> Just one comment regarding paragraph 2 where you say that
there is a
> 'filter' that often has more attenuation of horizontally
> than vertically polarized.
> I have found this to be totally the opposite. I do a lot
of EME and on both
> 144 and 432 MHz and with my systems (homebrew x-pol yagis
for 144 and a
> 28'dish with dual dipole feed for 432) I can instantly
> from horizontal to vertical.
Soil absorption is so bad at VHF that the earth looks pretty
poor for any polarization. As frequency is decreased from
VHF, the attenuation disparity between V and H polarized
signals rapidly increases.
Note the specific mention of **HF**.
> >3.) The most reliable way to measure gain or F/B of a
> >horizontally polarized HF antenna is with spacing in the
> >order of hundreds of feet, not thousands or more. The
> >"measure at a mile" stuff came right out of the thin air,
> >and became a myth. People actually think it is better
> >it is very much worse!
At HF and lower, the earth effectively short-circuits any
horizontal electric field. This is why Beverage antennas
work the way they do, and why local noise is predominately
vertically polarized at HF. Measuring a horizontally
polarized HF (or lower frequency) antenna at extended
distances is certainly not a reliable or desirable test
method. It should be a SHORT distance in a clear area (on
all sides of the antennas), not a long one.
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
TowerTalk mailing list