[Antennas] Multiband Vertical Versus Multiband Dipole (HF)

[Dave Fouchey]

Mike I can't provide definitive data but only anecdotal experience. I have
used Dipoles and verticals often over the years.  Dipoles in general have
behaved better for me than MOST verticals. the exception was when I used
verticals over a very extensive ground plain, in this case salt water, at
which point they blew the Dipoles away for DX performance. the only caveat
there was that they were prone to pick up more impulse noise and storm
static than dipoles but the difference in long haul performance was
striking. As it is I use both to this day, with a good ground radial system
under the vertical. Your mileage may vary of course.


73's
Dave
WA4EMR
Sterling Heights, MI

At 08:01 AM 10/28/02 -0600, Linden, Mike (BRC-Hes) wrote:
>  A lot of folks still say that a vertical radiates equally poorly in all
>directions (they should only be used if you don't have space for a "real"
>antenna). After researching it a bit, it is my contention that such
>verticals don't have an adequate ground system or are being used in areas
>with poor ground conductivity. My goal is to have some sort of support for
>most of the bands between 10 and 80 meters.
>
>  I'm currently running a homebrew multiband coaxial trap dipole in my attic
>at about 25 feet. However, I'm thinking ahead to when I have enough time and
>when I can convince my housing association to let me install some outdoor
>antennas. My two HF options would be a multiband vertical (I like the
>Butternut HF9V) or a multiband dipole (I've seen some designs that only add
>significant loading on the lowest bands).
>
>  Personally, from an aesthetic point of view, I like the vertical. I would
>be able to install it more than 30 feet from my 2-story vinyl sided house
>and would have enough room for 30 foot radials in all directions. The
>antenna would be ground mounted. Ground conductivity in my area (far west
>Chicago suburbs) is quite good. My primary concern with the vertical would
>be increased noise due to vertical polarization. Any comments on how
>manageable the increased noise is and how much worse it is than a dipole?
>Based on my research, the primary benefit of a vertical is the low angle of
>radiation that results when used with a good ground system.
>
>  The dipole installation would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the
>vertical (at least from my perspective -- hi!). Due to the lack of older
>trees in my new subdivision and the layout of my lot, the dipole would have
>to run from my house straight into the back yard such that the feed point
>would drop in my back yard 30 or 40 feed from my house. Probably the best
>height I would be able to manage would be about 30 feet above ground --
>perhaps a bit lower at the far end -- I would also need to come up with some
>sort of middle support. Based in my research, the benefit of the dipole
>would be lower cost (about $100) and lower noise level. However, at 30 feet,
>the angle of radiation would not be very good for DX.
>
>  I'd appreciate feedback from folks who have had the chance to compare the
>performance of multiband verticals with multiband dipoles.
>
>  Thanks, Michael N9BDF
>
>
>
>
>- - - 
>
>Your moderator for this list is:
>Larry Wilson KE1HZ antennas-owner@mailman.qth.net
>_______________________________________________
>Antennas mailing list
>Antennas@mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/antennas