I Prefer the Vertical
Vito Chiarappa (W6TH)
on
May 14, 2006
View comments about this article!
Here is a bit of information I have acquired from a fellow ham W8JI, information taken from eznec. Tom was very kind to offer such.
Over average soil the gain of a 7MHz dipole 1/2 wl high is 8.1 dBi. That gain peak is at 30 degrees.
The dBi referenced gain is:
A 1/2 wl vertical with 100 1/2 wl radials over the same soil has:
..........30 deg = 8.11dBi.
..........20 = 7.31.
..........10 = 2.96.
A 1/2 wl vertical with 100 1/2 wl radials over the same soil has:
..........30 deg = -1.29dBi.
..........20= 0.48 dBi.
..........10= -0.38 dBi.
The gain peak for the horizontal is at 30 degrees. The dBi referenced gain is 8.11 dBi.
The gain peak for the vertical is at 30 degrees, 30 degrees? The dBi reference gain is -1.29 dBi.
This is in error as the gain peak of a half wave vertical at 30 degrees? In reality a half wave vertical is 20 degrees. The useful lobe is from 5 to 35. (5 plus 35 divided by 2 equals 20)
What I am interested in is the test used to determine the gain of both antennas?
Also for a 30 degree dipole the first hop would be 600 miles with the "F" layer at 220 miles.
The vertical with 20 degree the first hop will be approximately 950 miles with the "F" layer at 220 miles…Were these tests properly done by being in the far field range?
The far field region starts at a range 8(n^2) lambda for radiation of wavelength lambda and antenna height h = n (lambda).
Having placed a vertically orientated dipole at a certain height above a perfectly conducting infinite plane earth. If the earth were not there, the field pattern above the earth would be identical, and would be modeled by the sum of the fields from the source dipole and its image.
The image of the vertical dipole in the ground plane consists of a existing dipole having the exact current direction as the source dipole. The electric fields from the source dipole meet the ground plane at right angles, the electric field on opposite sides of the plane would be in the same direction if we assumed the plane was not physically there, but the field distribution was entirely created by the source and its image.
This now becomes a 2-element array with the source elements fed in phase.
We must now realize that there is no radiation going upwards from the top of the vertical as there is a null.
Not so with the horizontal dipole as radiation is projecting outward and upward from the surface of the earth, two entirely different antenna systems and should be treated separately and not compared as to gain measurements, but each to its own gain.
Again to be reminded: The dipole at a height of 1/2 wave, the radiation angle is 30 degrees, the half wave vertical is 20 degrees as the lobe is from 5 to 35 degrees. The two different radiation angle degrees will have different paths for a given point of reception and should be considered by actual use.
Why I prefer the Vertical over the Horizontal
Low radiation angle, something to tinker with for self-enjoyment and in my opinion a better antenna suited for DXing at low cost compared to the dipole.
I may not be available for comment should this be posted on eHam as I will be flying to my new destination.
73 to all, W6TH
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by N0AH on May 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Force 12 has been very successful with vertical dipoles. I have the Force 12 40XK which they explained to me how it worked over the phone. It is similar to what Vito is saying but I can't say that description was exact.
The vertical dipole I use is the Force 12 40XK. It is an amazing antenna and I have mine dedicated to 30M now.
It covers a very wide range of bandwidth (10-40M) but has to be manually tuned to each band. That said, it is a good example of a vertical dipole.
http://force12inc.com/sigma40XKinfo-001.htm
It uses T-loading (variable length horizontal elements attached at the top and bottom of the antenna) which allows the resonant point to be changed.
All of the radiated power comes off the fixed length vertical portion of the antenna. The antenna's resonance point is only changed by adjusting the length of the T-rods. (feed point coils too on 30/40M)
Electrically, the T's are 180 degrees out of phase, allowing for changes in resonance when adjusted but they do not interfere with the antenna's vertical radiation.
Make the T's longer, you go lower in frequency. Shorten them, and you go higher in frequency-
Without T's, (no top-loading) the impedence is around 90 ohms. That is for 10 meters. But once you start adding top loading by adding horizontal elements to the top and bottom of the antenna, the antenna's impeadance goes to 50 ohms.
So your a bit higher in SWR at 10M (1.8:1) but you'll get a very flat usable bandwidth range elsewhere as the top loading causes the antenna's impedence to drop to 50 ohms.
No, this is not an ad for Force 12, I'm just trying to explain my experience and agree with Vito that vertical dipoles work FB. The DX take off angles sound correct as well.
These antennas are not direction from what I have been told. I do not notice anything on my vertical dipole suggesting it.
The downside of my vertical dipole, at least with the 40XK, is that the elements making up the T's on the bottom can sit too low to the ground. I have heard 4 feet off the ground is a good place to start but I am only guessing. I have mine at 4 feet just in case.
OK, so I'm sure I have errors in my description of the Force 12 40XK but this is what I can recall. And I think I am close on target. It works very well. Mine is aluminum but I have seen these antennas in manuals made from wire-
I think my next DX'pedition will include a vertical dipole. Looking forward to seeing what others have to say about vertical dipoles. Seems like a good indoor antenna-
|
| |
|
I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by AE6RO on May 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well my pet peeve is the overuse of computer modeling of antennas.
I have read various books discussing all sorts of vertical antennas that were computer modeled and they come up with <blah> dBi, etc. but an antenna is a Real World Device. It is sitting out there over a Real Earth with real buildings, trees, power lines, and God-knows what else which will influence the radiation pattern and the gain, and the take-off angle of a vertical antenna.
In short, if one wishes to experiment you take the design and build it, install it, and see how it works.
Otherwise, as someone else expressed it, it is a mere excercize in Onanism.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by N6AJR on May 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
welllllllllll... I have a hustler 5btv, ground mounted, 10-80 and works everywhere but not the best.. I have a gap voyager, great on 160/80 and 40 and although it tunes the entire 20 m band it is deaf on 20. and I have a 160/80/40 sloper and it works ok on most of the bands. And I have a steppir 3 ele horizonta yagi and an ma5b for the higher frequencies.
fo all 160/80 40 the gap voyager is the best, then the wire and 5btv alternate as to who is #2 depending on conditions. the Steppir is always best on 20 - 6 and the ma5b is what I use when feeling lazy. I also have multiple radios so I use a different antenna to have more than 1 rig on at a time.
By far the voyager is best for 160-40 and it is BIG at 45 feet tall, with a big capacity hat and three 61 foot "these are not radials" at the bottom.
the steppier works best on 20-6.
the hustler is ok for $159 new and easy to put up and does make contacts , especially 10-40. the ma5b is a good small antenna and does work and make contacts but the Steppir work 1-2 sunits better..
so generally speaking the Bigger the antenna the better for signal capture, and resonance is very important, but they all make contacts, and the availability of more than one lets me use the best one for conditions.
But Remember the first rule of antennas..
ANY ANTENNA IS BETTER THAN NO ANTENNA AT ALL !!
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by HB9PJT on May 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
According to your numbers the horizontal antenna is 7 dB better at 20 degrees (7.31 dBi vs. 0.48 dBi). 7 dB is equal to 5 times the power. That means you need 20 watt with the horizontal to get the same signal compared to the vertical with 100 watt when the radiation angle is 20 degrees.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by W8WLC on May 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well four years ago I ran a side by side test with the Gap challenger and a Hustler 6BTV. The Challenger had the 3 counterpoise wires installed and the 6BTV used 4 elevated radials (if you want to call them that as they were 8-12 inches above ground) tuned to the band used. The only bands tested were 80 and 40 meters. The Hustler antenna was the clear winner by several lengths no questions asked. Test were done while in actual contact with DX stations. Interesting point many of the DX stations could not even hear me on the challenger. Not trying to kick the challenger but money talks and BS walks. To this day I still use a 6BTV vertical. To heck with computer generated patterns I will take real time performance anyday.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by AA4PB on May 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Unless the vertical is installed in an open field somewhere with plenty of radials under it, it is not likely to perform as the modeling software would indicate. Most of us install verticals in a small back yard, with a minimum of radials, surrounded by buildings, power lines, trees, and various noise generators. Most often the typical vertical is heavily loaded on the lower bands which adds to the loss. The result is that verticals generally get a "bad rap" and in fact may not always be the best choice for the environment where we place them.
|
| |
|
I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by N6TZ on May 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, I don't always agree with W6TH, but I will go along with the basics on this essay. The vertical with more than 1/4 wavelength of height can be a very effective radiator.
I live on a very small lot, so no room for a horizontal wire of any size. I shunt feed my 50 foot tower on 30, 40, 60, 80, and 160. On 30 and 40 meters it is a DX blessing. CW is a blast with pile-up busting results.
Shunt feeding a tower can be a lot simpler than it is always shown in the handbooks. In my case, the tower with the shunt feed forms what is commonly known as a "unipole", or basically a vertical portion of a "folded dipole". My configuration of the tower and wire is a tall triangle. This basic configuration is used in broadcast towers, the field which I work in.
ONE CAVEAT however, in our modern neighborhoods with all of the digital crap from computers, TVs, phones, etc, the noise on receive is unbearable. You better have a small horizontal receive anetnna or a loop, or you won't hear what you need. On 30 it is not too bad, but as you go down in frequency it gets worse.
My antenna system is complicated and probably more than the normal Ham will undertake, but it could be simplified by using an auto-tuner in place of my homebrew old-fashioned tuner. You can see the full details of my system at the following site:
http://earthsignals.com/N6TZ
The address is case sensitive, so copy and paste it for easy use.
Hal, N6TZ
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by NI0C on May 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0AH:
The Force 12 Sigma 40XK is indeed a very good DX antenna. Your four ft. height above ground is exactly what Force 12 recommends for low angle work. Mine is at five feet.
I just learned that they sell a Sigma 40XKR version, which can be remotely electrically switched between 20m, 30m, and 40m (where the T bar lengths are the same). They will also sell you an upgrade kit for the 40XK. I'm thinking about upgrading mine for quick bandswitching.
73,
Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by N9WB on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, I had a 90-degree (¼ wave) vertical for 80 meters. It had 8-¼ wave radials buried 6 in and 10-10 ft radials buried 6 in. and 4-10 ft ground rods for grounding. It had a 1.3:1 SWR.
I also had a classical half wave inverted vee with a 150 degree apex angle at 50’ and a Hy Gain BN 86 at the feed point. It had a 1.2 to one SWR.
For signals out to about 800 miles, the dipole seriously outperformed the vertical by at least 3 S units. From 800 to 1000 miles it was a toss up. Into Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South America and Japan, The Vertical blew the dipole away.
Now on 20 meters I had a 20-meter ground plane at 35 ft on my barn roof. It was 90 degrees long (¼ wave) and had 4-90-degree radials that dropped at a 150-degree angle. I later put up a TH6DXX at 50 ft. and it was only about 1 S unit above the ground plane on 20 meters. Now of course, the receive rejection on the beam was a decided advantage on the beam.
I have come to the following conclusion:
Out to 1000 miles the dipole is superior to a vertical. Beyond 1000 miles, the vertical will be superior.
Realistically speaking, For stateside rag chewing less than 1000 miles out, the dipole or a horizontal loop is best. For DX, an efficient vertical is best.
But a good beam is always best.
Now Sports Fans, how serious are you about 80 meter DX? Think you are? Click here:
http://www.pannondxc.hu/hamnews/hu/csoda/yagi80m5ele.jpg
This Gentleman is REAL SERIOUS about 80 meter DX!
N9WB Walt
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by N3HKN on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Isn't a vertical really a dipole with one-half spread out on the ground in the form of radials. Or, look at it as an inverted V with a a 90 degree apex, again one-half is spread out on the ground. Without using modeling an average Ham might conclude, with no consideration to take-off angle, that the vertical would put out less signal since it is a vertical dipole where 1/2 is laying on the ground.
However, that portion laying on the ground, while being a very poor part of the radiation function, does provide a good reflection function. Thus the vertical redeems itself by offering a low angle of radiation for DX as noted above. With 1/2 laying on the ground it is seriously unbalanced. This is one reason why "radials" (the other half of the dipole) are usually more effective when 5% to 10% greater in length than the 1/4 wave vertical but you still end up with around 30 ohms impedance at the base. The commercial folks earn their $300 price tags from spending lots of time fiddling the antenna to get a reasonable 50ohm match on all of the claimed bands.
There is an excellent work by two Hams that presents testing of several commercial verticals against a full 1/4 wave vertical on some of the HF bands. It is advertised in the QST classifieds as a book that details the results. It has been awhile since I have read it but it is the best comparison on a test range I have ever seen. While anecdotal "reviews" are helpful, this book keeps things in perspective.
Dick N3HKN
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by KB9CRY on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's not quite clear in the original article but what the author is doing a comparison on is commenting on the differences between a single element vertical and a single element dipole(redundant?).
Obviously comparing the angles of the dangles and "theoretical" gains over the perfect radiator, one would be led to believe that the vertical is the cure-all.
Well, that depends, there are other factors to consider:
Frequency, Domestic vs. DX, Cost, Receiving ability are a few that come to mind.
For the upper HF bands, it doesn't cost too much to get a dipole up a wavelength but it does cost a lot more to get a Low Band dipole up a wavelength.
Dipoles are in theory better for domestic work than a vertical which in turn is better theoretically for DX. A problem with verticals though is that they radiate and receive equally well in all directions with no front to back or front to side noise rejection. Dipoles do have some nulls which makes them a slightly better receiving antenna. Verticals are better at picking up all that manmade vertically polarized noise than a dipole.
As another poster mentioned, nothing beats a nice multi-element yagi up high. That is very true and is the reason all the top stations have them, they work. You get more gain than the single element antennas and you also get front to side and front to back rejection.
Personally I have a bunch of everything. Yagis up high for the upper HF bands, multi-element vertical arrays for one of the lower bands and shunt feeding a tower for 160M and some receiving loop antennas and beverages to supplement the verticals for receiving.
In my own experience, I started out with a low dipole which worked but not far enough, for the upper HF bands. Then a vertical mounted up on the chimney worked real well and a ground mounted vertical for the Low Bands got me on the air but the noise/receiving limitations became poignantly evident. The chimney vertical also showed it's limitations with no front to rejection and once replaced with a small 3 el yagi, I was cooking.
Then the new QTH with mulitple towers and all sorts of goo and I'm really cooking.
My experience is for the upper HF bands (10-20M), it's a wash between a vertical and a dipole that's up in the air a ways, but for the lower bands, yes verticals are the more cost effective option but you may want to also have a dipole strung up to use as a receiving antenna. Obviously there's many options and there's no one clear cut winner or else everyone would be doing that.
Phil KB9CRY
|
| |
|
I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by N0AH on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm pretty sure that Vito is comparing a vertical antenna to a vertical dipole. Vito if I am wrong, please clear this up-
A vertical dipole is a different cat than that cloud warming wire thing hanging off your 25 foot tower. hi
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Vito W6TH wrote:
"The dBi referenced gain is:
A 1/2 wl vertical with 100 1/2 wl radials over the same soil has:
..........30 deg = 8.11dBi.
..........20 = 7.31.
..........10 = 2.96.
A 1/2 wl vertical with 100 1/2 wl radials over the same soil has:
..........30 deg = -1.29dBi. ..........20= 0.48 dBi. ..........10= -0.38 dBi."
::Am I the only one who noticed this amazing contradiction? Obviously, both these statements cannot be correct.
::But, what I think is probably more important for the average ham looking to install a usable HF antenna isn't how strong his signal will be at 600 miles, 900 miles or any other distance; but how usable the antenna really is for making contacts. Since most (average) hams use the same antenna for transmitting and receiving, an antenna's performance in both modes (TX and RX) is very important. If the station can run high power, then "RX" might be more important, especially if he expects to contact many stations running less than high power.
::To this end, directionality is key in rejecting noise and a single vertical doesn't provide any.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by N2WN on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Modelling is all well and good for an "ideal" situation. It generally assumes no obstructions, manmade or natural. Both of these can help or hinder a signal, depending on where and what. Verticals work, I can personally vouch for that from experience. The degree to which they work is another story. Right now with my verticals surrounded by fully foliaged trees, I don't bust the pileups like in the Autumn after the leaves have fallen. I prefer the top loaded vertical, from my experiences, for DX work. For closer in, I'd sure like to have some dipoles. For 40M and up, I'd be inclined to put my vertical on the roof. This assumes you can stay well clear of power lines. Generally a roof is clear of many obstructions and if you have an attic you can put radials in the attic and keep the roof clear.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by W9PMZ on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"::To this end, directionality is key in rejecting noise and a single vertical doesn't provide any."
Verticals do have directivity. In fact an ideal monopole (vertical) has twice the directiviy of a dipole.
As I recall the reason why verticals are more noisy than a dipole is because most (man made) noise tends to be vertically polarized.
73,
Carl - W9PMZ
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: I Prefer the Vertical Reply
by W9PMZ on May 15, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"::To this end, directionality is key in rejecting noise and a single vertical doesn't provide any."
Verticals do have directivity. In fact an ideal monopole (vertical) has twice the directiviy of a dipole.<
::How's that, Carl?
::Using wideband loop antennas that are extremely plane critical, and snooping the planet with those loops and a spectrum analyzer for a receiver, I never found any real evidence that "noise" (HF-VHF RF spectrum) was more vertically oriented than horizontally -- maybe it is, but how do we confirm this? I tried for years, and never could...
::What have you found?
73,
Steve WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by W9PMZ on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, since you ask.
From page 36 of "Antenna Theory and Design"
Directivity. Directivity (D) is now simply defined as the maximum value of directive gain, or
D = Um / Uavg (radiation intensity is a certian direction to the average radiation insensity)
manipulating,
D = 4*pi / OmegaA OmegaA is the beam solid angle.
Integrating OmegaA for an ideal dipole yields 8*pi/3
Therefore D = 4*pi / 8*pi/2 or 3/2, for an ideal dipole.
Similarily,
From page 93 of the same book,
Dmono = 4*pi / OmegaA mono = 4*pi / 1/2 OmegaA dipole,
or,
Dmono = 2*Ddipole
73,
Carl - W9PMZ
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Carl,
Problem is, that's not directionality that's useful for noise rejection. The "directionality" of a vertical is from radiation angle compression; the antenna has deep nulls directly above and below, and a strong lobe at some angle above, but usually close to, the horizon.
Unfortunately, that's exactly where all the "man made" noise comes from. It's generated by stuff in households and utility power transmission equipment, all of which is located at or very close to ground level, so the more gain a vertical antenna has, the stronger all that noise will be.
The single vertical is omnidirectional with respect to that gain-providing lobe.
By contrast, a simple horizontal dipole has deep nulls off its ends and relative "gain" in two lobes off its broad sides. The nulls off its ends are very useful in noise rejection, unlike the nulls created by a vertical (straight up and straight down), because those directions aren't generating any appreciable noise.
If anyone reading this has a "lower noise" vertical antenna than a horizontal one, I'd like to hear about that.
I don't believe (might be convinced by some real data, but otherwise don't believe) that noise is any more vertically polarized than it is horizontally polarized. In fact, when using vertical steerable arrays (4-squares, etc), I've been able to "null" noise just as well with directional vertical antennas as with directional horizontal ones. I've just never been able to null it with a single vertical.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WW5AA on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For 10-40 DX transmit:
Winner, A3S beam with 40 meter add on.
Second, 5BTV, base at 20 Ft. 3 tuned radials per band.
Third, 135' doublet at 50'.
For 10-40 DX recieve:
Winner, A3S beam
Second, 512' beverage at 10'
Third, 135' doublet
fourth, 5BTV
For 80 meter DX transmit:
Winner, 5BTV
Second, 135' doublet
For 80 meter DX recieve:
Winner, 512' beverage at 10'.
Second, 135' doublet
Third, 5BTV
For 80 meter to about 500 miles:
Winner, 135' doublet
Second, 5BTV
Notice: your results may very (or is that for a diet pill?)
73, de Lindy
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WHATURNUTS2 on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is interesting. However, I still have the original question I had years ago about antennas.
What makes them work.
Sure I have read the books. I have listened to all the pros say this antenna is better than that one. This is really the end result. I still want to know what makes the antenna work. I understand about the E and I along its length and it resonance requirement. But, arn't these things which are being coupled into the either (for a better word). What is the either made of. We know it has to be particles of soemthing but what? Magnetic, electrostatic, voltage field, current field?
I think to really understand how a antenna works one has to start with what it makes the either do. How then its transported across the vast spaces and then converted back into something we can detect.
Tulsa has some very interesting views on the subject if one has the time to stop and think about what he is trying to convey. (I was most interested in his world resonance theroi)
We are experianceing the band conditions which are not favorable to commucations. Why. If the suns energy is controlling the boundars (laiers) what sets up the laiers in the first place. what is their engine or how do they happen other than we just say, sunspots.
Is their a area in the spectrum that our transmitters are more effecent and break the normal boundarys of commucations?
I know this sounds a little off the subject but, I feel that the true reason our antennas work has yet to be considered. Thus the issue of Vertical vs Horzontal is again the end result and not the tech reason why they preform the way they do. Yet I see no research going on on the subjects. Are we content to just be a appliance user and not a investiagator as to why instead of how?
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by W9OY on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is the most readable article on how an antenna works I have yet to see
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/whyantradiates.html
73
W9OY
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WW5AA on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WHATURNUTS2,
All your questions are covered in electronics 101. This discussion is a little above that.
Start with:http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/
73, de Lindy
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by W9PMZ on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From a search on the web brings an explaination from W8JI regarding noise polization,
"By Tom Rauch,W8JI
Topband Antenna mail list, October 31, 2000
You hit the nail on the head Mike.
The reasons local noise sources are predominately vertically polarized are because horizontally polarized signals are radiated and received at high angles by most "antennas" (intentional or accidental antennas) because of their low height. Besides that, any horizontal content of the signal is attenuated more than vertical components as it propagates along earth.
Bottom line is nothing makes it along the earth on groundwave any distance on low frequencies because the earth "shorts out" any horizontal electric fields, and of course when the time-varying electric field goes to zero so does the accompanying magnetic field. You can't have one without the other. "
If I've taken W8JI's explaination out of context my appologies. But it seems reasonable to me.
73,
Carl - W9PMZ
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by N5EAT on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Tulsa has some very interesting views on the subject "....
And so did Tesla. But seriously ladies and germs.
I had a Butternut HF-6V up about 27 feet. I had the radials for each band comming off at about 60 degrees.
This antenna competed locally with guys who were using
your garden variety 3 and 4 element 20-10 Yagis. When
watts were equal this antenna had no deficiencies relative the the directional antennas. Many times I was several S-units better to Japan, Europe, South Pole, etc than the Yagis.
I took that antenna down after I watched it blow over
90 degrees in a strong thunderstorm and come dangerously close to some phone/power lines. I replaced it with a Cushcraft R5. This was also a great antenna (without 40 and 80).
The one limitation of a vertical (my experience only) is that you really do lose the ability to communicate
locally (0 to 500 miles). You can fix that with a simple cut to band dipole mounted horizontally. For 2 years I participated in local cw practice nets (all 250 mile radius) with a dipole literally laying on the ground. It didn't need a tuner either. I am now using a couple ham-stick dipoles and I get good performance out of them. For some reason, they can work every known amateur station in Honduras in addition to the local stuff.
But generally I stick to my verticals, whatever they may be at the time.
One of the prime rules of Verticals. They ARE vertical antennas. Get the feed point up as high as possible. If you have to ground mount, lay down as much wire as you can.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WHATURNUTS2 on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well... yes we have been through all that and have found some errors in the writings vs basic phyiscs. I know some of you will find this booring but, no where does it say what or where the electron particle density plays on or is located.
Think about this. A electron is the stable part of the mass, be it air, water or other physical item. If it was not stable it would not be their as we know that from physics a particle in motion has a tendency to stay in that line until its energy is re-directed. it is neither created nor destroyed. In a magnetic field do we not increase the density of electrons? or is it atoms
So if this be the case then please explane to me how one can move a electron from a atom by a magnetic field (of which we know nothing about except that we can create one by using voltage and current togeather). and have it then move electrons around bumping into each other so as to make a wave that progresses forward and outward without so much as considering that after the electron is mated with the new atom (becoming unstable) it becomes a different charged particle and the losing atom then doesn't want to have it return?
__________
Electrical engineers use the term real power for power that flows in one direction past a given point. They also speak of reactive power, which is power that flows back and forth in alternating directions with a net flow of zero in any one cycle. The radiation field of an antenna transmits only real power, which travels out toward distant localities without ever reversing direction. The induction field carries only reactive power, and the coulomb field carries both real and reactive power.
___________
You mean then that my antenna is not resonant and vibrating at the frequency that I have set its length at? They speak of two things above. Thats like saying your going 60 mph down the street in one directions only... but, your vibrating as you do it so your energy is not counted except for your forward motion. wow we can have vibration that takes no energy or power? I find that hard to believe.
The induction field carries only reactive power, and the coulomb field carries both real and reactive power.
If this be the case then wouldn't you say that you have a dual energy effort going on? Is not the reactive actually the engine driving the inductive field? which is what we want out of the antenna in the first place... and this inductive field is what really accounts for the antennas preformance at the receptors end?
Now what about a dense electronic field vs a sparse one. will my antenna work better if we have a greater number of free electrons (atoms) abound or will it work worse. (lets use air which is a gas compound vs water which in its basic form H20) But, lets not stop their lets go to space and find the density of atoms. does it take more power at the frequency we are vibrating at to get the energy to travel the distance or less? If you say that "well their is less to impact out their so our signal can be of a lower power... then what density of atoms (electrons) are we dealing with in relation to what we find on earth?
Ok where do I disagree... they elued to the energy goiong out past a point in one direction and not reversing. Tell me that in a electrostatic field you do not induce a back emf when you make a forward one. Again that particle is at rest wants to remain at rest until its acted upon. But, if we move the particle then we create a hole theroi that says those holes are moving in the reverse direction and thus for the opposite and equal.
Again you may consider this electronics 101 but, when one starts to think about it. It is not that simple.
Using the mathmatical formulas that comes from the father Maxwell and his theroi, I specualte that his "creation of a vibrating magnetic field which now induces a eletrostatic field which travel the distance to our reception is also interfeard with due to the earths magnetic influences not the electrons getting bumped. the very same magnetic field which is actually vibrating (according to Tulsa) on its own resonance. Is forever re-directing this power or field. thus it is taking our electron movement and converting it back into magnetic? Yes some of you will say well if we squair the distance we lose half our power. I agree to that as the same energy is their just spread out more but, where. On earth, in space. If we use maxwells formula (which is a true part) and went around and gathered up all the electrons they should equal the original amount of power we re-directed. And while the electron field is spread out (traveling away from us as they say) you should still hear it unless it gets to where the energy is so weak it won't cause our current devices to convert it back into a detectable form. It is still their unless it gets acted upon by a second force that redirects it. Again I feel like their must be another factor that is keeping my 1milli watt signal from reaching china. Again energy is neither created nor destroyed. Thus is it not then re-directed and absorbed to become something else? It has to if the theroi is correct.
And what about that million watt transmitter that we hooked to the same antenna. What are we really causing here by increasing the orginal power. The frequency of the vibration is the same. The power from the combination of current and voltage is saying were moving the electrons. But, my question to you is, can we saturate that field to where it will break down. My answer is yes. and to prove it think about lightening. It does it all the time as it starts off as a DC potential and then turns into a AC. (if it didn't we wouldn't hear it on the radio) But, can we take the antenna and create the same thing. Yes. I have. By loading a amp into a small antenna (in this case it was the 4BTV with the 75 mtr resonator on top) I could I believe cause it to saturate the magnetic and electron field around it and thus cause the electrons to skip over the atoms so as to disapate into the R^2 field.
Now this being the case the antenna now is only a radiator of electrons within the magnetic field it generated used to cause the electrons to scatter in a outward direction visably. the inferance to saturation comes from the bolt of lightening that would be emittted from the tip of the antenna. Tulsa demonstrated this also with his genarator, such as the one that can be found at the Grifith park display in Los Angeles.
So to which I ask what frequency is the electron accelerated at and to what speed. In this case because we can see it ... it would have to be the speed of light? Yet by using Maxwells equasion for density fields this can not happen.
So again I say we hams only use the antenna with the guidelines of expatation of what the manufacture says. How did he come to these results? by testing of course and yet still not understanding the real reason it works. Vertical or dipole they are both the same except for the opposite reactive elements location.
I still would like to know how the sun and its energy plays with our commucations if not by electron density field. How much can be attained on earth or at my antenna. And if so is the density actually helping or hurting its transmission of power to a distant receptor?
We all know about the E and F layers but, why do they exisist if not that the earth has its own reactive field which is linked to the suns!.
so back to the basics. What makes the antenna work? WHy does polarization have a effect? If we use Maximums theroi should their be?
simple question that some of you should be able to give me a answer to. Please feel free to expand on the electronics 101 theroi.
Thank you that have sent web sites to view. I found them quite interesting.
73's for now.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by N6AJR on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I always found it some what magic that we can put some electreicity in a bunch of aluminum here and have it tickle the eather and end up scratching som electrons in your antenna half way around the world.
just plain magic.. the wonder of radio.
I atually had 8 years of electronics in the military, but prefer magic, its easier to understand..:)
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by K7PEH on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WHATURNUTS has a rather eclectic collection of science and fiction mixed up in his post. I am not sure if he is posting as a joke or whether he is serious.
That one referenced URL on the ARRL site is a pretty good description of the radiation process, if I remember correctly, it was written by a physicist. If you want a description that is more detailed, with respect to solving Maxwell's equations for radiating systems, then I recommend a number of good physics text books such as Feynman's Lectures on Physics, Volume II.
Basically, there is only one phenomina here to consider and that is: charged particles that accelerate (e.g. electrons) will radiate. There is no ether (in the classical sense) and the best description of electromagnetic radiation (in my opinion) is the special relativity rotated coordinate system description which results in a description of the magnetic field as a relativistic transformed electric field.
But, the above is a so-called classical description. The modern, most considered 'accurate' description of radiation is the result of Feynman (and other's) work in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) which is basically relativistically treated quantum field form of Maxwell's Equations. In this treatment, you have a quantum exchange particle responsible for the electromagnetic interaction and this particle is of course the photon.
But, back to classical physics. I am not sure what you mean by Magnetic field pushing out the electrons from the antenna. The electrons will feel a force when they move through a magnetic field but electrons are not leaving the antenna. This force though (called the Lorentz force) is in such a direction that a charged particle, if free to move, will circulate magnetic field lines and by this circulation (changing direction and thus accelerating) radiation will result. This is called synchrotron radiation but it is not the same as electromagnetic radiation from an antenna.
The strength of the radiated field from an antenna is proportional to the average current squared. The current of course is movement of electrons and electrons accelerate because this movement of electrons changes direction at the periodicity of the signal frequency. When a particle changes direction, it undergoes acceleration and as I mentioned, this means that radiation will result.
|
| |
|
I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Vito, I have read your piece, and thought about it to some extent. Now albeit, I am not the "HF" old dog that you are, but Hrrrrrrumph! I think I am going to have to put this to some empiric tests!
73, and how are you doing old friend? de John
|
| |
|
I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by N0AH on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Regarding the physics and those "experts" who provided the base of reference for radiation angles, power, etc.....it's great to see all the footnoting. Makes it clear who the 3rd party suspect vs prospect stand.
Nice to see one of these experts quoted early on is an MFJ engineer. Vito.......................
Vito,
I can't say your article's source is worth much, but this is one of the first articles I have ever seen touching the subject and I think those reading it will be more interested in vertical dipoles.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by N5EAT on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If some force were not acting upon an electron in an atom it would fly out into space in a 'straight line" until acted upon by another force. If the medium were warped the electron would still be on a 180 degree angle relative to the medium.
A charge on an electron produces at least 2 important fields which begin to "travel" through space at the speed of light. This is not considered "rf". Rf occurs when the thing producing the line of force starts moving up and down the antenna. It's pretty much like a rope being held by both ends stretched tight. If one of the ends starts moving back and forth, a wavelike feature is produced at the moving end and travels to the other end of the rope.
At this point the field has become radiation and is detectable at the other end. RF radiation is almost exactly the same as whipping a rope. The speed of the whipping determines the frequency of the rf. Space transmits rf almost as rope and water transmits mechanical energy waves. It's a bit more complicated than that due to a property of space/time called dilation. There actually is not an individual entity which we call 'time'. The past only exists because we have memory. The future only exists because we have expectation. Time/space/speed and distance are all interrelated. If any of those properties change, the others must change. That's just the way the universe works.
However, on a macro level - Newton still works really well, and his ability to put all this together shows what an incredible brain the guy had. He and a Frenchman named Liebnitz pretty much invented Calculus independent of each other at the same time - therefore qualifying them both for membership in Geek Squad.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by K7PEH on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>A charge on an electron produces at least 2 important fields which begin to "travel" through space at the speed of light.<<<<<
What two fields are you referring to? Do you mean an electric field and a magnetic field?
Actually, an electron (that is not moving) produces only one field, the static electric field which is also referred to as the coloumb field (to answer a previous question). A moving electron (but, not accelerating) produces a magnetic field (which, can also be considered a relativistic transformed electric field as I mentioned in a previous post). And, an accelerating electron produces a single field called the electromagnetic field. Note that this is not just an electric field and a magnetic field added together but rather a whole new beast where the electric field and magnetic fields are related to each other in a specific way as dictated by Maxwell's Field Equations.
>>>This is not considered "rf". Rf occurs when the thing producing the line of force starts moving up and down the antenna.<<<
This is odd. RF is actually the moniker of a particular segment of the electromagnetic spectrum that is used for radio type communications. The electromagnetic spectrum is much more than RF (includes heat, light, and higher energy radiation) yet obeys the same physical laws as RF. I am not sure what to make of the phrase: "...when the thing producing the line of force starts moving up and down the antenna".
I have a sneaking suspicion that someone is pulling my leg here but I will play and go along trying make sense out of this dialog.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey PEH, without reviewing what I have learend about "RF", what the heck are you saying -- if anything?
Arrrrgh!, de John WA6BFH
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by KC9AGG on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
whaturnuts2 appears to be feeling the effects of a classical physics treatment versus a more updated relativistic/quantum mechanical treatment..interesting to me, because tesla himself had real problems with einstein's theories, although as an engineer/physicist he was hard core ...no one really knows how, exactly, this wave propagates through (the nonexistent "ether")...physicists know alot about how these waves behave, but it's a valid question to ask exactly what this wave phenomenon is--it's the classic wave/particle duality--there is, no doubt, a great contribution from quantum theory--that was touched on in the previous post--that idea could be expanded on for us non-physicists....it does get down to the nature of space-time, if you carry it far enough...reminds me of the chemist who said his goal in life was "to exceed light speed"..that goes into metaphysics, where we all argue with each other...sorry for the strange post.oh, yes, verticals work ok if you can't put up a beam.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by N5EAT on May 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
No one is pulling anyone's leg. The changing emanation point of the force line produced by the charge carrier is what causes the piece of light spectrum known as radio to become radiation as opposed to the static line of force simply extending in a straight line from the source. It's again akin to the difference between a rope held tight at both ends, and the rope transmitting wave energy down it's length as one end of the rope is "whipped". Whipping the rope produces a wave which travels from one end to the other therby transferring the energy through the medium. The energy of the moving charge carrier is transferred through space in a very similar manner. The magnetic properties of space are transmitted from one end of the force line to the other through the medium. Space is not empty. It exists and has properties. Magnetic fields can cause the medium to warp.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by K5DVW on May 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
All this yapping about EM physics and nobody seems to take issue with the statement that a vertical dipole has 8 dBi of gain?
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by N5EAT on May 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes, - I believe a dipole in free space should have about 3DB over an isotropic radiator.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by DJ8GO on May 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Vito,
at 83 years of age you should be wiser than to publish this string of nonsense "articles" that do nothing but to demonstrate your technical ignorance. According to your own figures that you quote here a vertical with 100 (!) radials shows a lot less gain that a dipole at any take-off angle. In addition the near-field damping of a vertical is higher because obstacles like trees also tend to be vertical. And a vertical is much more susceptible to noise because many noise sources have vertical polarization. It is a good antenna for perfect ground and lots of space around it, like for a DX expedition to some remote island. You may still prefer it over other antennas, but clearly not because it's a superior performer or particularly easy to set up with its 100 radials.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WA4DOU on May 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is misleading to compare the main lobe of a vertical to the main lobe of a horizontal dipole. The verticals lobes are quite attractive but the dipole has higher gain due to ground reflection gain. At 1/2 wavelength above ground, the dipole response is centered about 30 deg. above the horizon. Checking its gain at 20 and even 10 deg. reveals that it still a higher figure than the 1/4, 1/2 or 5/8th wavelength vertical.
Clearly the horizontal and vertical antennas cannot compete heads up, nor should they. The vertical has virtues that recommend it over the horizontal antenna, at times.
In cases where a horizontal antenna is impossible or impractical, the vertical is a logical choice. In the dx chase a vertical may prove to be a better receiving antenna because of a lack of high angle response, especially the 1/2 & 5/8th wave. Where the vertical really shines is on 30 & 40 meters in some circumstances but especially on 80 and 160 meters where most all of us cannot erect a reasonably high horizontal antenna for dx work.
The vertical owes no one an apology. It is a practical and useful antenna in a variety of circumstances and belongs in our bag of tricks.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WHATURNUTS2 on May 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Where are we going with this. Before I get back into the high tech stuff and some questions about PEA reply about a charge and magnetic field. I would like for you all to read this excerpt from Teslas experiment.
Colorado Springs is in southern Colorado, about 70 mile south of Denver. The lab had a two hundred foot copper antenna sticking up out of it, looking something like a HAM radio enthusiast's antenna. He moved in and started work. And strange electrical things happened near that lab. People would walk near the lab, and sparks would jump up from the ground to their feet, through the soles of their shoes. One boy took a screwdriver, held it near a fire hydrant, and drew a four inch electrical spark from the hydrant. Sometimes the grass around his lab would glow with an eerie blue corona, St. Elmo's Fire.
Tesla then generates a powerful pulse of electricity, and drains it into the ground. Because the ground is conductive, it doesn't stop. Rather, it spreads out like a radio wave, traveling at the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second. And it keeps going, because it's a powerful wave; it doesn't peter out after a few miles. It passes through the iron core of the earth with little trouble. After all, molten iron is very conductive. When the wave reaches the far side of the planet, it bounces back, like a wave in water bounces when it reaches an obstruction. Since it bounces, it makes a return trip; eventually, it returns to the point of origin. Now, this idea might seem wild. But it isn't science fiction.
He thought, when the wave returns to me (about 1/30th of a second after he sends it in), it's going to be considerably weakened by the trip. Why doesn't he send in another charge at this point, to strengthen the wave? The two will combine, go out, and bounce again. And then he'll reinforce it again, and again. The wave will build up in power. It's like pushing a swingset. You give a series of small pushes each time the swing goes out. And you build up a lot of power with a series of small pushes; ever tried to stop a swing when it's going full tilt? He wanted to find out the upper limit of resonance. And he was in for a surprise.
Just what was the upper limit of the wave he would build up, bouncing back and forth in the planet below? He had his Coil hooked to the ground below it, the 200 foot antenna above it, and getting as much electricity as he wanted right off the city power supply mains. Tesla went outside to watch (wearing three inch rubber soles for insulation) and had his assistant, Kolman Czito, turn the Coil on. There was a buzz from rows of oil capacitors, and a roar from the spark gap as wrist-thick arcs jumped across it. Inside the lab the noise was deafening. But Tesla was outside, watching the antenna. Any surge that returned to the area would run up the antenna and jump off as lightning. Off the top of the antenna shot a six foot lightning bolt. The bolt kept going in a steady arc, though, unlike a single lightning flash. And here Tesla watched carefully, for he wanted to see if the power would build up, if his wave theory would work. Soon the lightning was twenty feet long, then fifty. The surges were growing more powerful. Eighty feet -- now thunder was following each lightning bolt. A hundred feet, a hundred twenty feet; the lightning shot upwards off the antenna. Thunder was heard booming around Tesla now (it was heard 22 miles away, in the town of Cripple Creek). The meadow Tesla was standing in was lit up with an electrical discharge very much like St. Elmo's Fire, casting a blue glow. His theory had worked! There didn't seem to be an upper limit to the surges; he was creating the most powerful electrical surges ever created by man. That moment he set the record, which he still holds, for manmade lightning. Then everything halted.
Now if one looks at the Tesla coil and resonator sure look s a lot like our modern day tank circuit.
What has this got to do with the Vertical and our other elusions to the particle of the antennas. Well... one side of the Vertical is attached or forms the ground. the other side is just like Teslas irradiator into the sky.
but, with the sudden discovery of the NVIS and low level antennas brings about a curious question. Does the Vertical which is ground mounted actually have a higher eletrostatic density field that it works with than a dipole which is mounted wavelenghts above the surface.
Ref: the earth is a sphear a charge is highest at the surface and depleats as one moves up in elevation from the surface. i.e then the density of the electrons is greater at the surface (which has one element of the vertical antenna (the ground side) which is within this boundary) while the dipole does not and thus has less of a electrostatic density of electrons to work with.
Now the question again is --- Do the density of the electrons contrubuite to the propagation of the wave or do they require more energy and thus lead to depleation of the wave earlier?
I will leave you to contenplate that.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on May 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Nuts2, that's a heck of a long reply from someone who doesn't go by a real name or a call sign.....
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WHATURNUTS2 on May 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by WA1RNE
---- and your point ?
Not all of us that chose these names for the web are your stereo typed typical harasser that, I am quite sure, you infer we are. (surprise)
clearly it seems your more infactuated with the name than the context and information. OR you got to the name and then couldn't go any further. With no pictures you timed the down arrow-- and said -- wow lots of word their.
Two year old's do the same thing with TV. Put a piece of scotch tape on their finger and they are content for hours while watching the color TV as if its a colored light bulb. Try and educate 'em and they get bored and just want to whine. Think of this as a learning experiance instead of a pasafier which takes up your time and contemplating the scotch tape stuck to your finger. Life is short-make every day count.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on May 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nuts2 said:
"clearly it seems your more infactuated with the name than the context and information. OR you got to the name and then couldn't go any further. With no pictures you timed the down arrow-- and said -- wow lots of word their."
"Two year old's do the same thing with TV. Put a piece of scotch tape on their finger and they are content for hours while watching the color TV as if its a colored light bulb. Try and educate 'em and they get bored and just want to whine. Think of this as a learning experiance instead of a pasafier which takes up your time and contemplating the scotch tape stuck to your finger. Life is short-make every day count.'
>>> Yes, I sure did see "lots of word their", (???) but going by the content of your post, the weak dialogue - then the intellectually challenged diatribe that followed, surely this must be a factor as to why you don't have a call sign and choose to call yourself "nuts2".
The scotch tape and pictures are spot-on and very out of the box. A real "learning experiance instead of a pasafier".
Sounds as though you've had a fairly recent personal encounter with a role of scotch tape and a "pasafier".
Maybe its an "infact-uation"???????????????????????!!!!
I'm glad you decided to write so we could get one thing straight right now: clearly, you don't know a damn thing about me.
Chris, WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by KT8K on May 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmmmmm ...
Well ... I got one thing out of all this ... based on what Steve WIK and others said, my vertical will work better if I elevate it because not only will it be above objects that would absorb my signal, but it will also place the strongest part of the lobe pattern above more of the noise sources (not counting the power lines following my back property line at the top of 50' poles). That's worth something!
73 & best rx to all de kt8k - Tim
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by N5UV on May 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
And, I prefer to see a callsign for a user on this page. We're all adults here, what's the big deal about not posting your callsign?
|
| |
|
I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on May 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I`ll take a horizontal dipole any day. No radials to bury, less noise, easier to match to the feedline, alot less ground losses.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WHATURNUTS2 on May 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chris, WA1RNE
I'm glad you decided to write so we could get one thing straight right now: clearly, you don't know a damn thing about me.
----------------------
Cleary you must take me for a person who really gives a dam about you, your problem in comprehension and screwed up personal issues.
clearly, clearly you don't know a damn thing about me.
--- Nor do I care to share with you dudett. Mentally disturbed ! you should go seek help from the doctor if you think anyone is conserned about your preferances (except for buba over at county which is awaiting your return. According to others he stil claims you as the best he has had)
lets see. So far you have not contrubuted anything to the topic at hand. You don't seem to understand what 'I don't care' means (mental comprehension) and you have done nothing but TROLL the site. Nice going Chris. Clearly you consider yourself as a pillar of salt in society. A anchor on the ship of life and -- a credit to ham radio , its advancement and understand.
Yes indeed you are a roll model to put up and show the rest of the world how great you really are even if you are a oversized troll. Space is non to far for you. Your in it every day. One spaced out cadet.
I think I hear you mother call you Chris... better go now you don't want to miss being at the hay feed barn there-- herfeer.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WHATURNUTS2 on May 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE4ZHN on May 17, 2006
I`ll take a horizontal dipole any day. No radials to bury, less noise, easier to match to the feedline, alot less ground losses.
ZHN... can you show me that the dipole is less noisy and easier to match and has less ground losses?
Are you sure?
i.e power lines are within 100 yds of the dipole as most residents units are. Inductive noise?
Down by the ocean you don't need radials. Or do you? What is the Mu of the soil?
awaiting your reply... good topic.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on May 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'd say its both interesting and quite revealing that "Nuts2" and the word "troll" should appear in YOUR post.
The original article compares the performance between some basic antennas, then along you come with this:
"I think to really understand how a antenna works one has to start with what it makes the either do. How then its transported across the vast spaces and then converted back into something we can detect.
Tulsa has some very interesting views on the subject if one has the time to stop and think about what he is trying to convey. (I was most interested in his world resonance theroi)"
....."I know this sounds a little off the subject but,".......
"Vast spaces" and "Tulsa"???
"Off the subject"??
Are you for real?
Case closed, over and out.......
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by W6TH on May 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
Over average soil the gain of a 7MHz dipole 1/2 wl high is 8.1 dBi. That gain peak is at 30 degrees.
The dBi referenced gain is:
..........30 deg = 8.11dBi.
..........20 = 7.31.
..........10 = 2.96.
A 1/2 wl vertical with 100 1/2 wl radials over the same soil has:
..........30 deg = -1.29dBi. ..........20= 0.48 dBi. ..........10= -0.38 dBi.
This is what Tom W8JI has given through the eznec as has been mentioned.
I have explained the engineering process as to how the vertical half wave antenna ground mounted is noted by theory. I also mentioned that the best way to take forward gain measurements is by far field measurements.
Here is the absolute true measurements taken in Bladensburg, MD, comparing a horizontal half wave dipole compared to a half wave vertical with no radials over average ground.
The horizontal antenna at 30 degrees and one mile away for the measurement was a forward gain of 5.3 dB.
The vertical antenna at 20 degrees and one mile away for the measurement was a forward gain of 5.0 dB.
-----------------equal gain to say the least.------
Now remember that for every hop there was a loss of 5 dB, so lets say that on the fourth hop the horizontal lost the amount of 20 dB.
However the vertical to cover the same distance had less hops, therefore had less attenuatuon of its signal to cover the same and further distance.
This should prove to the hams with less knowledge than a engineer that for dx the vertical will be favored to cover a greater distance with a stronger signal where the horizontal could not be heard.
Don't ever think that the image below the ground is a loss of energy as it does make up the other antenna fed with the source and will amount to two poles being fed in phase. Two half waves fed in phase give a gain of 1.8 dB, saying that both the horizontal and the vertical antennas are very efficient antennas.
The post was to supply information in a very simple form so many would understand the function of both antennas and the noise problem was not part of this posting as different locations have different noise levels.
I may also add that eznec can be confusing should one not have the full knowledge for its use and must be taken for granted.
Thanks for the many comments and I have hopes of many with a better understanding of both the horizontal and the vertical antennas. Both have their use in ham radio and is to ones choice.
73, W6TH.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by W9PMZ on May 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The horizontal antenna at 30 degrees and one mile away for the measurement was a forward gain of 5.3 dB.
The vertical antenna at 20 degrees and one mile away for the measurement was a forward gain of 5.0 dB.
-----------------equal gain to say the least.------ "
Before that assumption is made, how about more specific information on the experiement?
receiving antenna,
frequency,
power
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by W6TH on May 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
W9PMZ
The receiving antenna was a standard calibrated antenna used for standard testing for all tests made. Using a bolometer for a detector which is more linear than a crystal feeding a device that measured decibel loss and gain, I found that all tests were equal and the same. I can't remember the model as to date.
The power was set for a reference with a reference antenna at zero dB, then the same amount of power applied to both the horizontal and vertical for the comparison.
The reference antenna was of two, one for transmitting and one of the same for receiving to set a reference point.
The same test was applied to both antennas using red and green ink on a polar recorder to check the authority of both tests and the comparison came with satisfaction that both tests were equal, one equal to another.
Power as I recall did not come into the picture and power level was kept at a minimum to prevent distortion.
W6TH
.:
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by K5DVW on May 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>The vertical antenna at 20 degrees and one mile away for the measurement was a forward gain of 5.0 dB.
Can you publish all the details of this test? The problem I have with it is as you've described it, at one mile away from the emitter, the 20 degree lobe energy will be 1900 ft up, at 30 degrees it's up at 3000 ft. The tallest broadcast tower I know of is around 1200 ft. So, how exactly did you make these two measurements?
Hopefully the receiver isn't on a mountain because all the asymmetrical ground reflections would make the test very meaningless.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by W6TH on May 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
K5DVW
The far field region starts at a range 8(n^2) lambda for radiation of wavelength lambda and antenna height h = n (lambda).
You must have overlooked this comment.
Knowing you are familiar with far field testing, I am sure you will have no problems to acquaint yourself with this requirement.
Thanks for your concern.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by K5DVW on May 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You said your test was taken at a mile distance from the emitter. My point is you need thousands of feet of altitude on your receiving antenna to put it in the main lobe energy at that distance. Simple trigonometry will show this.
The point is that your test range antennas can't be ground based at one mile distance and determine 20 or 30 degree gain factors. How did you resolve this?
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by W6TH on May 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
K5DVM,
.................Helicopter that hovers..........
Aircraft that is made to rise vertically and hover.
Any more trick questions from you? I will try my best to answer all you can throw at me.
Next please.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Slight subject shift:
Using a helicopter to determine radiation patterns is nothing new to me. As far as I know, this was first done about seventy years ago by an old (SK) friend of mine, Jim Cosman, W2EPQ, who used a helicopter to take field strength measurements from the WBEN-AM radio transmitter antenna system in Buffalo, NY.
He used those results to help him design the top loaded AM radio antenna system for WPAT-AM in New Jersey, which he bankrolled to put on the air about sixty years ago. Jim showed me hundreds of pages of charts, graphs, tabulated data from measurements, and B&W photographs of the whole "helicopter" operation, which was very innovative at the time. And so were the top-loaded antennas used by WPAT, which were based on a lot of airborne measurements made up at WBEN.
I'll never forget those WPAT towers, they looked like they had huge halos encircling their tops and could be seen for miles.
I'll also never forget Jim. He held the license for the first commercial color television transmitter in America (an "X" license from the USDOC, before the FCC existed), which resided in the basement of his home in the 1970s, with the original 1933 license still attached to the side of the rack cabinet. Great stuff.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by K5DVW on May 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
No more questions since you cant seem to answer without excessive obfuscation.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by KB9CRY on May 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"This should prove to the hams with less knowledge than a engineer that for dx the vertical will be favored to cover a greater distance with a stronger signal where the horizontal could not be heard."
I guess, if you say so. Your original post had some major typo errors and that caused a lot of confusion. So since the vertical has the most gain in the lobe who's angle projects the signal bouncing off of the ionosphere the farthest then it makes sense that at the other end that signal should be louder.
"The post was to supply information in a very simple form"
Didn't seem so simple to me since I'm not that well versed in antenna design and theory. I just put them up and make contacts.
"so many would understand the function of both antennas and the noise problem was not part of this posting as different locations have different noise levels."
But isn't it true that if you can't hear them then how loud your transmit signal is is a moot point? I'd think that an antenna's ability or efficiency as a receiving antenna and dealing with noise and/or rejecting it should also factor into the decision.
"Thanks for the many comments and I have hopes of many with a better understanding of both the horizontal and the vertical antennas."
Not really unless you factor in the receiving/noise aspect also.
"Both have their use in ham radio and is to ones choice."
Tnx, exactly.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by W6TH on May 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
Well all in all I had worked for a well known company in Maryland in the year of 1950 and the United States Government wanted to play radio and this is where the gain measurements were done on many antenna systems, not only dipoles.
Antennas were my bread and butter and I still consider RF as a toy and a fun occupation.
When a vertical in designed and built the way it should be built, then it is a wonderful joy to have that stick in either your front or back yard.
I have used Rhombics, both single, two and three wires systems at 90 feet within the United States Signal Corp, both in the U.S. and abroad, yet my favorite is to see my vertical push through those A3 and dipole antennas at fifty feet.
Guess at the going age of 84 and a ham operator of 68 years, I am still that kid when I was just 17 or 18 and still play with my favorite toy, the Vertical Antenna.
73, W6TH.
.:
|
| |
|
I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WA8MEA on May 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Maybe it was my humble beginnings, but I have always preferred vertical antennae. My very first antenna was a "Super Mag" that some old CB'er gave me. He said if I added a little length to each element, I should get it to work on 15 meters. (Back in 1969-70, 10 meters wasn't available to us.)
I was able to get a 2 to 1 SWR on the Novice CW portion of 15 meters using my DX-60A and Hammarlund HQ180. Worked so many west coasters, I finally got sick of 15 meters and tossed up an end-fed for 80 meters and played there a while....just so I could meet a few "locals" here in the Great Lakes.
But over the years, I have had ham after ham after ham try to talk me out of vertical antennas! "Noise" problems, directional problems, angle problems. You name it, I've heard it. But for 10, 12, 15 and 20 meters...I have had my best luck DXing with verticals. (Yes, even compared to single band beams.)
I don't have any more noise than any other antenna I've ever used. And the nice thing is if I want to go a little higher....I just slip another section of mast pipe underneath the bottom.
73, Bill - WA8MEA
wa8mea@hotmail.com
http://HamRadioFun.com
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by AE6RO on May 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You'd have to have a very large roof indeed to have room for all those long 40 meter radials (~ 66 ft across) and supporting a 33' foot mast on a roof might be problematic.
However on a flat, large roof it could be done.
I've seen a lot of computer modeling of top-loaded antennas, but not too many actually built.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by W6TH on May 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
WB9CRY mentioned:
I guess, if you say so. Your original post had some major typo errors and that caused a lot of confusion. So since the vertical has the most gain in the lobe who's angle projects the signal bouncing off of the ionosphere the farthest then it makes sense that at the other end that signal should be louder.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, I do not know what had happened when posted and doubled talked. Nothing I could do to edit so let it go as had to catch a plane ride to the east coast.
Sorry this had to happen.
73, W6TH.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by KD7YVV on May 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I remember WPAT-AM/FM when I lived in NJ.
It was known to me as "the station that played music
without words". For those that lived in the NY/NJ
area in the 70's and listened to top 40 radio,
there is a WABC MusicRadio fan site.
Every Memorial day weekend, they do a "Rewound".
They go back to their top 40 format for a day.
http://www.musicradio77.com/
I remember back in the 70's when I was on CB, I had
an antenna called a "Super Big Stick".
Vertical with no radials. I have to admit, for local
use, it wasn't bad at all, and that was just 4 watts.
Now that I'm a General licensee and studying to upgrade
to Extra, I look back on those early days remembering
all the nice people on CB at that time, encouraging
a teen radio buff to experiment.
My only regret? Waiting until 2002 to get licensed.
Vertical antennas have their uses, but no two antenna
installations are exactly the same.
--KD7YVV, Kirkland, WA
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by A9KW on May 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ok
Why don't we all just stop beating the dead horse here.
|
| |
|
RE: I Prefer the Vertical
|
|
|
by WR8D on June 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Let me be comic relief for all this complicated jargon. Over two sunspot cycles back i bought a butternut hf6v. It now has all the updates available so i don't know what to call it but one hell of an antenna. "Thousands of worldwide contacts" during its life span. I just took it down and gave it a good cleaning and later this week it goes back in its spot. Its right in the middle of about a half acre yard with nothing else but fruit trees around it. When i hear em, i talk to em. "period". Its mounted about five feet off the ground so i can run the mower under it. If the first call don't get em then i put a little fire under its tail and that usually does the trick. hi hi. Nothing there to burn out and those big coils act like bug zappers, depending on how much power you put to it they can become "bird zappers". Nothing like the low angle of radiation, that low take off point to work dx. I've really made several nice ones with it through the years and looking forward to this next up coming cycle to see where it takes me. I've not tried it against any other brands but after 20 some years of service and all the places in the world its took me to, why change now?? "ain't no way". Just using the counterpoise nowdays. If it needs more ground to work against when the bands open back up i'll lay the wire to it. Every hamshack needs a verticle to play with. I'll never forget years ago my first contact on this one. Right out of the box first contact antarctica on 20. I have big antennas tower and all that. Understand though, a little verticle sometimes will make you wonder why you spent all that money on the big stuff. 73 John WR8D
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Mobile Antenna Notes
A 171-Meter Loop Skywire Antenna for PSK:
Preventing Theft of Your ATAS 100/120
Varmint Proof Your Antenna
CC&R Loophole?
Other Antennas Articles
Running Radials the Easy Way -- Sew What?
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polarization
'No Show' HF Antenna that WORKS!
The Eagle Has Landed
My Quest for a New Antenna
|
