+++++++++++++++++++ Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 13:00:01 -0500 From: Jim Campbell To: Elecraft Subject: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats I was on 40 last night and heard a CL2--/MM calling CQ. I went back to him but he couldn't hear me. That is an almost new experience for me. I don't have much success calling CQ, but almost everyone I answer who is calling CQ comes back to me. I gave it a couple of tries with him but still no joy. Then a QRO W2 called him a couple of times. The CL2 continued calling CQ. I concluded that he was an "alligator". That is to say he has a big mouth but tiny ears. I then began to think about how to characterize my K2. The analogy I came up with was a "bat". A bat has a small mouth but exceptional hearing. For example, I heard several QSOs last night in which both parties were having trouble hearing each other, but I heard them FB. This is all with an attic dipole. I had no trouble working VE3FAL last night at 5 watts. I tried dialing down to 500 mw, but he didn't hear me. I believe that this is principally because of the limitations of my attic dipole. It and the K2 sure can receive though. I wouldn't trade my K2 for anything. Started saving my pennies for the amp for when the sunspot cycle goes out on us. 72, 73, Jim W4BQP ++++++++++++++++++++ Reply-To: From: "Ron D' Eau Claire" To: "Elecraft" Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 12:06:30 -0800 Jim, W4BQP, wrote: > I was on 40 last night and heard a CL2--/MM calling CQ. I went back to > him but he couldn't hear me. That is an almost new experience for me. > I don't have much success calling CQ, but almost everyone I answer who > is calling CQ comes back to me. ... I heard several QSOs last night in which both > parties were having trouble hearing each other, but I heard them FB. > This is all with an attic dipole. > > I had no trouble working VE3FAL last night at 5 watts. I tried dialing > down to 500 mw, but he didn't hear me. I believe that this is > principally because of the limitations of my attic dipole. It and the > K2 sure can receive though. I wouldn't trade my K2 for anything. You have pointed out a key issue with running QRP. To have a successful QSO takes TWO good operators willing to "work" QRP even if one of the stations is running a kilowatt. Radiating some r-f is only half of a contact. So even though the other guy is running a kilowatt, he/she has to have the receiver and the skill to copy a QRP signal or there will be no QSO. A lot of ops skip over any signal that isn't "S-9" when cruising the bands, but will dig a little when a station is calling them, so I'm not surprised that you have better success answering CQ's than calling them. That's been a fundamental truth on the bands at all power levels for the half-century that I've been pounding brass. Personally, I tend to call the 'weak' ones or the ones with some sort of funny characteristic because those turn out to be the QRP or homebrew rigs. But I am always aware that when I work a QRO station while I am running a barefoot K2, I have just 'volunteered' him to make a QRP contact whether he wanted to or not. I try to stay aware of the changing band conditions, realizing that if the band isn't in the very best shape he is likely working much harder to copy me than I am him, and the reason for that is because of my choice to limit myself to low power. Ron AC7AC K2 # 1289 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 07:23:12 -0500 From: Jim Campbell To: rondec at easystreet.com, Elecraft Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats Ron D' Eau Claire wrote: > > But I am always aware that when I work a QRO station while I am running a > barefoot K2, I have just 'volunteered' him to make a QRP contact whether he > wanted to or not. I try to stay aware of the changing band conditions, > realizing that if the band isn't in the very best shape he is likely working > much harder to copy me than I am him, and the reason for that is because of > my choice to limit myself to low power. Thanks, Ron, that explains something that I have experienced from time to time in the last few months that I have been back on the air. As soon as I would tell the other station I was QRP, they wouldn't come back to me. I couldn't understand why. Now I do. As a result, I usually don't share that I am QRP until near the end of the QSO. I suppose that if I identified myself as a QRP station when I answered his call (i.e., de W4BQP/QRP) it would give him a choice, but then I would have fewer QSOs than I now do. Maybe I will try it and see what happens. Jim W4BQP ++++++++++++++++++ Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats From: Richard Mulvey To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net Date: 10 Jan 2002 07:45:18 -0500 On Thu, 2002-01-10 at 07:23, Jim Campbell wrote: > Ron D' Eau Claire wrote: > > > > But I am always aware that when I work a QRO station while I am running a > > barefoot K2, I have just 'volunteered' him to make a QRP contact whether he > > wanted to or not. I try to stay aware of the changing band conditions, > > realizing that if the band isn't in the very best shape he is likely working > > much harder to copy me than I am him, and the reason for that is because of > > my choice to limit myself to low power. > > Thanks, Ron, that explains something that I have experienced from time > to time in the last few months that I have been back on the air. As > soon as I would tell the other station I was QRP, they wouldn't come > back to me. I couldn't understand why. Now I do. As a result, I > usually don't share that I am QRP until near the end of the QSO. > Interesting. In the past ( almost ) decade that I've been hamming, I can't recall noticing that the other drops out any more often when I identify as QRP, as when QRO, under average band conditions. Certainly when things are marginal, the difference between 5W or less and 100W will make or break the contact. Simple physics dictates that there will be times when you can hear the QRO op, and he can't hear you, running QRP. And a lot of QRP'ers seem to make the assumption that the other guy can hear as well as he did when he was 20. > I suppose that if I identified myself as a QRP station when I answered > his call (i.e., de W4BQP/QRP) it would give him a choice, but then I > would have fewer QSOs than I now do. Maybe I will try it and see what > happens. I think we all need to remember is that we do make it harder on the other guy when we run QRP - especially if we want to rag chew. I've never quite understood the common QRP mentality that we're somehow being "better" ops by whispering across the room, while the other guy uses a normal speaking voice. Personally, the enjoyment I get from QRP stems more from the ability to construct my own gear, and use it on the air. But I always keep its limitations in mind when I do. - Rich +++++++++++++++++ From: "Ken Lotts" To: "Jim Campbell" , , "Elecraft" Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 06:13:57 -0700 FWIW, On 40, I find that a great deal of CW signals out there *are* QRP. I think its a gas to find a strong signal and discover that it is coming from a QRP station. I had had 20 minute QSO once with a station (a state away) that was running only 60mw. He was not strong but once I found out his power, I put all I had into it. When I run into stations running barebone rigs like the 49'er , it gives me a thrill on par with hearing an old ARC5 station (*Nothing* comes on par with a well tuned TPTG station though ;-). Ken aa7jc +++++++++++++++++ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 08:31:49 -0600 To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net From: Tom Hammond =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=D8SS?= Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats Hi Guys: About the ONLY time I sign "/QRP" is when I'm calling ON (or near) one of the QRP calling frequencies... OR if I think it might actually help my chances of working a station I feel might actually care to listen a bit harder for "the QRP station...". In contests, the only time they find out I'm QRP is if it's part of the exchange, otherwise, I'm just one of those midwesterners who hasn't learned that a dipole at 10' isn't an 'antenna'. Tom N0SS ++++++++++++++++++ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:16:57 -0500 From: "David A. Belsley" To: Richard Mulvey , elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats All this discussion on qrp vs. qro signal strength is making a frequently very unwarranted assumption that the qro is the stronger station. I grant that, ceteris paribus, you would sound stronger to the guy you are working if you increased your power from 10 to 100 watts. But that's a very different story from the fact that you are using 10 watts on one side of the qso and he/she is using 100w on the other. Using 10 watts, I frequently get much better signal reports from 100 watt stations that I am able to give in return. This is often true when working dx and the conditions are not reversible, as often happens in the early evening. This also occurs because 100 watts into a mediocre antenna system can produce a signal quite inferior to 10 watts into a good antenna system. Note, I say antenna system, and not just antenna -- because all the linkage between your K2 and the antenna also makes a vast difference. From the configurations I often encounter on the air, I am under the impression that a lot of people are leaving lots of db of their 100 watts on the cutting-room floor -- and I suspect most have no idea it's happening. I am also concerned with the attitude being displayed that qrp stations have something to answer for. If a station doesn't want to work a weak signal, he/she has no need to even start. But once started, they should take what they opted for. Almost all do. I rarely find people simply "not coming back" because of weak signals -- bad code, maybe, but not weak signals. Sometimes it is agreed that conditions are difficult and maybe another time would be better, but that's a different story. Sometimes qsb or band switches simply take the signal out altogether, but that's hardly a case of "not coming back." If you're sending good code and displaying good operating practice, people will rarely just drop you. best wishes, dave belsley, w1euy ++++++++++++++++ Reply-To: From: "Ron D' Eau Claire" To: "Jim Campbell" , "Elecraft" Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 07:42:35 -0800 Jim wrote: > As soon as I would tell the other station I was QRP, they wouldn't come > back to me. I couldn't understand why. Now I do. As a result, I > usually don't share that I am QRP until near the end of the QSO. > > I suppose that if I identified myself as a QRP station when I answered > his call (i.e., de W4BQP/QRP) it would give him a choice, but then I > would have fewer QSOs than I now do. Maybe I will try it and see what > happens. I'm sorry to hear that, Jim, but I have experienced it too when I'm rolling along with some of the QRO crowd that hangs out around 7.025. Someone disappearing is rare, but they will cut the QSO short the moment they notice the signals starting to QSB a bit, etc. Many of those ops like to sit back and chew the rag while puttering around the shack. They aren't really much interested in putting on the cans and concentrating on reading a weak signal. Frankly, I enjoy chewing the rag while puttering at the bench too as part of my operating 'diet'. So I like to be polite and 'turn up the wick' when it's called for. OTOH, I've had a lot of great rag chews with QRP and QRPp signals, especially on 40 meters around 7.040. With the QRP and QRPp crowd, I'll usually back off the power to match their signal when we hook up. Out of respect for the gang, I'll also cut my power down to 5 watts or less when calling on or very close to 7.040 or one of the other recognized QRP frequencies. I like the flexibility to do the same with the QRO gang by increasing my power as well. Ron AC7AC K2 # 1289 +++++++++++++++++++ Reply-To: From: "Ron D' Eau Claire" To: Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 08:35:48 -0800 Dave, W1EUY, wrote: > I am also concerned with the attitude being displayed that qrp stations > have something to answer for. I agree completely, Dave. What concerns me is that a lot of QRP operators think that QRO operators have something to answer for when, in fact, a successful QRP/QRO contact is frequently due to the receiving skills of the QRO operator. I really enjoy working QRP and QRPp because I get to test (and show off) my receiving skills. And if I'm chewing the rag with a QRO station who is thumping in QSA 5 and reports that my signal is a little weak, I like to be able to QRO a bit myself so he can sit back and copy me like I am copying him. Ron AC7AC K2 # 1289 +++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 08:40:45 -0800 From: Vic Rosenthal Organization: Transparent Software To: Elecraft Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats Ed Juge/NM wrote: > > What I do experience frequently is giving the other station a lower sig. > report than he gives me when he is running +/-100 watts and I'm running 5 or > 10. This is an interesting discussion. I'm a firm believer in using just the necessary power for a solid QSO, so I'm often turning the wick up and down. One thing that I've learned is that a few db make a BIG difference when conditions are marginal. Recently I was trying to work a weakish JA on 160M. I called him with 15 watts from my K2 -- he just kept CQing. I turned on my amp (400 watts) and called him -- QRZ? I got several QRZ's, but couldn't make a QSO. Finally I switched to my other exciter to get more output from my amp (800 watts) and made the QSO. In this case, 3db made all the difference. 73, Vic, K2VCO Fresno CA ++++++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:23:04 +0000 From: "Julian, G4ILO" Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats To: "Elecraft List" I'm very surprised. People so often tell me my QRP is doing a good job, I haven't the slightest desire to add the 100W PA. I'm proud to tell the world I'm running low power using my home-built Elecraft K2, and from the responses I get I'm going to carry on doing so. 73, -- Julian, G4ILO. (RSGB, ARRL, K2 #392) Homepage: http://www.qsl.net/g4ilo Jim Campbell wrote: Thanks, Ron, that explains something that I have experienced from time to time in the last few months that I have been back on the air. As soon as I would tell the other station I was QRP, they wouldn't come back to me. I couldn't understand why. Now I do. As a result, I usually don't share that I am QRP until near the end of the QSO. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:38:50 +0000 From: "Julian, G4ILO" Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats To: "Elecraft List" I don't see that the QRP/QRO argument applies that much when we're talking a K2's 10/12W vs the average 100W. Sure, there are times when a guy whose quite strong doesn't come back to me, but I figure he's probably got a worse receiver, a noisy location or a lot of local QRM. That would happen in the days when I ran 100W too. There are other times using the K2 when I've felt that the other guy has been copying me better than I'm getting him. It's unlikely to be the K2 receiver's fault, so I reckon it's all down to conditions. About the only time I feel QRP puts me at a disadvantage is in a pileup, but I never had much success in pileups with 100W either, so now I just avoid pileups. I was recently entering some old QSOs into a logging program, and I seem to have got just as many "R4S2" kind of reports when I ran 100W as since I've been using the K2. 10W is no substitute for 1KW, but I'm not convinced that the difference between 10 and 100W is enough to worry about. Not even during solar minimum. If a band's dead it's dead unless you can run full legal to a huge beam, which is beyond the resources of most of us anyway. 73, -- Julian, G4ILO. (RSGB, ARRL, K2 #392) Homepage: http://www.qsl.net/g4ilo Richard Mulvey wrote: I think we all need to remember is that we do make it harder on the other guy when we run QRP - especially if we want to rag chew. I've never quite understood the common QRP mentality that we're somehow being "better" ops by whispering across the room, while the other guy uses a normal speaking voice. Personally, the enjoyment I get from QRP stems more from the ability to construct my own gear, and use it on the air. But I always keep its limitations in mind when I do. +++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 19:07:00 +0000 From: "Julian, G4ILO" Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats To: "Elecraft List" But who knows, if you'd called using 400W one more time you might have made it? I don't believe such a small increase in power would make that decisive a difference. I think this argument exercises people too much because the numbers make it feel like if you run a tenth the power it will be ten times harder to make QSOs. The power difference only matters at all when conditions are marginal. Most of the time, 10 watts is perfectly adequate. That probably accounts for 50 - 70% of contacts. For the percentage of QSOs where copy becomes difficult, conditions will take the signal up and down more than 10dB, and the low power station will still make many of the contacts just by repeating things a bit more often. So the QRP guy will only lose a few. I'm sure it could be calculated mathematically (though not by me!) but I'd hazard a guess that given a normal distribution of signals, a 10W station will work at least 90% of those a 100W station will work, all other factors being equal. That's perfectly acceptable to me. It isn't a matter of life and death to work any given station, so if someone can't hear me on a particular occasion I'll go and talk to somebody else who can. 72, -- Julian, G4ILO. (RSGB, ARRL, K2 #392) Homepage: http://www.qsl.net/g4ilo Vic Rosenthal wrote: This is an interesting discussion. I'm a firm believer in using just the necessary power for a solid QSO, so I'm often turning the wick up and down. One thing that I've learned is that a few db make a BIG difference when conditions are marginal. Recently I was trying to work a weakish JA on 160M. I called him with 15 watts from my K2 -- he just kept CQing. I turned on my amp (400 watts) and called him -- QRZ? I got several QRZ's, but couldn't make a QSO. Finally I switched to my other exciter to get more output from my amp (800 watts) and made the QSO. In this case, 3db made all the difference. +++++++++++++++++++++ Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:43:17 -0500 From: Bill Coleman To: "Jim Campbell" , "Elecraft" On 1/9/02 1:00 PM, Jim Campbell at jim-c at nc.rr.com wrote: >I was on 40 last night and heard a CL2--/MM calling CQ. I went back to >him but he couldn't hear me. That is an almost new experience for me. >I don't have much success calling CQ, but almost everyone I answer who >is calling CQ comes back to me. I gave it a couple of tries with him >but still no joy. Then a QRO W2 called him a couple of times. The CL2 >continued calling CQ. I concluded that he was an "alligator". That is >to say he has a big mouth but tiny ears. It happens. It could be due to the operator or his station, but it just could be conditions. My experience at the NQ4I M/M superstation (yes QRO, with great antennas) has taught me that there are times when you just can't get through to the other station. You may work him earlier or later, but right now, you're not going to make it. Don't waste too much time worrying about it. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 ++++++++++++++++++ Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?KC=D8IFL?= From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?KC=D8IFL?= To: "Julian, G4ILO" , "Elecraft List" Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:10:04 -0600 I've recently started to notice that if 10W isn't enough, 100W isn't either. I don't know if 1KW would be, I've never tried. Last night I worked a station is FL from MO, we were both running at 5W, me with my K2 and he with a 1960 Ameco Kit! He said it had one tube and one diode. I thought that was pretty kewl! I like answering the 'churpie' CQ's just to see what I get. I also like to answer the CQ QRP's. Ron E. KCŘIFL K2 sn 02133 ++++++++++++++++++++ From: UCCINC at aol.com Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:03:08 EST To: Elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: [Elecraft] QRP paranoia? Hi folks, I too have lost contact with a station around the time I told him my power. BUT look at it another way. QSB exists. During low signal times you aren't going to contact the other station. During a peak you are going to make the contact. Then, after an exchange or so, the band changes and you lose him. It just so happens that it's while you are telling the other station about your rig. Maybe this is all just a coincidence. Of course there is always the exception to prove the rule! 72, Bob WB2DHK in Hoboken, NJ ++++++++++++++++ Reply-To: From: "Ron D' Eau Claire" To: "Elecraft List" Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:38:50 -0800 Ron, KC0IFL, wrote: > I like answering the 'churpie' > CQ's just to see what I get. I also like to answer the CQ QRP's. Me too. And if someone is calling CQ/QRP I answer at 5 watts. If he has a hard time copying me I'll turn up the power. After all, he might not be listening on a K2! Now, how about a software control to introduce some selectable chirp into the K2?... Ron AC7AC K2 # 1289 +++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 23:00:18 -0500 From: Paul Manis Reply-To: pmanis at nc.rr.com To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats Tree, In response to your comments, I had to go look at the extended tests for the in-band IMD (e.g., within the passband of the receiver - two tones 100 Hz apart) on the K2 versus the 870 (the 850 apparently came before the extended tests, so I looked at the 870 for comparsion). The 870 shows pretty terrible performance with the AGC fast (3rd order IMD only -35 db; 5th order -32), which with more than 2 signals is basically going to make a lot of fluctuating background hash corresponding to comodulation of the signals - and I don't think comodulation masking release (yes, that's a real phenomenon in auditory perception) can even help that. It looks like AGC slow is a lot better on that radio, but that seems counterproductive when operating CW. In contrast, the K2 specs out with the AGC set fast at 3rd order -43 dB and 5th order -47 db, and slightly better for slow AGC. It would be interesting to make the measurements with the AGC off, but that doesn't seem to be part of the protocol. So, when listening to a CW pileup, or to the activity during a contest, you'd expect the K2 to be a fair bit cleaner sounding, and provide your ears with a representation of the signals that can be more easily dissected. Ultimately, this should mean less fatigue for the contester. I can only compare it with an ICOM 730, and yes, the K2 is cleaner and not as mushy or muffled (I've always thought there was too much AGC action in the Icom). Even the TenTec Omni's in-band IMDs are in the 37-39dB range. I have to agree, one wants a very clean sounding receiver; like Rick Campbell's R1/R2 direct conversion receivers (they sound _really_ nice - no agc!), or what Jay Rusgrove described in QST back in the 80's. This lets your brain do the best job it can, without having to also deal with receiver IMD and the effects of DSP. It might be interesting to put the output audio stage of the R1 in a K2, for a little extra punch - but maybe not for field use. But, where it should really shine is with the "close-in" IMD for signals more than 2 kHz away, as compared to the other rigs using roofing filters that are 15-50 kHz wide. I'd like to know your impressions after a strenuous domestic contest like SS with decent antennas at the front, or in the DX contests with everyone running KW's to stacked Force-12's right next door to the V51 running 100W to a wire. Now, some people may think that my ramblins so far are off topic, so let me just say this about some kinds of bats - the ones that use sonar signals for echolocation. They have a very interesting specialization in their cochleas that lets them have a really sharply tuned, high sensitivity region near the echolocation frequency. This is a lot like the swept frequency 3rd order IMD plots for the K2 - a nice sharp filter, right up at the front end where it can do the most good. I wouldn't push this analogy to far though. Paul, NC3G. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Reply-To: From: "Ron D' Eau Claire" To: "Elecraft List" Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Alligators and Bats Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:29:11 -0800 David, G4DMP wrote: > Like you, Julian, I cannot understand the obsession some people have in > always wanting to run maximum power. I think it may perhaps be due to a > culture difference over this side of the Atlantic. To my mind, a K2 > would lose much of its original appeal if it ran anything over 15W. There's a world of difference between running "maximum power" and running a power comparable to the other station when the other station is having trouble copying. One of the things I've noticed about this thread is the lack of 'extremism' in the discussion. Sure, some folks are really committed to running QRP at ALL times, but they don't demand everyone do it. We don't seem to have any kilowatt addicts here; perhaps because the K2 won't support that sort of power easily just yet. Yes, there has been a 'cultural difference' for some time. Not just across the Atlantic, but from all 'sides' of this great hobby. I got my Ham license in Southern California in the 50's, as the heyday of the "California Kilowatt" was just beginning. The US economy was booming while Europe and much of the world was struggling to recover from the devastation of World War II. Things were very good here back then once the Korean conflict reached an armistice. American families could generally live well and buy all the latest 'goodies' of the time on the income of father alone. A "California Kilowatt" usually referred to a station running a kilowatt AM phone (and there was good evidence that many of them were running a good deal more than that) often running the biggest and best equipment money could buy. The power meter stayed to the peg, even if they were chewing the rag with a buddy a mile away. It's no accident the 1950's was when the QRP movement began in earnest as well. But the California Kilowatts or the milliwatt maniacs who had no use for the other side of the question did not represent the bulk of Hams. Extremists who cannot see another's point of view in any cause are seldom very good neighbors or fun to be around, but as long as hams are humans we'll have them on all sides, QRP-QRO, VHF-HF, SSB-CW. Find an issue and there will be people on both sides - some of them at the very edges and unwilling to listen to anyone else. It's the rest of us in the middle ground seeking understanding, cooperation and demonstrating a willingness to help the other operator who make the hobby what it is: a place where all points of view about communicating via "radio" are respected as long as they follow the laws of the land. Personally, my hat's off to all the ops who contributed to this thread in the spirit of gentlemanly fun and comradeship, exploring how we feel about all the issues around "Alligators and Bats". It shows just what an outstanding group of Hams hang out on this reflector. "Snap", "click", "thump" (sounds of soap box being put away)... Thank you, Ron AC7AC K2 # 1289 +++++++++++++++++++ Reply-To: "Ed Juge/NM" From: "Ed Juge/NM" To: , Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Re:Alligators and Bats Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 02:47:36 -0800 Hi, Ron... As I told Lou, off the reflector, I misspoke on the gain... of course, a dipole is 2.14db ABOVE an isotropic source. My book, by the way, is a 1984 edition which doesn't have a page 20.3... only goes to "16-8". I believe there are so many factors to argue on this subject in terms of directivity, pattern lobes, distances, propagation, etc., that it's not practical or appropriate to pursue it on this reflector. I'm not an engineer and definitely shouldn't get into technical discussions on subjects like antenna gain or I'll just show my ignorance (even further). Most of what I know about radio -and antennas- I have learned from experience, from trial and error, and from older/wiser hams, during 50-1/2 years of hamming. My reason for posting in the first place was that Lou seemed pretty much down on verticals and my point was to defend them to some degree. I would hate to see beginners dissuaded from trying verticals without hearing an opposing opinion. In my experience, A GOOD vertical over a GOOD GROUND SYSTEM (salt water not required) does an excellent job! A single vertical certainly won't compete with a multi-element array but, at greater distances, mine has frequently equaled or out performed dipoles. Example: I have a 40-meter dipole, approximately 1/4-wave above ground, (used to have one up 1/2-wave with very little difference noted) more or less broadside east and west and a Hy-Gain Hy-Tower vertical. Every Sunday for the past eight years, I have talked to friends back in Texas... about 500 air miles from me, almost directly East. In all that time I can count the Sundays on one hand, that the Hy-Tower has failed to outperform the dipole by one to two S-units, both on receive and transmit, no matter if the guys on the other end are vertically or horizontally polarized. The vertical is rarely noisier and frequently quieter on receive. That's another myth -- verticals being inherently noisy. That said... for communications over 100-200 miles, like within my state, the vertical sucks... always +/-20dB below the dipole. And that's the only reason I have the dipole. Re: theory... I read somewhere, 40 years ago, that according to the laws of physics, a bumble bee can't fly. Theory is valuable but what we're all after is real-world results. Sorry for the bandwidth on this reflector but I have had outstanding results, US and DX, with my K2 running 5-10 watts into the Hy-Tower. This one trapless, 51-ft. tall antenna works 80, 40, 20, 15 and 10 meters, and with the K2's tuner, the WARC bands. It's a lot more work to put in a GOOD vertical system than to hang up a dipole. Mine has three 8' ground rods (pounded thru rock!), 45 radials under it and is fed with the lowest loss flexible Belden coax available. If you aren't willing to invest the time and considerable effort to do it right, you may well be better off with a dipole 73.... Ed, W5EJ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron D' Eau Claire" To: Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:35 PM Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Re:Alligators and Bats > Ed, W5EJ, wrote: > > > *My* (ARRL) Antenna book says the gain of a real-world dipole is 2.14dB > > below an isotropic source. I don't recall any discussions about > > dipoles in > > free space, so can't comment on your 8 and ~6dB figures. But all of the > > gain figures I remember seeing were either based on an isotropic source, > > which can raise unrealistic expectations among amateurs, or a real-world > > dipole. > > Gee. Which Antenna book do you have Ed? > > My ARRL Handbook ('99) shows (on page 20.3) a predicted gain for a dipole > 1/2 wave above "average" ground (5 mS/m conductivity) having a gain of 7.5 > dbi at an elevation angle of 26 degrees. By comparison, a vertical over the > same ground has just 0 dbi "gain" - more than 7 db below the dipole in any > terms. The angle of maximum radiation of the vertical is the same too - just > on 25 degrees - thanks to the attenuation of the lower angles by the lossy > earth. > > Put the vertical over sea water and it is better - only about 1 db below a > dipole at 1/2 wavelength over 'average ground'. Of course, a dipole over sea > water has better gain from lower ground losses too. > > That's consistent with my ARRL Antenna books among other references, and > with the models I have done using EZNEC of both vertical and horizontal > antennas. > > In general, the vertical will do a better job at low angles (about 20 > degrees) if the horizontal can't be raised at least 3/8 of a wavelength > above the ground. Of course, a low horizontal antenna will act as a cloud > warmer providing a lot more high angle radiation for close-in 'skip' than > the vertical under any conditions. > > No slings or arrows, Ed, just a lot of various references that say the > dipole is better for DX unless you can't get it up in the air. > > Of course a vertical will beat a horizontal antenna where you don't have > room to get at least 1/4 wave of "flat top" up in the air or you are only > interested in DX. > > So I am genuinely interested in the contrary information you have uncovered! > > Ron AC7AC > K2 # 1289 ++++++++++++++++++++++