Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Rhombics
More like model has a problem capturing or reflecting reality.
Modeling will calculate the pattern etc., but will not properly reflect the interaction of the antenna design with propagation medium and terrain/surroundings, like showing effect of capture area. 73 Yuri, K3BU "Alan Peake" wrote in message ... Richard Fry wrote: "Yuri Blanarovich" Rhombics perform better than what simulations and modeling show. ___________ I can vouch for that. ............. Problem with the model?? Alan |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Rhombics
Antenna modeling tools aren't intended to model propagation effects. But
the stronger the signal radiated in the right direction, the stronger the received signal will be. And the strength of the radiated signal in each direction is what the antenna modeling program shows. As for the "effect of capture area", the "capture area" of an antenna is just another way of stating the gain. This information is what you get from an antenna modeling program. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Yuri Blanarovich wrote: More like model has a problem capturing or reflecting reality. Modeling will calculate the pattern etc., but will not properly reflect the interaction of the antenna design with propagation medium and terrain/surroundings, like showing effect of capture area. 73 Yuri, K3BU "Alan Peake" wrote in message ... Richard Fry wrote: "Yuri Blanarovich" Rhombics perform better than what simulations and modeling show. ___________ I can vouch for that. ............. Problem with the model?? Alan |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Rhombics
Something that I saw done on commercial sites with high power transmitters is to run a feedline down from the termination end of the rhombic and run it underground for a while. If the loss is sufficient, you don't even need the terminating resistor. Owen Not a bad idea. There's a diagram or three in Laport's "Radio Antenna Engineering" so I'll have a bit of a read. Alan |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Rhombics
to appear as about 800 ohms and then the spacing tapered steadiy down during the descent to the horizontal transmission line which was spaced for 600 ohms. I like the tapered arrangement. What's the minimum distance needed to taper from 800 to 600 at freqs from say 3.5MHz to 14MHz? I did one years ago from 130 to 200 and it was about a foot long at 1.8GHz. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Alan |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Rhombics
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:27:31 +1000, Alan Peake
wrote: to appear as about 800 ohms and then the spacing tapered steadiy down during the descent to the horizontal transmission line which was spaced for 600 ohms. I like the tapered arrangement. What's the minimum distance needed to taper from 800 to 600 at freqs from say 3.5MHz to 14MHz? I did one years ago from 130 to 200 and it was about a foot long at 1.8GHz. Alan, Are you tapering for impedance transformation, or just to reduce transmission line losses? I make the matched line loss on a 600 ohms open wire line with 2mm dia copper spaced 150mm something approaching 0.1dB/100m, with 2:1 VSWR you are talking ~0.14dB/100m. You should find the rhombic no worse than 2:1 unless it is too short. My loss calculator has an ideal air spaced 600 ohm copper line (copper loss only) 2mm/150mm, the label is "Open / air dielectric (150/2.00)", you can try the various loads from the NEC models for more exact loss figures. Owen -- |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Rhombics
Antenna modeling tools aren't intended to model propagation
effects. But the stronger the signal radiated in the right direction, the stronger the received signal will be. And the strength of the radiated signal in each direction is what the antenna modeling program shows. ____________ But whenever a far-field NEC model uses any kind of real ground in the analysis, modeling the effects of the propagation environment along with the native radiation launched by the antenna is exactly what occurs. This is why some think that the far field radiated by a vertical monopole less than 5/8-wave high is zero in the horizontal plane, when in fact at every operating frequency, it is always the highest field the antenna produces. RF |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Rhombics
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:30:49 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote: This is why some think that the far field radiated by a vertical monopole less than 5/8-wave high is zero in the horizontal plane, when in fact at every operating frequency, it is always the highest field the antenna produces. Given the anachronism of mixing the explicit far field with the implication of an unexpressed near field in the statement above, it is reasonable that some might "think" something. The bare statement is rather given to pondering, wondering, and ultimately puzzling: What is the comparison being made? A vertical monopole to a 5/8-wave high antenna? A vertical monopole that IS a 5/8-wave high antenna? The far field to the near field? For either a vertical monopole OR a 5/8-wave high antenna? For the same vertical 5/8-wave high monopole antenna? To what purpose? Are we being steered toward the argument that the far field representation of radiation would force someone to renounce their experience of a strong signal received, at ground level, and within sight of the antenna? This may appear to offer the temptation of a paradox, but such opportunity is so rare as to be wholly outside of the commonplace MF/HF activity of Hams. After-all, even considering AM frequencies (160M) and that 5/8-wave tall structure, there is no such thing as a zero angle signal beyond 26 miles. This range would be a stretch even then, as it demands an angle depressed BELOW zero degrees from the aeronautical beacon at the very top of the antenna. The zero angle range must then be something radically less. And being less, it would be of no interest to the average Ham. Thus the paradox of confabulating two different radiation characteristics is lost. As often happens, ray-tracing demands an origin, and yet an antenna radiates from the WHOLE of its surface, not the aeronautical beacon, nor its base insulator. To obtain that zero angle radiation characteristic demands that the entire antenna (or certainly a majority portion of it) be in sight. Let's simply mandate the average height of a 5/8ths-wave for the 160M band being a 50M high point origin for this ray-tracing exercise. The zero angle would fly over the head of every radio in the audience who lived below that height. In fact, most ordinary Hams would be hard pressed to erect an antenna that high in the first place. Again, common experience would dictate a healthy signal, but it would not be a treasured DX contact, and it would probably be considered obnoxious QRM. Even though such a signal (seeing only half the height of the antenna) comes from being 18 miles away (on a billiard ball smooth planet), it demonstrates the NEAR FIELD properties of optical ray-tracing and what would be called a zone of confusion. 18 miles away is well outside of the RF near field, but the argument of radiation lobes's characteristics is an optical geometry and 18 miles is sufficiently close enough to confound the two meanings arrived at in the quote above. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Rhombics
"Richard Clark" wrote:
Given the anachronism etc etc ________________ The purposes of my post were to state that (1) many NEC evaluations show a combination of the radiation from the antenna PLUS the propagation effects for the chosen earth parameters and antenna elevation, and (2) even when such an approach shows zero field in the horizontal plane for a ground mounted vertical monopole up to 5/8-wave high, that h-plane field in reality is NOT zero _as it is radiated_ by the antenna. In fact for distances just into the far-field region for the radiator defined in (2) above (far field usually being defined as further than 2H^2/lambda from the antenna), h-plane relative field is virtually 100%, regardless of ground conditions. RF |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Rhombics
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 14:50:33 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote: The purposes of my post were to state that (1) many NEC evaluations show a combination of the radiation from the antenna PLUS the propagation effects for the chosen earth parameters and antenna elevation, and (2) even when such an approach shows zero field in the horizontal plane for a ground mounted vertical monopole up to 5/8-wave high, that h-plane field in reality is NOT zero _as it is radiated_ by the antenna. This is simply an example of misusing a tool, not the evidence that it lacks the capacity to show characteristics as they exist. Anyone can conspire to fail. In fact for distances just into the far-field region for the radiator defined in (2) above (far field usually being defined as further than 2H^2/lambda from the antenna), h-plane relative field is virtually 100%, regardless of ground conditions. As I pointed out once before, NEC (EZNEC in particular) will exhibit fields from any antenna that are consistent with Brown, Lewis, and Epstein's field data to within 1dB. I would further note that their data all exhibited values that lay below 100% (if by 100% that is meant to be theoretical). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Rhombics
"Richard Clark" wrote
I would further note that their data all exhibited values that lay below 100% (if by 100% that is meant to be theoretical.) ________ My statement was "relative field." Relative field is defined as E/E(max). RF |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
What's the best Source of Info On Rhombics? | Antenna | |||
VOA Delano: 1. Uses Rhombics (still!) 2. Staff needed instructions on not getting fried! | Shortwave | |||
Rhombic for 80m | Antenna |