Mike, you are answering the wrong question. Guy didn't understand the question
at all. I KNOW that sea water is a better ground than dirt...... The
comparison I was ALWAYS talking about had NOTHING AT ALL to do with LOCATION!
NOTHING! The comparison was a quarter wave vertical compared to a 5/8ths wave
vertical IN THE EXACT SAME LOCATION...... Sorry Mike, I am taking it out on you
and it wasn't your fault. People are responding who didn't actually read what
I wrote, then they comment..... and they YOU commented on their comment which
had the wrong premise to begin with..... I say again, the comparison had
nothing to do with the actual location, but rather two different vertical types
in the exact same place..... Well, ok, a few yards apart, but with the same
number of radials and the same seawater location (Iroquois Point Military
Housing on Oahu). THe words RURAL or DIRT were used nowhere in my original
email.
What intrigued me was that I had such a great experience with a 5/8 wave
vertical over a 1/4 wave vertical AT THE SAME LOCATION..... and on 20 meters.
Tom commented that 5/8 waves were basically garbage on 160 and I would like to
know why..... IF he knew or had a clue as to the why. Then Guy started talking
about seawater vs rural dirt and off the entire thread goes in the wrong
direction...... a direction that indicated he was reading stuff into my post
that just wasn't there. It is exasperating in the extreme to have that happen,
then others like yourself are misdirected by their misdirection because you
read theirs instead of mine..... Not knowing that they actually didn't read
what I wrote. NOT YOUR FAULT, but exasperating because I feel compelled to
answer you because you were kind enough to provide some details, but details to
an issue that I wouldn't have mentioned because I KNOW that salt water is
better than dirt..... I've lived in Hawaii, within yards of the oce
an and then Arizona, which probably has the world's least conductive dirt on
the entire planet.
My desire IS STILL to have someone who might know give me a clue as to why the
5/8 doesn't work well on 160 when it works so fabulously well on 20 meters (for
one band). I use one out here in AZ on 20, too. It has alot of straight
copper radials underneath it (60 half-wave long radials to be precise) and it
works as well here, anecdotally speaking, as it did in Hawaii..... Well, not
"quite" as good, but darned close if you take into account the difference in
solar activity, too. When I was on Hawaii, the spots were a whole lot better,
even tho they were decreasing, than they are today at the current "peak." If
"peak" is the right word for this one..... he he he. But I digress.... I find
it interesting that an antenna that appears to work so well on 20 as a ground
mounted vertical, can be so bad on 160..... I would like to know why.....
Thanks for responding Mike. I am sure you will get the gist of what I was
talking about, now. No insults intended towards anyone, but this does provide
a good example of what happens when folks don't read the entire email someone
sends and then comment on it....... Then others, who have no idea that the
person responding didn't read the email all the way thru or thoroughly, respond
to the responder...... and away she goes..... LOL. I was starting to get a
little wound around the axle, but now it is just funny. Between you and me (ha
ha ha) I am not going to respond to anything else concerning my email unless
someone wants to discuss the question I actually, really and truly had.....
LOL.
Speaking of which, other than the possibility that a 5/8ths wave vertical lays
down a very low angle radiation and it is "too low" for 160 (although, I have
to admit that for DX work, that is a hard pill to swallow..... but I am NOT an
expert on 160, which is why I read the forum comments here in the first place
:) :) Like I said, when I replaced the 1/4 wave with the 5/8 wave ground
mounted vertical (20 meters only), the unsolicited comments concerning my
signal were universally positive. I was one of the early WINLINK stations and
my station being in Hawaii at the time was used by MANY, MANY sailboat guys out
in the Pacific and, particularly, the Western Pacific. Many of the guys who
used my system were former or retired military having a ball sailing the ocean
blue...... Anyway, I needed a good, solid performer that, by necessity, had to
be omnidirectional in nature. So I tried the 5/8ths and batta-bing, batta-boom
I start getting UNSOLICITED reports in my emails that
say something to the effect, "what did you do? You are definitely stronger....
in fact, you are downright LOUD now." That kind of report. Again, they didn't
have a clue I had recently changed my winlink dedicated system antenna, but all
of a sudden I am louder than they are used to hearing me. The only difference
was a 5/8 wave radiator as opposed to a 1/4 wave radiator over the same
ground....... I then ran some test with some of my friends floating around out
towards the Philippines and they confirmed, via an a/b test that the 5/8 wave
was louder. I switched which one was "A" and which one was "B" randomly
throughout the tests and not once did any of them pick the 1/4 as the better
antenna. SOOOOOOOOOO, looks like I found a winner for my 20 meter winlink node
and that antenna is definitely a go-to when I need a solid, omni on 20 meters.
I am going to turn my station into a winlink node, once again, here shortly
because my setup, which includes a 5/8 on 20 meters over
60 copper radials on TOP of AZ DIRT, seems to work almost as well as it did on
Hawaii back in the day (all things considered, like the fact that this solar
cycle blows chunks).
Mike, I am sorry this turned into a book, but maybe now you know the whys and
wherefores ..... as well as why it still interests me. I would have never even
thought that a 5/8ths wave wouldn't work well on 160 until Tom said something
to that effect..... which, due to my experience with that particular vertical
antenna, made me say, " HUH?" LOL LOL. If you have any input on the possible
WHY of that statement from Tom, I am all ears..... :)
Mike AB7ZU
P.S. I hope nobody was insulted by my little diatribe. It wasn't intended to
insult, but just to remind folks that WE really need to read and try to fully
digest what someone says (ALL OF IT) before we respond and possibly really
confuse the entire thread. I include MYSELF in that statement for sure and
certain, since I have definitely done the very same thing in the past. Not
here, I don't think, but certainly in other ways and on other days..... :) :)
Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka
On Sep 6, 2013, at 17:34, Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com> wrote:
> Like Tom said earlier, it's all about ground loss. Near the sea, a 1/2 or
> 5/8 wave vertical may perform very differently than a duplicate antenna a
> long way from the sea. The near-field and far-field losses at the lower
> angles would be much lower.
>
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Mike,
>>
>> Tom, W8JI has a comparison between 1/4 wave and 5/8 wave vertical mobile
>> antennas here: http://www.w8ji.com/VHF%20mobile%20vertical.htm
>> He is comparing mobile antennas but it looks like the 5/8 wave can be 2 db
>> better than the 1/4 wave.
>> Looking at the radiation angle graphs it shows the 5/8 has more gain at
>> lower radiation angles in particular.
>> If you were doing your comparison on long haul contacts it makes sense
>> that the 5/8 would do better.
>>
>> Bob
>> K6UJ
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Mike Armstrong wrote:
>>
>>> Guy, you aren't reading my emails...... because that question is not
>> appropriate to the conversation. I am NOT, I repeat NOT talking the
>> difference between LOCATIONS, but the difference between ANTENNAS AT THE
>> SAME LOCATION! I am NOT talking about RURAL ANYTHING. That location being
>> on Gannet Avenue across from the Marina that was LITERALLY across the
>> street from my house.
>>>
>>> I say again, READ MY EMAIL as your question has absolutely NOTHING to do
>> with the conversation. The fact that you sent the same email to me after I
>> answered you tells me that you are not reading what I wrote. I am not
>> being insulting, but if you don't read ALL of what I wrote, you cannot
>> possibly ask a valid question or make any statements about its content. If
>> you read it, you would know that I am not saying ANYTHING about location
>> changes or differences. OF COURSE a sea water location is better than a
>> rural location. THAT fact has nothing to do with the comparisons I am
>> making or asking Tom to discuss. Sorry for the repetition, but I want to
>> make sure that you will see that, even if you don't read this email
>> entirely. Again, no insult intended, but it is tiring trying to respond to
>> someone who isn't reading ALL of what I wrote and jumping to incorrect
>> conclusions as a result. I WILL tell you the address, if you still want to
>> know, after you have read and responded
>> to
>>> the content of this email specifically.
>>>
>>> Mike AB7ZU
>>>
>>> Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka
>>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2013, at 13:38, Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike, could you kindly supply the address on Iroquois Point? If it's in
>>>> the area I'm looking at with Google Earth, the answer why the
>> difference is
>>>> pretty plain, and points to why such a difference vs. a 160m vertical on
>>>> rural terra firma.
>>>>
>>>> 73, Guy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Mike Armstrong <armstrmj@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I didn't address one comment you made, Tom...... 5/8ths are dogs on
>>>>> 160? Really? That is odd in the extreme to me. I had incredible
>> success
>>>>> with a ground mounted 5/8 on 20 meters while I was stationed in
>> Hawaii. I
>>>>> was rather space limited, so I could only go up and a tower mounted
>> beam
>>>>> was a "no fly zone" in that particular situation. So, I decided to
>> try the
>>>>> 5/8ths wave vertical and its performance was nothing short of
>> spectacular
>>>>> when compared to a 1/4 under the same circumstances. Not to malign the
>>>>> simple 1/4 wave, but the 5/8ths performance improvement went way beyond
>>>>> what I would have expected...... and my expectations were certainly
>>>>> reasonable. My thinking was that lifting the major current node a bit
>>>>> above ground would probably be an improvement and, to my surprise,
>> that was
>>>>> an understatement in the extreme.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't want to overblow the results, but I simply couldn't believe
>> how
>>>>> well the antenna performed on 20. To be sure, I was on Oahu out in
>>>>> Iroquois Point housing, which is well situated with regard to the sea
>> (you
>>>>> are basically ON the water in almost all directions). Additionally, I
>> had
>>>>> 60 radials underneath the thing, spread evenly around the base (in
>> straight
>>>>> lines, no bending). So it was definitely an ideal vertical location.
>> But
>>>>> the difference between it and the quarter wave was what truly
>> surprised me
>>>>> (with all else being the same.... sea water location, number and
>> length of
>>>>> radials, etc). To hear that it doesn't translate to 160 is really a
>>>>> surprise to me...... Tell me more, assuming you did any kind of study
>> into
>>>>> why it didn't seem to work well. I am as interested in why something
>>>>> DIDN'T work as I am in why it does..... If for no other reason than to
>> save
>>>>> a few bucks and alot of time.... LOL
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike AB7ZU
>>>>>
>>>>> Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 6, 2013, at 9:25, "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fully understood. I wasn't referring to the usual collinear antennas
>>>>> sold by "comet" or anything of that nature. I am referring to the
>> stacking
>>>>> arrangements used for ops like moonbounce, etc. As far as the design
>>>>> theory (and practical application) goes, I have a reasonable amount of
>>>>> schooling and experience (been active since 1966..... he he he). Just
>> so
>>>>> you realize I am not referring to the often (always?) false gain claims
>>>>> made by manufacturers for their antenna designs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ........but this is verticals, and not a narrow BW like a long Yagi.
>> The
>>>>> narrower the pattern of a cell in the stack, the wider minimum useful
>>>>> stacking distance becomes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, for 160, antennas are near earth. Earth spoils everything. A 160
>>>>> antenna at 260 feet is like a two meter antenna at 3.25 feet above
>> ground.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All I was saying was, "yes, it is possible and is done" when speaking
>>>>> to vertical stacking. As far as stacking what we would call "ground
>> plane"
>>>>> antennas (quarter wave vertical element against elevated radials), the
>> only
>>>>> example I have seen with any regularity is done aboard some Naval
>> vessels
>>>>> (stacked/phased, if you will, horizontally on a yard arm). I "think" I
>> have
>>>>> seen the same thing at airports, but I cannot tell for certain that
>> they
>>>>> are phased arrays or just happen to "look" like they are related.
>>>>> Understand that in all cases to which I refer, including my own, I am
>>>>> speaking of phased arrays, which I believe is what we are talking
>> about as
>>>>> well. I may have misinterpreted the question to some degree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is 160. The distance ratio for the same behavior on two meters is
>>>>> 80:1. If we look at:
>> http://www.w8ji.com/stacking_broadside_collinear.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we see **freespace** short dipole stacking distances, between current
>>>>> maximums, is 0.35 WL for 1 dB stacking gain. This is for freespace.
>> That
>>>>> means the current maximums have to be .35*160 = 56 meters apart **if**
>> the
>>>>> elements are in freespace. They have to be even further apart if near
>>>>> earth, because the earth reflection already compresses the vertical
>>>>> pattern. I'd guess, for 1 dB stacking gain over a ground mounted
>> vertical
>>>>> (ignoring ground losses), we could move the lower current maximum to
>> about
>>>>> 50 meters above earth and eliminate the upper element. That would
>> pretty
>>>>> much be a vertical dipole. If we wanted to get 2-3 dB gain, we'd
>> probably
>>>>> need 300 feet of height and an inverted groundplane at the top.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For 160, is it is a useless endeavor at normal heights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Making matters worse, 5/8th wave verticals are dogs on 160. Been
>> there,
>>>>> done that, used them. A 1/4 wave vertical, or something up to maybe 200
>>>>> feet, is actually better. They have never worked well here, they never
>>>>> worked when I used broadcast towers, and when W8LT used them in 160
>>>>> contests they were also pretty weak.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole thing is a waste of time on 160. Even if someone could run a
>>>>> vertical collinear with useful gain, it would just kill their signal by
>>>>> focusing it at too low an angle for 160, while nulling more useful
>> angles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 73 Tom
>>>>> _________________
>>>>> Topband Reflector
>>>> _________________
>>>> Topband Reflector
>>> _________________
>>> Topband Reflector
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector
> _________________
> Topband Reflector
_________________
Topband Reflector
|