "work".

So far, I can note that some signals drop into the noise and become
unreadable, while are readable on the other at the same time. That seems
a bit simplistic though.

My main problem is the variable signal levels., and the also variable
noise levels. Turns out that the antenna that was noisier on one band is
quieter on another, and vice versa.

A fellow could come to the conclusion that "this ain't exactly easy". HA!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:

Yeah! I'm trying to come up with a good test protocol that will
allow me to define "work".

So far, I can note that some signals drop into the noise and become
unreadable, while are readable on the other at the same time. That seems
a bit simplistic though.

My main problem is the variable signal levels., and the also
variable noise levels. Turns out that the antenna that was noisier on
one band is quieter on another, and vice versa.

A fellow could come to the conclusion that "this ain't exactly
easy". HA!

It isn't.

The best antenna for transmitting is the one which produces the loudest
signal at the other station. The best antenna for receiving is the one
which produces the best signal/noise ratio at your station. The two are
often different, because they're determined by different antenna
characteristics. So for starters, you can have two "best" antennas for
each station you want to contact, and that "best" will vary with the
skip elevation angle, local noise level, and directions and angles the
noise is coming from.

Have fun!

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:32:05 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:


A fellow could come to the conclusion that "this ain't exactly
easy". HA!

It isn't.

The best antenna for transmitting is the one which produces the loudest
signal at the other station. The best antenna for receiving is the one
which produces the best signal/noise ratio at your station. The two are
often different, because they're determined by different antenna
characteristics. So for starters, you can have two "best" antennas for
each station you want to contact, and that "best" will vary with the
skip elevation angle, local noise level, and directions and angles the
noise is coming from.


Just was I was thinking when I prompted the "works" definition.

I should not be surprised if many observations indicate the better
antenna for tx is different from the better antenna for rx. I am not
trying to question reciprocity, but there are several factors, ambient
noise at the rx site probably being the most significant.

Key thing is, works is not adequately defined by making one or a few
DX QSOs!.

Mike, perhaps you need to formalise your "works" criteria with your
current experience, identifying what you need to record, before making
too many more observations.

I agree with Roy, for each antenna, rx main figure of merit S/N
(crudely S units between ambient noise and signal), and on tx, the
other stations observed S meter reading. (Whole log of issues there...
but a rough start supported by the current RST reporting scheme.)

Owen
--

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:15:00 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

ml wrote:
hi


i am pondering this again after thinking the odds of being about to put
a beam up are slim

currently i have a nice dipole CF horiz via a topside sgc , i am happy
w/it


i think i might be able to get a verticle (all bander) up there but then
i wonder

overall if it would really pay from just a performance point of view

the reviews i see i personally average as some signals would prob come
in bettter on one and some signals the other 'depending'

And HOW!
I've been running some experiments comparing the two, and frankly have
been having some problems simplifying the experiment enough to make good
sense and be valid at the same time.

Some times the vertical works better, and sometimes the horizontal
works better. I'm having a heck of a time correlating exactly *why and
when* (I'm not the only one - some Dutch amateurs got some surprising
results when they tried to decipher what would be the best antenna to
use in the PA contest. Some signals predicted to come in Groundwave were
coming in Skywave, and vice versa - this was covered in a recent QST)

What I have seen from my experiments has led me to believe that the
answer to "dipole vs Vertical is an emphatic, no question about it one
answer only - YES!


You want both antennas if you can do it. Anyone who declares one or the
other the winner is simply wrong.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

I did some tests a couple of years ago on 10 meters between vertical
and horizontal on an 1800 mile path. It seems that there is quite a
bit of rotation in polarity of the signal from minute to minute. I
tried right and left hand circular to confirm that it was rotation.

73
Gary K4FMX

"Gary Schafer" wrote in message
...



You want both antennas if you can do it. Anyone who declares one or the
other the winner is simply wrong.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

I did some tests a couple of years ago on 10 meters between vertical
and horizontal on an 1800 mile path. It seems that there is quite a
bit of rotation in polarity of the signal from minute to minute. I
tried right and left hand circular to confirm that it was rotation.

73
Gary K4FMX


Cross-polarization losses are in the neighborhood of 10-20 dB at VHF and
above. With my license, I cannot do HF, so others may chime in with those
numbers. Assuming ... there's that word ... that the random polarization
variations ("rotations") are around some central figure, during for a given
QSO, then one antenna will work better -- the one that happens to be optimum
for that path and for the antenna on the other end of the QSO.

There exists a phenomenon that I do not understand well, called Faraday
rotation, where an EM wave passing through a magnetic field will undergo a
polarization "alteration", so to speak. Thus, two verticals on the ends of
a long-distance QSO might not perform as well as if one were a vertical and
the other a horizontal -- due to the Earth's magnetic field.

John
KD6VKW