|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
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
|
NVIS and 40 Meter CW
(W8WZ)
on
September 20, 2005
View comments about this article!
Near Vertical Incidence Skywave (NVIS)
and the 40 meter Novice Sub-band.
Forty meters has always held a special attraction for me. The personality of 40 lends itself to casual rag chewing contacts across the Unites States and Canada. The novice sub-band was my first real introduction to HF since I got my ticket when ten meters was totally dead and there was not enough room in my parent's yard for an 80 meter dipole.
My first 40 meter antenna was a flat-top dipole center fed with 300 ohm television twin lead and up about 45 feet. I have been operating on 40 meters ever since.
Today, I am fortunate enough to live deep in Indiana farm country where I have freedom to experiment with antenna design to my heart's content. For 40 meters, I have an OFC Dipole very similar to the Fritzel FD4 in an “Inverted V” formation with the apex at 75 feet. I also have a gap titan DX vertical. And, until a short time ago, I had a half wave 40 meter dipole sloping south with the feed point about 40 feet above ground.
As I used those antennas, I realized that very rarely (if ever) did my sloping dipole ever outperform my Fritzel. So, I decided to take down the sloping dipole and use the wire and coax to make something new. But what???? I also had half a roll of 14 gage stranded insulated wire in the shed that could be used for this project.
My first thought was a phased array for 40. However, after looking into that, I realized that I would have to move some of my other antennas for that idea to work. Being lazy, and also not wanting to change the performance of my other antennas, I decided to do something less invasive. As I looked for ideas I came across a few web pages for NVIS.
Near Vertical Incidence Skywave involves placing a horizontally polarized antenna very close to the ground. The result is that your RF power
is radiated largely straight up into the sky at a VERY
HIGH angle of radiation. Also, there is limited ground wave propagation of your transmitted signal. Basically, you create a large “ball” of RF with the bulk of it going straight up into the sky. How in the world could that be useful to a radio amateur? I wondered.
The answer is that this type of antenna can fill a void that our more traditional antenna systems leave out. While NVIS systems will not work well for DX - the bubble of RF that they create results in a very strong RF signal to all stations within that bubble. The size of that RF ball or bubble is determined by the selected transmit frequency and to a lesser extent propagation conditions. 7 MC is the highest ham band that NVIS works well on. An NVIS system creates a strong uniform signal over a small geographic area.
In short: only close stations can hear you - but they will hear you well.
Since I had a very good DX 40 meter antenna, I decided to try out the NVIS concept.
The NVIS system I chose is very simple. It is described in an article by K5AXN which can be found on the internet at http://www.hamuniverse.com/supernvis.html. Basically, It consists of a 40 meter dipole hung in a flat-top configuration at an elevation of about seven feet. Underneath it is a system of 3 RF reflectors. The RF reflectors are 60 foot sections of #14 stranded insulated wire. One of these reflectors was laid on the ground directly under the dipole. The other two were laid on the ground parallel to the dipole. One was laid 6 feet South of the Dipole, the other was laid 6 feet North of it.
The antenna's need to be placed so low presented two problems for me. First, this design presented a safety concern. We all know that good amateur practice is to keep the antenna high enough so that it cannot cause injury to a passer by who may inadvertently touch it. Secondly, an antenna that low would be in the way when I did yard work such as mowing the lawn. Finally, how was I going to place the RF reflectors on the ground and still be able to mow the grass? I have never liked buried radials because they work themselves up over time and get tangled in lawn mower blades. So, I didn't even consider the idea of burying them. Instead I looked around my property for a place that this antenna system could work.
Directly South of my house is a small but thick woods. I decided to put my NVIS system in the woods. NVIS has been used by military radio operators for years. They have used this technique in dense forests, so I was confident that the idea would work. Although I did figure I would need to do much antenna trimming to compensate for its interaction with all the trees. This would be the safest location possible since no visitors to my house would accidentally go into the thick brush. Also, since I didn't need to mow the grass in the woods, the wire reflectors could lay flat on the earth, held in place with plastic tent stakes.
I tied the dipole to trees at 7 feet and supported the antenna at a point in the middle of each leg to prevent sag. To support them at those places, I cut one foot sections of ¼ inch PVC pipe. I drilled holes in each end. I threaded the antenna wire through the hole in one end of the PVC pipe. Then I hung the PVC pipe from tree branches by putting nylon twine through the end of the PVC pipe opposite the antenna, and tied it to a tree branch. I supported the center of the dipole by hanging it from a tree branch in similar fashion. I had purchased some ½” PVC pipe to use as a center support mast but found that I did not need it.
To my surprise, I found the antenna to be resonant on the same frequencies as it was when hanging as a sloping dipole in free space. In this case that was the lower end of 40 with the lowest SWR between 7.000-7.040 MC.
I made some contacts with the antenna this way. I found that it was less prone to BCI and atmospheric noise than my other antennas. It was very quiet. Amateur signals were also quieter than on other antennas. When I found that I had a much lower RST from other stations, I figured that the antenna was quiet because it was nothing but an air-cooled dummy load. At this point I was disappointed with the antenna, and figured that its ability to limit the BCI and QRN was the same as my attenuator's ability to do the same - but at least the attenuator didn't effect my transmit signal. But, I knew I was not finished with the project. I still needed to put down the RF reflectors. I just wanted to see how much difference they made, so I made some contacts without them.
Once I added the RF reflectors - the antenna system came alive! As anticipated they did have an effect on the resonant frequency of the dipole. They moved the resonant frequency right into the Novice Sub-band. Exactly where the BCI is worst and where I really wanted to use this antenna at! I was very happy that I wouldn't need to do the antenna pruning/adjusting I had thought I would.
Here is what I found using this antenna in the Novice Sub-band. First - it is a quiet antenna. Of all my antennas, it rejects the most BCI and QRN. The Broadcast signals are usually 10 - 15 S-units lower on the NVIS system. The Amateur signals are generally about 1-3 S-units lower on the NVIS system. Sometimes, the amateur signals have the same signal strength. Very rarely, are they louder. However, even though the amateur signals are usually lower in strength, they are easier to copy because the BCI has been drastically reduced. A typical contact goes like this: On normal antenna: Amateur Signal is S-7 and noise is S-6. That means that the signal I want to copy is only one S-unit above the noise. On the NVIS system the amateur signal is only an S5. However, the noise is only an S1 or S2. Thus, the signal I want to copy is now 3 to 4 S-units louder than the noise.
I have routinely gotten very good signal reports from the stations I work. The best DX I got with this antenna system so far was a station in Georgia, USA. He gave me 599 and I sent him 599. It is definitely not a DX antenna. However, it does allow me to have many loud contacts with stations within about a 500 mile radius of me. By rejecting the BCI so well, it also allows me to use frequencies that I would have otherwise just tuned past due to the QRM.
Do I suggest NVIS for others? If you already have a “normal” 40 meter antenna and want to expand - this is a great way to do it. If you are looking for an easy antenna project that doesn't involve a lot of tree climbing or tower raising - this is a great one.
If you want an antenna system you can place in the woods and free up your open space for other antennas, this is one of the few antennas that will do that well.
If you are a new ham limited to the Novice Sub-bands and just want a simple, inexpensive antenna system that will reject as much BCI as possible and let you practice your CW skills by making loud and clear contacts with hams within 500 miles of you - this is a good antenna for you.
Also, if you need a 40 meter antenna to check into local or state wide nets the NVIS system would be good for you too. You wouldn't be causing much QRM to stations outside of your net's service area. And, your signal would be uniformly loud to all of the stations within your net's service area. For that sort of application - this is a good antenna as well.
Disclaimer: This article isn't designed to be a technical discussion of NVIS. It is intended only to be a description of a practical application of NVIS on the 40 meter Novice Sub-band. For a better description of how NVIS works the author suggests that readers do their own technical research and personally experiment with NVIS systems.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by AE5X on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great article, Carl. I started out as a Novice, accidentally using an NVIS dipole on 40m years ago. I didn't know I'd put up an NVIS antenna - I just thought I had a too-low dipole and always wished it was higher. Now I intentionally use NVIS at times although in a much simpler configuration than yours.
On camping trips, I typically string a 40m dipole on whatever bushes are nearby, usually 5 or 6 feet in height. This allows consistent *and strong* signals out to 350 miles or so...with QRP power levels. No reflectors or other add-ons required.
John Harper AE5X
NVIS result in Oklahoma: http://www.ae5x.com/wichita.html
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by KE4SKY on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thans for posting this nice article. You've provided much useful information for the new ops, which we all appreciate. NVIS is the standard setup we teach for RACES communications, because stations in the far corners of our state are often in the skip zone, or shadowed by terrain.
NVIS also works well on SSB and 160, 75 and 60 meters asd well. The 60 meter shared allocations have good potential for EmCom because they are less heavily used, there is little adjacent channel interference, due to its being channelized, you don't have BCI to compete with and its propogation characteristics are much like 40 meters. Having amateurs use on 60 limited to 50 watts EIRP is not a problem, because it keeps the QRM down, and is no handicap to good operators with clean signals and proper antennas.
A good place to listen for QRP and mobile stations is 5371.5 USB.
|
|   |
|
NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by KV9U on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some other things to consider when using NVIS antennas:
1) NVIS only works at a given frequency if the ionospheric F2 layer has the ability at that time frame to properly reflect your signal back down at a high angle. At this moment, our area (Wisconsin, USA) can only operate below about 5 MHz for NVIS so even the 60 meter band would be iffy. That means either 80 or 160. Much of the western part of the U.S. would have difficulty at even 80. This changes depending upon the sun's effects over the short term and the long term cycles.
2) As you lower a horizontal antenna from around .25 wavelength to say .1 wavelength or even lower, you may see some improved S/N ratio for receiving but the trade off is that you will have a weaker transmitting signal. With QRP operation, this may make it more difficult to make contacts.
3) There have been some claims that lowering the antenna well below .25 wavelength increases the TX NVIS signal, but my tests have shown the opposite and agree with NVIS theory. Some claim that their results were possibly due to their soil conditions, e.g., low fertility soils with RF ground being way below the soil surface.
I suggest that those who would like to try NVIS operation, compare the signals on RX and TX between an 80 meter dipole at perhaps .13 wavelength (~ 33 feet) and one around .05 wavelength (~ 13 feet). I think that most would be find the higher antenna to be superior in performance. The reason is that once you go much below .10 wavelength, a large part of the radiation is being absorbed by the ground and is not radiated.
Even an 80 meter antenna at .25 wavelength (66 feet) which is not easy for most of us to build is likely to be superior to a lower antenna (on 80 meters). However, exceeding .25 wavelength would degrade NVIS performance.
A quick way to test this is to find out what kind of antennas your Section traffic net stations are using and compare their signals with their antenna type and height.
73,
Rick, KV9U
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by W4VR on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
NVIS antennas also make excellent low-noise receive-only antennas. For years I used an 80 meter horizontal dipole 7 feet above ground for reception-only on 160 meters. For transmitting I used an inverted-L. I could hear stuff on the NVIS I could not hear at all on the inverted-L.
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by NU0R on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have been interested in NVIS antennas for a long time but have not used one to date. I am not really interested in DX much, being much more into a good stateside rag chew. I do have a question. Is there a skip zone around you while running NVIS? What I mean is can I talk out to say 30 to 50 miles on 40 meters, which would probably not be possible on ground wave in my part of the country? Also does the NVIS pattern expand out at night like normal 40 meter propagation does? My ideal goal would be to be able to reach hams from a region just beyond ground wave distance and out to say 400 to 500 miles. Anyone know these answers? Thanks a lot Bruce NU0R
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by K0BG on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Do you know what the really sad part is? Most everybody's dipole is NVIS because they are not mounted high enough. Not by choice, but by circumstance (W8JI's dipoles notwithstanding).
Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by K3AN on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I cringe whenever I read how someone has put an 80 or 40 Meter antenna up just 7 feet, or 3 feet, or some other very low height, BY CHOICE!
Please go to L. B. Cebik's web site and find his "Notes on Cloud Burners" page (link below), and read the section titled "Supplemental Data on NVIS Dipoles."
http://www.cebik.com/wire/cb.html
As I interpret the tables on that page, on 75 meters, the ideal height for a cloud burner is around 39 feet. This maximizes the gain while maintaining the radiation lobe at 86 to 90 degrees (straight up) over any type of soil. As you go higher, there is a further improvement in gain, but the lobe angle begins to drop toward the horizon. The tables further show that with the dipole at 13 feet vs. 39 feet, you lose anywhere from 3 to 6 dB of signal strength. That's like taking your 100 Watt rig and reducing the output power to 50 or even 25 Watts.
Extrapolating to 40 Meters, the ideal NVIS height would appear to be about 20 feet. By raising your antenna from 6 to 20 feet and getting that 3 to 6 dB improvement, your 100 Watt rig should work as if it were putting out somewhere between 200 and 400 Watts.
Raise that 40M NVIS dipole. You'll put out a stronger signal and you'll also keep it out of harm's way from trespassers and animals.
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by K6TBR on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think that if everyone could raise their 40M attennas to a more theoretical and 'effective' height, they (we) would do it. Since we, for whatever reason, aren't able to, OR want something specific (i.e. simple communications on the band), NVIS below 10 feet really works! It's not about efficiency at this point, it's about practicality, and if it allows me to check-in to my favorite net, or, as in some cases, allows me to work DX stations late at night, I don't care much about how much of my output is warming the turf beneath the antenna!
73, Mike
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by AA4PB on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Have you run tests that show that you can make your net with the antenna at 7 feet but can't make it at 20 feet? As far as practicality, it seems more practical to me to string a wire dipole at 20 feet than it does at 7 feet where you have to consider the potential for someone running into it. I think a lot of people are using NVIS antennas on 75 and 40M and don't even know it :-)
|
|   |
|
NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Nice article. I think Alan hit the nail on the head though. It would be nice to have my wire up at 125-150 ft, but in about 50 years or so when my oak trees grow that high I doubt I`ll still be here. :-)
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by N0TONE on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with others. Below 1/8 wavelength high, you are not improving your ability to work closer-in stations, you are simply weakening your signal to elsewhere. If you have a choice, do not mount below 1/8 wavelength (about 16 feet for 40 meters). It's not about whether you're warming the earth, it's about whether you're providing the most usable signal to the other station that you can.
I've done those experiments on 160, 80 and 40 and have never once seen a time when I could more readily make a QSO with a very low antenna, compared with 1/8 wavelength high. Above 1/8 wavelength, the angle of radiation starts coming down, and you lose some of your ability to work close-in.
AM
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by NU0R on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
No one has stated how close in you can work on NVIS antennas. I mean can I work in really close or does the signal skip out to a minimum distance. some of you who either have or have had NVIS antennas can answer this one I think.
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by VE3WMB on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Lowering a 40M NVIS antenna below 15ft does indeed reduce the
the gain somewhat, but what it also often does is drastically improve S/N ratio on received signals when the band is noisy. I challenge those who are naysayers to give it a try for themselves.
I also want to add that NVIS is a great equalizer for QRP. When conditions are good for NVIS contacts you don't need much power to get good signal reports.
I recommend the following link for more NVIS info
http://www.w0ipl.com/ECom/NVIS/nvis.htm#dualhs
Michael VE3WMB
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by W6TH on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
K3AN mentions' this:
Please go to L. B. Cebik's web site and find his "Notes on Cloud Burners" page (link below), and read the section titled "Supplemental Data on NVIS Dipoles."
===================================================
Gosh bill, nothing new, all of Cebic's knowledge has been taken from textbooks of the past of some 70 years ago. Many just from the ARRL handbooks and much from the Antenna book by Dr. John Kraus.
This NVIS is old stuff, been used since the first horizontal antenna called the single half wave fed with a single wire, back in the years of 1920 or so. but new to you young kids, because you didn't read our old textbooks.
.:
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by KF4HPY on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hi All, I use NVIS antennas for portable use, and disaster relief. On the move I set up a hamstick dipole using Pro-Am adapter and 4 five foot TV masts set in a home made Big Foot mount. I discovered that if I isolate the adapter from the mast using the SO-239 socket; or completely isolate the elements from the adapter when using the lug terminals; I have excellant results. 200 mile 40m contacts using FT-817 Yaesu at 5W, and 10 and 25 mile verifications from stations (friends) checking into the net during the winter. For Katrina we used this setup from Mississippi Gulf Coast to JAX FL for Pactor using 100W. It works!! Ed Cravey KF4HPY
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by THERAGE on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice article. For the most part, some are right on the money. Albiet, some may have never carried a canvas back-pack for Uncle Sam either. High-angle radiation was the norm in the field, and as mentiioned for the emergency relief efforts during the Katrina aftermath. Although portable towers were used during war time, NVIS (as was called post vietnam) kept the communications going. Typically, military H.F. radios used a vertical whip antenna (with radials of course), and dipoles at 1/8 wavelength high (short-range skywave propagation, absolutely). It wasn't about collecting QSL cards, RST, or getting points for a contest. Try tapping two bare wires together with your fingers and call CQ ;-)
Compromise antenna, yes. But not by choice, by circumstance. It worked, and so does my dipole at 70 feet high. :-)
--... ...--
|
|   |
|
NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by KILOWATT on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've been a ham operator for about thirteen years and I can honestly say that the antenna system is only as good as the operator.
Of course, a 5 element beam on an eighty foot tower with 1500 watts of push will create a phenomenal signal vs. 5 watts into a random length sky-loop. But; the bottom line is.....they will both be heard!! Why? Because when conditions are in, they're in. And when they're not, they're not. End of story and end of all of the B.S. stories about antenna theory. At least as far as the eham.net theories I've seen.
Any hunk of wire WILL radiate a signal. Yes; some antennas will radiate more efficiently but they will all radiate. Personally, I don't care if the guy in New Guinea hears me at an S7 or at an S9. He still hears.....and logs....my station. That's about the only difference a tower and beam, with a kilowatt of push will make on a signal as compared to some guy with 50 watts and a random wire.
This is an important topic in amateur radio. Too many newcomers bail on the hobby because they think that they don't have the room or resources to erect a proper antenna. I say to them; B.S.!!! Buy yourself a rig and a high quality transmatch(antenna tuner) and the guy in South Africa won't be able to tell the difference between you and W1AW. Of course I'm exagerating a bit but you get the picture, right?
Get on the air. Whether it be with 20 feet of copper wire or with a four element beam.
Conditions are what truly count. Kilowatts and beams only make a real difference on ground waves. DXers don't give a damn about ground waves.
As a footnote; I've talked to the entire planet running only 12 watts and a "Star Duster" ground plane antenna. Why? Because I was operating at the last sunspot peak. I kicked the same tail that the big boys kicked.
Conditions, folks. Conditions. Don't you just love the science of propagation????????
Kilowatt
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by AA4PB on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Personally, I don't care if the guy in New Guinea hears me at an S7 or at an S9
-------------------------------------------------
That's a 2 S-unit difference. So what happens if the guy with the KW and beam is heard at S2? That means you aren't heard at all. Or, suppose its a DX pile up. That 2 S-units might make the difference of whether you get thru or not.
The antenna theory *is* correct and *does* make a difference. The goal is to put up the most efficient antenna you can for the type of operation you want to do. If a wire dipole is all you can do then that's what you do. You'll make contacts with it and work DX when the conditions are favorable. That doesn't mean that you should not put up a tower and beam if you can manage it. Spend your money on the antenna. It will make far more difference than an expensive rig with fancy filters. Of course, do both if you can.
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by N5VFF on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NU0R said:
-------
No one has stated how close in you can work on NVIS antennas. I mean can I work in really close or does the signal skip out to a minimum distance. some of you who either have or have had NVIS antennas can answer this one I think.
-------
My experience is that you don't have a skip-zone. You can work pretty evenly from 1 to max miles.
73/N5VFF
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by KE4SKY on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is no "skip zone" unless you create it.
Refer to FM24-18, Appendix “N” to understand the relationship between angle of radiation and the effective operating distance.
*Use dipole at 1/8 wavelength above ground
* Physical height is not critical
+/- 0.1 wavelength is OK
*Elevate 25 ft on 75-80 and 20 ft. on 60-40m if you can do so safely.
If you can’t erect a wire antenna safely, lay insulated wire on the ground! - with effective le transmatch it will work.
*Permits ~400 mile, “24 / 7” ops w/o “skip”
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"No one has stated how close in you can work on NVIS antennas. I mean can I work in really close or does the signal skip out to a minimum distance."
---------
For what it's worth here's my antenna observations:
Well it was just last weekend, I was listening to a station located 100 - 120 miles away from me communicating on 40 meters. This is not a local signal nor was it skip. I also heard a second station located approx. 60 miles away from me in the opposite direction on the same band on a nearby frequency at the same time of day.
The station located 120 miles away from me was telling someone during the conversation that he was using a ground mounted vertical and a 100 watt tranciever.
I was recieving his signal rather well (considering recent sunspot activity) around S6 - S7 using a R-390/A reciever and a 135 foot end fed zep.
My 135 foot end fed antenna is located in a downward sloping linear fashion in the shape of a "C" on my property exactly 33 feet off the ground at the feedpoint and it is 11 feet off the ground at it's lowest point at the very end of the "C" pattern.
On 20 meters this antenna behaves quite differently. I am located in Ohio. I can only observe signals coming from the skip zone primarily to the extreme S/W areas like Arizona, NM and California. It seems to also recieve in the extreme North East section in the Eastern Coastal Regions like Maine and New England states rather well.
In other words, I never hear states like Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas or Kansas etc. very well on this antenna. Yet, Arizona, NM, and California stations are very strong at my location. I also never hear stations in PA, NY state, and Maryland, but yet I can recieve stations in Maine, N.H., C.T. and MA extremely well.
I have observed that this end fed antenna definetly does not work as well as a simple vertical for pulling in stations from states like PA and NY states on the 20 meter band, but strangely enough it seems to outperm the vertical when recieving signals from the New England states.
So the bottom line and final solution seems to be that no antenna is perfect for all operating situations.
It seems that a combination of different antennas provides more flexibility for adapting to different operating situations. One size does not fit all.
|
|   |
|
NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by KC0TZS on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks, Carl, for a good article that also stimulated some interesting dialog. I'm a newbee to amateur radio with my current interests predominantly in the emergency communications area. As a result, I've been collecting as much information as possible on NVIS operations. As is obvious from the comments to your article, there are lots of varied opinions as to what does and does not work for NVIS and with lots of plausible reasons as to why and why not.
My brief experience with radio in general (licensed earlier this year) and NVIS in particular indicates to me that opportunity abounds for trial and error experimentation in order to find out what works best for each of us in varied circumstances. Nevertheless, empirical evidence seems to be somewhat lacking, and I, like others, would very much like to see more hardcore data (rather than theoretical data) presented (like AE5X's) with detailed descriptions of equipment used, the nature of the terrain, what the atmospherics were like at the time, and so on.
Very briefly, I have 40 and 80 meter dipoles up about 11 or so feet above somewhat uneven, mostly clay ground. I have not tried to use reflectors yet, but may to see what, if any difference that makes. And, while I have the yard space to run the 40 meter antenna straight, the 80 meter dipole is L-shaped wrapped around the feedpoint.
With limited experience over the past couple of weeks, I have been able to work as close in as about three miles and as far away as 1300 miles with varied success, although most contacts have been in the 300-600 mile range on both bands. (I should mention that I'm not entirely sure that the three mile contact was not groundwave versus skywave, but I have been that close in. I'll be curious to see over time how consistently I can communicate within the region around St. Louis.)
Again, thanks for getting the discussion started. Given Katrina and Rita and other such incidents, I expect regional EmComm communication needs will fuel more study of this type of antenna system.
73s,
Chuck
KC0TZS
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by AA4PB on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Looking at Cebik's modeling data it would appear that burying radials (or placing them directly on the ground) would have the effect of improving the ground conductivity and raising the gain by a few dB, depending on how high the antenna is. 26 to 39 feet appears to be ideal for a 75M NVIS antenna. Maximum radiation at 90 degrees and maximum gain. I would guess that many 75M dipoles are already around that high. You've also got to remember that although the maximum gain is at 90 degrees, there is still a substantial amount of radiation at lower angles so it is quite possible to work stations much farther away, depending on conditions.
One of the problems with testing antennas is that there are so many variables, including propogation. Unless you can switch quickly between them or have an aircraft to measure signal strength at various angles it is quite difficult to come to an absolute conclusion. I've had S5 to S9 signals on 40M with 5W and a Hamstick dipole at 15 feet over a 600 mile path. I've also worked plenty of stations and DX in a mobile with an antenna that is only a few percent efficient. Its a testiment to how little power you need sometimes to make the link rather than how good or bad the antenna is. To date I think the modeling programs are the most practical way for the average ham to learn what is going on with any given antenna.
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by K2WH on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ya know what the sad part of this and other articles about NVIS? It is treated like a brand new, just discovered, never before seen phenomenon.
NVIS has always been with us and as others have said in this article, the bulk of dipoles or other antennas are and have always been NVIS enslaved if too low in height.
What makes this news, is the acronim "NVIS", used by people to show others how smart they are. We used to just call it skywave or vertical radiation or 90 degree pattern.
Just remember, NVIS really means "Your antenna is too low".
K2WH
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by K2WH on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Looking at Cebik's modeling data it would appear that burying radials (or placing them directly on the ground) would have the effect of improving the ground conductivity and raising the gain by a few dB, depending on how high the antenna"
What are we stuck on stupid today? Of course that is the effect. What you are doing by putting radials directly below a dipole, is making a (2) element beam point straight up.
K2WH
|
|   |
|
RE: What I meant to say...............
|
|
|
by K2WH on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What are we stuck on stupid today? Of course that is the effect. What you are doing by putting radials directly below a dipole, is making a (2) element beam pointing straight up.
K2WH
|
|   |
|
RE: What I meant to say............... Again......
|
|
|
by K2WH on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What are we stuck on stupid today? Of course that is the effect. In actuallity, by putting radials down directly below a dipole, you are making a (2) element beam pointing straight up. No boom is involved.
K2WH
|
|   |
|
RE: What I meant to say............... Again......
|
|
|
by K2WH on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Your dipole is the driven element and the radials are the reflector(s).
K2WH
|
|   |
|
NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by K0RGR on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm very interested in this topic right now, and I've been doing some playing around with NVIS.
My antenna farm is pretty limited, due to a postage-stamp sized suburban lot and a 30 foot tower. 80 meter antenna #1 is an inverted-L that flat-tops at 30 feet. It hears fairly well on 80, with east coast signals usually booming in at night. Antenna #2 was erected as an NVIS experiment, it's a dipole 10 feet off the ground.
I've been listening and checking into the Saturday Minnesota section net on 75 meters and comparing the antennas. With the inverted-L, I can usually hear most of the stations all over the state, though poorly. The dipole gives much different results. I can hear the stations in the 75-150 mile range very well, much stronger on the dipole, but I can't hear the stations further away at all. I haven't heard anyone much closer than 75 miles check into the net, unfortunately. The noise level is much lower on the dipole, too, so the S/N ratio on the received signals is higher.
Last weekend, I cobbled together a 75 meter mobile rig and had my son (a Technician) listen to me on 75, while we talked on 2 meters, and I drove around the area. Once I got beyond line-of-sight, at a distance of about 15 miles, he could not hear me on 75 at all. Unfortunately, this is right where I am looking for something more reliable than what we currently have - this is a populated area that is hard to reach on VHF due to the terrain. We have many areas like this in our region, that are not served by any of our repeaters.
So, at this point, I'm trying to decide if it's worthwhile to try this on other bands with different antenna configurations, or not. On 40 meters, it seems that it would be practical to build a Moxon's rectangle pointing straight up, if someone wants real gain in that direction. You'd need two 25 foot masts.
|
|   |
|
RE: What I meant to say............... Again......
|
|
|
by AA4PB on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Your dipole is the driven element and the radials are the reflector(s).
-----------------------------------------------------
Sort of. Radials on or below ground are not resonant like a true reflector would be. They simply serve to improve the ground conductivity and reduce the losses in the soil. It's reducing the losses that yields the gain.
Anyway, that was my response to someone who wanted to put radials under it to see what would happen. Nothing stupid about it.
No, NVIS is not new technology. Hams have been doing it for years, many without even knowing it. What is more recent is hams doing it on purpose in an effort to provide close in HF communications for emergency use.
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by AA4PB on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K0RGR, what time of day did you do your driving tests? Its possible that during the daytime the ionosphere did not support NVIS and all you were getting was ground wave.
Also take a look at Cebik's data. On 75M when you drop below 26 feet all you do is increase the ground losses. The takeoff angle is about the same at 10 feet as it is at 26 feet. The ideal height (least amount of loss and a nearly 90 degree angle) is between 26 feet and 39 feet.
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by K2WH on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Sort of. Radials on or below ground are not resonant like a true reflector would be. They simply serve to improve the ground conductivity and reduce the losses in the soil. It's reducing the losses that yields the gain."
I beg to differ. Ground losses, are usually quite severe in typical non-seashore HF installation. Therefore, RF at the surface or just below the surface does not see the ground at all but readily and easily sees your highly conductive wire radial. Its akin to a copper wire laying in a bunch of broken glass and sand. The RF would only see the copper wire.
So, if you really want a good strong NVIS signal, string your driven element or dipole at the proper height and place a 5% longer radial on the ground below the dipole and have at it. A vertical beam pattern with gain.
K2WH
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by W6TH on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
Try this before you try any other suggestions:
On forty meters you only need to go up at one tenth of wavelength, or 13.7 feet. This will give a gain of some 3.0 dB the same as a two element yagi close spaced. You may also go up two tenths of a wavelength at 26.7 feet for close to 5 dB of gain.
The earth as the refector works the same as a reflector in yagi antennas.
At a quarter wavelength it will be up at 53.5 feet and will have a much lower radiation angle. We are looking more or less for NVIS, so keep it low.
There will be no need for any other wires in close proximity to earth.
I have kept my two half waves fed in phase (80 meter center fed Zepp) which has a gain of 1.8 dB on forty meters and with the 5 dB as a NVIS and the 1.8 db, I have plenty of signal to work Europe from California. My ERP is 479 watts with this arrangement.
Thanks for reading this. Hope you enjoyed reading this as much as I have enjoyed typing this.
73, W6TH.
.:
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Additional gain and radiation patterns can also be achieved in some cases in a horizontal wire dipole configuration by allowing the wire to droop slightly at the ends.
Ok, so some of you want me to back up this information right?
Go here to "Fold Bend & Mutilate":
http://www.cebik.com/gup/gup4.html
|
|   |
|
NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by G0GQK on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Most operators in the UK have their dipoles at about 20-25 feet above the ground which does help to keep out the continental QRM so British operators are mostly NVIS users. I'm sure that the few lucky ones who are able to raise their wire to 40-45 feet probably do suffer from interference from Europe. US operators are fortunate in that they will never be affected by "stacked" QRM from mainland Europe, we in the UK say, "its like a zoo on 40 today", that is if the band is open for contacts in the UK.
A number of years ago there was an article in "Practical Wireless " about using a dipole three feet above ground. An antenna this low could be useful for the poor souls who suffer from neighbours who complain about wire in the air or the neighbour who complains about interference to their TV even when the OM is sitting watching his own TV ! They'll never ever know its there if the antenna is thin wire covered in black plastic.
73, Mel G0GQK
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by G3SEA on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NVIS is used to good effect by many hams in the State wide Emergency net here on 7.088 Mhz.
KH6/G3SEA
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by AA4PB on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The earth as the refector works the same as a reflector in yagi antennas.
---------------------------------------------
Except that the soil generally has a lot of loss. The modeling programs show that the better the soil conductivity, the more signal is radiated vertically. Burying radials under it would improve the soil conductivity, would it not?
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by KILOWATT on September 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>That's a 2 S-unit difference. So what happens if the guy with the KW and beam is heard at S2? That means you aren't heard at all. Or, suppose its a DX pile up. That 2 S-units might make the difference of whether you get thru or not.
The antenna theory *is* correct and *does* make a difference. The goal is to put up the most efficient antenna you can for the type of operation you want to do. If a wire dipole is all you can do then that's what you do. You'll make contacts with it and work DX when the conditions are favorable. That doesn't mean that you should not put up a tower and beam if you can manage it. Spend your money on the antenna. It will make far more difference than an expensive rig with fancy filters. Of course, do both if you can.<
I see your point but keep this in mind;
I've had numerous qso's with stations that were slamming my meter at 60-over and they were running nothing more than a makeshift dipole strung across their living room or up in their attic. The kicker? They were QRP!! Makeshift antennas and one to five watts were ringing my rig's bell. Of course....again.....this was always within a few years of the sunspot peak.
Of couse we should all try to build the most effecient radiator that we can. It makes the hobby more enjoyable. But.....
Too many newcomers think that if they don't have the most effecient antenna, they may as well not even operate. This is so far from the truth. Any hunk of wire in the air is better than none AND, sometimes those mismatched and completely ineffecient hunks of copper perform some amazing feats. I've seen it a thousand times.
73's
Kilowatt
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by AA4PB on September 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree completely. Any antenna is better than nothing. Nothing is never an option as far as I am concerned. In the late 50's (sunspot maximum) I worked Michigan to California several times on 6M AM running 25W to a dipole taped to the ceiling of a one story building. I moved up to a halo on the garage roof as soon as I could and eventually to a yagi. I worked lots more DX and locals with the yagi than I did with the dipole :-)
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by K2WH on September 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Except that the soil generally has a lot of loss. The modeling programs show that the better the soil conductivity, the more signal is radiated vertically. Burying radials under it would improve the soil conductivity, would it not?"
Your have it wrong. Burying radials does not make the soil a better conductor. The soil conductivity stays relatively the same all the time. What they do provide is a better or highly conductive path for the RF to travel. Soil is a semi-conductor or an insulator and does nothing but dissipate power and contributes nothing to this discussion. Forget the soil.
Incidentally, it has been proven, radials are most efficient when just layed on the ground. The practice of burying radials is only for safety reasons so animals and humans do not trip or get shocked by them. There is no other reason.
Burying radials only 1" below ground begins to introduce losses since some power is lost in the 1" above the radials.
K2WH
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by KF4HPY on September 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hi, did you try an angle fitting on the mobile to bring the whip to parallel to the ground?? It worked for one of my froinds using a Hustler folding mast on his vehicle. See World Radio book on NVIS. Ed
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by AA4PB on September 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well yes, technically the radials do not change the actual conductance of the soil itself. They change the conductance of the reflective surface below the antenna. I don't agree that the soil is an insulator and has *no* impact because without radials the gain figures change with the type of soil. If the soil was an insulator then NVIS would not work because an insulator cannot reflect the signal. The operation of radials on or in the soil is impacted by the presence of the soil as shown by the fact that such radials are no longer resonant as they would be if they were high in the air. Soil, compared to copper wire, is a poor conductor but it does conduct enough RF to have some impact on the antenna.
The bottom line is that adding radials on or in the ground below the NVIS antenna will improve its efficiency.
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on September 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
PB, you ought to try an NVIS 6 Meter antenna!
Calculating from the example of the 40 Meter antenna mounted at 7 feet (.05 wavelength) I would suggest a 6 Meter antenna mounted at about 12 inches. Shoot, go for broke -- make it a nice ½ wave dipole folded into a loop!
I know of an ARES group that actually buried their 80 Meter dipole a few inches below ground once. The explanation given was that the fire vehicles, coming and going from the fire-camp, no longer knocked it down!
I smirkingly suggested that perhaps we should try this with the VHF antennas. A gal operating a packet set-up told me that she was trying this, as she pointed out her mag-mount antenna sitting on the ground. She did concede that she could only reach a few nodes, and somewhat intermittently! I placed her antenna atop the roof of the motorhome used as a mobile situation office -- she said she was having a much easier time with “connects”!
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by K2WH on September 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW Reply
by AA4PB on September 22, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Well yes, technically the radials do not change the actual conductance of the soil itself. They change the conductance of the reflective surface below the antenna. I don't agree that the soil is an insulator and has *no* impact because without radials the gain figures change with the type of soil. If the soil was an insulator then NVIS would not work because an insulator cannot reflect the signal. The operation of radials on or in the soil is impacted by the presence of the soil as shown by the fact that such radials are no longer resonant as they would be if they were high in the air. Soil, compared to copper wire, is a poor conductor but it does conduct enough RF to have some impact on the antenna.
The bottom line is that adding radials on or in the ground below the NVIS antenna will improve its efficiency."
Agreed.
K2WH
|
|   |
|
NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by K0RGR on September 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's possible that 75 was not the band to be on at that time. I'll also try replacing the 'L' with the dipole at about 25 feet high, and see what I get.
My mobile antenna for 75 is probably not the most efficient thing ever devised, either. I have a small Chevy Tracker, and I put a 75 meter HamStick on a 3-magnet magmount on the front of the roof. The magmount was physically grounded to the body. This much-too-tall arrangement was purposely bent back with a nylon rope and tied off on tow hook at the rear of the vehicle, so that the hamstick leaned back at more than a 45 degree angle. I was able to get a very good match to the antenna, surprisingly. If this system shows promise, I'll replace this kluge with something much more expensive and permanent. So far, I'm not inspired to open the wallet any further.
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by W9AC on September 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I cringe whenever I read how someone has put an 80 or 40 Meter antenna up just 7 feet, or 3 feet, or some other very low height, BY CHOICE!
The ideal NVIS height for a 40M dipole is close to 0.20 wavelength.
-Paul, W9AC
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by KILOWATT on September 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I cringe whenever I read how someone has put an 80 or 40 Meter antenna up just 7 feet, or 3 feet, or some other very low height, BY CHOICE!
The ideal NVIS height for a 40M dipole is close to 0.20 wavelength.
-Paul, W9AC
Paul.....
This just proves my point.
Antenna theory is so damned complex and involved that it can be quite unnerving to the neophyte.
I realize that there are absolutes where antenna theory is concerned but so many hams have had so much success with their own brand of antenna that it all eventually becomes very muddled to the "new guy", and he quickly can become discouraged.
I say this;
If you are a veteran amateur operator, build the most effecient antenna that your experience has taught you to build. The more effecient, the more solid contacts you will make.
If you are a newcomer;
Don't be confused and befuddled by all of this antenna lingo. Put some wire in the air, hook it all to a good quality antenna tuner(Palstar...hehe) and start operating. I'd rather hear your ineffecient cw signal than to hear no signal at all. I've been a ham for about 15 years and still I get a little dizzy whenever I read all of the antenna advice on the internet.
The bottom line is "to operate". SWR's and antenna efficency didn't mean crap when it all began. The same still applies.
Kilowatt
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by KILOWATT on September 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>I agree completely. Any antenna is better than nothing. Nothing is never an option as far as I am concerned. In the late 50's (sunspot maximum) I worked Michigan to California several times on 6M AM running 25W to a dipole taped to the ceiling of a one story building. I moved up to a halo on the garage roof as soon as I could and eventually to a yagi. I worked lots more DX and locals with the yagi than I did with the dipole :-<
I was once running a Swan 350 with about 200 watts of output into a dipole antenna. I contacted a fellow in Virginia Beach, VA. About 1200 miles away. I was getting him at full scale on my meter. So much so that I had to turn down the volume. He was getting me at about half scale on his meter. I was giving him 200 watts and he was cranking out a massive 5 watts!!!! He was running that 5 watts into an antenna strung across the ceiling of his living room. I had a full sized dipole strung between trees in my yard at a height of 50'.
Like I said;
There are some absolutes but.....
Conditions(propagation) are about 90% of the equation. When the atmosphere is charged and ready to refract radio signals, it's ready. And when the conditions aren't there.....
Good luck. No matter what your tower height or what your output.
Kilowatt
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by W9AC on September 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There's an excellent, in-depth article authored in QST by Ed Farmer, AA6ZM that addresses NVIS operations, and optimum antenna height. Those interested should seek out "A Look at NVIS Techniques," QST, January 1995, pp. 39-42.
The article addresses NVIS efficiency as a function of frequency and time of year (MUF), includes NEC modeling and many other sky-wave factors.
Going back through my copy of the article, the optimum NVIS height for a horizontal dipole is actually between 0.15 and 0.20 wavelength. At those wavelengths a horizontal dipole's efficiency is excellent at very high elevation angles based on NEC-2. Vertical elevation gain below 0.12 wavelength rapidly falls off and above 0.25 wavelength, it gradually falls -- creating a single optimum point at around 0.18 wavelength. This translates into a height of 24 feet for 40M and approximately 47 feet at mid-band for 75/80M.
Whether the antenna is at the optimum NVIS height or it's at the more traditional 1/4 wave height, solar flux plays a pretty big part in NVIS. NVIS propagation is relatively efficient between 80 and 40M at most hours during the summer when the solar flux is above 150; and near 12 noon during winter months if solar flux is above 100. NVIS during the darker hours of winter is not very useful for 40M & 60M although it can be for 75/80M, where even small changes in the solar flux can change NVIS propagation.
Paul, W9AC
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by KB9YGD on September 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thank You Carl for this excellent article.There are so many hams who simply dont understand this you know.Very well done.73,Norm.
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by WI7B on September 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ThanX for the article, Carl! It's got me enough interested in NVIS to begin setting-up a jump-pack and NVIS emergency portable station. Here's a good source for updated CUF and foF2...
=> http://www.ips.gov.au/HF_Systems/4/3
73,
---* Ken
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on September 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow, 200 Watts out from a Swan 350, that would be better than 300 Watts input!
Shoot, that means about .4 Amps, Smok’n!
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by KILOWATT on September 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Wow, 200 Watts out from a Swan 350, that would be better than 300 Watts input!
Shoot, that means about .4 Amps, Smok’n!<
Yep. At that time, it was my baby and it was peaked and tweaked by my local radio guru. Even had a couple of mods that I couldn't even begin to explain. Depending on the band; it ran between 150 and 200 watts.
I miss that radio.
Kilowatt
|
|   |
|
NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by NY4D on September 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great topic, needs to be understood better. Interested hams could do a bit of research on the critical frequency vs their bands of interest and the sunspot cycle. Also just a look at any basic handbook will show elevation angles for horizontal antennas. Anything 1/8 to 1/4 wavelength above ground will work well, as main lobe at these heights shows max or close to max gain straight up.
Practically, I have always had good nvis results with 75/80 meter inverted vees with the center at 28 to 35 feet. Also ok results out to 600 miles or so with the same antenna. Extrapolating to 40 means a center height of 14 to 18 feet. ANother thing to remember is that at low heights and thus high elevation angles there should be no directional bias, the azimuth patterns are basically circular. Great benefit for nets and emergencies.
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by VE3MFN on September 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"As a footnote; I've talked to the entire planet running only 12 watts and a "Star Duster" ground plane antenna. Why? Because I was operating at the last sunspot peak. I kicked the same tail that the big boys kicked."
Ahh! "Chicken band"!! (-;
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by KILOWATT on September 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>As a footnote; I've talked to the entire planet running only 12 watts and a "Star Duster" ground plane antenna. Why? Because I was operating at the last sunspot peak. I kicked the same tail that the big boys kicked."
Ahh! "Chicken band"!! (-; <
Chicken band? And what are you trying to say?
Believe it or not; up until recently, most of us hams came from the "chicken band".
Radio is radio. It doesn't matter what band in which a radio operator learned his craft. Keeping in mind that most of the hams now days don't even have the drive or intellect to learn CW at a meager 5wpm. And yet CBers are trash. hahahahaha! These pseudo-hams don't even see their own shortcomings.
This is the type of self-righteous, holier-than-thou crap that completely sickens me about most ham ops. They honestly think that because they memorized a question pool, that they are somehow more worthy to be on the air than eleven meter operators.
If you truly LOVE radio, you really don't give a damn which band it is practiced in. My humble opinion only.
Kilowatt
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by W6TH on September 25, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
Wow, 200 Watts out from a Swan 350, that would be better than 300 Watts input!
Yep, my Swan 350 did the same .389 ma times 900 vdc = 350 watts input. 350 times 60 percent equals 210 watts output. That is what the Swans 350's are rated for.
What's your problem?
.:
Remember that the surface of the earth's surface may not be the actual reflecting surface and is very possible that the reflecting surface is much further below the surface.
Think about that.
.:
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by A9KW on September 26, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think we should close this topic before it gets out of hand.
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by W8LV on October 2, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Been there, done that, and it works. And NVIS on 80 is also a good call, you get a good 300-400+ mile circle, NO skip zone, and it's a lot easier to place 132 feet of wire three feet off the ground as opposed to 70 feet off the ground, AND hide it from nosy next-door "neighbor" Wilmer and his mouthy overfed busybody wife, Wilma. Hey, even ON THE GROUND 14 ga insulated wire works. Not good, but it works. I think my elmer told me that this was discovered in WWI(!) when ops got tired of the enemy shooting the aerials (and I'm sure themselves!)down. So they tossed 'em right out of the trench and onto the ground. And the "aerials" still worked. If anybody knows for sure, let us know if this is more than an Urban Legend! Actually, anything long, insulated, and close to the ground works. I even loaded up a GUARD RAIL with an antenna tuner QRP once, and that worked. Just don't try it where anybody could touch it -- if QRO you could end up with Toasted Wilmer. Or Wilma!
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by K0JJ on October 4, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Before reading any of the information on this fourm. I was looking for an antenna to work stations in the Washington Salmon run qso party and California qso party. I live in Oregon and my regular dipole or vertical antenna didn't give the results I wanted on neighboring states. So I thought I would give NVIS a try. I used the dipole at seven feet and cut it for 7250. The swr was flat into a 50 ohm line and it checked out the same on my MFJ-259. I than added the three reflectors and the swr went up to 1.5-1 and resonant frequency was still close to 7250. I made my reflectors out of number 14 wire and just made them around 70 feet long. Operating in the two contests I observed the following. I could not copy stations 20 miles away on ground wave but stations 40-50 miles away the signals S9 plus and noise level S2-3. On my 14AVQ vertial at 20 feet and 3 radials noise level was S-9 and I could not hear the same station. On Stations from 40 to 500 miles the NVIS out preformed the vertical . 500 to 1000 miles station would be some time the same or the vertical would be stronger. What I like about the NVIS was the signal to noise ratio. As a result I worked a lot more stations than I would have with the verical. I only have made one check on DX and that was when I worked S9SS on the verical and I could just hear him on the NVIS. Still nothing will beat a dipole or beam up high. Part of Ham Radio is trying out all these fun things.
Jerry K0JJ
|
|   |
|
NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by VK4DGG on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have been using a full wave 80 meter loop on both 40 and 80 meters for about 2 years now. The loop is mounted about 20 feet above ground. I have found it gives very good performance on both bands. I can work stations as close as 10 miles and as far away as 600 to 1000 miles. It is a very quiet antenna. My Gap Titan vertical sometimes has a noise level of S7 but the loop will only have S2. It is of no use for DX although I can hear many US stations but they can't hear me. I ended up with a loop mostly because my property wasn't big enough for a 80 meter dipole, but upon measuring the property discovered the circumference would permit the loop. I understand that many of the folks helping in the disaster relief operations are having good luck with 40 and 80 meter NVIS.
73's
Mark
VK4DGG
|
|   |
|
RE: NVIS and 40 Meter CW
|
|
|
by VE3MFN on October 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Chicken band? And what are you trying to say?
Believe it or not; up until recently, most of us hams came from the "chicken band".
Radio is radio. It doesn't matter what band in which a radio operator learned his craft. Keeping in mind that most of the hams now days don't even have the drive or intellect to learn CW at a meager 5wpm. And yet CBers are trash. hahahahaha! These pseudo-hams don't even see their own shortcomings.
This is the type of self-righteous, holier-than-thou crap that completely sickens me about most ham ops. They honestly think that because they memorized a question pool, that they are somehow more worthy to be on the air than eleven meter operators.
If you truly LOVE radio, you really don't give a damn which band it is practiced in. My humble opinion only."
I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here, the title of this thread is "NVIS and 40m CW" and the propogation characteristics thereof. Yes, the 11m and 10m band can be amazing with a cycle peak and minimal power. You approach this fact with the attitude (or seem to) that these posters are somehow not aware of this fact, a characteristic which I find all too common among some so called 'freebanders'!! Additionally, I didn't acquire my ticket 26 years ago using a 'question pool'----we had questions requiring narrative answers and the drawing of schematics etc. so there was in fact some work involved.....In my own case I was and still am an avid SWLer and had never owned an 11 meter radio and I suspect that is the case for quite a few of the newer hams....I agree with you re: some snotty hams and their attitude etc. but bear in mind when CB (GRS in Canada)was established it was intended as short point to point communication and not for experimentation, long haul DX etc. and no test or demonstrating of knowledge was required. The regulation of this General Radio Service, when it became apparent that it would collapse because of mutual interference and insufficient funding for enforcement etc., ended and it became indeed a 'playground'. Methinks you are too sensitized to even joking criticism of this fact. I think we should stay on subject here which again is NVIS and 40 meter CW.
Richard VE3MFN
|
|   |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
N.V.I.S. Portable Antenna
The Bow String Antenna for 18 MHz
Hide Your HF Vertical in Plain Sight
Build the Amazing Paint Pole Vertical
Build My Antenna!
Other Antennas Articles
Log Periodics for Rovers
Remote Tuned Slinky Dipole for Restricted Hams:
Mythical Antennas
Hide in Plain Sight!
Inverted V, Vertical Rhombic
|
|
|