Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] 160 meter vertical on sloping ground

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 160 meter vertical on sloping ground
From: Leeson <leeson@earthlink.net>
Reply-to: leeson@earthlink.net
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:51:14 -0800
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Brian, the photos you mention of K6STI, W7EL and WA3FET at W6NL are on slide 27 of my 2007 Dayton talk at https://www.kkn.net/dayton2007/w6nl_ant.pdf Dean, N6BV, wasn't able to be there, but we all corresponded a lot about the need for PC terrain software.

An interesting reference on this specific subject is L. B. Cebik, W4RNL, “Verticals At and Over Ground, Sensible Expectations,” http://www.antentop.org/w4rnl.001/amod12.html

But watch out! My grandkids accuse me (correctly) of TMI.

The subject of the effect of foreground slope goes way back. The first reference I've found is the 1932 paper, R. K. Potter & H. T. Friis, “Some Effects of Topography and Ground on Short-wave Reception,” Proc. IRE, Vol 20, No. 4, April 1932, see the graphs of "tipped elevation pattern," pp. 712 & 713, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1685112

The works of Fred Terman include detailed information about the reflection of both horizontally and vertically polarized radio waves, leading to the 1955 edition of his "Electronic and Radio Engineering."

I got focused on the favorable effect of our foreground slope after Willy, UA9BA, asked me in a late-1970s QSO, "“How come I only hear you?” I was led to P. D. Rockwell, W3AFM. "Station Design for QX, Part I — Antenna Topics and Siting, QST, Sept. 1966, see https://www.rfcafe.com/references/qst/station-design-dx-september-1966-qst.htm

A pioneering view of the impact of foreground slope is, of course, due to Les Moxon, G6XN, who described what came to be called "Moxon Slopes" in L. A Moxon, G6XN, "HF Antennas for All Locations," RSGB, 1982. Visits with Les at his UK home and here were an inspiration.

I learned about the work of George Hagn at SRI that included mainframe 3D modeling, described in G. Hagn, "HF Receiving Antenna Directivity Patterns and Gain for lonospheric Propagation Model Predictions for Short-Wave Broadcasting," IEEE Trans on Broadcasting, June, 1988, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1439

I referenced these in my 1992 book, which I was encouraged to write by G6XN, W6SAI and others (see photo of us at slide 14 of my 2007 Dayton talk noted above), "Physical Design of Yagi Antennas," see Ch. 1, 1.8 Siting of Yagi Antennas over Sloping Foreground, and Ch. 10, 10.1 Ground Reflection an Antenna Performance & 10.2 Avoiding Foreground Shadowing, https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/j7kkt63nyyh2pag0g9avj/Physical-Design-Of-Yagi-Antennas-D-B-Leeson-V2.pdf

That led me to discussions with Jim Breakall, WA3FET, Dean Straw, N6BV. Roy Lewallen, W7EL and Brian Beezely, K6STI. See J.K. Breakall; J.S. Young; G.H. Hagn; R.W. Adler; D.L. Faust; D.H. Werner, "The modeling and measurement of HF antenna skywave radiation patterns in irregular terrain," IEEE Transactions on Antennas, Volume 42, Issue 7, July 1994, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/299595

R. Dean Straw, N6BV, "The Effect of Local Terrain on HF Launch Angles", QEX, July 1995, https://archive.org/stream/QEX19812016/QEX%201995/QEX%201995-07_djvu.txt

Since then, the development of HFTA, TA, EZNEC and 4NEC2, along with MMANA-GAL, NEC-Win and others, have given a new level of insight, using the benefit of personal computing. In order to fit the available capability, these are 2D, but extremely useful. This is covered in the recent ARRL Antenna Handbooks, as well as the online work of L. B. Cebik, W4RNL, see his "Antenna Modeling Programs," https://www.antenna2.net/cebik/content/model/nec.html.

For discussions of ground reflection and foreground slopes, see these:

Dean Straw, N6BV, "Selected Terrain Studies for Optimum HF Station Performance," 2004, Dayton Antenna Forum, https://www.kkn.net/dayton2004/N6BV-Dayton-2004.pdf

R. Dean Straw, N6BV, "Another Way to View Propagation Predictions for DXing and Contesting," Friday, 2006, Dayton Antenna Forum, https://www.kkn.net/dayton2006/N6BV-Dayton-2006.pdf

D. Leeson, W6NL, "Antenna Topics," Dayton 2007, see photos slides 14 & 27, https://www.kkn.net/dayton2007/w6nl_ant.pdf

D. Leeson, W6NL, "Ideas for More Effective HF Antennas: Geography, Terrain, Siting and Operation," Dayton 2009, https://www.kkn.net/dayton2009/w6nl_2009.pdf

D. Leeson, W6NL, "Match HF Antennas to the Ionosphere & Terrain," https://www.dropbox.com/s/hhc00iy6t4h509c/Ionospheric%20Radio%20REDXA_sm.pdf?dl=0

J. Breakall, WA3FET, "Maximizing Performance of HF Antennas with Irregular Terrain," 2021, Contest University, www.contestuniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Contest-University-HF-Propagation-in-Irregular-Terrain.pdf

The work of K6STI, N6BV, WA3FET, W7EL and others has added tremendously to our understanding of foreground reflection and how to use it. The specific study of vertical antennas over sloping foreground has a lot of room to grow, and it will be interesting to see the results.

So TMI proved! It's a big subject, there's so much more, but enough...

73 de Dave, W6NL/HC8L


On 1/15/25 10:51 AM, Brian Beezley wrote:
"Today, with DEMs available to generate the "tiles" for a full 3d
model would be straightforward. That was one of the challenges when
Breakall did his work."


Jim, the data I would need are measured 3D patterns to validate a 3D
 modeling program. I thought a drone might generate them, now I don't
 think so. There are many sources of error with a drone, some rather
 subtle. It might work in certain limited terrain, but not in
general. There's no way one would work at my QTH.


"I'm not sure an ever increasing model fidelity is useful."


The issue with a radial-only model is that it can be entirely wrong,
not just off a bit. Worse, it gives no indication that the result is
unreliable. I think it's possible to use a radial-only model under certain circumstances, but you need to carefully vet the terrain. It
 definitely wouldn't work in most directions at my QTH. And while
some directions look benign, I'm not sure they really are. It's
tricky!


"My understanding is that HFTA is horizontal pol only (the reflection
 model is simpler)."


I don't know what HFTA does, but TA used specified ground constants
with Fresnel reflection coefficients for both horizontal and vertical
 polarization at all reflection points. Vertical is no more difficult
 than horizontal. The equations are just a little different.

Incidentally, after months of making innumerable errors of all kinds,
I think I finally have an accurate stratified ground model. Its application is rather limited, as is the available stratified ground
 data. But it provides some insight into the accuracy of surface
ground probes:

http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/sg.htm

My writeup on the Hagn generic curves, which yield ground constants
much more appropriate at HF than the figures antenna analysis
programs suggest, is here:

http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/hfgc.htm

Brian

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing
list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>