I have a long answer prepared, but I want to sleep on it and proof it a
dozen more times before I send it.
73, Jerry, K0CQ
On 1/5/2011 3:44 PM, Richards wrote:
> Er... ah... No joke. Do you doubt the proposition that a
> good ground plane lowers radiation take off angle? If so,
> I would be curious as to your reasons. (Seriously, and with
> no intention to flame or cause an argument, as I have
> made quite an investment in time and resources in vertical
> developing a reasonably decent vertical antenna system
> for my small, suburban back yard. Any info would be
> greatly appreciated. )
>
> FYI ---
>
> ------ Extra Class Exam Questions of interest -----
>
> Question E9A12 - and the answer is that the efficiency
> of a quarter wave grounded vertical antenna can be improved by
> installing a good radial system.
>
> Question E9A13 - answer is - soil conductivity is the most important
> factor in determining ground losses for a ground-mounted vertical
> antenna operating in the 3-30 MHz range.
>
> Question E9C13 - answer is - When a vertically polarized antenna
> is mounted over seawater versus rocky ground, the far-field
> elevation pattern low-angle radiation increases.
>
> Question E9C17 - answer - The main effect of placing a vertical
> antenna over an imperfect ground is that it reduces low-angle
> radiation.
>
> Also, on the audio study guide, Gordo makes some stray comments
> about using 3 inch copper strap for radials on his roof, and
> mentions improving the ground field increases low angle
> radiation - he goes on to say it does not increase signal strength,
> of course, but only that it increases the amount of signal that
> has low take off angle.
>
> This information is consistent with all that I have read on verticals
> in the ARRL Antenna Handbook, and I did LOTS of research before
> installing a large vertical monopole in the back yard.
>
> A huge ground pane does lower take off angle (as NEC modeling
> shows) and also improves antenna efficiency -- I stopped at 65 radials
> but I wish had installed even more just to be sure. Also, my back yard
> soil is very conductive and remains moist even through the summer, so
> the soil, itself, helps me considerably. Rob Sherwood and I exchanged
> some nice email at the time I was doing this homework, and I believe
> he lives over a more dry, rocky soil, and that is much harder to work
> over. I also corresponded with the infamous Rudy Severns N6LF
> and his findings are consistent with this conclusion. NEC modeling
> produces consistent results.
>
> N'est ce pas? Happy trails OM.
>
> =============== JHR ============================
>
>
>
> I had
>
> On 1/5/2011 1:01 PM, Steve Hunt wrote:
>> I presume the "wink" indicates that is a joke !
>>
>> The only thing that would improve the elevation pattern would be
>> improved ground conditions in the Fresnel Zone where the ground
>> reflections are taking place. That would take some awfully long radials
>> - certainly well beyond my property boundary - and an awful lot of them
>> to achieve a copper density that would affect the conductivity so far out.
>>
>> 73,
>> Steve G3TXQ
>
> ====================================================
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|