Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: Low Dipoles

To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Low Dipoles
From: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to: jim@audiosystemsgroup.com
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 02:53:28 -0800
List-post: <mailto:topband@contesting.com>
On 12/11/2020 6:28 PM, donovanf@erols.com wrote:
While there are always isolated cases when horizontal antennas
might be the best transmitting antenna, in my experience they're
isolated cases, usually occurring near sunrise.

Some years ago, I did a disciplined modeling study of horizontal dipoles for 40 and 80M at heights incrementing at 5-10 ft from about 30 ft to about 130 ft, plotting all vertical patterns on the same graph. It clearly showed that a higher antenna produced great field strength at all elevations up to about 70 degrees. This disproved universally believed fallacy that low antennas are better at high angles, which is the result of normalizing all to their maximum field strength, as ARRL plots default to. It also disproves the myth that an antenna must be low for NVIS. The same physics applied to 160M, scaled by wavelength. The fundamental reason is ground losses for the lower antennas.

http://k9yc.com/AntennaPlanning.pdf  (NCJ)
http://k9yc.com/VertOrHorizontal-Slides.pdf

By definition, almost ANY dipole we can rig for 160M is a low dipole as a fraction of a wavelength. An exception is one that W8JI rigged at 300 ft or so. I had one at 120 ft, which I abandoned about ten years ago.

I fully agree with observations that DX can arrive at higher angles.

73, Jim K9YC
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>