"And QST recently published a piece showing that a better use of a 43 ft
vertical might be as the center support for horizontal dipoles for 80 and 40, a
concept with which I strongly agree." (smiley face annotation removed)
As stated by a frtend of mine, after eading the above little ditty and
replying, initially, "Snort," my friends goes on to add...."obviously, the
author of that uninformed statement hasn't had to work stations on 80 and 40
from the middle of the country when signal arrival angles start changing
dramatically and rapidly." (smiley face annotation re-inserted)
72/u3, Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV
> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:09:23 -0800
> From: j...@audiosystemsgroup.com
> To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Antenna question
>
> On 2/11/2014 3:36 PM, George Thornton wrote:
> > I have a small lot. I currently am using a 3 element Yagi that barely fits
> > on the property. I was thinking about getting a vertical as a second HF
> > antenna.
>
> As it happens, over the past year or so I've been engaged in a serious
> modeling study that compares the performance of vertical and horizontal
> antennas at mounting heights that are practical for hams in your
> situation. So the real question is, what will that vertical add to your
> station beside a second antenna for SO2R?
>
> If I were in your situation, I would add an antenna only to cover bands
> that the tri-bander does not. Even the best vertical is unlikely to
> outperform the tribander unless you happen to be blessed with REALLY
> good ground conductivity, and even then only by a dB or so at low
> elevation angles. Second, if I were to add a vertical, it would be one
> that is configured as a center-fed dipole, and I would add it ONLY if I
> could elevate it at least 20 ft.
>
> Yes, I know this wasn't the question you asked, but it needs to be asked
> and answered. :) Also, by all means pay attention to K6DGW's comments,
> with which I completely concur.
>
> There's a link to a presentation I did last fall of the vertical height
> issue, and also one about the recently popular 43 ft vertical.
> http://k9yc.com/publish.htm
>
> I'm still working on the comparison of verticals to horizontal antennas
> -- I've done all the modeling and know the results, but haven't
> organized it to show yet. AD5X has also done some excellent work on the
> 43 ft vertical idea. And QST recently published a piece showing that a
> better use of a 43 ft vertical might be as the center support for
> horizontal dipoles for 80 and 40, a concept with which I strongly agree. :)
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
