-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Armstrong
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 9:46 PM
To: Mike Waters
Cc: topband
Subject: Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible?
Mike, you are answering the wrong question. Guy didn't understand the
question at all. I KNOW that sea water is a better ground than dirt......
The comparison I was ALWAYS talking about had NOTHING AT ALL to do with
LOCATION! NOTHING! The comparison was a quarter wave vertical compared
to
a 5/8ths wave vertical IN THE EXACT SAME LOCATION...... Sorry Mike, I am
taking it out on you and it wasn't your fault. People are responding who
didn't actually read what I wrote, then they comment..... and they YOU
commented on their comment which had the wrong premise to begin with.....
I
say again, the comparison had nothing to do with the actual location, but
rather two different vertical types in the exact same place..... Well, ok,
a
few yards apart, but with the same number of radials and the same seawater
location (Iroquois Point Military Housing on Oahu). THe words RURAL or
DIRT
were used nowhere in my original email.
What intrigued me was that I had such a great experience with a 5/8 wave
vertical over a 1/4 wave vertical AT THE SAME LOCATION..... and on 20
meters. Tom commented that 5/8 waves were basically garbage on 160 and I
would like to know why..... IF he knew or had a clue as to the why. Then
Guy started talking about seawater vs rural dirt and off the entire thread
goes in the wrong direction...... a direction that indicated he was
reading
stuff into my post that just wasn't there. It is exasperating in the
extreme to have that happen, then others like yourself are misdirected by
their misdirection because you read theirs instead of mine..... Not
knowing
that they actually didn't read what I wrote. NOT YOUR FAULT, but
exasperating because I feel compelled to answer you because you were kind
enough to provide some details, but details to an issue that I wouldn't
have
mentioned because I KNOW that salt water is better than dirt..... I've
lived
in Hawaii, within yards of the oce
an and then Arizona, which probably has the world's least conductive dirt
on the entire planet.
My desire IS STILL to have someone who might know give me a clue as to why
the 5/8 doesn't work well on 160 when it works so fabulously well on 20
meters (for one band). I use one out here in AZ on 20, too. It has alot
of
straight copper radials underneath it (60 half-wave long radials to be
precise) and it works as well here, anecdotally speaking, as it did in
Hawaii..... Well, not "quite" as good, but darned close if you take into
account the difference in solar activity, too. When I was on Hawaii, the
spots were a whole lot better, even tho they were decreasing, than they
are
today at the current "peak." If "peak" is the right word for this
one.....
he he he. But I digress.... I find it interesting that an antenna that
appears to work so well on 20 as a ground mounted vertical, can be so bad
on
160..... I would like to know why.....
Thanks for responding Mike. I am sure you will get the gist of what I was
talking about, now. No insults intended towards anyone, but this does
provide a good example of what happens when folks don't read the entire
email someone sends and then comment on it....... Then others, who have no
idea that the person responding didn't read the email all the way thru or
thoroughly, respond to the responder...... and away she goes..... LOL. I
was starting to get a little wound around the axle, but now it is just
funny. Between you and me (ha ha ha) I am not going to respond to
anything
else concerning my email unless someone wants to discuss the question I
actually, really and truly had..... LOL.
Speaking of which, other than the possibility that a 5/8ths wave vertical
lays down a very low angle radiation and it is "too low" for 160
(although,
I have to admit that for DX work, that is a hard pill to swallow..... but
I
am NOT an expert on 160, which is why I read the forum comments here in
the
first place :) :) Like I said, when I replaced the 1/4 wave with the 5/8
wave ground mounted vertical (20 meters only), the unsolicited comments
concerning my signal were universally positive. I was one of the early
WINLINK stations and my station being in Hawaii at the time was used by
MANY, MANY sailboat guys out in the Pacific and, particularly, the Western
Pacific. Many of the guys who used my system were former or retired
military having a ball sailing the ocean blue...... Anyway, I needed a
good,
solid performer that, by necessity, had to be omnidirectional in nature.
So
I tried the 5/8ths and batta-bing, batta-boom I start getting UNSOLICITED
reports in my emails that
say something to the effect, "what did you do? You are definitely
stronger.... in fact, you are downright LOUD now." That kind of report.
Again, they didn't have a clue I had recently changed my winlink dedicated
system antenna, but all of a sudden I am louder than they are used to
hearing me. The only difference was a 5/8 wave radiator as opposed to a
1/4
wave radiator over the same ground....... I then ran some test with some
of
my friends floating around out towards the Philippines and they confirmed,
via an a/b test that the 5/8 wave was louder. I switched which one was
"A"
and which one was "B" randomly throughout the tests and not once did any
of
them pick the 1/4 as the better antenna. SOOOOOOOOOO, looks like I found a
winner for my 20 meter winlink node and that antenna is definitely a go-to
when I need a solid, omni on 20 meters. I am going to turn my station
into
a winlink node, once again, here shortly because my setup, which includes
a
5/8 on 20 meters over
60 copper radials on TOP of AZ DIRT, seems to work almost as well as it
did
on Hawaii back in the day (all things considered, like the fact that this
solar cycle blows chunks).
Mike, I am sorry this turned into a book, but maybe now you know the whys
and wherefores ..... as well as why it still interests me. I would have
never even thought that a 5/8ths wave wouldn't work well on 160 until Tom
said something to that effect..... which, due to my experience with that
particular vertical antenna, made me say, " HUH?" LOL LOL. If you have
any
input on the possible WHY of that statement from Tom, I am all ears.....
:)
Mike AB7ZU
P.S. I hope nobody was insulted by my little diatribe. It wasn't intended
to insult, but just to remind folks that WE really need to read and try to
fully digest what someone says (ALL OF IT) before we respond and possibly
really confuse the entire thread. I include MYSELF in that statement for
sure and certain, since I have definitely done the very same thing in the
past. Not here, I don't think, but certainly in other ways and on other
days..... :) :)