Earl, I agree that's what the model shows and what the theory says. You're probably assuming the dipole is at least a half wave above ground, which can be a challenge at lower frequencies. I'm just relating my real world experiences, and suggesting that the vertical not be dismissed too soon in the considerations.
Would love to continue, but I'm heading out on a trip. Looking forward to checking back in when I return! 73, Parker WD8JOL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Earl W Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 1:01 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Re: More antenna problems > George, W5YR writes: > > "Parker, what did you think of the EZNEC gain predictions for verticals? > Compared to wire dipoles at a modest height?" > ========== > The free space gain of a vertical is about the same as that of a dipole > (2.14 dBi). However, over real ground the horizontal antenna benefits by > far field ground reflection. This is borne out in EZNEC. > > Remember that a vertical's gain is concentrated at the low angles that > are good for DXing, while the horizontal antenna must be relatively high > (at least 0.5 wavelengths) to have a reasonably low angle of radiation.. > > As far as noise goes, the dipole has a better receive S/N ratio than a > vertical simply because it has directivity, while the vertical is > omnidirectional. Also, because of its low angle radiation, the vertical > "hears" man made noises better (which are generated close to the ground > and therefore arrive at a low angle). > > 73, de Earl, K6SE _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [email protected] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
