[ILQSO] antennas for ILQP

[James Funk]

Generally-speaking, horizontal antennas would be preferable for in-state
contacts.  The lower they are to the ground, the higher the angle of
radiation, but the tradeoff is the increase in ground losses. As N8XX
noted, if the critical frequency gets very low, you are going to have
trouble at short distances.  Period.

Verticals on the ground without a good radial system make the earthworms
nice and cozy.

You were loud when I worked you from the St. Louis area.

73, Jim N9JF

-----Original Message-----
From: ilqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:ilqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Paul DeWitte K9OT
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:08 AM
To: ilqso at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [ILQSO] antennas for ILQP

When we set up for the ILQP, we set up 2 ant for 20m and 2 for 40m, and
an
80m. We set up 2 seperate stations. Since there is limited space where
we
set up, it gets pretty crowded.

Has anyone used verticals instead of dipoles in a fixed situation? I
know
that mobiles have vertical antennas so they do not count as they have no
choice.

What I was wondering if anyone has compared vertical to horiz
polarization
in trying to work within the state on 80m and 40m.

73 Paul K9OT

_______________________________________________
ILQSO mailing list
ILQSO at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ilqso
ILQP webpage:
http://www.w9awe.org/ILQP.html
list administrator is Danny NG9R
for list problems contact ng9r at arrl.net