Probably best to change the topic of this, as it has drifted into a different
area.
Eric
/elecraft.com/
On 11/13/2015 9:01 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
On Fri,11/13/2015 1:30 PM, Wes (N7WS) wrote:
Note, there is no mention of any directivity, or lack thereof, so I would
take it that this is a theoretical free-space value.
One could do that, of course, but your original post brought ground
conductivity into the computation, which is, IMO, entirely appropriate.
FWIW, I've done some extensive modeling studies of horizontal and vertical
antennas at various mounting heights; horizontal antennas don't care much
about soil but care a lot about height; vertical antennas care a bit about
height and a lot about soil. That work is on my website.
I think I would use average gain of the antenna as installed as the basis for
compliance with the Rules, but the question remains, what height for the
dipole? :)
This is, for me, purely academic. My soil being terrible, a vertical is a poor
choice for 60M, and I have a bunch of high horizontal dipoles, so I'd use one
of them. :)
BTW -- there's a 2-part piece on this topic by Rudy Severns in QEX this past
summer, specifically addressing very short verticals for the 630m band.
73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[email protected]
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [email protected]
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[email protected]
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [email protected]
