Thanks, Rick. See comments interspersed.
On Sun,11/23/2014 2:04 PM, Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP wrote:
(changed the title from 17m..)
Again an excellent paper from Jim.
Had one quick read.
This is going to take days to digest and consider.
Although it is obvious to me that height is important, this is the first
time I have seen it quantified.
Vy gud.
My favorite line in the entire paper was:
"Don't let "great" become the enemy of "good"... (or something like that).
BTW Jim, if you ever want to do an increment to the paper, I would be
interested in seeing how much difference rotating the dipole will make in
real life at various heights.
Good thought. I've seen interesting patterns, but I haven't organized
them to answer that question.
On the other hand, if you can manage to have two dipoles perpendicular to
each other, there is no need to rotate.
I have only ever had that once in my life and it was on 80m with both
dipoles 75 ft. high.
I have a pair at about 110-120 ft for 80 and 40. The tree climbers are
coming tomorrow to raise them another 20-30 ft. Modeling suggests that
will give me about 2.5 dB more into EU and the east coast. Last week,
they raised one of my two 30M dipoles from 30 ft to about 100 ft, and
I've figured out rigging points to get the other one up to about 70 ft.
The results varied from no difference at all, to several S-Units.
In my experience, what matters is where the null is, and it matters more
for high antennas than for low ones.
73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|