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

["N4PY2" <n4py2@earthlink.net>]

Years ago I had a vertical dipole for 40 meters and a raised vertical with 3 
radials 10 feet above the ground.  The raised vertical was about 6 DB better 
than the vertical dipole for European stations.  The raised vertical was 10 
feet off the ground at the bottom with 3 full size radials (33 feet long). 
I like raised verticals.
Carl Moreschi N4PY
121 Little Bell Drive
Hays, NC 28635
www.n4py.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Denton" <denton@oregontrail.net>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)


> I had both a 32 ft vertical dipole and the same vertical dipole converted
> over to a 40 meter 1/4 wave ground plane with 4 elevated radials.
> In my case the performance very close to the same on 40 meters, minus the
> pita the radials were.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Richards" <jruing@ameritech.net>
> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 6:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)
>
>
> > 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.
> > ====================================================
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec