Comparing Elevated 1/4w Vertical vs. Link Dipole with WSPR

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by W5KV, Nov 15, 2017.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
ad: l-assoc
  1. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page


    Facts presented are not "techno-bullying". You are just unhappy that your premise is incomplete , or incorrect. That doesn't make the other party "arrogant".

    Again, look up the definition.

    You hit the nail on the head: we shouldn't allow the 'enjoyment' factor to be adverse to the facts. Getting offended by the facts is really not appropriate. When you call someone who has the experience and knowledge 'arrogant' you really are resorting to defamation, and trying to divert from the facts by an ad hominem attack. And that is why I do not publish in ham magazines: the response to the facts is not an excuse to attack, so the default approach is to attack the messenger. Where, in Part 97, did any one of us sign up for that?

    Getting back to the facts===

    SO let me ask you this. I have no idea which VK9 you are referring to.... there have been several in the last two months. I worked all of them.

    You need to ponder for yourself: IF elevated radials worked so great under all circumstances, then why have island DXpeditions--including at least one of these VK9's-- abandoned raised radials and instead put their radials IN the seawater? Keep in mind that in one way that is a very BAD idea: it turns an OMNI antenna into one with PATTERN distortion. Again: why not just put up elevated radials in the coconut trees as the default approach? Why electrify the ocean;-)?

    Chip W1YW
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2017
  2. NK9Y

    NK9Y Ham Member QRZ Page

    OK Chip, I'll have just one more go at this. I still think it is time to move on, however. When I made my initial post, it was in support of an antenna comparison in the field. I made similar comparisons in the 80's and 90's, only on top band. You jumped in, with what felt to me as an abrasive undertone. My findings were, in your professional opinion, unfounded by ANY science. Then, I thought we moved past that. Again, I do not marginalize your antenna work, and your mastery of a CW pile up is a beauty indeed. Yet my elevated counterpoise system worked far better than I originally hoped for. Confused am I? Sure, but still the system DID work.

    IF your friend's comment was NOT INTENDED as backhanded toward me, complete with a green face symbol. (Did my comment really sicken him?) Then I apologize.

    The VK9 was Norfolk, and was long ago. Likely Ron, AMO. He was calling CQ, with no business. Being well before my gray line, his signal was steady, and weak, giving me plenty of time to try. I am aware of the sea water "state of the art". That idea will not work in Illinois, for obvious reasons.

    Now for the kicker. For many years, while building my chosen career, I was rather inactive. Had just one tower up. Rohn 20, on top of a utility pole. On that tower, were 5 quarter wave verticals, each with a single elevated counterpoise. In my unorthodox notions, I was concerned with interaction. So I hung each at varying angles, so none were parallel. What fun those years were! That system also worked very well. If I could hear them, I could work them. Isn't that what this hobby is all about? I hope this last paragraph has left you laughing.

    Sincere 73,
    Chet NK9Y
  3. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    I am happy that you get out so well. That doesn't mean I am arrogant. Your false characterization is a silly response to the facts.

    Chip W1YW
  4. NK9Y

    NK9Y Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hang on Chip. The shot, which I may have misunderstood as arrogant, did not come from you. It came from an apparent friend of yours. Someone who directed a green face symbol, my way.

    Hope we are OK now. We both have better things to do today.

    73 Chet
  5. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page


    We are always OK. That's the nature of ham radio :)

    Best DX OM,
    Chip W1YW
    NK9Y likes this.
  6. W4HM

    W4HM XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Chet my first comment was mostly tongue in cheek and that's what the smiley face was supposed to represent. The only smiley face color available was the green one.

    I wasn't personally criticizing you either, I was just explaining things about vertical antennas that I had learned through many measured experiments on 160, 80 and 40 meters using verticals and inverted L's that I conducted over an approximate 25 year period.
    W1YW likes this.
  7. NK9Y

    NK9Y Ham Member QRZ Page

    Thomas, thank you for clearing this up. It all makes perfect sense now. Your words just hit me wrong at that instant. I owe you an apology, and you have it sir. It is interesting to reflect upon though. Nations have gone to war many times over simple misunderstandings. Perhaps you, Chip, and myself will bump into each other, at a hamfest sometime. The tall soda's will be on me.

    W4HM and W1YW like this.
  8. WN4HOG

    WN4HOG Ham Member QRZ Page

    Love it! Would be interested in seeing differences between vertical with one radial versus multiple on same band.
    W5KV likes this.
  9. KK6QMS

    KK6QMS XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I wonder why the SWR on those were so high. I have no prob getting 1:1 or maybe 1:2 on verts and wire dipoles in similar configs. Nice job and interesting results.
  10. WJ8Y

    WJ8Y Ham Member QRZ Page

    What you trying to do Stuart? Put a huge signal on the CW bands?

Share This Page