Skip, Realistically, the 5/8 wave will be maybe around the gain of a dipole. I would use 2 dBi, maybe 3 dBi at the most. I don't think there are any 5/8 wave verticals that can do much better than that and some antenna gurus point out that they can perform worse than half wave antennas. I have both quarter and 5/8 wave so I will try and do at least a "local" test.
We must not loose sight of the fact that almost no hams have horizontal polarization and almost all have do have vertical polarization. And weak signal hams do not tend to focus on public service activities so you may not have any stations that you can work. I don't know of anyone who has any interest in my area. I would suggest that hams ask their weak signal operators whether or not they would be willing to participate in this. It takes a LOT of practice to make this work. You may not get it to work at the time you most need it. Since voice communication is not going to be used (too weak a signal) for many of these digital transfers, you would need to set up a specific frequency and offset. I have been monitoring and sending on 144.144 as suggested by others, but have never heard anything. But that is mostly on vertical polarization for now. The period transmission is very clever, something like Patrick, F6CTE's Multipsk programs sending of repeated characters. You could just have a macro set with the repeating character, and you probably do this. 73, Rick, KV9U kh6ty wrote: >> If the signals are in the marginal range, how do you do the coordinating >> between the stations? To date, we have been able to use a cell phone. >> >> How do you calculate the error rate (such as the 6% mentioned)? >> > > We send 50eroids.(..............................................). Anything > that is not a period is easily recognized as an error. Three "on-perionds" > equates to a 6% error rate. > >> If I understand this correctly, the test was between a 5/8 vertical to >> quad for vertical polarization vs. quad to quad for horizontal, wouldn't >> it be about right to see 6 dB difference considering that you are >> increasing the path budget with the inclusion of the quad? >> > > The test was a vertically polarized quad to a 5/8 wavelength whip, and a > horizontally polarized quad to a horizontally polarized quad. The quad had > 7.5 dBi of gain versus perhaps 5 dBi of gain for the vertical whip. That > makes up about 2.5 dBi of the 6 dBi, and the rest is an approximation of the > S/N as measured by flidit in both cases. As you can imagine, it is extremely > difficult to make exact quantitative measurements under such conditions, but > even modeling shows the 6 dB that Cebik references. Our experience is that > the 6 dB is about correct. > >> Several ways to do this is with quad to quad vertical and quad to quad >> horizontal polarization, or some other gain antenna that can switch >> properly between polarizations. I wonder if you would see such a >> difference? >> > > Based on two different modeling programs, and our own simple tests, I think > so. The most significant finding is that we lose communicaton over about 30 > miles using vertical-to-vertical, but easily over 70 miles using > horizontal-to-horizontal, even though the horizontal antenna on the mobile > end is 5 feet higher than the whip is. In the end, anectodal evidence from > others also suggests a 15 to 20 mile range with vertical whips, and we > already know we can exceed 70 miles in flat country using a low, > horizontally-polarized quad instead of a vertical, and that is all that is > important to our purpose. It would be nice to have more and better > controlled tests, but you can just imagine the difficulty in arranging for > such tests without doing it on an antenna range. You have to switch > polarization on both ends, and one existing antenna may be on a tower, 50 > feet in the air. Of course, any such tests are possible, but the difficulty > of finding people to participate is difficult, at best. As far as we are > concerned, together with the common knowledge that all weak signal > communications on 2m use horizontal polarization, TV stations use horizontal > polarization because long ago it was found to be better for propagation, and > the confirming results from modeling, are sufficient enough reasons to > insist on using horizontal polarization for distances longer than a repeater > can provide. Add to that the probability that many existing vertical beams > are not mounted on rotators, and the change to horizontal polarization > appears to be well worth the effort, based on available information. You can > also include the possibility that using a horizontally polarized quad > provides a lower takeoff angle close to ground that a yagi, and you can see > why there are many reasons to insist on using horizontal polarization. > Finally, in a serious emcomm situation, NBEMS only needs to reach > connectivity with the Internet for email delivery or POTS for phone > delivery, so any available forwarding station will suit the purpose, whether > a part of an organized emcomm effort or not. The need is only to get the > message to the EOC or other recipient, and all existing weak signal 2m > stations are using horizontal polarization. > > Our main interest is emcom messaging, and even a single dB of advantage may > mean getting the traffic through or not, so we have use the best methods at > our disposal, and the preponderance of evidence says that horizontal > polarization has an advantage over vertical polarization. > > 73, Skip KH6TY > NBEMS Development Team > > >> 73, >> >> Rick, KV9U >> >> >> kh6ty wrote: >> >>> Hi Rick, >>> >>> >>>> Have you found that DominoEX is the best overall digital mode for FM? I >>>> know that PSK modes can have doppler errors from aircraft, but otherwise >>>> seem pretty good for weak signal. >>>> >>>> >>> Yes, definitely! DominoEx is a frequency shift keying mode, not a phase >>> shift mode, but doppler problems are still sometimes a problem, but not >>> nearly as much as on PSK31 or PSK63, so that is one reason why we now use >>> DominoEx. Once the reflected signal arrives 180 degrees out of phase with >>> the direct signal, it cancels out the direct signal for a while and there >>> is >>> no mode that is going to print under that condition. The wider, multitone >>> modes have less problem because the data is redundant and spread over the >>> width of the signal, but even they are no completely immune. However, on >>> our >>> twice-weekly net, since we switched to DominoEx, the number of multipath >>> problems is considerably down, even on SSB. Initial tests suggest that >>> MFSK16 might even be better on FM, since it is the most sensitive mode we >>> currently have with almost enough speed for messaging. It is completely >>> unusable on VHF SSB, though, because many transceivers in the field are >>> not >>> frequency-stable enough to stay tuned. On FM, the carrier frequency >>> sweeps >>> over the entire passband, so only the audio frequency stability is >>> important. DominoEx is especially valuable for drifting signals on SSB, >>> because it can tolerate mistuning of 50% of the signal width. The >>> IC-746Pro >>> and the FT-857D, if without an optional TCXO, just drift too much to be >>> usable on SSB, but are OK on FM, even though the S/N of FM is worse than >>> on >>> SSB. Note that any multipath cancellations simply cause repeated blocks >>> when >>> using ARQ, so they only slow down the transfer while the reflected signal >>> is >>> moving across the direct signal. >>> >>> Last night on our net, we had positive confirmation of the better >>> performance of SSB over FM. The error rate between two stations was >>> running >>> at 6% on SSB, but when we all switched to FM, there was zero copy. The >>> fact >>> that there were any errors at all on SSB indicated that the stations were >>> fringe area to each other, so it was a good demonstration of the >>> advantage >>> of SSB over FM. One station was beaming toward me and the other was 45 >>> degrees away from the beampath of that station. It was the same as if a >>> station with a high gain yagi were pointed away from me and even if I >>> pointed directly at him, he was not radiating enough energy in my >>> direction >>> for me to copy him. We have to make more tests, but I think the secret of >>> the OptimizedQuad is that the pattern is bulbous instead of being >>> pencil-shaped - more like an omnidirectional pattern, but with gain over >>> a >>> wide beamwidth. Stacking OptimizedQuads vertically would increase the >>> gain >>> by 2.5 dB and still retain the wide beamwidth. It sure is interesting >>> stuff! >>> >>> >>> >>>> Your point is well taken that many of the hams who participate in public >>>> service activities, may tend to be the younger ones who are Technician >>>> class and can mostly operate on 6 meters and up with their vertical >>>> antennas and FM only rigs. The number of hams with the >>>> multimode/multiband rigs is increasing, at least in our area. It is not >>>> easy to get them to try SSB, much less SSB digital though. >>>> >>>> >>> I have found that the main problem is lack of VOX with the FM >>> transceivers, >>> which cost under $200 for a single band one, so you need to spend another >>> $100 for a SignaLinkUSB interface in order to use macros to do the PTT >>> switching. The FM Transceiver Interface solves that problem for only $10. >>> I >>> have built 10 of them which I will be giving out to the first few people >>> who >>> want to join the net but have only FM transceivers, but they also need to >>> have an OptimizedQuad, or small yagi, horizontally polarized. >>> >>> >>> >>>> The claim about the ground gain for horizontal antennas may be true but >>>> I have not seen this definitely tested. Have you done some comparisons >>>> with low 2 meter antennas, such a mobile to low base antenna with V and >>>> H and found H consistently better? I don't hold too much stock in >>>> software modeling and only would go with empirical data for that kind of >>>> test. >>>> >>>> >>> I have done only one test so far, as it is difficult to arrange, since >>> both >>> stations have to switch polarization, but that first test did show a huge >>> advantage using horizontal polarization. Range on FM between a 5/8 >>> wavelength whip mounted on a Prius and my quad turned for vertical >>> polarization was only 25-30 miles, depending on whether or not the mobile >>> was clear of trees, but 70 miles was a piece of cake between the >>> OptimizedQuad and my own quad turned for horizontal polarization. We >>> could >>> have gone even farther if we had time. Next opportunity, we hope to be >>> able >>> to keep going. I am now more than convinced that the difference is real. >>> There was once a reference, which I cannot find, that found that a quad >>> near >>> a ground surface retains a low takeoff angle, but the takeoff angle of a >>> yagi of the same gain increases to as much at 40 degrees off the horizon, >>> which means a quad may be the best choice for portable operation anyway. >>> >>> >>> >>>> We will probably bite the bullet eventually and put a rotor back up on >>>> the low tower and maybe go with a Gulf Alpha 11 element V and H antenna >>>> for some reasonable gain. Then we could do the test. The ham that was >>>> going to help us lost his QTH and will not be able to relocate his VHF >>>> antenna farm. Of course they are quite high so maybe there would not >>>> have been as much difference in such a case. One of the best known VHF >>>> ops in my Section says that after running many tests he has never found >>>> either polarization is any different. But he has high antennas so maybe >>>> that accounts for it. >>>> >>>> >>> Yes, high antennas are probably the reason. At seven wavelengths from >>> real >>> ground, the disadvantage to using vertical polarization over horizontal >>> drops from 6 dB at two wavelengths to only one dB at seven wavelengths, >>> but >>> portable stations or mobiles generally are not going to be able to get >>> have >>> antennas much higher than 2 wavelenghts. The jury is also out whether >>> horizontal polarization is an advantage over several hundred miles. I >>> will >>> not be able to test this until the coastal tropo scatter season comes >>> back >>> in the spring. >>> >>> If your yagi has more gain that you need, you can just rotate it 45 >>> degrees >>> and cover both polarizations, but with a 3 dB gain loss on both. >>> >>> >>> >>>> We hope at least soon do some digital mode comparisons on 2 meters, >>>> whether SSB or FM. >>>> >>>> 73, >>>> >>>> Rick, KV9U >>>> >>>> >>> That would be great! We need as much information as we can get, >>> especially >>> since lower South Carolina is quite flat, with no hills until you get to >>> the >>> upper part of the state. We do know this for sure - using a sensitive >>> digital mode with either SSB or FM greatly extends the range over using >>> phone, simply because the digital mode can copy under the noise level and >>> phone cannot. The average modulation of a phone signal is only 30%, or >>> maybe >>> 50% with compression, but the passband needs to be over 2 KHz. With a >>> narrow >>> digital mode, the DSP filters in the software (and at IF if available) >>> can >>> be used to narrow the noise window by at least four times, improving the >>> S/N >>> by 6 dB or more and still use 100% average modulation for another 3 dB or >>> more improvement in S/N. You simply cannot do this with phone and remain >>> intelligible, and you cannot use redundancy with phone as you can with >>> digital modes. >>> >>> >>> 73, Skip KH6TY >>> NBEMS Development Team >>> >>> >>> >> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1785 - Release Date: 11/13/2008 >> 9:12 AM >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------ > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1815 - Release Date: 11/27/2008 > 9:02 AM > >
