Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
vertical over real ground
Trying to design a 13' vertical with a loading coil at 3'. It will be
mounted on an aluminum tool box on a pickup. I modeled this on EZNEC and came up with loads to resonate on 14.2 and 7.2 mhz. Wind the coils with calculated inductance and it is way lower in frequency than predicted. Tapped up the coils and eventially got matches, but was wondering why the design and real world are so far apart? Gary N4AST |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
vertical over real ground
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:00:38 -0800 (PST), wrote:
was wondering why the design and real world are so far apart? Hi Gary, The devil is in the details. A more full description of the model, like its file available from a web site, would be more productive than a lot of guessing. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
vertical over real ground
wrote in message ... Trying to design a 13' vertical with a loading coil at 3'. It will be mounted on an aluminum tool box on a pickup. I modeled this on EZNEC and came up with loads to resonate on 14.2 and 7.2 mhz. Wind the coils with calculated inductance and it is way lower in frequency than predicted. Tapped up the coils and eventially got matches, but was wondering why the design and real world are so far apart? Gary N4AST the real ground on the pickup truck is much more complex than you probably modeled. what did you include for your ground model? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
vertical over real ground
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
vertical over real ground
wrote:
Tapped up the coils and eventially got matches, but was wondering why the design and real world are so far apart? You must have used the lumped inductance available in EZNEC which assumes that the coil is zero degrees long. I've found the helix option to be much more accurate. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
vertical over real ground
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
vertical over real ground
In article tonline, Roy
Lewallen wrote: It sounds like the model of the pickup was inadequate -- it's at least as important as the vertical. How did you model it? Roy Lewallen, W7EL Hello, and that could well be it. After using NEC-4 to model USN HF antennas in their intended operating environment one finds that the local environment often requires beaucoup more wire segments (I never completely trusted patches) to model than the antenna itself. If conductive objects in close proximity can be excited by antenna currents then they are part of the antenna. A USN example would be the 2-6 MHz twin fan-type antenna that relies heavily on induced currents in the ship's stack for its feedpoint impedance and radiation characteristics. Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO, John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
vertical over real ground
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
vertical over real ground
The real world and modeling are a lot different with vehicles than they
are with land mounted antennas. Your ground on your truck is very complex. side question: Did you bond the bejabbers out of the truck? You really should have hood, doors, tailgate, exhaust system in several places, frame in several places, radiator, engine block, and any other place of interest you can think of. Rule of thumb is that you need at least one more bond than the maximum amount you'd dare to place on the vehicle. The vehicle bonding and grounding is more important than the aerial part IMO. - 73 de Mike N3LI - The frame is the only substantial ground and certainly most effective for 40 meters. Use of the corners of the vehicle might actually get you a counterpoise on 20. What you really need is a trailing wire, dragging a cast iron stove. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
vertical over real ground
JB wrote:
The frame is the only substantial ground and certainly most effective for 40 meters. Use of the corners of the vehicle might actually get you a counterpoise on 20. What you really need is a trailing wire, dragging a cast iron stove. At HF, a vehicle isn't "ground" or a "counterpoise", but the bottom half of an asymmetric dipole. It radiates at least as much as the "antenna" due to currents flowing downward along the outside. Calling a vehicle "ground" or "counterpoise" doesn't impart magical properties -- it's a conductor carrying currents whose fields don't cancel. In other words, it's an integral, radiating portion of the antenna. You can't leave this significant part of the antenna out of a model and expect the model to give correct results. And modeling a vehicle can be challenging because of the proximity of conductors, particularly the whip and vehicle. You have to follow the rules for closely spaced parallel conductors, and watch the average gain. You might need considerably more segments than normal where conductors are very close. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ground gain on real ground | Antenna | |||
Ground conductivity's effect on vertical | Antenna | |||
Vertical above the ground-plane | Antenna | |||
VERTICAL GROUND RADIAL QUESTION | Antenna | |||
Ground system for a vertical antenna | Antenna |