If I have a low dipole about 10 feet off the ground for 75 meters,
would it be better if I put a hamstick 75 meter vertical up and
connect the dipole wires to the ground side for a vertical?

Buck
N4PGW

--
73 for now
Buck, N4PGW

www.lumpuckeroo.com

"Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two."

Buck wrote:
If I have a low dipole about 10 feet off the ground for 75 meters,
would it be better if I put a hamstick 75 meter vertical up and
connect the dipole wires to the ground side for a vertical?

The low dipole is probably much more efficient than the
hamstick and most of the radiation is straight up which
is not necessarily a bad thing on 75m. Your question reminds
me of one on a clinical psychological test. "Would you rather
take one or two days to die an agonizing death?" :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On May 1, 2:49 pm, Buck wrote:
If I have a low dipole about 10 feet off the ground for 75 meters,
would it be better if I put a hamstick 75 meter vertical up and
connect the dipole wires to the ground side for a vertical?


No.

Christopher Cox wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Buck wrote:

If I have a low dipole about 10 feet off the ground for 75 meters,
would it be better if I put a hamstick 75 meter vertical up and
connect the dipole wires to the ground side for a vertical?


The low dipole is probably much more efficient than the
hamstick and most of the radiation is straight up which
is not necessarily a bad thing on 75m. Your question reminds
me of one on a clinical psychological test. "Would you rather
take one or two days to die an agonizing death?" :-)

I think the original post needs a couple of questions asked.

Agreed the low lying dipole is ideal for a NVIS antenna.
It would be interesting to see what kind of results would be had for
contacts greater than 600 miles between the two antenna's.


That Hamstick isn't going to be very efficient, so I guess it comes
down to whether or not the reduced efficiency of the dipole at the
desired DX angle allows for greater signal than the bad efficiency of
the Hamstick at all angles...

Suffice it to say that it probably isn't a very good option to run a
Hamstick setup at home when there are any other options available.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote in
:

Christopher Cox wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Buck wrote:

If I have a low dipole about 10 feet off the ground for 75 meters,
would it be better if I put a hamstick 75 meter vertical up and
connect the dipole wires to the ground side for a vertical?


The low dipole is probably much more efficient than the
hamstick and most of the radiation is straight up which
is not necessarily a bad thing on 75m. Your question reminds
me of one on a clinical psychological test. "Would you rather
take one or two days to die an agonizing death?" :-)

I think the original post needs a couple of questions asked.

Agreed the low lying dipole is ideal for a NVIS antenna.
It would be interesting to see what kind of results would be had for
contacts greater than 600 miles between the two antenna's.


That Hamstick isn't going to be very efficient, so I guess it
comes
down to whether or not the reduced efficiency of the dipole at the
desired DX angle allows for greater signal than the bad efficiency of
the Hamstick at all angles...

Suffice it to say that it probably isn't a very good option to run a
Hamstick setup at home when there are any other options available.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Your not going to gain anything from the swap. I've compared a full size
dipole to a hamstick dipole on 80m at the same hight. The dipole was
20db (about 3 S-units) better than the hamsticks. You will not gain
anything close to 20db by putting the hamstick dipole up higer. On 40m a
hamstick dipole is only about 10db worse than a full size dipole, better
still on the higher bands. And yes I'm talking about hamstick dipoles
using the right models for each band. On 80m the 2:1 SWR bandwidth is
about 60KHz, wider on 40m but still narrower than a dipole on all bands.

Ham stick dipoles seems attractive, but they fall into the better than
nothing class on the lower bands.

John Passaneau

On Fri, 2 May 2008 13:27:58 +0000 (UTC), John Passaneau
wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote in
:

Christopher Cox wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Buck wrote:

If I have a low dipole about 10 feet off the ground for 75 meters,
would it be better if I put a hamstick 75 meter vertical up and
connect the dipole wires to the ground side for a vertical?


John,
The idea I have is to make a vertical ground plane with the HamStick.

Ham stick dipoles seems attractive, but they fall into the better than
nothing class on the lower bands.

John Passaneau

i fully understand that the HamStick is not a great antenna fro that
band, but how would the vertical ground plane made of a HamStick and
two full length radials compare to a dipole at the same 10 foot level?

what would the angle of radiation be like?


--
73 for now
Buck, N4PGW

www.lumpuckeroo.com

"Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two."

Buck wrote:
what would the angle of radiation be like?

Probably about 25 degrees with -20dBi gain.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Buck wrote in
:

On Fri, 2 May 2008 13:27:58 +0000 (UTC), John Passaneau
wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote in
:

Christopher Cox wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Buck wrote:

If I have a low dipole about 10 feet off the ground for 75 meters,
would it be better if I put a hamstick 75 meter vertical up and
connect the dipole wires to the ground side for a vertical?


John,
The idea I have is to make a vertical ground plane with the HamStick.

Ham stick dipoles seems attractive, but they fall into the better than
nothing class on the lower bands.

John Passaneau

i fully understand that the HamStick is not a great antenna fro that
band, but how would the vertical ground plane made of a HamStick and
two full length radials compare to a dipole at the same 10 foot level?

what would the angle of radiation be like?



My suggestion would be to download the trial version of EZNEC and model a
7’ wire over ground. That is an easy model to do and will tell you what
the pattern will look like. As to the gain it will be just about the same
as my tests, about 20db down from a full size antenna. The reason is
hamsticks are very lossy on 80m and the bandwidth will still be about
60KHz. Anyway learning how to model antennas is a lot of fun and you can
try out a lot of different antennas easly. I can say from experance that
modeling works. Everything that I’ve carefuly modeled worked just like
the model.

John Passaneau

In article ,
Buck wrote:

i fully understand that the HamStick is not a great antenna fro that
band, but how would the vertical ground plane made of a HamStick and
two full length radials compare to a dipole at the same 10 foot level?

I think it would compare badly to the dipole.

With the dipole, you'll have working in your favor the basic radiation
resistance of a dipole in free space, reduced by the proximity of the
dipole to the "reflector" (the lossy soil). Working against you,
will be the losses in the soil. It'll certainly be a cloudwarmer...
good for NVIS, not for DX as there will be little energy at a low
radiation angle.

If you short the dipole wires and use it as a two-wire sort-of-
elevated radial set, the radiation resistance of these wires will be
very close to zero - the far-field radiation from them will cancel out
almost entirely. You'll still have substantial losses in the soil, I
think, as the wires are only a small fraction of a wavelength above
the soil surface. The radiation resistance of the HamStick itself is
going to be quite low (an ohm or so??), and it certainly has a
substantial amount of loss resistance.

My SWAG is that by making this change, you might drop your radiation
efficiency from 25% (low dipole over lossy ground) to 5% or less
(lossy short vertical, over an inadequate radial network with
substantial ground losses). Don't trust these numbers!

what would the angle of radiation be like?

Probably much like that of any other very-short monopole over a lossy
ground... pretty much omnidirectional, with a modest null pointing
straight up.

It *may* have more low-angle radiation in the pattern than the
low-dipole arrangement, but I think you'd lose most or all of the
pattern advantage due to the lower radiation efficiency.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

"Buck" wrote in message
...

If I have a low dipole about 10 feet off the ground for 75 meters,
would it be better if I put a hamstick 75 meter vertical up and
connect the dipole wires to the ground side for a vertical?

Buck
N4PGW

--
73 for now
Buck, N4PGW

www.lumpuckeroo.com

"Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two."

Assuming a 7 ft monopole, with a lumped element inductor
(located in the middle of the vertical) of Q = 500,
and 100 W input. The total radiated (sky wave) power is 1.4 W.
The gain is -12.7 dbi with a take-off angle of 23 degrees.
At resonance the input impedance is 14 ohms.

73,

Frank