[TowerTalk] Stacking Tribanders
Billy Cox
aa4nu at comcast.net
Wed Jun 22 15:20:23 EDT 2022
Hi Paul,
Below is from pages 12 and 13 of Dean's document, perhaps
this might help to explain what you have observed there?
ACCURACY AND TESTING THE RESULTS
What would I estimate as the “accuracy” of HFTA elevation predictions? I would say that I would trust the results within plus/minus 3 dB. In other words, take HFTA results with a grain of salt. Don’t obsess with changing the height of your antenna by fractions of a foot to see what happens!
Having said that, now I must state that it is a good idea to compare elevation patterns in intervals of perhaps 1 foot to assess whether HFTA
is generating reasonably smooth results. Often, the ¼steps used in the program don’t align exactly and artificial spikes (or holes) can be created. This is inherent in any ray-tracing program and can only be eliminated by using extremely small angular step increments —and doing so would slow down execution even more.
After I do an evaluation for a particular antenna height, I will often specify an overlay of three heights separated by one foot each. For example, if you are interested in a single antenna at a height of 80 feet on 14.0 MHz for the K5MA-330.PRO terrain, you might first compare three heights of 79, 80 and 81 feet, bracketing that height. The three curves overlaid on each other look relatively smooth, except there is a 1.4-dB “bump” for the 79-foot height.
Now, run three heights of 80, 79 and 78 feet. Now, the curves for 78 and 79 feet look smooth, but the 80-foot curve has a noticeable dip. This means that spurious artifacts of the ray-tracing process are occurring at 80 feet in the program —but these would not occur in the real world. The solution: don’t use the 80 foot point in the computer analysis, but you would mount your real antenna at that 80-foot height if you like the response at 79 or 81 feet.
Hope this help!
73, Billy AA4NU
> On 06/22/2022 1:09 PM Paul Christensen <w9ac at arrl.net> wrote:
>
>
> >"It's an interesting question."
>
> And a good one for Dean Straw to answer. When we conduct an HFTA analysis of a single antenna that results in extremely high ground reflection gain between 0 and 5 degrees elevation, minor changes in height, even as little as 12 inches, result in a significant reflection gain changes at the horizon. So, I have to believe that a much more complex stacking model is required when using HFTA to get an accurate result.
>
> Paul, W9AC
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
More information about the TowerTalk
mailing list