[Lowfer] vertical-ness

[Bill Ashlock]

Mike R,

Below is what you wrote - which appears show more than an average knowledge 
of antenna theory. Since there are few "I think", "could be", or "according 
to xxx" phrases in the text, this places YOU as an expert to the average 
reader. From all the antenna theory that I've read about and tested, I don't 
agree with its application to only 5 degrees of tilt for a vertical antenna, 
especially comparing the propagation of Eric's vertical to a horizontal 
dipole. I mixed up Eric's comment (below yours) about the beam antenna 
comparison and I sincerely apologize for this.

Bill

>It is the same except your vertical is transmitting upward, downward and
>slightly cross polarized in the other two directions. It still works.
>Perfectly vertical would make the first hop out at or nearly the same
>distance from the antenna if the ionosphere had the same reflective
>qualities in all directions, which in reality it won't. By tilting your
>vertical top away from say Iowa slightly, you could possibly make your 
>first
>hop in that state to let a person hear your signal. A good example of this
>is a low horizontal dipole on 75 meters which essentially radiates straight
>up which makes lots of close in hops to have a strong signal from your
>location outward to a few hundred miles. So if you went with a quarter wave
>vertical instead of the half wave vertical, you would have a higher angle 
>of
>radiation to keep the 'skip zone' shorter to let the states closer to you
>hear your signal but then it would take more hops to get to the east coast
>lessening your chance to have as strong a signal as you have with your half
>wave vertical.
>
>Mike>WE0H


>Thanks, Mike.  I've read about elevation with regard to beams but was
>unsure how that worked with verticals.

>Eric, KD5UWL

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail