I just finished putting up a 6m long aluminum tube for a vertical for
10/15/20m. Its length is just over 1/4 wavelength on 20m and just
under 5/8 wavelengths on 10m. The vertical is located at the apex (8m
above ground) of a sheet metal roof top, that slopes approx. 30
degrees down to all sides from the vertical. I use use the roof metal
as a counterpoise and feed the vertical with an autotuner at the base.
A coax runs 6m (18ft) from the autotuner, down through an attic
window and to my TX.

Now, simulations (EZNEC 3.0) and common wisdom predict a fairly good
performance for this antenna. Not so. When the tuner is set for 1:1
VSWR the RX signals from the vertical on 15m are consistently 4
S-units below a 20m (60ft) long sloper at the corner of the house. I
use this sloper for 160m and 80m. When going to the 20m band the
vertical is about 8 S-units below the sloper. Even more irritating,
the vertical is constantly outperformed by a leftover horizontal wire,
approx. 6m long, lifted only 1m (3ft) above the roof.

Switching to the vertical from either wire antenna the background
noise and signals drop noticably. This led me to check out the tuner,
the feedline, connections, but all seems to be fine. The bottom line
appears to be that the vertical is simply a much poorer antenna than
either of the wires I have up already - contrary to the theory and
conventional wisdom.

Any comments, anyone, before I remove the vertical and turn to another
design?

73 de TF3KX, Kristinn

"Kristinn Andersen" wrote in message
om...
I just finished putting up a 6m long aluminum tube for a vertical for
10/15/20m. Its length is just over 1/4 wavelength on 20m and just
under 5/8 wavelengths on 10m. The vertical is located at the apex (8m
above ground) of a sheet metal roof top, that slopes approx. 30
degrees down to all sides from the vertical. I use use the roof metal
as a counterpoise and feed the vertical with an autotuner at the base.
A coax runs 6m (18ft) from the autotuner, down through an attic
window and to my TX.

Now, simulations (EZNEC 3.0) and common wisdom predict a fairly good
performance for this antenna. Not so. When the tuner is set for 1:1
VSWR the RX signals from the vertical on 15m are consistently 4
S-units below a 20m (60ft) long sloper at the corner of the house. I
use this sloper for 160m and 80m. When going to the 20m band the
vertical is about 8 S-units below the sloper. Even more irritating,
the vertical is constantly outperformed by a leftover horizontal wire,
approx. 6m long, lifted only 1m (3ft) above the roof.

Switching to the vertical from either wire antenna the background
noise and signals drop noticably. This led me to check out the tuner,
the feedline, connections, but all seems to be fine. The bottom line
appears to be that the vertical is simply a much poorer antenna than
either of the wires I have up already - contrary to the theory and
conventional wisdom.

Any comments, anyone, before I remove the vertical and turn to another
design?

73 de TF3KX, Kristinn

Kristinn
Can you get on the roof with an antenna analyzer and see what the vertical
looks like to the tuner?
Are you certain the roof is electrically continuous?
H.
NQ5H

Kristinn,

I'd try measuring SWR and impedance at the base of the antenna and also ensure
that connections to the roof, particularly between the various sections, all
have good cotinuity. There is a chance that there is rust and corrosion
between overlapping sections.

73s,

Evan

Any comments, anyone, before I remove the vertical and turn to another
design?

73 de TF3KX, Kristinn



First I would check the coax and tuner performance, make sure you have no bad
connections.
When comparing signals against other antennas, keep in mind that vertical is
better performer at low angles - DX. Try the comparison on DX signals rather
than Eu and high angle propagation. You could esay see 20 dB differences, but
check at the beginning of openings to DX areas and see how they compare.

GL Yuri, K3BU

Kristinn Andersen wrote:
Any comments, anyone, before I remove the vertical and turn to another
design?

I spent considerable time and effort erecting a 33ft vertical 40m
antenna with 8 elevated radials at 20ft. Average signal strengths were
about 2 S-units below a dipole and the noise level was about 2 S-units
higher than the dipole. At my QTH, it was a dog.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

W5DXP wrote in message ...
Kristinn Andersen wrote:
Any comments, anyone, before I remove the vertical and turn to another
design?

I spent considerable time and effort erecting a 33ft vertical 40m
antenna with 8 elevated radials at 20ft. Average signal strengths were
about 2 S-units below a dipole and the noise level was about 2 S-units
higher than the dipole. At my QTH, it was a dog.

I had exactly the opposite results. It was 2-3 S units better at low
angles of radiation compared to my low dipole. I've heard other
experiences like this too. I just wonder if there some part of antenna
theory that's missing that could explain why that happens. Murphy's
law, blind luck, who knows. 8-)

73!

Jeff

For horizontal antennas -- the radiation angle becomes lower as the height
of the antenna increases and vice versa (with caveats)
A layman's explanation at URL:
http://www.signalengineering.com/ult...radiation.html

Excuse the CB reference -- but it has some nice pictorials.

Those mathematically inclined can model antennas at URL:
http://www.eznec.com/

================================================== ====

"Jeffdeham" wrote in message
om...
W5DXP wrote in message
...
Kristinn Andersen wrote:
Any comments, anyone, before I remove the vertical and turn to another
design?

I spent considerable time and effort erecting a 33ft vertical 40m
antenna with 8 elevated radials at 20ft. Average signal strengths were
about 2 S-units below a dipole and the noise level was about 2 S-units
higher than the dipole. At my QTH, it was a dog.

I had exactly the opposite results. It was 2-3 S units better at low
angles of radiation compared to my low dipole. I've heard other
experiences like this too. I just wonder if there some part of antenna
theory that's missing that could explain why that happens. Murphy's
law, blind luck, who knows. 8-)

73!

Jeff

Jeffdeham wrote:
I had exactly the opposite results. It was 2-3 S units better at low
angles of radiation compared to my low dipole. I've heard other
experiences like this too. I just wonder if there some part of antenna
theory that's missing that could explain why that happens. Murphy's
law, blind luck, who knows. 8-)

The vertically polarized noise in my neighborhood is the real killer
of verticals.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

The vertically polarized noise in my neighborhood is the real killer
of verticals.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp




Hmmm,
all the noisey appliances in the neighborhood are vertically polarized?
Trolling for another argument "threat" :-?

Yuri

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
The vertically polarized noise in my neighborhood is the real killer
of verticals.

all the noisey appliances in the neighborhood are vertically polarized?

A very large power transformer mounted on a pole at the edge of my
property has a 35 foot ground wire running down the pole about 100 ft
from my vertical. I suspect that is the source of the vertically
polarized noise.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----