Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Dipole vs. Vertical  (Read 2790 times)
KF7DS
Member

Posts: 189




Ignore
« on: November 16, 2012, 07:41:18 AM »

Now that the leaves are gone, I have a chance to thin out the trees in my backyard and create clear areas to string a few wire antennas. The first one will be run n-s (with a tilt more north), and the second one (if I can get to it this year) will be e-w.

With the n-s wire, I will use a DXCC Alpha Delta. I can use a 45' mast for the center feed, and get the ends up high also....

I work 10-40m, mostly CW at 100W. Occasionally visit 80m. Interest is both US and DX. Currently have a 6BTV...I cannot accommodate the DXCC and the 6BTV, so the choice is to either string the DXCC n-s on a 45' mast, or go with the 6BTV (which works well...have AU, NZ, FR, PUR, RUS, and 43 states in one year of casual operating)...can't have both.

Feedback welcome.

Don KF7DS
Logged
WA2TPU
Member

Posts: 208




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2012, 08:15:37 AM »

Hi Frank,
   Ever consider a 40 meter vertically polarized Delta loop??
Best regards and many 72/73.
Don sr. --WA2TPU --
Logged
WA2TPU
Member

Posts: 208




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2012, 08:17:21 AM »

I meant Hi Don. Sorry abt that.
Best 72/73.
Regards,
  Don sr. --WA2TPU --
Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 5973




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2012, 08:34:09 AM »

The DXCC dipoles mounted as described will outperform the vertical. This is not because the vertical is inherently inferior but because of far-field ground losses attenuating vertically polarized RF much more than horizontally polarized RF.
Logged
KC9Q
Member

Posts: 49




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2012, 09:26:51 AM »

Interestingly, there is an article on Page 45 in the December 2012 QST that discusses this very topic:  "Vertical or Horizontal HF Antennas - What's Best for You".
Logged
KB5UBI
Member

Posts: 97




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2012, 09:59:17 AM »

Not again. Vertical V. Horizontal. I know there is a lot of anti-vertical bias out there, but a properly installed vertical works well. Multiple antenna designs are the answer. I have a multi band vertical, two horizontal doublets and a vertical polarized delta loop. Except for the Butternut vertical, less than a 100 dollars invested in the other three antennas. I choose the one that works best for the condition. I would have to say, the vertical is my default go-to antenna, followed by the delta loop.
Logged
KF7DS
Member

Posts: 189




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2012, 11:02:58 AM »

The DXCC dipoles mounted as described will outperform the vertical. This is not because the vertical is inherently inferior but because of far-field ground losses attenuating vertically polarized RF much more than horizontally polarized RF.

David:

That is what I was thinking. I am not dissing the 6BTV, it serves me well. But, in researching the possibility of a small beam, I kept coming back to the issue of height. I knew I could not get a small tower in the backyard (would not fit, would annoy neighhbors, the usual...) and then began to think about wires...I CAN get those up high

The problem is, the only area I have to put up a 45' mast is where the 6BTV is now located...so, it is one or the other hence the importance of my question for the n-s wire.

In thinking about this, this is not the case with the e-w dipole I plan to install (for n-s propagation)- that portion of the slope has plenty of opportunities for 3 points to hang from without a mast..maybe I should install that first and use it AND the 6BTV for a while and see how that goes.

Another question....the antennas will be in the clear...no closer than 8'-10' from any branch...but, many of the trees are deciduous, so the leaf canopy will come back in the Spring...it is not 100% cover, of course, but a lot all the same (this is Portland)...how will that impact the SWR, if any?

I really appreciate all of the feedback, even if the questions have been asked before.

Cordially,
Don KF7DS
Logged
STAYVERTICAL
Member

Posts: 854




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2012, 12:05:33 PM »

Not again. Vertical V. Horizontal. I know there is a lot of anti-vertical bias out there, but a properly installed vertical works well. Multiple antenna designs are the answer. I have a multi band vertical, two horizontal doublets and a vertical polarized delta loop. Except for the Butternut vertical, less than a 100 dollars invested in the other three antennas. I choose the one that works best for the condition. I would have to say, the vertical is my default go-to antenna, followed by the delta loop.

Here we go again - let slip the dogs of war!

My advice:

1. Read some good antenna books - the ARRL handbook is full of good information.
2. Build/hoist them and try them - your location, like you, is unique - results will vary with location.
3. Throw away your preconceived ideas, and most of the replies you will get here (including mine).

There is no mystery to antenna performance - it is all known mathematically and can be modeled fairly accurately in free programs such as 4NEC2.
What is not modeled is what your local conditions are like - is that high voltage tower in the model?
Also, if you are in an urban environment and your neighbor has just wheeled in that new 100 inch plasma, how will that affect reception?

Part of the problem for antenna discussions is that they become hobby horse rocking contests.
The delta loop/dipole/vertical/beam guys all have their cans to kick noisily down the road - and you can't hear yourself think in the racket.

Do some reading - there is no magic antenna which does it all, but there is one which does what you want.

Good luck,

73 - Rob
Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 5973




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2012, 02:32:17 PM »

The question of tree attenuation comes up from time to time. I have found articles on HF attenuation of jungles and VHF attenuation of trees. But nothing that quantifies your installation. It seems to be agreed that trees are worse for vertical than horizontal antennas because a tree is a lossy vertical. If that is so you may have less attenuation with dipoles.
Logged
KB5UBI
Member

Posts: 97




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2012, 03:00:29 PM »

Stayvertical and myself are usually on the same page but I say Do more building and less reading. You may be surprised to find that personal bias has contaminated some theories. Stop relying so much on Eznec style programs in the living room, go out in the yard and try building some antennas by the basic rules.

Verticals can work very well or they can be dummy loads depending on installation and nature. My suggestion is to build both.

S-Meters don't lie, signal reports; maybe.  
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 03:03:21 PM by KB5UBI » Logged
W2WDX
Member

Posts: 188




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2012, 03:06:05 PM »

The most important thing I feel is the interaction of ground. A horizontal wire, if to low in regards to wavelength, is less efficient due to ground loss then one up high and in the clear. Vertical always perform better with massive radial systems, the more the better.

Putting up the antenna correct for the locale is also important. For example, if you have good soil conditions and a very large ground radial systems, a vertical will perform better for low angle DX work than a low hanging horizontal. In the same situation, the horizontal antenna might do much better closer in (NVIS). This example demonstrates the advantages of multiple antenna types being better than just "one antenna does all" type thinking.

Most opinions, especially the bad ones, of which type is "better" is more a factor of not giving one type or the other the right conditions for its type. Drawing conclusions from erroneous assumptions. A poorly tuned multi-band horizontal wire at 35' being tuned with an auto-tuner through cheap coax for instance, making a person think horizontal wire antennas are bad. Or someone hanging G5RV at 25' above the ground with most of tuning stub section of it near the ground, or worse yet piled in a heap (I have seen this). Or someone just sticking a Hustler on a pole in their back yard and using the auto-tuner in the radio and maybe just tying the base of the antenna to a 50' section of chain link fence in a locale with poor soil conductivity being the factor in saying verticals are a waste of time.

I've had a 160' doublet fed with ladderline at 90' high (no balun, just a Johnson Matchbox and the correct length of ladderline) and a 43' high vertical properly tuned with 40 tuned radials evenly spaced, and both worked amazingly well. They both performed extremely well because I gave each type what it needed. And chose the type that worked best for the locale at the time. I used the vertical when I didn't have a way to get a horizontal up high enough, but had the real estate to lay out 40 evenly spaced radials. I used the doublet when I was at a location where I could put it up flat-top at 90' above the surrounding terrain, getting it far enough away from ground losses as to be effective.

John, W2WDX
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 03:24:45 PM by W2WDX » Logged

KB5UBI
Member

Posts: 97




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2012, 04:09:23 PM »

"Putting up the antenna correct for the locale is also important. For example, if you have good soil conditions and a very large ground radial systems, a vertical will perform better for low angle DX work than a low hanging horizontal. In the same situation, the horizontal antenna might do much better closer in (NVIS). This example demonstrates the advantages of multiple antenna types being better than just "one antenna does all" type thinking."

Sounds like you agree somewhat with my findings. When I report my vertical works better DX than either of my gain doublets in two out of three QSOs, it starts a fire storm of critique. Maybe in the two dimensional Eznec world, the horizontal dipole out performs the vertical but in the real world at my QTH, my Butternut vertical is my "go to" antenna, most of the time. It is what it is.
Logged
KF7DS
Member

Posts: 189




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2012, 09:51:21 PM »

All

Thanks for the feedback and encouragement. I am be setting things up for ease of maintenance and experimenting.

Should be fun.

Anyone use remote switch boxes?

Don KF7DS
Logged
STAYVERTICAL
Member

Posts: 854




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2012, 10:45:59 PM »

"Putting up the antenna correct for the locale is also important. For example, if you have good soil conditions and a very large ground radial systems, a vertical will perform better for low angle DX work than a low hanging horizontal. In the same situation, the horizontal antenna might do much better closer in (NVIS). This example demonstrates the advantages of multiple antenna types being better than just "one antenna does all" type thinking."

Sounds like you agree somewhat with my findings. When I report my vertical works better DX than either of my gain doublets in two out of three QSOs, it starts a fire storm of critique. Maybe in the two dimensional Eznec world, the horizontal dipole out performs the vertical but in the real world at my QTH, my Butternut vertical is my "go to" antenna, most of the time. It is what it is.

I agree with KB5UBI.
At my location, the neighbors think I have antenna OCD with my switching between using dipoles and verticals.
After all my experiments, the results for my location and situation are clear and unambiguous.
The maximum I can get a dipole up is 30 feet and I use a number of elevated radials with my vertical with remote atu at the base.

The vertical is hopeless on local contacts, but leaves the dipole in the dust on DX just about every time.
On the vertical signal strengths are normally better by several S points on DX, but the QSB is more severe, and conditions more variable.
The dipole is usually less prone to QSB, and if conditions are good, will give a more stable contact.
The difference is probably entirely due to angle of radiation, with the low angle vertical winning every time.
Less skips, less loss - it's as simple as that.
Low angle radiation, large skip zone, more qsb as the ionosphere changes height.

So my OCD is over, and the lesson learned:
For DX - the vertical, for locals the dipole.

As others have said, you pick the antenna for your operating style, and acknowledge its nature with expected results.
DX is my passion, so I choose the vertical, but local nets and operation are often marginal.

In any case, its all theory until you hoist it up and see how it works.

Have fun,

73 - Rob
Logged
N0NCO
Member

Posts: 3




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2012, 10:22:00 AM »

All antennas are compromises. As many have noted - there is no single antenna that is best for all locales, band conditions, and operating styles. However - if you only have room for one HF antenna & don't mind putting down a good low-impedance radial field, and if you have average or better ground conductivity out to 100 WL, and want to work the most directions with a low-angle signal, but still have enough high-angle radiation on the low bands for NVIS - a remotely-tuned inverted-L is a good choice. Note that there are a lot of 'ifs'. That's simply the way it is with HF antennas. Of course, the compromise for all of that horizontal coverage & high-angle NVIS is lower overall gain than say, a high-mounted remotely-tuned doublet or horizontal loop. However, gain alone is often less important than putting your signal where there is a high likelihood of it being received. And that is where a properly-designed, remote-tuned, multi-band inverted-L shines. See L. B. Cebik's excellent info on antennas for details:

http://www.users.on.net/~bcr/files/backyard%20wire%20antennaes.pdf

http://www.antennex.com/Sshack/books.htm
« Last Edit: November 26, 2012, 10:24:49 AM by N0NCO » Logged

Joel
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!