Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] HF2V Elevated or On Ground

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HF2V Elevated or On Ground
From: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to: jim@audiosystemsgroup.com
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:42:09 -0800
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
On 11/13/2013 12:48 PM, James Setzler wrote:
Anyone else have experience with the HF2V mounted up using elevated radials
versus ground mounted with limited on-ground radials.

Over the summer, I did extensive modeling (NEC) of vertical quarter-wave and vertical dipole antennas, comparing performance on the ground and at typical roof heights. A report on that work is on my website in the form of a pdf of the Power Point for a presentation I did at Pacificon last month.

http://k9yc.com/publish.htm

The executive summary -- for all vertical antenna types and almost all soil quality, roof mounting outperforms ground mounting. The advantage of roof mounting is greatest for the poorest soil, varying from as much as 8 dB for very poor soil to a dB or so for extremely good soil.

I did one series of signal strength measurements on a real antenna -- a 20M vertical dipole that was first measured with the base at ground level, then at 10 ft, 20 ft, 30 ft, and 40 ft, and finally with the center on the ground and the bottom half horizontal (at W6GJB). The difference between 0 ft and 40 ft was 10 dB over a 5 mile path (to a vertical antenna at my QTH). The soil at his QTH is quite poor.

73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________



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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>