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! =-----

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



and no horizontal wires attached to it?
Is transformer producing noise? Or bad connections, arcing?
Mabee vertical antenna due to its pattern is "seeing" more noise than your
ladder fed wunderdipole?

I think there is a major misconception that verticals are more sensitive to
noise because the noise is "vertically polarized". Man made, appliance or
otherwise produced noise is "all kinds" polarized. It is the antenna's location
and radiation pattern that determines the amount of noise or S/N pick up.

Yuri

In article ,
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

I think there is a major misconception that verticals are more sensitive to
noise because the noise is "vertically polarized". Man made, appliance or
otherwise produced noise is "all kinds" polarized. It is the antenna's location
and radiation pattern that determines the amount of noise or S/N pick up.

Well... yes and no (I think).

As I understand it, ground-wave / surface-wave propagation occurs for
vertically-polarized signals (or signal components), but not for
horizontally-polarized signals (or components). Even if manmade noise
is polarized in all planes with equal (or randomly distributed)
polarization senses, only the vertically polarized portion of it will
travel via groundwave propagation.

So, I suspect that the noise-proneness of vertical HF antennas
compared to horizontal dipoles, probably results from a "double
whammy". The horizontal antennas aren't exposed to anywhere near as
much energy propagating via groundwave (because horizontally-polarized
noise doesn't travel well in that mode), and they aren't as sensitive
to it because they often have fairly high radiation angles with a
substantial null towards the horizon.

The vertical antennas are hit with more noise energy, and due to their
low radiation angle they're pretty good at picking it up.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
I think there is a major misconception that verticals are more sensitive to
noise because the noise is "vertically polarized". Man made, appliance or
otherwise produced noise is "all kinds" polarized. It is the antenna's location
and radiation pattern that determines the amount of noise or S/N pick up.

I'm just reporting what conditions exist at my QTH. There is approximately
two S-units higher noise on the vertical than on the horizontal. After weeks
of A/B comparisons, there was never a time or signal where the vertical appreciably
beat the horizontal. There were a few times when they were nearly equal. Two extra
S-units of noise is hard to overcome. I really wish the outcome had been different.
--
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! =-----

(Jeffdeham) wrote in message . com...
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

It's simple. Cecil did not use enough radials for the low height he
mounted the vertical. Also, he didn't use it to work much long haul or
dx, which is what the vertical is best for. His antenna was just a bit
higher than an 1/8 wave. For an antenna that high to equal a GP at 1/2
wave with 4 radials, he really needed nearly 40-50-60 radials. A 1/2
wave high GP with 4 radials = a 1/4 wave high GP with 8-10 radials = a
1/8 wave high GP with 50-60 radials = a ground mount with 120 radials.
They all have the same appx ground loss. Now look at Cecils GP at a
bit over 1/8 wave and only 8 radials. Thats not much better than a
ground mount with 16-20 radials. No one will ever confuse a vertical
with 120 radials against one with appx 16-20 in the real world. I ran
a 40m GP at 36 ft, which is a bit over a 1/4 wave up. I used only 4
radials, but my antenna was appx equal to a ground mount with about 60
radials. My ground cdx are better than his also, so if anything he
should need more radials than I did. To me, his results are about as
to be expected. Heck, on 40m at night, my mobile vertical antenna will
outdo my home dipole at 42 ft to anyone at least 1000 miles away. I've
tested it many times. And my mobile antenna was a peanut whistle
compared to the full size GP I ran here at the house. To VK, Japan,
EU, etc, my GP would always be 3-4 S units better than my dipole at 36
ft. Heck, I'd give Tokyo a 20 db over 9 window rattling when I ran
that GP and a full KW. My dipole would be lucky to be S 8-9 with the
same power. MK