Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Vertical\s+antennas\s+aren\'t\s+always\s+best\s+for\s+DX\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX (score: 1)
Author: "Roger Kennedy" <roger@wessexproductions.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 18:02:59 -0500
Well I've often written about this subject . . . I've been DX-ing on 160m for almost 50 years . . . and ALWAYS used a horizontal half-wave dipole! (typically just 50 ft high) At my present QTH, it is
/archives//html/Topband/2018-11/msg00230.html (7,644 bytes)

2. Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX (score: 1)
Author: "Steve Ireland" <vk6vz@arach.net.au>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 14:15:08 +0800
Hi Jerry Thanks so much for posting that excellent article I had forgotten about it! For those who want to understand more about geomagnetic lat/long and gyrofrequency effects on 160m, it is just abo
/archives//html/Topband/2018-11/msg00249.html (7,916 bytes)

3. Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX (score: 1)
Author: "Roger Kennedy" <roger@wessexproductions.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 05:25:50 -0500
Very interesting reading about the fact that people have consistently found that Verticals aren't so good for 160m DX from Australia . . . But I wonder why I have always had good results with Dipoles
/archives//html/Topband/2018-11/msg00256.html (8,253 bytes)

4. Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX (score: 1)
Author: <n4is@n4is.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:05:43 -0500
Roger Every dipole or inverted V irradiate 50% of the power horizontal polarized broadside with the wire and 50% of the power vertical polarized along the wire. After the first refraction it does not
/archives//html/Topband/2018-11/msg00258.html (8,050 bytes)

5. Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX (score: 1)
Author: "John Kaufmann" <john.kaufmann@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 20:53:27 -0500
The statement that the half of a horizontal dipole's radiation is vertically polarized is misleading and needs qualification. There is a vertically polarized component off the ends of the dipole but
/archives//html/Topband/2018-11/msg00271.html (9,664 bytes)

6. Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX (score: 1)
Author: "Roger Kennedy" <roger@wessexproductions.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 05:39:08 -0500
Very interesting reading all the comments . . . Bear in mind that MY Dipoles have always been pretty low, around 50ft. Also that the British stations I have done proper comparisons with all have dece
/archives//html/Topband/2018-11/msg00272.html (8,987 bytes)

7. Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX (score: 1)
Author: <n4is@n4is.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 06:58:19 -0500
Sorry , but all antenna's on 160m are close to the ground and it is the case, you can check by yourself using EZENEC if you don't know how to calculate the fields. There is no misleading here. 73 JC
/archives//html/Topband/2018-11/msg00273.html (10,750 bytes)

8. Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX (score: 1)
Author: <lennart.michaelsson@telia.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 13:19:39 +0100
This reminds me of the fine signals 3Y0X was producing on 160 back in February 2006. They were using a 3 el horisontal beam 4 ft above the ice... 73 Len SM7BIC Very interesting reading all the commen
/archives//html/Topband/2018-11/msg00274.html (10,000 bytes)

9. Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX (score: 1)
Author: "John Kaufmann" <john.kaufmann@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 08:16:05 -0500
In considering the *total power* radiated by any antenna, you need to look at the 3-dimensional antenna pattern, not a 2-dimensional slice. The total radiated power is the 3-dimensional integration o
/archives//html/Topband/2018-11/msg00275.html (12,926 bytes)

10. Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX (score: 1)
Author: "Roger Kennedy" <roger@wessexproductions.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 08:36:50 -0500
Yes, but according to EZNEC, a 160m dipole at 50ft produces very little radiation at low angles, compared to one at 150ft. But I'm sceptical about the accuracy of EZNEC with such a low antenna, as it
/archives//html/Topband/2018-11/msg00276.html (8,949 bytes)

11. Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX (score: 1)
Author: <n4is@n4is.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 08:49:36 -0500
John The issue here is not math. It is the interaction of fields and matter. A good text book is Electromagnetic waves and radiating system by Edward C Jordan and Keith G. Balmain. Chapter 9. You can
/archives//html/Topband/2018-11/msg00277.html (13,990 bytes)

12. Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX (score: 1)
Author: "John Kaufmann" <john.kaufmann@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 09:35:52 -0500
JC, You said: " Every dipole or inverted V irradiate 50% of the power horizontal polarized broadside with the wire and 50% of the power vertical polarized along the wire." You cited EZNEC as evidence
/archives//html/Topband/2018-11/msg00278.html (16,222 bytes)

13. Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX (score: 1)
Author: <n4is@n4is.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 10:01:32 -0500
Hi John On EZNEC for sure 3D. do not use total field, under description select horizontal and vertical field only and see the red line , vertical field and green line horizontal field, use real groun
/archives//html/Topband/2018-11/msg00279.html (16,960 bytes)

14. Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX (score: 1)
Author: <n4is@n4is.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 10:52:10 -0500
John I think I understand where we disagree. Most low dipoles on 160m are 30 to 60 ft high, 1/4 wave high is not low for most stations. Very few can afford a dipole at 120 ft high. You right 50% is a
/archives//html/Topband/2018-11/msg00280.html (17,155 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu