Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Walter Maxwell wrote:
The terminal resistance will be 50 ohms at some angle in between, and is usually close to 45°. Not to mention that's a damn handy angle when you need the radials to double as guy wires... ![]() |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() The terminal resistance will be 50 ohms at some angle in between, and is usually close to 45°. Not to mention that's a damn handy angle when you need the radials to double as guy wires... ![]() Not to mention further, it helps keep birds off!! Ed |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Such an excellent and succint didactic exposition deserves
wider recognition..... "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message ... Assuming the terminal resistance of a resonant dipole is 72 ohms, then a ground plane separating the halves of the dipole means the terminal resistance of each half is 36 ohms. Thus the terminal resistance of the half-dipole over the ground plane is also 36 ohms. The terminal resistance of the half dipole operating against the radials bent down can then be any value between 36 and 72 ohms, depending on the angle of the bending. If the bending changes the angle from 90° to 180° the resistance has changed from 36 to 72 ohms. The terminal resistance will be 50 ohms at some angle in between, and is usually close to 45°. Hope this helps in understanding what occurs from bending the radials downward. Walt, W2DU |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
PS. The same effect occurs in the so-called "capacity hat".
The waves rushing out and returning in both directions result in field cancellation and no radiation from the hat in the ideal case. "Capacity Hat"? - Because the delayed returning waves in recombination at the top of the radiator behave as though they have picked up a capacitive phase change. "Airy R.Bean" wrote in message ... You only need two to result in field cancellation to prevent radiation. However, that is only the case in free space. Any near objects or objects in electrical contact may distort the field from one of the elements differently from the other, so resulting in less-than-perfect cancellation, especially in the case of ground radials. "Dan Richardson" wrote in message ... On 10 Jan 2005 08:48:37 -0800, wrote: I have seen some with 4 elements, some with 5. Also is the spacing between them important? The ¼-wave groundplane was developed by George Brown 1938. Here's a partial quote from his book: "... In our initial experiments we found that only two horizontal rods (ground rods) functioned as well as four. Many people from the Broadcast Sales organization came by to view our tests and they always expressed doubts as to the ability to radiate uniformly when only two ground rods were used. To quiet them, we used four ground rods for a while, thus stilling the criticism. When the antenna became really popular, we did not dare confess to our ruse." There you have it from the inventor of the antenna. |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:50:27 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote: Such an excellent and succint didactic exposition deserves wider recognition..... Whilst an interesting contribution, for which thanks are due to the OP, many of us knew this already. Didn't you, Bean? If you already knew this, why have you not explained it before? Can't you write in excellent, succinct, and/or didactic fashion? Or have you just gone up the learning curve? "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message .. . Assuming the terminal resistance of a resonant dipole is 72 ohms, then a ground plane separating the halves of the dipole means the terminal resistance of each half is 36 ohms. Thus the terminal resistance of the half-dipole over the ground plane is also 36 ohms. The terminal resistance of the half dipole operating against the radials bent down can then be any value between 36 and 72 ohms, depending on the angle of the bending. If the bending changes the angle from 90° to 180° the resistance has changed from 36 to 72 ohms. The terminal resistance will be 50 ohms at some angle in between, and is usually close to 45°. Hope this helps in understanding what occurs from bending the radials downward. Walt, W2DU -- from Aero Spike |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ok, I think I am learning something here. If radials simulate earth,
would using a solid steel plate instead of radials be better? |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
Ok, I think I am learning something here. If radials simulate earth, would using a solid steel plate instead of radials be better? OK till it rusted away. Some very fine antennas have used metal roofs for their ground planes. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
Ok, I think I am learning something here. If radials simulate earth, would using a solid steel plate instead of radials be better? Depends on how you define "better". For an elevated antenna, once you get beyond about 3 or 4 radials, the increamental difference in performance for added radials is such that you would never notice it in a practical application. A solid plane has the disadvantages of being heavy, has a much larger wind loading, and is difficult to "droop" to get closer to 50 Ohms. You can download the demo version of EZNEC from http://www.eznec.com/ and model a simple vertical with varying numbers of radials and see for yourself. -- Jim Pennino Remove -spam-sux to reply. |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:41:57 +0000, Spike
wrote: many of us knew this already. Didn't you, Bean? If you already knew this, why have you not explained it before? Hi OM, Much the same faint complaint could be lain against you, which is to say, seeing as you "knew this" why didn't you explain it as well? This is simply stealing Walt's thunder. It takes only once, and that moment passed. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|