Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Been out of ham radio since the '60's (raising a family etc) and am
slowly coming back (though given the noise I see in r.r.a.misc I wonder if I really want to :-( ). My question is one of trying to understand propagation - with a ground mounted vertical, if I remember correctly, one treats it as if it's a half wave dipole, where one leg is above ground and the other is virtual and is a "ground reflection", hence the importance of good ground/radials etc. I assume if I had a balloon up several thousands of feet and dropped a half wave dipole (still center fed, but hung from one end), then it would behave like a ground based horizontal dipole, other than being polarized vertically (ie, no virtual / ground reflection for the lower half). The question is: when does one make the transition btwn the two modes, how far off the ground (in terms of wavelengths)? If a vertical dipole is 10 wavelengths above the ground, does one still have to consider the ground as part of the antenna? how about 2 wavelengths? If someone could walk me through a thought experiment on this I'd appreciate it. thanks, greg ps. yes I've Googled this and found nothing, likewise have and read ARRL big antenna book + several of their long wire books, likewise, no mention. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "greg mushial" wrote in message ... Been out of ham radio since the '60's (raising a family etc) and am slowly coming back (though given the noise I see in r.r.a.misc I wonder if I really want to :-( ). My question is one of trying to understand propagation - with a ground mounted vertical, if I remember correctly, one treats it as if it's a half wave dipole, where one leg is above ground and the other is virtual and is a "ground reflection", hence the importance of good ground/radials etc. I assume if I had a balloon up several thousands of feet and dropped a half wave dipole (still center fed, but hung from one end), then it would behave like a ground based horizontal dipole, other than being polarized vertically (ie, no virtual / ground reflection for the lower half). The question is: when does one make the transition btwn the two modes, how far off the ground (in terms of wavelengths)? If a vertical dipole is 10 wavelengths above the ground, does one still have to consider the ground as part of the antenna? how about 2 wavelengths? If someone could walk me through a thought experiment on this I'd appreciate it. thanks, greg ps. yes I've Googled this and found nothing, likewise have and read ARRL big antenna book + several of their long wire books, likewise, no mention. The main difference is the interaction between the antenna and the ground in forming the lobes. Ground mounted vertical will have one fat lobe, as you start increasing the height the lobes will start splitting, more of them, with different magnitudes. Also "looking" out for the ground for reflections further out. Using demo version of EZNEC and modeling it will demonstrate the effect. 73 Yuri, www.K3BU.us |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 14, 1:33 pm, greg mushial wrote:
If a vertical dipole is 10 wavelengths above the ground, does one still have to consider the ground as part of the antenna? how about 2 wavelengths? If someone could walk me through a thought experiment on this I'd appreciate it. Any vertical that is complete, and is clear of the ground qualifies. Even a 1/4 wave ground plane with radials. No properly built elevated verticals rely on the ground to complete the antenna. Of course, you can still be effected by ground loss though, if you are low to the ground, or don't have enough radials for the height in wavelength you are at. But a horizontal dipole can suffer the same losses, usually to a lesser degree. The extra lobes are mainly a function of height above ground more than anything. You can have a monopole at 5 ft off the ground, and if it has it's own elevated radial set, it's a complete antenna and does not rely on ground to provide the lower half of the antenna. Of course at that height, you need a lot of radials to avoid the ground losses, but that's not quite the same as using the ground itself as the lower half of the antenna, with no elevated radials. MK |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 14 Jun, 12:50, wrote:
On Jun 14, 1:33 pm, greg mushial wrote: If a vertical dipole is 10 wavelengths above the ground, does one still have to consider the ground as part of the antenna? how about 2 wavelengths? If someone could walk me through a thought experiment on this I'd appreciate it. Any vertical that is complete, and is clear of the ground qualifies. Even a 1/4 wave ground plane with radials. No properly built elevated verticals rely on the ground to complete the antenna. Of course, you can still be effected by ground loss though, if you are low to the ground, or don't have enough radials for the height in wavelength you are at. But a horizontal dipole can suffer the same losses, snip Wrong...... There was a study in Australia where the earth's influence on a horizontal antenna showed where the earths influence disappeared rapidly. That cannot be said of a short vertical. If it was of full length ,as in dipole, I suspect the earth's influence would be the same as a horizontal antenna. Note: horizontal and vertical referes to polarization not to physical orientation of radiators |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 14, 2:23 pm, art wrote:
Wrong...... There was a study in Australia where the earth's influence on a horizontal antenna showed where the earths influence disappeared rapidly. That cannot be said of a short vertical. If it was of full length ,as in dipole, I suspect the earth's influence would be the same as a horizontal antenna. Note: horizontal and vertical referes to polarization not to physical orientation of radiators Well sure, but you can see noticable ground loss with really low dipoles. And the vertical examples I've talked about so far, are full size. When I talk about dipoles suffering from ground loss, I'm talking about really low ones.. IE: a 160m dipole at 16 ft usually shows noticable ground loss vs one at 125 ft, which would be a quarter wave up. Using close up/down NVIS paths would be the best way to fairly compare.. Running a 160m dipole at 16 ft is like running a 10m dipole at 1 ft off the ground as far as height/wavelength... But, some people, due to restrictions, end up running 160m dipoles at 15-20 ft up and live with it.. Just cuz they make contacts doesn't mean there are no ground losses lurking in the program. MK |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Better for DX: Vertical or dipole? | Antenna | |||
20m vertical dipole | Antenna | |||
vertical dipole array | Antenna | |||
vertical dipole? | Antenna | |||
2m vertical dipole for FM | Antenna |