[Hallicrafters] Re: Dipole antenna

[Bill Gerhold]

I disagree.  A vertical with its low angle of radiation, is great for DX but
basically stinks for close in contacts 100-500 miles.  My 70 foot vertical
was fabulous for DX but the good ol dipole, was as much as 30db better for
local contacts.  In a nut shell, one really needs 2 antennas, a dipole and a
vertical.  The vertical outperformed the dipole when the station was about
2000 miles or more distant 

Author of "How to build and install an 80 meter vertical".  Published in
Centurion Magazine.

K2WH
-----Original Message-----
From: hallicrafters-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:hallicrafters-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of David Hollander
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:52 PM
To: peter markavage
Cc: hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Hallicrafters] Re: Dipole antenna

Forget dipoles and inverted vee's if you can't get them up at least a 
1/2 wavelength above ground, go with a vertical or a sloper! You will 
get much better performance. And I am not talking about trap verticals 
with a ground rod.

They take up less space and work very well. I have used single full size 
or top loaded  and phased verticals for  160, 80 and 40 for the past 30 
years and have worked over 270 countries on 75/80 meters and over 250 on 
40 meters.

I'm the author of "A Big Signal from a Small Lot" originally published 
in 1979 and now in the ARRL book - "Vertical Antenna Classics"

I am currently using a 65 foot vertical based on the above article. It's 
tall but takes up very little space.

Here is another antenna idea for restricted or non-restricted QTH's
http://members.cox.net/n7rk/bigsig2.html


Dave N7RK

Author of "A Big Signal from a Small Lot" originally published in 1979 
and now in the ARRL book - "Vertical Antenna Classics"