On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:05:14 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
If someone experiences a 5 dBi monopole beating a
11 dBi beam, I am skeptical.

Hi All,

The statement above is the poster child of the lack of demonstrables.
It is a binary comparison that leads to one of two conclusions based
on incomplete discussion. In the linear world, there are many, many
factors that go into judgemental determinations instead of these two
rather threadbare characteristics that are only inferentially
associated to a more profound observation.

Such vague statements lead cfa proponents to claim their dipole
designs whip standard FCC implementations of monopoles. Then when you
examine the data, yup, the FCC design eclipses their generalities
couched in neo-academia by 20 to 30dB. Such is the stuff of Flat
Earth Socialism that huffs and puffs dusty tomes with speculations of
long leaded resistors against the unequivocal evidence of peer judged
field work.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
Mikey wrote:
Yes, phased verticals will outperform a dipole.

Some phased verticals will outperform a dipole, depending upon how one
defines "outperform". A dipole at a decent height can have a 7 dB gain
over a 1/4 WL monopole. A two-element phased vertical cannot equal that
figure over average ground. Reference: Fig 10, Chapter 8, The ARRL Antenna
Book, 15th edition. The maximum gain figure for a two-element phased vertical
is 4.7 dB over a 1/4 WL monopole. The average is about 3 dB depending on
spacing and phasing. That same graphic is Fig 11, Chapter 8, on the ARRL
Antenna Book CD, ver 2.0.

EZNEC sez my simple 130 ft. dipole at 40 ft. has a gain of 10.8 dBi on
10m with a take-off-angle of 12 degrees. It would take quite a vertical
array to equal that. (Then I would have to somehow overcome a +10 dB
vertically polarized noise level. :-)

Cecil, It is extremely hard to follow this thread as many comparisons
are vague i.e. frequency, length of antenna e.t.c.
You are not helping things when you talk of a 130 foot dipole and its
use on ten meters. I think calling that antenna a dipole is misleading
to say the least
For ten meters I would call it something more than a dipole.
To talk of a simple dipole having 10 db gain on this group is more
than misleading it is an attempt to confuse.
Can you imagine me entering the 160 metre discussion and discussing my
collinear dipole in the vertical position as just
a "simple " dipole and with no buried ground plane at that? If you are
going to continue to compare antennas then the info must be factual
and completely comparible or you do not have a legit comparison. I
came in late but I read all the postings on this thread and the
comparisons are all over the place and hard to follow, so back to what
I was doing which is more productive.
Have fun, will pop back later when the postings get to over 200.
Art

bb wrote:
"Would vertical phasing be an improvement?

Vertical antennas launch waves along the surface of the earth. Vertical
antennas tend to have a null directly overhead.

According to B. Whitfield Griffith, Jr. in "Radio-Electronic
Transmission Fundamentals", the field intensity at 10 miles from an
antenna will be 1000X stronger at 0.5 MHz than at 5.0 MHz if the soil
conductivity is 10 mmhos/m (sort of ordinary) and if the same power is
being radiated on both frequencies.

High attenuation of the groundwave at high frequencies was the reason
frequencies above 1500 KHz were thought no good in the early days of
radio.

Sea water has a conductivity of about 5000 mmhos/m, or about 500X better
than ordinary earth. So, the lower HF spectrum is good for some maritime
and tropical broadcasting services in island areas. Antennas need to be
located near the water`s edge to avoid excessive loss in traversing land
to get to the water.

Salt air is not the best environment for a shortwave broadcast station.
Shortwaves traveling along the earth`s surface are severely attenuated.
Though I worked for years in shortwave broadcasting, I never saw a
shortwave broadcast station that used vertical polarization. Shortwave
stations are usually sited away from the sea coast for protection and
equipped with horizontal antennas to launch sky waves, not ground waves.

The broadcaster wants to concentrate energy both horizontally and
vertically to useful azimuths and elevation angles. These ideally are
tailored to the broadcast target. The broadcaster gratefully accepts any
useful reflection from the earth but does not tend to rely much upon it.

There is no inviolable rule of one type or even of one polarization of
antenna being best for all situations. There are many types. Kraus lists
24 types "as a preview to more detailed treatments." If you would really
make your own discriminating choices instead of relying upon the advice
of others, you would need to carefully study some book like Kraus`
"Antennas".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Art, KB9MZ wrote:
"---the comparisons are all over the place and hard to follow."

When the title reads: "Does phasing verticals work better than a
dipole?" that could be expected to evoke confusing replies. Hams play
antenna favorites, often when the favorites aren`t justified.

I think it would be worth while to see what the most successful DXers
actually use. ON4UN has tried to do this in "Low-Band DXing". Many use
separate antennas for receiving and transmitting. The goal is signal to
noise ratio on reception. The goal is effective radiated power on the
target for transmission.

Many Beverages are listed to receive the DX signal. At 80m, there are
Yagis, slopers, Vees, etc. to transmit. At 160m, there are quite a few
inverted Vees and other antennas which seem to trend to vertical
polarization. The antennas may be too large to rotate and
omnidirectionality may be accepted without so much struggle. Multiple
directional transmitting antennas might be a better solution if the
resources are available. You may only need a few hundred acres.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Cecil:

[snip]
What I have done is presented a situation where lumped circuit
theory totally falls apart as it does in physically large mobile
loading coils. That's one reason that distributed network theory
was invented.

Flat Earth thinking equates to using lumped circuit theory for
applications where it simply doesn't work.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP
[snip]

As you well know 19th century electromagnetic field [EMAG] theory has been
supplanted by
modern 20th century quantum electro-dynamics QED, just as EMAG supplanted
the circuit
theory of the 18th century, and QED is "lumped" *not* "distributed".

What???

Hey... give it up man! Distributed is passe...

Even the latest Scientific American has an article on "Loop Quantum Gravity"
the latest *lumped*
physical theory, where the final three holdouts for the continuum and those
discredited *distributed*
theories, i.e. gravity, space, and time itself [i.e. Einstein's celebrated
20the century theory of general relativity]
are now found to be "lumped" and are in fact comprised of purely discrete
quanta. Time is not continuous or distributed but proceeds in tiny steps
measured in Planck times of 10^-43 seconds. Space is also quantized
in chunks of cubic Planck lengths of about 10^-99 cc's. See: Lee Smolin,
"Atoms of Space and Time", Scientific American, January 2004, pp. 66-75.

Quanta and lumps rule!
--
Peter K1PO
Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL
[counting grains of sand on the beach today... :-)]

Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
Richard Clark wrote:
Mark's experience eclipses this nonsense of Flat Earth Socialist
rhetoric.

Mark hasn't tried a 130 foot dipole on 10m at the same
height as his vertical in the direction of one of the
four 11 dBi at 7 deg lobes. Even with a perfect ground,
his vertical tops out at about 5 dBi, a full s-unit
below the dipole's best lobes.

Actually, I have tried it on 10m and most other bands. "I do have 80m
dipoles". But no, the dipole never beat the 5/8 GP. I've also tried a
40m dipole.

Flat Earth thinking equates to asserting that a vertical
monopole will beat a +11 dBi beam (or lobe).

It's like when I was out camping using a ladder line fed 80m, 130 ft
dipole.
I tried it on ten. It was pathetic due to the overly high takeoff
angles. I'm talking terrible. We couldn't contact anyone, although we
could hear a few. Bad...And yes, when modeled, that antenna had the
same gain you claim with yours, being it was exactly the same. Lamest
10m antenna I ever used. My whip on the car beat it like a lost step
child. In any direction. Like I said, gain numbers don't always tell
it all. MK

Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
Mark Keith wrote:
Yep, I guess you could call me biased...I'd even take this farther and
speculate that the dipole even at a half wave "65 ft on 40m" would
have trouble beating the elevated vertical I had on long paths.

But, Mark, you are neglecting physical efficiency. Divide the performance
by the amount of metal required for each antenna and see what you get. :-)
My dipole uses 1/2WL of wire. Your vertical uses how many wavelengths of
wire?

Good grief.....What an argument you have here, Cecil....Like the
amount of wire used is pertinent to performance. But if you must know,
my GP used 5 lengths of 1/4 wave material. The radiator being fully
self supporting aluminum. The other four 1/4 wave lengths were of that
high $$$$ stuff called wire. Really broke me that antenna did... MK

Peter O. Brackett wrote:
QED is "lumped" *not* "distributed".
What???
Hey... give it up man! Distributed is passe...
Quanta and lumps rule!

Well Peter, I have been trying to teach the Flat Earth engineers about the
difference between movement of electrons and movement of photons but it hasn't
made much of a dent in lumped concrete brains. Maybe you can say something
about electron movement (dQ/dt) Vs the photons generated by the acceleration
of those electrons.
--
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! =-----

Mark Keith wrote:
Actually, I have tried it on 10m and most other bands. "I do have 80m
dipoles". But no, the dipole never beat the 5/8 GP.

Fed with coax, and no doubt, laying on the ground.

It's like when I was out camping using a ladder line fed 80m, 130 ft
dipole. I tried it on ten. It was pathetic due to the overly high takeoff
angles. I'm talking terrible.

Perhaps, you had a cold solder joint (maybe on purpose so you could
report what you are reporting?) Your results just don't make sense.
--
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! =-----

Mark Keith wrote:
Good grief.....What an argument you have here, Cecil...

Good grief, Mark. Would you please learn what :-) means.
--
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! =-----