[TowerTalk] 1/4 wave vertical with counterpoise

[Jim Lux]

Well, this is sort of what folks are trying to do with various metrics 
that attempt to weight things.  It's tricky, because we (very inclusive 
we for all users of antennas) like to have some sort of 
testable/calculatable requirement that's boiled down to a single number, 
like EIRP, or peak angle, or sidelobe levels.

It's not unique to antenna patterns (look at SAR folks with integrated 
sidelobe vs peak sidelobe levels, for instance) - IM3 is a popular, and 
straightforward to measure, number - but not necessarily directly 
relatable to performance with complex waveforms or with amplifiers with 
transfer functions that aren't nicely represented by a low order 
polynomial function.

(and what HFTA has with it's plots of arrival angle statistics)


On 1/17/26 3:17 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> On 1/17/2026 2:30 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>> For one thing, there were so many plots that if I put them all 
>> together the result would have been gibberish. 
>
> Of course. But doing so selectively can be quite valuable.
>
>> Secondly, the shapes of the elevation plots and the various signal 
>> strengths were so similar in almost all cases that ti wasn't necessary
>
> The polar plot of field strength vs elevation obscures significant 
> differences at low vertical angles. Yes, on the polar plot they all 
> look the same, and those low vertical angles are important. THAT'S why 
> I "keep harping on it."  :)
>
>>  Besides, the video was already well over 20 minutes and getting too 
>> long.
>
> The length of the video is fine. My suggestion could have improved it, 
> and perhaps aided your analysis by improving your view of the data.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>