thanks very much to all those that replyed,

but don't forget, we all agree that somtimes the dipole will work better
sometimes the vert but the realy trick i wonder about is how many times
will the vert be useful

my guess is prob 50/50 but wasn't sure how 'random' it might all be


In article , 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'

but i guess i can't quantify if at the end of the day i'd say wow
really glad i had that vert or if perhaps having a 2nd antenna would
really net me only a marginal end of year bunch of extra qso's


perhaps a unrelated question #2

given the building master tv antenna is close by, would one guess that a
verticle or a small triband beam would give off more tvi??


assume both would be slightly higher than the tv ant but close proximity

thanks

"ml" wrote

but don't forget, we all agree that somtimes the dipole will work better
sometimes the vert but the realy trick i wonder about is how many times
will the vert be useful

my guess is prob 50/50 but wasn't sure how 'random' it might all be



To understand the benefits of vertical vs. dipole, one has to look at the
radiation diagram of each antenna at particular height. Vertical has the
lobes, where horizontal dipole has the nulls and vice versa. The other
aspect is the polarization which plays bigger role in close range signals,
long range DX signals have varying polarization after they go through the
path. Then there are varying angles of arriving signal depending on
propagation media.
Another spect is that Vertical has omnidirectional pattern, while dipole has
nulls in the pattern (off the ends).

Depends how the antenna pattern and properties fit the current propagation
mode/situation, that antenna would be better. So one has to look at the
antenna pattern and have idea what propagation angles and polarization we
are looking for. Verticals need good ground/soil/radials/salt water for
better low angle performance.

The answer to which is better: vertical or dipole is - YES, jus' depends
wasaaaap (or down)!

Yuri, www.K3BU.us

Is the polarity of the sending station and receiving station relevant
to this discussion??
That is, a dipole sending station and a dipole receiving station would
tend to out perform a dipole sending station and a vertical receiving
station and vice versa?

Are there more stations with dipoles than stations with verticals?

wrote:

Is the polarity of the sending station and receiving station relevant
to this discussion??

Yes on ground wave VHF/UHF. No on HF skip.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:

Is the polarity of the sending station and receiving station relevant
to this discussion??

Yes on ground wave VHF/UHF. No on HF skip.

Oops, lest some nitpicker jump in, I should have said "surface
wave", not "ground wave". And I probably should have included
a "usually" while I was at it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Is the polarity of the sending station and receiving station
relevant
to this discussion??
Yes on ground wave VHF/UHF. No on HF skip.

Oops, lest some nitpicker jump in, I should have said "surface
wave", not "ground wave". And I probably should have included
a "usually" while I was at it.
--



*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

Nitpicker alert:

1. You should have not limited the "NO" to HF. Six meters is also a
"NO" for ionospheric skip.

2. Polarity of the signal for ground wave (not surface or space wave)
is indeed important. Vertical polarization works best. Horizontal is
rapidly attenuated.

Bill, W6WRT