Mike and All, Au contraire, mon ami! Don't be too quick to dismiss using a vertical. It's not quite as simple as throwing something over a tree, but you have to have a tree!
Here in the desert, verticals are often the best choice. Some ham friends of mine and I go out frequently on camping trips, and unless we go to high ground, trees are pretty much non-existent. A couple of these guys have fabricated vertical installations that are very good performers. A 20 meter vertical we used was elevated about 6 feet, and 30 radials were staked out around it. The whole job only took about an hour to erect. A 40 meter vertical is in the works. Performance on the 20 meter vertical was excellent, so we then did two of them and phased them. Of course, results were even better. I have a collar device which slides into my trailer hitch. I can put a mast section in the collar, and then an R7 vertical on top of it. That gives me 40 through 10 with good results. I'm not saying a nice, high dipole wouldn't be as good or better, but I've used R7's for years, both at home and away, and I don't feel very deprived. Well, I'd love to have a nice beam installation, but that's just not possible, at home anyway. Speaking of beams, I also have one of Vern Wright's portable beams. I've used it several times now, and it works great! I put mine up about 25 feet with a collapsible flagpole, and it is a relatively easy process. I intended to use it this year for Field Day, but we were on high ground, and the trees were too close. On other outings though, it has been a very good performer. I've commented multiple times on how to make some of the various portable vertical systems, like the PAC-12, Buddistick, and MP-1, work considerably better than the "out-of-the-box" setup. So, I won't repeat all of that. It's not very hard though, and the results are quite rewarding. If circumstances allow you to put up a dipole, that's probably what you should do. But don't think a vertical system is not an effective option. You certainly don't have to suffer the 30 db or so deficiency that Mike suggests, or anything close to it. With just a little extra effort you can be within an S unit or so of a dipole, and you might even sound better to a DX station. Dave W7AQK . original Message ----- From: "Mike Morrow" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:19 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Antennas for K1 Field Use > That would be very inaccurate. HF vertical antennas for field use will > almost > *never* have a proper and effective ground system. Add to that the losses > of loading coils/traps, and one will very certainly find *at least* a 30 > dB difference, > receiving and transmitting, in side-by-side comparisons between the > vertical and > any simple wire resonant dipole. That means six S-units. That means a > one watt > signal into the dipole will be better than 1000 watts into the vertical! > > The installation of a semi-effective ground system for the vertical would > require > multiple tuned counterpoise wires that are far more troublesome to employ > than > just using a simple resonant dipole. The dipole requires *no* grounding > system. > For operation in that very rare environment in which there is nothing to > support > the ends of the dipole, I've used two wooden mop handles and some cord > with > tent stakes as guys for the poles. ______________________________________________________________ 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
