(Richard Harrison) wrote in message

"Tom stated on this newsgroup that a horizontal dipole at 1/2-wavelength
was inferior to his other antennas---."

Can`t argue with Tom`s observation about his antennas, but it does not
correspond with most observations of horizontal antenna performance when
you have a resonant dipole at 1/2-wave above the earth. Look at Fig 12-D
on page 3-11 of the 19th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book. Maximum
radiation is at 30-degrees above the horizon. From Capt. Lee`s diagram,
that would get you stations as close as 500 miles, and beyond 1000 miles
due to the range of strong elevation angles in the pattern.

I think what Tom is referring to is transmitting. It's quite normal
for a good vertical to beat a dipole on the lower bands regardless of
theory. Even if the dipole is at 1/2 wave up. Heck, I saw this as high
as 40m. My dipole on that band never beat my vertical at night on
longer paths. Tom uses separate antennas for receiving. IE: beverages,
phased short verticals. His transmit verticals are tall towers. Late
at night, my 40m mobile vertical beats my home dipole that is at 40 ft
to any path over 800 miles. My full size 40m elevated ground plane
would thoughly trounce the dipole big time by 2-4 S units depending on
the length of the path. For DX transmitting on the lower bands,
vertical polarization is the best way to go. I'm thoughly convinced of
that by many tests over time. Some mine, some other people like Tom.
MK

Richard Clark wrote in message

No doubt you were "prevented." They couldn't hear you!

I would tend to believe this account. Small vertical antennas next to
the ground with no radials, will be just a tad better than a dummy
load on that band. MK

Mark Keith wrote:
"For DX transmitting on the lower bands, vertical polarization is the
best way to go."

In some cases. If that were always the case, why do commercial shortwave
stations all use horizontal polarization for both point-to-point service
and broadcasting?

During my years in shortwave broadcasting, I never saw a single
vertically polarized antenna used for HF transmitting.

My experience is not unique. E.A. Laport was Chief Engineer, RCA
International Division of Radio Corporation of America (RCA). For many
years RCA was the largest short-wave communications organization in the
world. In his book, "Radio Antenna Engineering", Ed Laport says:

"The earliest high-frequency beam antennas used vertical polarization,
but subsequent evolution has caused the almost universal use of
horizontal polarization. There may be a reversion to vertical
polarization in the future for certain applications."

It was natural to try vertical polarization first for directional arrays
as low and medium frequencies were first exploited for radio and these
had to use vertical antennas. It was uneconomical to elevate horizontal
antennas to heights necessary for sky wave performance and there is no
ground wave propagation of horizontally polarized waves. The directional
vertical antenna had been developed early in broadcasting by Brown,
Lewis, and Epstein who did their RCA development work at HF for economy
and convenience. Work was already in place for the earliest vertical HF
beam antennas. These only evolved into the universal horizontal
polarization at HF due to real advantages.

Huge investments are made in HF transmitting antenna farms. I worked in
a station that had a farm of over 400 acres of HF antennas, all
horizontally polarized. This was no flip of a coin decision. The
decision was based on the preponderance of experience at the time. Our
paths were so long that we had to consider 2-hops in addition to a
single hop on most.

There surely must be instances where vertical polarization proves better
than horizontal, but these are exceptions, not the rule.

An example might be an antenna closely surrounded by the sea. A vertical
array should be ideal.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Yuri, K3BU wrote:
"Recent studies found efficiency of various polarizations based on
geographical location, related to geomagnetic fields (gyrofrequency).

Do antenna modelimg programs adjust for gyrofrequencies? I can readily
see that soil conductivity at a geographical location would affect
efficiency and perhaps the polarization choice.

John H. Nelson, RCA Short-Wave Radio Propagation Analyst, found that
those signals which pass through or close to the auroral zone suffer the
greatest degradation. If the signal must take a great circle route over
the North Polar region, problems increase.

Nelson also found that propagation here on the earth correlated with the
relative positions of the planets in the solar system. Be this astronomy
or astrology, it allowed Nelson to make pretty good radio propagation
forecasts. See: "The Propagation Wizard`s Handbook", a "73" publication
by J.H. Nelson.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
There surely must be instances where vertical polarization proves better
than horizontal, but these are exceptions, not the rule.

Vertically polarized noise is about 10 dB higher than horizontally
polarized noise at my QTH rendering a vertical antenna virtually
useless for receiving compared to a horizontal antenna.
--
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! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Richard Harrison wrote:

There surely must be instances where vertical polarization proves better
than horizontal, but these are exceptions, not the rule.

Vertically polarized noise is about 10 dB higher than horizontally
polarized noise at my QTH rendering a vertical antenna virtually
useless for receiving compared to a horizontal antenna.

Sorry, forgot to say this was on 40m.
--
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! =-----

Here's my experience.

On transmit:

160 meters: 90 foot vertical is 20 dB better than 60 ft high inv vee
80 meters: 60 foot vertical is 10 dB better than 60 ft high inv vee
40 meters: 30 foot vertical is equal to 90 ft high inv vee
20 meters: 30 foot vertical is beaten by 90 ft high inv vee about 25% of
the time
15 meters and up: Any dipole trounces any vertical.

On receive:

160 and 80 meters: A low dipole trounces any vertical
40 meters and up: best receive antenna is best transmit antenna

Rick N6RK

There surely must be instances where vertical polarization proves
better
than horizontal, but these are exceptions, not the rule.

Vertically polarized noise is about 10 dB higher than horizontally
polarized noise at my QTH rendering a vertical antenna virtually
useless for receiving compared to a horizontal antenna.

Sorry, forgot to say this was on 40m.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
- 19 Different Servers! =-----

What distances are you talking about? DX, local, etc...

"Rick Karlquist N6RK" wrote in message
news:bBDJb.48697$I07.144572@attbi_s53...
Here's my experience.

On transmit:

160 meters: 90 foot vertical is 20 dB better than 60 ft high inv vee
80 meters: 60 foot vertical is 10 dB better than 60 ft high inv vee
40 meters: 30 foot vertical is equal to 90 ft high inv vee
20 meters: 30 foot vertical is beaten by 90 ft high inv vee about 25% of
the time
15 meters and up: Any dipole trounces any vertical.

On receive:

160 and 80 meters: A low dipole trounces any vertical
40 meters and up: best receive antenna is best transmit antenna

Rick N6RK

There surely must be instances where vertical polarization proves
better
than horizontal, but these are exceptions, not the rule.

Vertically polarized noise is about 10 dB higher than horizontally
polarized noise at my QTH rendering a vertical antenna virtually
useless for receiving compared to a horizontal antenna.

Sorry, forgot to say this was on 40m.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
- 19 Different Servers! =-----

What distances are you talking about? DX, local, etc...

"Rick Karlquist N6RK" wrote in message
news:bBDJb.48697$I07.144572@attbi_s53...
Here's my experience.

On transmit:

160 meters: 90 foot vertical is 20 dB better than 60 ft high inv vee
80 meters: 60 foot vertical is 10 dB better than 60 ft high inv vee
40 meters: 30 foot vertical is equal to 90 ft high inv vee
20 meters: 30 foot vertical is beaten by 90 ft high inv vee about 25% of
the time
15 meters and up: Any dipole trounces any vertical.

On receive:

160 and 80 meters: A low dipole trounces any vertical
40 meters and up: best receive antenna is best transmit antenna

Rick N6RK

There surely must be instances where vertical polarization proves
better
than horizontal, but these are exceptions, not the rule.

Vertically polarized noise is about 10 dB higher than horizontally
polarized noise at my QTH rendering a vertical antenna virtually
useless for receiving compared to a horizontal antenna.

Sorry, forgot to say this was on 40m.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
- 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:58:37 -0600 (CST),
(Richard Harrison) wrote:

Mark Keith wrote:
"For DX transmitting on the lower bands, vertical polarization is the
best way to go."

In some cases. If that were always the case, why do commercial shortwave
stations all use horizontal polarization for both point-to-point service
and broadcasting?

Again this HF advice to an MF enquiry. The two, propagationally are
as different as bananas and apples.

In his book, "Radio Antenna Engineering", Ed Laport says:

"The earliest high-frequency beam antennas used vertical polarization,

This begs the historical perspective that the meaning of High
Frequency has not been constant. Laport's statement belies this era
he quotes who characterized High Frequency as anything above 500 KHz
and often characterized the shortwave frequencies as Ultra High
Frequencies.

The "earliest high frequency antennas" were in fact BCB. And guess
what, they are still Vertical antennas!

but subsequent evolution has caused the almost universal use of
horizontal polarization.

The subsequent evolution is explicitly shortwave. This validates your
experience but says nothing of the problem at hand in the 160M band,
which by example of a few KHz away is dominated by BCB verticals
almost to the point of saturation.



73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC