I would only wonder how well the rear null would actually perform in that
scenario. Certainly putting the null to the local noise is a good thing, and
the opposite would be absurd, but typically beverages and even other
directional receive antennas are not nearly deep enough with nulling to affect
local crud noise that close. It may sound so, but my experience here is the
noise floor created from the local stuff will be pre-emotive of weak signal
reception. In those cases an additional noise abatement device like a phasing
nulled would be very helpful.
73 Pete W2PM
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 23, 2010, at 10:59 PM, "Milt, N5IA" <n5ia@zia-connection.com> wrote:
> In the most simple explanation of the theory of operation of the Beverage
> antenna you must understand that the single wire above (or on) the ground is
> 1/2 of an unbalanced transmission line. The earth conductivity is the other
> "wire" in the transmission line.
>
> When the earth 1/2 of the "transmission line" becomes very conductive, the
> whole array approaches being an actual 2-wire transmission line (perfectly
> balanced). When that happens there is near ZERO signal received.
>
> The more unbalanced the line is, the more signal level is impressed on the
> wire which can be detected by proper impedance matching to a coaxial
> feedline going to your receiver. That is why the Beverage works well over
> poor earth.
>
> I have posted this before, but it bears repeating the practical experience.
>
> At XZ0A on Thahtay Khun Island in January, 2000, the Beverages installed
> over land on the island worked very well. They worked so well that
> electrical noise from the mailand, more than 5 miles distant in the
> direction of JA, was preventing us from hearing well the bedspring ops.
>
> I constructed a Beverage oriented in the JA direction, in a secluded
> location which would isolate the view of the mainland. The intent was to be
> able to hear the weak JA signals without the electrical noise from the
> mainland.
>
> The only place this could be done was right at shore level on the west side
> of the island. A good portion of the antenna had to be over the sea water,
> in particular at high tide. Suffice it to say, the antenna heard
> NOTHING!!!! It was essentially a 2-wire transmission line terminated in its
> characteristic impedance; that is, a dummy load.
>
> This post is not meant to be a treatise on Beverage antenna theory.
> Hopefully the simple explanation of how and why its works over poor earth,
> and conversely why it DOESN'T work over high conductivity soil or water,
> will be of use to some out there in radio land.
>
> GN de Milt, N5IA
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nick Hall-Patch" <nhp@ieee.org>
> To: <topband@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: K3NA Loop Array
>
>
>> Consider me to also not be an expert either in Beverage antenna theory, or
>> in
>> wave propagation. I wonder however whether some of the idea that the
>> Beverage
>> works best over poor ground dates back to the original development of the
>> antenna, when it was used for low frequencies that were propagated by
>> ground
>> wave that had no horizontal component to the wavefront. This would not
>> produce
>> much signal on a Beverage antenna that is dependent upon that horizontal
>> component, unless the wavefront was passing over a poor ground that would
>> cause
>> it to tilt, introducing a horizontal component.
>>
>> Most of us use Beverage antennas for DXing on medium frequencies, and the
>> signals we receive are skywave. Even if the original wavefront had no
>> horizontal component, by the time the ionosphere has finished with it, and
>> delivered it to our receiver, there may be quite a reasonable horizontal
>> component to it. One would expect that a Beverage antenna should
>> therefore be
>> able to generate a signal, even with quite a good ground underneath.
>>
>> Standing by for corrections to my perception...
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Nick
>> VE7DXR
>>
>> Quoting rfoxwor1@tampabay.rr.com:
>>
>>>
>>> ---- Greg - ZL3IX <zl3ix@inet.net.nz> wrote:
>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>
>>>> I am interested in a statement in your paper, "Beverages don't work
>>>> over
>>>> high(ly) conductive earth"
>>>>
>>>
>>> This may be very simplified. I am far from a Beverage expert, but it was
>>> explained to me once that the Bev works well over poorly conducting
>>> soil because the wavefront is no longer just vertically oriented, as it
>>> travels down the length of the antenna wire; but rather is retarded,
>>> causing a forward tilt in the wavefront. This forward tilt then will
>>> induce a RF current down the length of the wire, which sums up at the
>>> end (where the RX is). IOW instead of just a vertical field, there is
>>> both a vertical and a smaller horizontal field, and the poorer the soil,
>>> the greater horizontal field induces the antenna current you need.
>>
>>> -Bob k2euh
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nick Hall-Patch
>> Victoria, BC
>> Canada
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>
> _______________________________________________
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|