Yup, I made a typo when I said "F" layer in relation to Terman's
discussion of the E layer, - probably because I intended to discuss the
F layer...

But, I bring us back to the topic, no where do I see HF mentioned in
the quotes from Terman... Ground wave transmission becomes markedly
poorer beginning somewhere around a thousand KC - which is why hams
were relegated to the waste land of 200 meters and down....

BTW, here is an interesting discussion of the D and E layers for VLF
propgation...
http://www.aavso.org/observing/progr.../vlfprop.shtml

But to bring us back to the major complaint which seems to be that the
Nec engine doesn't model the last few degrees over ground very well, so
that the zero angle is discarded by the software... Richard seems on a
mission to prove the NEC engine wrong - well, I agree, the NEC engine
does have limitations for low angle signals which is why the authors
have installed an angle cut off... Per Richard's citations, Terman's
data proves that for MW signals - but not for HF ( a different kettle
of fish)...

If we look at the ham antenna literature over the 50 years predating
the advent of the NEC engine, we do not see much championing of the 5/8
wave vertical for lower HF... Since these folks did not have the NEC
engine poisoning their thinking one has to ask why the lack of
interest... The explanation for that, in my mind, is because it does
not have significant propagation advantage at HF offsetting it's
greater mechanical and financial burden to install... And because the
high angle lobes that are beginning to bulge are disadvantageous with
an antenna that is intended for low angle receiving/transmitting...

In my case I have a 4/8 wave vertical for 80 meter sitting on an
elevated base... Extending it to 5/8 wave would be a trivial task -
but I see no advantage to doing so...

denny / k8do

On 26 Sep 2006 11:56:36 -0700, "Denny" wrote:

the NEC engine
does have limitations for low angle signals which is why the authors
have installed an angle cut off... Per Richard's citations

Hi Denny,

Having done a bajillion designs in EZNEC, I take exception to this
comment for two reasons:

1. The low angle signals portrayed (or modeled) are easily
demonstrable and are certainly experienced by the any Ham;

2. EZNEC (notwithstanding other packages) easily offers 0 degree
field data that is within 1 dB of the classic Brown, Lewis, Epstein
findings.

If there is any anachronism in the NEC packages; then it is the
presumption of an Earth with infinite radius (no curvature). Here,
the far field curves diverge from the near field projections (and yet
you can still recover from that divergence if you wish, it is merely
tedious).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Oh, and here is a citation from the KN4LF web site that I have long
forgotten about conciously but my subconcious must have been nibbling
at because I suddenly had a compulsion to check his web site...
quote
************************************************** **********************************************8
Another note! When it comes to 160 meter vertical antenna's you can get
a lower take off angle (TOA) from a full 1/4 wave vertical or
electrical 1/4 wave tee vertical of 10-20 deg., versus ~30 deg. with
the inverted L. However it's a moot point as the night time E layer MUF
blocks 160 meter low angle transmitted radio signals from ever reaching
the F layer to be propagated. So unlike with HF propagation, MF
propagation success does not require the lowest of take off angles.
Also higher take off angles of 30-40 deg. via the inverted L are better
able to take advantage of the low signal loss E valley-F layer
propagation duct mechanism, a form of Chordal hop propagation.
************************************************** ********************************************
unquote

OK, so we are mixing theory with empirical results here, but, if having
the lowest possible angle of antenna response at 160 and 80 meters was
the best, by now a majority of the flagship contest stations would be
equipped with 5/8 wave vertical arrays, and they are not... I only know
of one major contest station that uses a 5/8 wave vertical on either of
the bottom HF bands...
My own experience is that the 1/4 wave vertical is superior on 160 but
not on 80... Nor is the half wave vertical on 80 superior to a high
dipole... The 80/160 vertical sits over a hundred half wave radials...
The high dipole hangs over forest with below average sandy soil......

denny / k8do

"Denny" wrote
But, I bring us back to the topic, no where do I see HF mentioned
in the quotes from Terman... Ground wave transmission becomes
markedly poorer beginning somewhere around a thousand KC -
which is why hams were relegated to the waste land of 200 meters
and down....
_________

Just to point out that, although groundwave _propagation loss_ is greater
when progressing from lower to higher radio frequencies, the radiation
patterns and peak gains in the horizontal plane from ground-mounted vertical
radiators remain the same for corresponding radiator heights in wavelengths
and equal r-f ground resistances, no matter what the frequency.

All ground-mounted, vertical monopoles through 5/8-wavelength in height
develop maximum radiated relative field in the horizontal plane. If the
vertical radiator is 1/4-wave tall, then the _radiated_ elevation pattern is
approximately a function of the cosine of the elevation angle, no matter
what the ground conditions are, at and near the radiator site.

These are the distinctions I am trying to make, because the common belief
seems to be that the relative field of the elevation pattern launched by a
ground-mounted vertical is dependent on ground conditions, and always zero
in the horizontal plane to peak at some greater elevation angle.

The field strengths measured by Brown, Lewis & Epstein in the benchmark 1937
study defining an effective r-f ground were taken at 3 MHz. And for the
best-case radial ground system the groundwave fields at 3/10 of a mile were
within a few percent of the theoretical maximum possible for that radiated
power over a perfectly conducting earth -- even though the tests were done
in NJ over a path of rather poor conductivity -- maybe 4 mS/m. It's clear
from this that even in the low HF spectrum, the field radiated from their
test antenna over a poor earth path was not zero in the horizontal plane!

RF

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:22:15 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:


All ground-mounted, vertical monopoles through 5/8-wavelength in height
develop maximum radiated relative field in the horizontal plane. If the

Richard,is this true in general, or is it restricted to perfect ground
(infinite size, perfect conductor, perfectly flat).

NEC models would suggest that the major lobe of a monopole up to 5/8
wave over "real" ground is dependent on the ground characteristics,
and can be quite high relative to the 0deg to 3deg region that people
are focussing upon.

Owen
--

"Owen Duffy" wrote
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:22:15 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:
All ground-mounted, vertical monopoles through 5/8-wavelength in height
develop maximum radiated relative field in the horizontal plane. If the

Richard,is this true in general, or is it restricted to perfect ground
(infinite size, perfect conductor, perfectly flat).

NEC models would suggest that the major lobe of a monopole up to 5/8
wave over "real" ground is dependent on the ground characteristics,
and can be quite high relative to the 0deg to 3deg region that people
are focussing upon.
__________________

For the shape of the relative field elevation pattern, it is true in
general. A poor r-f ground for the monopole (i.e., a ground of high r-f
resistance) will change the peak gain of that radiated elevation pattern,
but not its shape.

NEC evaluations typically don't show 100% relative field in the horizontal
plane in the elevation pattern radiated by a vertical monopole except over a
perfectly conducting ground plane, which is the root of all this confusion.

Once the radiation is launched, then it becomes subject to the propagation
losses for the path and frequency. But for verticals up to 5/8-wave tall,
peak relative field always lies in the horizontal plane, regardless of the
ground conditions on and near the radiator site. This is the basis used by
the FCC in determining the coverage capabilities of AM broadcast stations,
and has been proven to be a rather accurate approach going back some 60
years.

RF

"Denny" wrote
If we look at the ham antenna literature over the 50 years predating
the advent of the NEC engine, we do not see much championing of the 5/8
wave vertical for lower HF... Since these folks did not have the NEC
engine poisoning their thinking one has to ask why the lack of
interest... The explanation for that, in my mind, is because it does
not have significant propagation advantage at HF offsetting it's
greater mechanical and financial burden to install... And because the
high angle lobes that are beginning to bulge are disadvantageous with
an antenna that is intended for low angle receiving/transmitting...
__________________

A 5/8-wave vertical is more expensive than a 1/4-wave vertical for sure.
But the high-angle lobe that develops when the radiator height exceeds
1/2-wavelength maybe isn't as serious as thought. At HF, probably the
groundwave is gone before that high-angle radiation returns to the earth via
skip, so it won't cause self-interference even if you are trying to use the
groundwave.

Below is a link to a clip from the FCC website, showing the elevation
patterns for vertical radiators of several heights in wavelengths. For a
given applied tx power, the sidelobe of the 5/8-wave vertical is
significantly greater in radiated field than that of a 1/4-wave from about
60 to 80 degrees. But the 5/8-wave has higher radiated field than the
1/4-wave at elevation angles below ~18 degrees -- which would benefit HF
DX.

AM broadcast stations operating full time with 50 kW transmitters tend to
use radiators of about 195 degrees in height. This gives them much of the
gain advantage over a 1/4-wave in and near the horizontal plane, which helps
their groundwave and DX coverage. But radiators of that height have an
insignificant high-angle lobe to worsen their self-interference at the edge
of their groundwave coverage area. Of course because of the frequency,
their groundwave can cover an area having a large radius.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h85/rfry-100/73.jpg

RF

I just ran a few analyses which are relevant to this discussion. They
were done with EZNEC/4 using an NEC-4 calculating engine (although NEC-2
will give the same results), using MININEC-type ground to simulate a
lossless ground system, and with surface wave included. The antenna is a
0.25 wavelength high vertical. The intent was to look at the vertical
pattern characteristics at various distances.

Before discussing the results, let me point out that radiation very
close to a vertical antenna is maximum at the horizon, as Rich has said.
However, the field propagating in proximity with the ground (the surface
wave) gets attenuated with distance much more rapidly than the normal
attenuation of a wave in free space (or the sky wave, discussed
shortly), which is attenuated only because it expands to cover an
increasing area with increasing distance. At a distance beyond which the
surface wave has decayed to a negligible value, the remaining field is
known as the sky wave. This has the pattern characteristics you'll see
with EZNEC (unless using EZNEC pro with ground wave enabled) or NEC
without ground wave enabled. Because of ground reflection, the sky wave
has zero amplitude at an elevation angle of zero except for perfectly
conducting ground. For typical ground conditions and in the HF range,
the maximum field strength occurs at an elevation angle on the order of
20 degrees. Remember, this is the sky wave, which is what's left beyond
the distance at which the surface wave has been attenuated to
essentially zero.

The rate at which the surface wave is attenuated with distance is a
function of ground conductivity, and a very strong function of
frequency. That's why AM broadcasters successfully use surface wave
propagation, while it's of little use to amateurs operating at HF and
above. Rich's original posting showed how some of the surface wave from
a broadcast station can (presumably) even reach far enough for the
Earth's curvature to allow it to escape and reach the ionosphere for
longer distance communication. As the following results will show, this
doesn't happen at HF and above.

Here are results of the analyses.

The initial runs were at 1 MHz, which has been the focus of Rich's
comments on this thread. The reported field strength includes the entire
field, or in other words, the sum of the sky and surface waves.

At 1 km, with either average or very poor soil, the elevation pattern
shows a monotonic decrease as you go up in elevation, like in the plots
referenced in earlier postings and resembling the plot of the pattern
over perfect ground. Changing the ground type attenuates both the sky
and surface waves (although not necessarily by the same amount), which
tends to reduce the dependence of pattern shape on ground
characteristics. So the same general pattern shape occurs with a range
of soil types.

However, the pattern shape is profoundly affected by both distance and
frequency because both these determine the amount of surface wave
attenuation. For example, with average ground at 10 km (rather than 1
km) from the antenna and 1 MHz, the field strength is relatively high at
zero degrees elevation, and drops as the elevation angle increases, as
it does at 1 km. But at about 2 degrees it hits a minimum and begins
increasing again, reaching a maximum at about 20 degrees elevation,
which is the angle of maximum sky wave. At that point, the field
strength is about 1.24 times (about 1.9 dB greater than) the field
strength at zero degrees elevation. This is because the surface wave is
attenuated much more rapidly with distance than the sky wave, and at 10
km the surface wave has already decayed to less than the sky wave field
strength. At 100 km, the ratio of sky to surface wave (that is, field
strength at 20 degree elevation compared to zero degrees) is 13.6 dB,
because of course the surface wave has decayed a great deal more.

At 3 MHz, the attenuation of the surface wave is much more dramatic.
Just 1 km from the antenna over average ground, the field strength
*increases* monotonically (at least above 0.1 degree, which is the
lowest I checked) as the elevation angle increases, until it reaches the
sky wave peak at about 24 degrees. At that angle, the field strength is
more than 40 dB greater than the strength at the horizon (which is the
remaining surface wave). At 10 km, the field strength at 24 degrees is
more than 60 dB stronger than that at the horizon. And of course, this
effect becomes stronger with increasing frequency and distance.

So even at 10 km distance from the antenna at 3 MHz over average ground,
the sky wave is more than 60 dB stronger than the surface wave. The
difference becomes greater at higher frequencies and greater distances.
This is why the surface wave is of little practical interest to most
amateurs. And it's why you'll never see the wonderful low-angle
ionospheric propagation effects Rich predicted in his original posting
on this thread.

The EZNEC/4 results are just what we should expect, given a knowledge of
how the surface wave and sky wave are attenuated with distance.

I caution people to take care in extrapolating propagation or antenna
performance results at AM broadcast frequencies to the higher
frequencies more commonly used by amateurs. If done carelessly, it can
lead you to reach some pretty seriously wrong conclusions.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

W7EL wrote:

So even at 10 km distance from the antenna at 3 MHz over average ground,
the sky wave is more than 60 dB stronger than the surface wave. The
difference becomes greater at higher frequencies and greater distances.
This is why the surface wave is of little practical interest to most
amateurs. And it's why you'll never see the wonderful low-angle
ionospheric propagation effects Rich predicted in his original posting
on this thread.

Surface wave applies mostly to day time propagation at AM band and 160.
When we propagate during the night at low bands, horizontal (high angle)
antennas give stronger signals within about 500 -700 miles. Beyond that the
low angles (surface?) rule, except in some high angle propagation at
sunrise. Those who work long pass and far DX on 160 know that verticals (low
angle) dominate (while being "inefficient" at closer distances at the same
time). Being at the salty beach front enhances the signals and low angles by
about 10 - 15 dB. Can we call those angles "surface"?

The point is that propagation modes are very finicky and vary, making blank
statements about attenuation some times doesn't jive. Way back when
scientwists figured out that no way signals on HF can go large distances,
because of calculated dispersion etc. we (OK, our forefathers) were given
"useless" HF bands to play with.

The EZNEC/4 results are just what we should expect, given a knowledge of
how the surface wave and sky wave are attenuated with distance.

That is somewhat valid within close proximity (one "hop").
EZNECs do not incorporate propagation mechanisms. They are usefull to
calculate the pattern of particular antena, but how that fits the
propagation and delivering the signal to the target, is another story. Most
people trivilialize the propagation and assume that signals nicely bounce
between the ionosphere and earth, which in reality gets way out of those
distorted pictures of earth-ionosphere in the books.
http://members.aol.com/ve3bmv/bmvpropagation.htm

I caution people to take care in extrapolating propagation or antenna
performance results at AM broadcast frequencies to the higher
frequencies more commonly used by amateurs. If done carelessly, it can
lead you to reach some pretty seriously wrong conclusions.

That applies also when trying to use EZNECs and other antenna modeling
software in predicting propagation and how the signals get to the other end.
The beautifull and unknown thing is that propagation can play games with
paths of signals and unless one has variety of antennas that can "see" the
angles and modes, you would never know.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Just an example: I was at Cape Hatteras on 10m in a contest. Band started to
open and ZS6EZ told me I was the only NA station he was hearing. Was that
"dead" surface wave? It was definitely low angle from my pair of verticals
stuck in the sand and running barefoot. Big multi/multis with their stacked
beams and kWs were not audible, and they CQ even on the dead band. The point
is that I was "manufacturing" signal at low angle, that according to
calculations should have been "expired".
Another one was when operating 160m from W8LRL. There was short opening to
Japan. Wal has different antennas for that area. Vertical circle 8 el.
array, EWE, regular Beverage, phased Beverages and 3.5 wave long Beverage.
JAs were audible only on 3.5 wave one, which has the lowest angle than any
other antennas.
Obviously, low angles are not useless for DX as above calculations might
imply.

W8JI way back argued with me that there is no way there could be high angle
propagation from long haul DX on 160, or skewed path. (Now he is the guru on
the subject :-) At he sunrise, low (high angle) inverted Vee can run
circles around verticals and Beverages. The difference could be dramatic,
like S7 vs. no signal.
I discovered way back than one has never enough of antennas, especially for
serious contesters, if they want to take advantage of different propagation
modes and angles/polarizations.

73 Yuri, K3BU, VE3BMV etc,.

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:56:43 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

....
I caution people to take care in extrapolating propagation or antenna
performance results at AM broadcast frequencies to the higher
frequencies more commonly used by amateurs. If done carelessly, it can
lead you to reach some pretty seriously wrong conclusions.

Roy,

A well developed analysis of what happens on MF and HF, and the issues
in extrapolation of MF to HF.

Thank you.

Owen
--