Richard Harrison wrote:
There surely must be instances where vertical polarization proves better
than horizontal, but these are exceptions, not the rule.

Vertically polarized noise is about 10 dB higher than horizontally
polarized noise at my QTH rendering a vertical antenna virtually
useless for receiving compared to a horizontal antenna.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Richard Harrison wrote:

There surely must be instances where vertical polarization proves better
than horizontal, but these are exceptions, not the rule.

Vertically polarized noise is about 10 dB higher than horizontally
polarized noise at my QTH rendering a vertical antenna virtually
useless for receiving compared to a horizontal antenna.

Sorry, forgot to say this was on 40m.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Here's my experience.

On transmit:

160 meters: 90 foot vertical is 20 dB better than 60 ft high inv vee
80 meters: 60 foot vertical is 10 dB better than 60 ft high inv vee
40 meters: 30 foot vertical is equal to 90 ft high inv vee
20 meters: 30 foot vertical is beaten by 90 ft high inv vee about 25% of
the time
15 meters and up: Any dipole trounces any vertical.

On receive:

160 and 80 meters: A low dipole trounces any vertical
40 meters and up: best receive antenna is best transmit antenna

Rick N6RK

There surely must be instances where vertical polarization proves
better
than horizontal, but these are exceptions, not the rule.

Vertically polarized noise is about 10 dB higher than horizontally
polarized noise at my QTH rendering a vertical antenna virtually
useless for receiving compared to a horizontal antenna.

Sorry, forgot to say this was on 40m.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
- 19 Different Servers! =-----

What distances are you talking about? DX, local, etc...

"Rick Karlquist N6RK" wrote in message
news:bBDJb.48697$I07.144572@attbi_s53...
Here's my experience.

On transmit:

160 meters: 90 foot vertical is 20 dB better than 60 ft high inv vee
80 meters: 60 foot vertical is 10 dB better than 60 ft high inv vee
40 meters: 30 foot vertical is equal to 90 ft high inv vee
20 meters: 30 foot vertical is beaten by 90 ft high inv vee about 25% of
the time
15 meters and up: Any dipole trounces any vertical.

On receive:

160 and 80 meters: A low dipole trounces any vertical
40 meters and up: best receive antenna is best transmit antenna

Rick N6RK

There surely must be instances where vertical polarization proves
better
than horizontal, but these are exceptions, not the rule.

Vertically polarized noise is about 10 dB higher than horizontally
polarized noise at my QTH rendering a vertical antenna virtually
useless for receiving compared to a horizontal antenna.

Sorry, forgot to say this was on 40m.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
- 19 Different Servers! =-----

What distances are you talking about? DX, local, etc...

"Rick Karlquist N6RK" wrote in message
news:bBDJb.48697$I07.144572@attbi_s53...
Here's my experience.

On transmit:

160 meters: 90 foot vertical is 20 dB better than 60 ft high inv vee
80 meters: 60 foot vertical is 10 dB better than 60 ft high inv vee
40 meters: 30 foot vertical is equal to 90 ft high inv vee
20 meters: 30 foot vertical is beaten by 90 ft high inv vee about 25% of
the time
15 meters and up: Any dipole trounces any vertical.

On receive:

160 and 80 meters: A low dipole trounces any vertical
40 meters and up: best receive antenna is best transmit antenna

Rick N6RK

There surely must be instances where vertical polarization proves
better
than horizontal, but these are exceptions, not the rule.

Vertically polarized noise is about 10 dB higher than horizontally
polarized noise at my QTH rendering a vertical antenna virtually
useless for receiving compared to a horizontal antenna.

Sorry, forgot to say this was on 40m.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
- 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Rick Karlquist N6RK" wrote in message news:bBDJb.48697$I07.144572@attbi_s53...
Here's my experience.

On transmit:

160 meters: 90 foot vertical is 20 dB better than 60 ft high inv vee
80 meters: 60 foot vertical is 10 dB better than 60 ft high inv vee
40 meters: 30 foot vertical is equal to 90 ft high inv vee

Sounds about right, but try the 90 ft dipole against a 1/4 wave ground
plane mounted say at 55-60 ft. "That makes the overall height
about the same.. I bet the vertical trounces the dipole.

20 meters: 30 foot vertical is beaten by 90 ft high inv vee about 25% of
the time
I usually prefer the dipole on this band...

15 meters and up: Any dipole trounces any vertical.

Have to disagree here though. I've had numerous 10m verticals that
beat any dipole I tried on most low angles...Same for 17m, when I used
an elevated 5/8 ground plane at 36 ft. Dogged all my other antennas.

On receive:

160 and 80 meters: A low dipole trounces any vertical

Not sure on this one...I assume you see this due to a better s/n ratio
with the dipole...Overall, I don't totally agree with this one
though...I think it's reciprical. Which ever transmits best, usually
receives best in what I see here.
I often receive using the vertical. But I don't have any fancy receive
antennas like beverages, or small phased verticals, etc..
40 meters and up: best receive antenna is best transmit antenna

I agree..Actually, I think this is really the case on any band, not
counting any s/n problems with a certain antenna on receive. I'm a
firm believer in reciprical operation. Only in a very few cases will
that not pan out. No matter what band I'm on, I usually transmit on
the antenna that receives the best. Very, very rarely is it not also
the best transmit antenna. MK