[Elecraft] Antenna question

[Wes (N7WS)]

Well, I was speaking of my situation.

I'm in the Sonoran Desert of southern AZ with ground that varies from granite to 
sand to caliche within a few feet distance.

Although many (most?) hams consider vertical antennas to be "low-angle" 
radiators, they often fail to consider the efficiency of that "low-angle" 
radiator.  My modeling shows that even a low lambda dipole with its "high-angle" 
radiation often has more signal radiated at the vertical's optimum (low) angle 
than the vertical does.  Plotting the two antennas and overlaying the plots will 
easily show this.

Now I'm not going to argue with the guys with heroic vertical phased array 
installations and the like, but for the typical guy contemplating a modest 
vertical installation v. a straightforward dipole or "inverted-vee" I would (and 
did) choose the dipole. Besides, I think that low angle is often overrated.

Although I'm normally loath to state anecdotal evidence,  my paralleled wires 40 
and 80-meter inverted-vee with apex at 40 ft and ends at 20 feet models as a 
NVIS antenna, but I have 148 DXCC countries (including antipodal FT5ZM) worked 
on 80-meters and I don't much care for 80-meters so seldom operate there.

Wes  N7WS

On 2/12/2014 4:17 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> On 2/12/2014 7:29 AM, Wes (N7WS) wrote:
>> Also known as, "The worst horizontal antenna is better than the best vertical 
>> antenna" theory.  It's always worked out for me.  Now if I lived on the beach...
>
> Hi Wes,
>
> Based on my model studies, I wouldn't go that far -- it depends on how high 
> either of the antennas are, as well as the quality of the ground. If your 
> criteria is low angle radiation and you have better than average soil, a 
> vertical dipole that's 20 ft or more above ground will beat a low dipole. Here 
> in the mountains, our soil is stinko, so the only band where a vertical beats 
> a horizontal dipole is 160M.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC