TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)

To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)
From: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:36:52 -0500
List-post: <mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
Do you claim your vertical dipole works better than a quarter wave with four good, properly tuned/cut elevated radials?

Reason I ask is that my aluminum rotatable dipole project has technical problems (The alum elements sag and dip and wave in the wind too much -- I did not select sufficiently large diameter and stiff tubing.... but ham radio is for experimenting, right...?) AND I was thinking I could salvage the project by turning the floppy thing vertical and make it a vertical dipole - OR - I might convert it into a single tubing vertical elevated ground plane and add some wire radials.

Any traction ? (I will stick my neck out here... re: your challenge... and expect the properly tuned elevated radials to equal the work of the second half of the vertical dipole and say they should perform equally well. N'est ce pas?)

================== James - K8JHR  ====================



On 1/5/2011 8:42 PM, Rick - NJ0IP / DJ0IP wrote:

I have used the vertical dipole instead of the classical vertical because of
my despise for radials.

 > I still stand by my challenge for anyone to come up with a simple cheap
antenna that will out-perform the simple vertical dipole.

====================================================

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