[Elecraft] Attic Antenna

[N2EY at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/27/06 7:33:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kk5f at earthl
ink.net writes:


> Even honestly described and advertised HF verticals without a very very 
> very good radial system are terrible performers compared to a simple dipole. 


I disagree!

The situation is much more complex than that.

 Commercial *portable* verticals are especially so, and are also usually 
absurdly 
> expensive.  An example of a money and power waster is the Outbacker-series 
> with their "ground coupling" base for portable use.  It is one of those $400 
> "systems" that performs very poorly, compared to a $5 dipole.  I've done 
> side-by-side testing of both on several occasions.
> 

Of course a lossy antenna system - vertical or not - will be bested by an 
efficient one.

There's also the factor of pattern. 

Verticals are often sold as "great for local or DX". And they are - local (up 
to a few miles) via ground wave, and DX (beyond 1-2 thousand miles) by 
low-angle radiation.

But for everything in between, a dipole is better.

> I was tempted to repeat the old saw about there being no such thing as a 
> free lunch, but that would be wrong.  The simple dipole is very close to being 
> free, and it will normally way outperform any HF vertical no matter how much 
> money is dumped into some expensive "exotic" or bogus design. 
> 

Again, "it depends". For example, a quarter wave vertical on 20 meters is 
only 16 feet high. With its base a few feet off the ground, and a dozen sloping 
radials, it will do as well or better as a dipole 40-50 feet up - *if* it's in 
a wide-open location.

I built such a vertical for portable use from EMT and PVC, and have had great 
success with it on Field Day. 

OTOH, a loaded 80 meter vertical with a few radials isn't going to compete 
with a decent dipole.

73 de Jim, N2EY