Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
The hour is growing late and the urge to tell a story is upon me. Note, that unlike others, I never imbibe alcoholic beverages. This is a true story. Despite his enjoying wine, I believe Reg's stories to be true also! 8^) A large, expensive, rotatable LPDA was erected on a tall tower and tested in an informal way with a receiver and short-wave broadcast transmitters as signal sources. Nulls were where they were supposed to be. F/B was roughly what was expected. Front lobe seemed about right. A month went by and it was time to perform more careful measurements. A 180 swing while listening to a distant carrier suggested that there was more gain off of the back than off of the front! Wise men pondered that this must be a measurement error. Impedances were very close to expected. The scheme that was used to determine that the antenna needed to be brought back to earth were these: (Keep in mind that this is a LPDA and not a Yagi.) A 6db pad was put in the line to ensure that the nonexistent impedance changes with no change in frequency would not affect things. An accurate, step attenuator was then added in the line. (Should sound familiar.) Antenna was pointed towards a known very high power broadcast station with a known location such that the expected receiving take-off angle was about 6 degrees. Bandwidth was made very narrow and centered on the carrier. Enough attenuation was added to get the S-meter to average either side of a mark. The attenuation was varied by one db up and down with several minutes at each level. Then the antenna was rotated 180 degrees and the change in attenuation to return to the same indication was noted. Ouch. Repeated several times it became clear that the antenna had reversed direction and (are you listening?) a number for the difference in gain (at the angle involved) and the uncertainty in that number was crafted. Lord K. should have said - and may have said - that all measurements comprise at least two numbers: an estimate expressed as a number and an estimate of the uncertainty in the first number expressed as a number. The evidence was conclusive that something had happened. A search for causality took place with the assistance of NEC. With a good deal of speculation and noting how the largest elements were constructed, it was speculated that one of the rearmost elements (or a part of one of the rearmost elements) may have become detached electrically. An NEC simulation was produced that fit the data. No, this is not proof, but it did furnish additional support for the need to lower the antenna. More support came from measurements at the high end of the frequency range where no anomalies were noted and where the long elements would not be expected to play much of a role. At significant cost and effort, the antenna was lowered and it was found that one of the mechanical connections of a sleeve with normal screw had not been tightened in a rear element. The conclusive proof was that the screw had not "cut." Apparently, a month of very sight corrosion had isolated part of an element. So, be my students and find the lessons in this tale. Make a list. Lesson #1 - Put the thing together correctly. Check the connections. Check it again. Lesson #2 -some people needed to hone their troubleshooting skills. If the antenna had performed well during the initial tests, using an analysis program is probably the last thing to do. The time to do analysis was long past. I don't know much about antennas, (which is why I'm here) but I do know troubleshooting. All the numbers that popped up on the tests and the simulations were just blind alleys for y'all to go down and get beat up in. Something changed in that month. Is it likely that the laws of physics changed? Much more likely something in the installation was at fault. The antenna should have been lowered when the second tests were so different than the first ones. Of course following rule #1 would have obviated the need for that! 73 and I am off to bed, perchance to dream of antennas, Mac N8TT 8^) -73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Question is 'it' a Longwire {Random Wire} Antenna -or- Inverted "L" Antenna ? | Shortwave | |||
Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) | Policy | |||
Response to "21st Century" Part Two (Communicator License) | Policy | |||
Poor vertical performance on metal sheet roof - comments? | Antenna | |||
efficiency of horizontal vs vertical antennas | Antenna |