[CW] Re: GB> CW Use on Bands - Results So Far

Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:11:58 -0400

Verticals aren't inefficient!

I have log books showing the different contacts I've had on 80 meters.

When I was using a 50 foot vertical, it was the ONLY time I worked New
Zealand on SSB - and the signal was S8 to S9+10 dB - a bit of QSB.  I worked
the station on CW and then because his signal was so strong we went to
'phone.

Verticals might seem to be poor.  Signals from 100 miles away are much
weaker, but signals within about 30 miles are stronger.  Signals during the
day would be less with a vertical - because of the low angle of radiation of
the vertical.

What I did was have a low lying dipole (30 feet) for 80, and also a
vertical.

I installed an antenna switch - whichever antenna gave me better signals, I
used.

Signals from 3000 miles or more were much stronger on the vertical, and
those within 1000 miles were usually better on the low dipole.

But signals from 5000 miles and more were usually not even heard on the
dipole.  Japan was way in the noise on the dipole, but was S2 to S3 with the
vertical.

I used about 6 radials in the beginning, and then got up to about 40,
dragging them with a lawn edger, pushing them into the sod as I broke the
earth.  A very good investment.  Plus some nice exercise and a chance to
enjoy the yard.

I had the 50 foot vertical right in the middle of the yard.  Surrounded by a
six foot wooden stockade fence for protection from curious hands.

I think a good ham station should have both a vertical and horizontal for
the bands they want.  AND radials are definately needed - even for these "no
radial" antennas.  Bencher has a nice article about radials and "the truth
about radials" on their web page.

73

DR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald KA4INM Youvan" <[email protected]>
To: "cw" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [CW] Re: GB> CW Use on Bands - Results So Far

>    Many don't have 137+ feet to put up a 80 meter dipole,
> (verticals work, but are very ineffecient)
> in the summer time lightning within 200 miles, very frequent
> in Florida, makes 80 and 40 meters very rough unless you use
> a modern transciever/receiver with a gud noise eleminator, all
> noise blankers perform too poorly. (some reasons for low usage)
>
> > 80 meter usage seems to have been waning for several years now.
"Newbie" hams seem
> > to abhor atmospheric noise!  80 meters can be very useful in spite of
QRN levels as
> > the signal levels are many times higher frequently.
> --
>         73 (= Best Regards) de: Ron [email protected]
>      100% Slack. since July, 1997 (still free!) SENT D&T are UTC
>         Visit my HAM Web SITE at: http://www.qsl.net/ka4inm
>
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>