Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11   Report Post  
Old October 4th 15, 08:22 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2012
Posts: 989
Default About verticals

On 10/4/2015 1:47 PM, Renee wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 12:29:28 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 10/4/2015 10:05 AM, John S wrote:
How less efficient is a short vertical than a 1/4 vertical?


You are starting to sound like someone else.

That's because he IS that someone else. Check his headers! Gareth strikes again.
Typical troll tactic to change user name to thwart filters.


Now you have lost it. John S is a different person and his post looks
nothing like one from someone else.

--

Rick

  #12   Report Post  
Old October 4th 15, 08:24 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2012
Posts: 989
Default About verticals

On 10/4/2015 1:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:05:57 -0500, John S wrote:

I would like to see some numbers. It is a ground plane with 4 radials
(typical). Free space.


I just noticed the contradiction. You can't have a grounded antenna,
or a ground plane in free space, where there is no ground. Also, as
Jim mentioned, ideal antennas in free space have no dissipative
losses. Try again please.


Why not? Is not the ground just the other terminal on the antenna
connected to the radials? Ground doesn't have to be earth ground or
anything else. It is just a defined reference point.

--

Rick
  #13   Report Post  
Old October 4th 15, 09:43 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,329
Default About verticals

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 18:56:18 -0000, wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:05:57 -0500, John S wrote:

I would like to see some numbers. It is a ground plane with 4 radials
(typical). Free space.


I just noticed the contradiction. You can't have a grounded antenna,
or a ground plane in free space, where there is no ground. Also, as
Jim mentioned, ideal antennas in free space have no dissipative
losses. Try again please.


What do you mean you can't have a ground plane in free space?

There are no ground losses in free space, but ground plane antennas, i.e.
a radiator with radials, work just fine.


I'll stand my ground and defend my assertions on good grounds. Permit
me to explain from the ground up.

If you mount a monopole on the ISS, the NEC model would probably use
the space station surface as a ground. That's not exactly what I
would call "free space" because it costs so much to get into space,
but that doesn't enter into the calculations. The space station would
form a suitable ground plane where its presence in outer space is an
incidental coincidence. However, that's not the same as an "earth
ground", which is what I mean by a "real ground". Also, If I fire up
4NEC2, and setup the antenna in free space, the various grounding
options become grayed out. That would suggest that there ain't no
such thing as a ground or "earth ground" in expensive, errr... free
outer space.

Of course, I could design what is commonly called a "ground plane
antenna", which would rhetorically have a "ground plane". However,
that's not the same as an "earth ground". For example, if you
actually model a "ground plane antenna" over an earth ground, you
might end up with two grounds, which make little sense. Also,
adjusting the height above ground in a "ground plane antenna" make
equally little sense. The radials that form a "ground plane" should
be renamed to something more definitive, such as a conical
counterpoise or conical grounded sleeve antenna.

Ummm... how do I model coffee grounds or has this discussion ground to
a halt?


--
Jeff Liebermann

150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #14   Report Post  
Old October 4th 15, 10:08 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,329
Default About verticals

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:24:39 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 10/4/2015 1:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:05:57 -0500, John S wrote:

I would like to see some numbers. It is a ground plane with 4 radials
(typical). Free space.


I just noticed the contradiction. You can't have a grounded antenna,
or a ground plane in free space, where there is no ground. Also, as
Jim mentioned, ideal antennas in free space have no dissipative
losses. Try again please.


Why not?


Because a free space model is defined as the absence of a "real
ground", "earth ground", or something sufficiently away from the rock
that you're standing on so that its influence is very small on the
model. That's usually measured in wavelengths. Offhand, anything at
least 10 wavelengths above the nearest ground structure (ground,
trees, buildings, etc) can be ignored. For VHF/UHF, that's a fairly
small distance. For HF, much longer.

Is not the ground just the other terminal on the antenna
connected to the radials?


Nope. Which radials? The radials in a common "ground plane" antenna
are certainly not considered an "earth ground". However, the buried
counterpoise that forms the other half of a monopole antenna is
certainly an earth ground. Note that I would need an NEC4 runtime to
model a below ground radial counterpoise system.

Ground doesn't have to be earth ground or
anything else. It is just a defined reference point.


I think the problem is too many definitions of ground here. In my
world, "earth ground" means just that. It's the rock you're standing
on. A "grounded" antenna, is one that uses the earth as the
counterpoise. A "safety or lightning ground" is a path for
atmospheric electricity and does not usually enter in the
calculations.

Maybe some examples might help.

1. I want to model a UHF (440 MHz) vertical "ground plane" antenna
mounted on a pole on my roof. The roof is 20ft high and the antenna
is mounted on top of a 10ft pole. How high above "ground" do I make
my antenna model?

2. Same antenna, but with a #12 solid ground wire running to a ground
rod pounded into the ground. How high above "ground" do I make my
antenna model?

3. Assuming the pole is made from fiberglass, and RF power amp is
mounted at the antenna (common for cellular TMA installs), will a free
space model work?

4. If the 10ft pole it transplanted to the ISS, is there an "earth
ground" and how high?

Scroll down for my answers.














Looks like I'll be busy for a few days, so I might as well answer my
own questions now:

1. 10 ft. At UHF, the house is considered part of the earth ground
especially if the roof is corrugated steel or full of chicken wire.
Same with any LARGE mounting structure (in terms of wavelengths).

2. 10 ft. The ground wire is presumably not part of the radiating
parts of the antenna and can be ignored if shielded by the ground
plane wires. If long enough, it looks more like an RF choke
(inductor) than an antenna element.

3. Yes, free space will work, although nearby metal structures and
wires need to be considered if they can be "seen" by the radiating
elements.

4. Toss a coin and 10 ft. The ISS is large enough (in terms of
wavelengths at UHF) to be considered a perfect ground, as in my
monopole examples. However, if you need an accurate model, the ISS
has enough complex shapes that can re-radiate RF, and should probably
be modeled as part of the antenna system, in free space and without
any influence from the planetary rock.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #15   Report Post  
Old October 4th 15, 10:34 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,895
Default About verticals

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 18:56:18 -0000, wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:05:57 -0500, John S wrote:

I would like to see some numbers. It is a ground plane with 4 radials
(typical). Free space.

I just noticed the contradiction. You can't have a grounded antenna,
or a ground plane in free space, where there is no ground. Also, as
Jim mentioned, ideal antennas in free space have no dissipative
losses. Try again please.


What do you mean you can't have a ground plane in free space?

There are no ground losses in free space, but ground plane antennas, i.e.
a radiator with radials, work just fine.


I'll stand my ground and defend my assertions on good grounds. Permit
me to explain from the ground up.

If you mount a monopole on the ISS, the NEC model would probably use
the space station surface as a ground. That's not exactly what I
would call "free space" because it costs so much to get into space,
but that doesn't enter into the calculations. The space station would
form a suitable ground plane where its presence in outer space is an
incidental coincidence. However, that's not the same as an "earth
ground", which is what I mean by a "real ground". Also, If I fire up
4NEC2, and setup the antenna in free space, the various grounding
options become grayed out. That would suggest that there ain't no
such thing as a ground or "earth ground" in expensive, errr... free
outer space.

Of course, I could design what is commonly called a "ground plane
antenna", which would rhetorically have a "ground plane". However,
that's not the same as an "earth ground". For example, if you
actually model a "ground plane antenna" over an earth ground, you
might end up with two grounds, which make little sense. Also,
adjusting the height above ground in a "ground plane antenna" make
equally little sense. The radials that form a "ground plane" should
be renamed to something more definitive, such as a conical
counterpoise or conical grounded sleeve antenna.


Don't know about 4NEC2, but EZNEC has no problem with a ground plane
antenna in free space.

The ground plane in a ground plane antenna usually refers to the radial
elements attached to the bottom end of the radiator, so I don't see
any problem with such a configuration.

Now whether or not a ground plane antenna is a usefull design to use in
space is a separate issue.

But what is interesting is to model a ground plane over real ground
and step the height above real ground and observe what happens to the
pattern as the height goes from zero to a couple of wave lengths.

While getting a 40M ground plane up a half wave length would be a
challenge, at 12M and above it is not, and at 6M, most ARE mounted
at about 1 wavelength.

Ummm... how do I model coffee grounds or has this discussion ground to
a halt?


Depends on whether or not I have intrigued you enough to grind the
numbers for a ground plane at various heights.


--
Jim Pennino


  #16   Report Post  
Old October 4th 15, 10:46 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,895
Default About verticals

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Maybe some examples might help.

1. I want to model a UHF (440 MHz) vertical "ground plane" antenna
mounted on a pole on my roof. The roof is 20ft high and the antenna
is mounted on top of a 10ft pole. How high above "ground" do I make
my antenna model?


About 30 feet, i.e. the height of the radials.

2. Same antenna, but with a #12 solid ground wire running to a ground
rod pounded into the ground. How high above "ground" do I make my
antenna model?


For the same antenna, the same height.

3. Assuming the pole is made from fiberglass, and RF power amp is
mounted at the antenna (common for cellular TMA installs), will a free
space model work?


Depends on the actual height above the ground in wave lengths and what
else is around.

4. If the 10ft pole it transplanted to the ISS, is there an "earth
ground" and how high?


The ground would be free space, but for accuracy you would need to
model the ISS.

Scroll down for my answers.









Looks like I'll be busy for a few days, so I might as well answer my
own questions now:

1. 10 ft. At UHF, the house is considered part of the earth ground
especially if the roof is corrugated steel or full of chicken wire.
Same with any LARGE mounting structure (in terms of wavelengths).


My roof is all non-conductive so I can ignore it. Your milage may
vary.

2. 10 ft. The ground wire is presumably not part of the radiating
parts of the antenna and can be ignored if shielded by the ground
plane wires. If long enough, it looks more like an RF choke
(inductor) than an antenna element.


Having actually modeled such, I can say that such a wire will have
little to no effect on the antenna unless it happens to be about
1/4 wavelength long.

3. Yes, free space will work, although nearby metal structures and
wires need to be considered if they can be "seen" by the radiating
elements.


We agree totally on this one.

4. Toss a coin and 10 ft. The ISS is large enough (in terms of
wavelengths at UHF) to be considered a perfect ground, as in my
monopole examples. However, if you need an accurate model, the ISS
has enough complex shapes that can re-radiate RF, and should probably
be modeled as part of the antenna system, in free space and without
any influence from the planetary rock.


I would think that the shape of the ISS is such that you would need
to model it and take into concideration the location relative to the
solar panels and their orientation.



--
Jim Pennino
  #17   Report Post  
Old October 5th 15, 12:44 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2012
Posts: 989
Default About verticals

On 10/4/2015 5:08 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:24:39 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 10/4/2015 1:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:05:57 -0500, John S wrote:

I would like to see some numbers. It is a ground plane with 4 radials
(typical). Free space.

I just noticed the contradiction. You can't have a grounded antenna,
or a ground plane in free space, where there is no ground. Also, as
Jim mentioned, ideal antennas in free space have no dissipative
losses. Try again please.


Why not?


Because a free space model is defined as the absence of a "real
ground", "earth ground", or something sufficiently away from the rock
that you're standing on so that its influence is very small on the
model. That's usually measured in wavelengths. Offhand, anything at
least 10 wavelengths above the nearest ground structure (ground,
trees, buildings, etc) can be ignored. For VHF/UHF, that's a fairly
small distance. For HF, much longer.


I don't know why you are talking about "a real ground" when the context
was a ground plane antenna.

"It is a ground plane with 4 radials (typical). Free space."

Clearly that can exist. You said you can't have a "ground plane". The
antenna has a ground plane no matter where it is.


Is not the ground just the other terminal on the antenna
connected to the radials?


Nope. Which radials? The radials in a common "ground plane" antenna
are certainly not considered an "earth ground".


No one but you is talking about an "earth ground". The comment was
simply about a ground plane antenna in free space. I don't think the
name "ground plane antenna" requires the antenna to have any relation to
an earth ground.


However, the buried
counterpoise that forms the other half of a monopole antenna is
certainly an earth ground. Note that I would need an NEC4 runtime to
model a below ground radial counterpoise system.

Ground doesn't have to be earth ground or
anything else. It is just a defined reference point.


I think the problem is too many definitions of ground here. In my
world, "earth ground" means just that. It's the rock you're standing
on. A "grounded" antenna, is one that uses the earth as the
counterpoise. A "safety or lightning ground" is a path for
atmospheric electricity and does not usually enter in the
calculations.


But no one said anything about an "earth" ground except you. A "ground
plane" antenna is the topic. No one else said anything about a
"grounded" antenna.

Have you had too much coffee today?

--

Rick
  #18   Report Post  
Old October 5th 15, 01:53 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,329
Default About verticals

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 19:44:24 -0400, rickman wrote:

I don't know why you are talking about "a real ground" when the context
was a ground plane antenna.

"It is a ground plane with 4 radials (typical). Free space."

Clearly that can exist. You said you can't have a "ground plane". The
antenna has a ground plane no matter where it is.


Argh. You're right. I misread the original question.

Have you had too much coffee today?


No. I've been stacking firewood, dragging junk around, and doing
other odd jobs around the house today. When I get tired, I sit down
at the computah and post wrong information and bad advice at about 1
hr intervals. Maybe I shouldn't do that.

Sorry(tm).

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #19   Report Post  
Old October 5th 15, 02:08 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2012
Posts: 989
Default About verticals

On 10/4/2015 8:53 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 19:44:24 -0400, rickman wrote:

I don't know why you are talking about "a real ground" when the context
was a ground plane antenna.

"It is a ground plane with 4 radials (typical). Free space."

Clearly that can exist. You said you can't have a "ground plane". The
antenna has a ground plane no matter where it is.


Argh. You're right. I misread the original question.

Have you had too much coffee today?


No. I've been stacking firewood, dragging junk around, and doing
other odd jobs around the house today. When I get tired, I sit down
at the computah and post wrong information and bad advice at about 1
hr intervals. Maybe I shouldn't do that.


lol

--

Rick
  #20   Report Post  
Old October 5th 15, 02:26 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 757
Default About verticals

On Sunday, October 4, 2015 at 9:05:23 AM UTC-5, John S wrote:
How less efficient is a short vertical than a 1/4 vertical?

I would like to see some numbers. It is a ground plane with 4 radials
(typical). Free space.

Assume a source at the base. The type of source is your choice. EZNEC
defaults to one amp, but can be changed to a constant power of your choice.

I'm sure I've left out additional requirements, but maybe this will be
a healthy discussion even so. Suggestions are welcome.


One could spit out numbers for days given all the possibilities.
Too vague are the specs.. IE: you state four radials, but model in
free space. So would ground losses be an issue or not? Also the height
above ground in wavelength makes a large difference. Four radials at 1/2
wave up provide low ground losses, but four radials at 1/10 wave up are
not so hot. Much higher ground losses.

Being as all short radiators radiate nearly all power fed to them, barring
any small resistive losses, the only thing left are the matching losses.

And for playing "what if", a program like "vertload" could be used for
getting an idea of the efficiency of the various length radiators and
spit out the number of turns needed, etc.. Will give the efficiency using
whatever ground number you punch in as I recall.
That's what I used to use when building mobile whips. I think it also
lets you adjust the whip both below and above the coil. So you can vary
the location of the coil.

The only problem with vertload is it's old and DOS I think, so newer OS's
won't run it without a DOS BOX or whatever.. XP will run em as is..
So I can still use them on my old laptop. This box is Win7 64, and it won't
run em without the DOS program, which I haven't bothered with yet.
But they say it will work.. I forgot the exact name of the DOS emulator,
would I'm sure google knows what and where it is.






Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Radials and Verticals Irv Finkleman VE6BP Antenna 7 January 28th 15 06:53 AM
Distance Between Verticals?? Brian Kelly Antenna 0 April 5th 07 07:34 PM
Phasing Verticals John Phillips Antenna 23 November 4th 06 08:58 PM
Flagpole verticals Dan, danl, danny boy, Redbeard, actually Greybeard Antenna 2 March 28th 05 09:41 AM
Phasing verticals Rick Mintz Antenna 2 March 23rd 05 06:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017