Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob, K6RTM wrote:
"Discones are covered in section 8.37 and log periodics are covered in section 8.21." In my 3rd edition of the RSGB VHF/UHF Manual, the discone is on page 7.28 and the log periodic is on page 7.35. Bob also wrote: "The take-off angle increases with the frequency." In my experience, the vertical angle of maximum radiation, in general, decreases with antenna height above the earth, when the height of the antenna in is not over 5/8 wavelength. Increasing the frequency used with an antenna of fixed height is equivalent to increasing the height of an antenna using a fixed frequency because it is a function of antenna height above the reflecting surface in terms of wavelength. It is all a matter of scale. At double the frequency, an antenna only needs half the physical height to be the same elevation above ground to have the same elevation in terms of wavelength. Soil conductivity and depth of penetration in the earth are being ignored in the comparison for simplicity. It`s no big deal. A 1/2-wave horizontal dipole erected 1/4-wave over good earth has its maximum radiation toward the zenith. The same antenna elevated to 1/2-wave above the earth has a take-off angle near 30 degrees above the horizon. When antenna height exceeds 5/8 wavelength, added lobes appear in the vertical radiation pattern. The additional lobes appear in the vertical radiation patterns of vertical antennas too when their heights exceed 5/8-wavelength. It is for this reason that AM broadcast stations usually limit their towers to no more than 5/8-wavelength. Sky wave propagation could produce substantial interference with the ground wave signal at relatively short distances at night from the high-angle radiation. In a sense Bob is correct in that some of the take-off angle increases with frequency, in that it produces growth of additional lobes in the take-off pattern. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Richard wrote:
In my experience, the vertical angle of maximum radiation, in general, decreases with antenna height above the earth, when the height of the antenna in is not over 5/8 wavelength. That's a good paraphrase of the standard writings on the subject, but.. Richard also wrote: A 1/2-wave horizontal dipole erected 1/4-wave over good earth has its maximum radiation toward the zenith. The same antenna elevated to 1/2-wave above the earth has a take-off angle near 30 degrees above the horizon. Please explain this (apparent) contradiction? I expended significant effort to get a dipole 1/2 wavelength above ground, and did so specifically for long-haul communications. I may have missed any theory about the 1/4 wavelength being the optimal height, as I was always told (as I read) that 1/2 wavelength height was considered optimal for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the best take-off angle. Thanks, Jack Painter NF05CM Oceana Radio |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well, maybe the late hour contributed to MY mix up of Zenith (overhead) and
Azimuth, horizon, etc. Thanks for the nice piece anyway Richard! "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:TSBwb.14594$yM6.11303@lakeread06... Richard wrote: In my experience, the vertical angle of maximum radiation, in general, decreases with antenna height above the earth, when the height of the antenna in is not over 5/8 wavelength. That's a good paraphrase of the standard writings on the subject, but.. Richard also wrote: A 1/2-wave horizontal dipole erected 1/4-wave over good earth has its maximum radiation toward the zenith. The same antenna elevated to 1/2-wave above the earth has a take-off angle near 30 degrees above the horizon. Please explain this (apparent) contradiction? I expended significant effort to get a dipole 1/2 wavelength above ground, and did so specifically for long-haul communications. I may have missed any theory about the 1/4 wavelength being the optimal height, as I was always told (as I read) that 1/2 wavelength height was considered optimal for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the best take-off angle. Thanks, Jack Painter NF05CM Oceana Radio |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jack Painter wrote:
"I may have missed any theory about the 1/4 wavelength being the optimal height---." I missed that too, unless your aim is near vertical incidence reflection from the ionosphere for nearby contacts. Some hams have that goal and argue that 1/4-wave height is enough because it gives the first elevation that produces the drivepoint impedance of the horizontal dipole in free-space. The purpose of the antenna is communication, not impedance. A friendly impedance helps of course. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Richard Harrison wrote: Bob, K6RTM wrote: "Discones are covered in section 8.37 and log periodics are covered in section 8.21." In my 3rd edition of the RSGB VHF/UHF Manual, the discone is on page 7.28 and the log periodic is on page 7.35. Richard-- I'm working with the second edition -- I'll ask Santa for the third edition, and then figure out which one to keep at home, and which at the office! -- Namaste- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|