Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX everywhere - the facts

[GEORGE WALLNER]

There is no such things as "best antenna".
When I lived in Arizona, I had on a hill-top a doublet with 300 foot arms at 
100 foot height (effectively more because of the hill-top). I used it both 
as a doublet and as a vertical T (with the two wires of the ladder line 
shorted). It had about 40 radials of various lengths, between 100 and 150 
feet. Almost always the doublet was better.
Now I live in FL, on an island, and my vertical is on the edge of the 
salt-water. It is only 45 foot tall with two top loading wires. It gets out 
very well and I have no interest in trying a dipole.
A lot depends on the location. I believe that it mostly has to do with the 
ground, but there are other factors that are harder to figure.
I used to operate mobile/portable from the Australian outback (mostly 
central and western Queensland). The ground there is generally very poor 
(low conductivity). I had a  a 20 foot vertical fed via a tuner and an 
inverted V doublet. I would stop every night, camp, throw on the ground a 
few "radials" and the doublet over a tree.I operated, mostly on 80 and 40 
meters. Different locations, with pretty much the same looking ground (dry 
dirt) gave very different results on the two antennas. Sometimes the doublet 
was better, sometimes the vertical, often both were either bad or good at 
the same time. Most of the time I could not pin-point the reason. Hill-top 
locations were not always the best. Near creeks or swamps, even from a 
valley, generally I got better results. But some of the best locations were 
totally unremarkable. I did this for more than 15 years, often visiting the 
same sites. There was a consistency: the good sites were good year after 
year and the bad ones stayed bad. 

Go figure...
73,
George

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:19:58 -0600
 Mike Waters  wrote:

This has been an eye-opening discussion for me! I have always preached the
'gospel' of vertical-is-usually-best based on W8JI, ON4UN, and *many* other
long-time Topbanders. Someday I'll have to revise
www.w0btu.com/160_meters.html   and 
include a link to this thread.

I stand corrected. Thank you, gentlemen! :-)

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com  


On Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 12:56 AM Steve Ireland  wrote:

Hi Frank (and Rick)

Somewhere I have a map of the lines of geomagnetic latitude superimposed
on a Mercator projection of the world, but I can’t find it right now.
Unlike the ruler-straight lines of conventional latitude, geomagnetic
latitude lines wander across the world like a collection of snake tracks.

As a result of how geomagnetic latitude snakes across the globe, a
comparison can’t be directly made between similar geomagnetic latitudes in
the northern and southern hemispheres – where Tom W8JI lives is probably
very different to me in terms of the closeness of his geomagnetic latitude
to the electron gyro-frequency.  As Carl K9LA points out, the geomagnetic
latitude relates to polarization and involves the ordinary and
extraordinary waves that propagate through the ionosphere, and how 160m is
affected by being close to the electron gyro-frequency.

About 10 to 15 years ago, Carl, Nick Hall-Patch VE7DXR and Bob NM7M (SK)
(also a physicist like Carl, as I’m sure you recall) helped Mike VK6HD (SK)
and I to understand why our horizontal cloud-warmers outperformed efficient
vertical antenna systems in SW WA.

You are quite correct, the Fresnel zone where I live (the mostly far field
region where ground gain is developed) has very poor conductivity. And, to
repeat your point as this is not as widely known as it should be, poor
Fresnel Zone conductivity has very little impact on the performance of
horizontally polarized antennas, while having a major impact on vertically
polarised ones.

While the Fresnel (far field) zone of my location, is basically rock
(granite and ‘coffee rock’), Mike’s final location beside the Kalgan
estuary appeared to have much better Fresnel zone conductivity, with less
rock than me and, in around half the compass directions, salt water.
However, his inverted-L with an 80’ vertical section over 120 buried
quarter-wave radials at Kalgan performed only marginally better than our
previous attempts at vertical antenna systems did.

On this basis, I came to the conclusion that the dominant problem was
likely to be the geomagnetic latitude issue, rather than poor conductivity
in the Fresnel zone – which it certainly is also an issue here.

To investigate this further, I sought out the opportunity to operate
directly by the sea here with a good vertical antenna. After much
paperwork, I managed to get permission to operation from the Cape Leeuwin
lighthouse, which is 40m-plus high and on a narrow finger of land
surrounded by sea for over 300 degrees.

In a Stew Perry TBDC in the early 2000s, with the assistance of my friend
Phil VK6PH, we put up a full-sized quarter-wave wire vertical on the most
seaward side of the lighthouse, less than 60 metres from 

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX everywhere - the facts

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

Have to remember that W8JI, ON4UN and many others were not lying or
deceived. What we are finding out is that a major rule has some exceptions.
If you're talking to a club member in the US, you better point them to
verticals, T's or inverted L's.

One of the missing aspects of dipole vs. vertical comparisons is the major
risk of a poor lossy counterpoise for the vertical. People have lost quite
a bit more than 1/2 their power in bad radial implementations, or in
various loss issues not affecting a dipole.

One of the contributions of an inverted L is filling out the high "hole" in
a vertical ot "T" radiation pattern. That could account for a lot of
differences. Knowing absolutely the incoming angle on DX is still something
without a lot of measured documentation around.

Never can have enough antennas.

73, and may you work whatever you hear,

Guy K2AV



On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:20 PM Mike Waters  wrote:

> This has been an eye-opening discussion for me! I have always preached the
> 'gospel' of vertical-is-usually-best based on W8JI, ON4UN, and *many* other
> long-time Topbanders. Someday I'll have to revise
> www.w0btu.com/160_meters.html and include a link to this thread.
>
> I stand corrected. Thank you, gentlemen! :-)
>
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 12:56 AM Steve Ireland  wrote:
>
> > Hi Frank (and Rick)
> >
> > Somewhere I have a map of the lines of geomagnetic latitude superimposed
> > on a Mercator projection of the world, but I can’t find it right now.
> > Unlike the ruler-straight lines of conventional latitude, geomagnetic
> > latitude lines wander across the world like a collection of snake tracks.
> >
> > As a result of how geomagnetic latitude snakes across the globe, a
> > comparison can’t be directly made between similar geomagnetic latitudes
> in
> > the northern and southern hemispheres – where Tom W8JI lives is probably
> > very different to me in terms of the closeness of his geomagnetic
> latitude
> > to the electron gyro-frequency.  As Carl K9LA points out, the geomagnetic
> > latitude relates to polarization and involves the ordinary and
> > extraordinary waves that propagate through the ionosphere, and how 160m
> is
> > affected by being close to the electron gyro-frequency.
> >
> > About 10 to 15 years ago, Carl, Nick Hall-Patch VE7DXR and Bob NM7M (SK)
> > (also a physicist like Carl, as I’m sure you recall) helped Mike VK6HD
> (SK)
> > and I to understand why our horizontal cloud-warmers outperformed
> efficient
> > vertical antenna systems in SW WA.
> >
> > You are quite correct, the Fresnel zone where I live (the mostly far
> field
> > region where ground gain is developed) has very poor conductivity. And,
> to
> > repeat your point as this is not as widely known as it should be, poor
> > Fresnel Zone conductivity has very little impact on the performance of
> > horizontally polarized antennas, while having a major impact on
> vertically
> > polarised ones.
> >
> > While the Fresnel (far field) zone of my location, is basically rock
> > (granite and ‘coffee rock’), Mike’s final location beside the Kalgan
> > estuary appeared to have much better Fresnel zone conductivity, with less
> > rock than me and, in around half the compass directions, salt water.
> > However, his inverted-L with an 80’ vertical section over 120 buried
> > quarter-wave radials at Kalgan performed only marginally better than our
> > previous attempts at vertical antenna systems did.
> >
> > On this basis, I came to the conclusion that the dominant problem was
> > likely to be the geomagnetic latitude issue, rather than poor
> conductivity
> > in the Fresnel zone – which it certainly is also an issue here.
> >
> > To investigate this further, I sought out the opportunity to operate
> > directly by the sea here with a good vertical antenna. After much
> > paperwork, I managed to get permission to operation from the Cape Leeuwin
> > lighthouse, which is 40m-plus high and on a narrow finger of land
> > surrounded by sea for over 300 degrees.
> >
> > In a Stew Perry TBDC in the early 2000s, with the assistance of my friend
> > Phil VK6PH, we put up a full-sized quarter-wave wire vertical on the most
> > seaward side of the lighthouse, less than 60 metres from the sea. This
> was
> > fed against a quarter wave counterpoise and the feeder decoupled with a
> > large ferrite choke to stop common mode effects.  On the other side of
> the
> > lighthouse was an inverted vee half-wave dipole. Both antennas were
> > supported from the lighthouse balcony (at about 40m!) and detuned when
> not
> > in use. An Yaesu FT-1000MP was used, running less than 100W
> >
> > Unfortunately conditions were poor during our evening time into North
> > America, but at about three hours before sunrise the 160m band opened
> into
> > Europe.  Right from this point, the vertical was slightly down on the
> > inverted vee by a few dB, but I would always call on the vertical first
> and
> > then switch onto the 

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX everywhere - the facts

[Mike Waters]

It just dawned on me that the reason why an inverted-L works so well for
many is because it radiates both vertically and horizontally.

Remember W8JI's experience where a nearby ham, using an inverted-L on a
small city lot in Toledo, Ohio did nearly as well as Tom with his 120'
tower with 120 full size radials?!

Barring unforeseen circumstances, the drone we just ordered will get here
in time to put a pulley for an inverted-L back up in the tree before the
Stew Perry.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 3:19 PM Mike Waters  wrote:

> This has been an eye-opening discussion for me! I have always preached the
> 'gospel' of vertical-is-usually-best based on W8JI, ON4UN, and *many*
> other long-time Topbanders. Someday I'll have to revise
> www.w0btu.com/160_meters.html and include a link to this thread.
>
> I stand corrected. Thank you, gentlemen! :-)
>
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 12:56 AM Steve Ireland  wrote:
>
>> Hi Frank (and Rick)
>>
>> Somewhere I have a map of the lines of geomagnetic latitude superimposed
>> on a Mercator projection of the world, but I can’t find it right now.
>> Unlike the ruler-straight lines of conventional latitude, geomagnetic
>> latitude lines wander across the world like a collection of snake tracks.
>>
>> As a result of how geomagnetic latitude snakes across the globe, a
>> comparison can’t be directly made between similar geomagnetic latitudes in
>> the northern and southern hemispheres – where Tom W8JI lives is probably
>> very different to me in terms of the closeness of his geomagnetic latitude
>> to the electron gyro-frequency.  As Carl K9LA points out, the geomagnetic
>> latitude relates to polarization and involves the ordinary and
>> extraordinary waves that propagate through the ionosphere, and how 160m is
>> affected by being close to the electron gyro-frequency.
>>
>> About 10 to 15 years ago, Carl, Nick Hall-Patch VE7DXR and Bob NM7M (SK)
>> (also a physicist like Carl, as I’m sure you recall) helped Mike VK6HD (SK)
>> and I to understand why our horizontal cloud-warmers outperformed efficient
>> vertical antenna systems in SW WA.
>>
>> You are quite correct, the Fresnel zone where I live (the mostly far
>> field region where ground gain is developed) has very poor conductivity.
>> And, to repeat your point as this is not as widely known as it should be,
>> poor Fresnel Zone conductivity has very little impact on the performance of
>> horizontally polarized antennas, while having a major impact on vertically
>> polarised ones.
>>
>> While the Fresnel (far field) zone of my location, is basically rock
>> (granite and ‘coffee rock’), Mike’s final location beside the Kalgan
>> estuary appeared to have much better Fresnel zone conductivity, with less
>> rock than me and, in around half the compass directions, salt water.
>> However, his inverted-L with an 80’ vertical section over 120 buried
>> quarter-wave radials at Kalgan performed only marginally better than our
>> previous attempts at vertical antenna systems did.
>>
>> On this basis, I came to the conclusion that the dominant problem was
>> likely to be the geomagnetic latitude issue, rather than poor conductivity
>> in the Fresnel zone – which it certainly is also an issue here.
>>
>> To investigate this further, I sought out the opportunity to operate
>> directly by the sea here with a good vertical antenna. After much
>> paperwork, I managed to get permission to operation from the Cape Leeuwin
>> lighthouse, which is 40m-plus high and on a narrow finger of land
>> surrounded by sea for over 300 degrees.
>>
>> In a Stew Perry TBDC in the early 2000s, with the assistance of my friend
>> Phil VK6PH, we put up a full-sized quarter-wave wire vertical on the most
>> seaward side of the lighthouse, less than 60 metres from the sea. This was
>> fed against a quarter wave counterpoise and the feeder decoupled with a
>> large ferrite choke to stop common mode effects.  On the other side of the
>> lighthouse was an inverted vee half-wave dipole. Both antennas were
>> supported from the lighthouse balcony (at about 40m!) and detuned when not
>> in use. An Yaesu FT-1000MP was used, running less than 100W
>>
>> Unfortunately conditions were poor during our evening time into North
>> America, but at about three hours before sunrise the 160m band opened into
>> Europe.  Right from this point, the vertical was slightly down on the
>> inverted vee by a few dB, but I would always call on the vertical first and
>> then switch onto the inverted vee if I got no response.  All the way until
>> just after sunrise, the inverted vee outperformed the vertical, mostly
>> raising the stations who did not hear us on the vertical.
>>
>> The only time this situation was reversed was when 160m started to go out
>> as the sun started to rise and I had by then switched over to just calling
>> stations on the inverted vee.
>>
>> After about five minutes of this, the Europeans I could still hear were
>> not 

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX everywhere - the facts

[Mike Waters]

This has been an eye-opening discussion for me! I have always preached the
'gospel' of vertical-is-usually-best based on W8JI, ON4UN, and *many* other
long-time Topbanders. Someday I'll have to revise
www.w0btu.com/160_meters.html and include a link to this thread.

I stand corrected. Thank you, gentlemen! :-)

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 12:56 AM Steve Ireland  wrote:

> Hi Frank (and Rick)
>
> Somewhere I have a map of the lines of geomagnetic latitude superimposed
> on a Mercator projection of the world, but I can’t find it right now.
> Unlike the ruler-straight lines of conventional latitude, geomagnetic
> latitude lines wander across the world like a collection of snake tracks.
>
> As a result of how geomagnetic latitude snakes across the globe, a
> comparison can’t be directly made between similar geomagnetic latitudes in
> the northern and southern hemispheres – where Tom W8JI lives is probably
> very different to me in terms of the closeness of his geomagnetic latitude
> to the electron gyro-frequency.  As Carl K9LA points out, the geomagnetic
> latitude relates to polarization and involves the ordinary and
> extraordinary waves that propagate through the ionosphere, and how 160m is
> affected by being close to the electron gyro-frequency.
>
> About 10 to 15 years ago, Carl, Nick Hall-Patch VE7DXR and Bob NM7M (SK)
> (also a physicist like Carl, as I’m sure you recall) helped Mike VK6HD (SK)
> and I to understand why our horizontal cloud-warmers outperformed efficient
> vertical antenna systems in SW WA.
>
> You are quite correct, the Fresnel zone where I live (the mostly far field
> region where ground gain is developed) has very poor conductivity. And, to
> repeat your point as this is not as widely known as it should be, poor
> Fresnel Zone conductivity has very little impact on the performance of
> horizontally polarized antennas, while having a major impact on vertically
> polarised ones.
>
> While the Fresnel (far field) zone of my location, is basically rock
> (granite and ‘coffee rock’), Mike’s final location beside the Kalgan
> estuary appeared to have much better Fresnel zone conductivity, with less
> rock than me and, in around half the compass directions, salt water.
> However, his inverted-L with an 80’ vertical section over 120 buried
> quarter-wave radials at Kalgan performed only marginally better than our
> previous attempts at vertical antenna systems did.
>
> On this basis, I came to the conclusion that the dominant problem was
> likely to be the geomagnetic latitude issue, rather than poor conductivity
> in the Fresnel zone – which it certainly is also an issue here.
>
> To investigate this further, I sought out the opportunity to operate
> directly by the sea here with a good vertical antenna. After much
> paperwork, I managed to get permission to operation from the Cape Leeuwin
> lighthouse, which is 40m-plus high and on a narrow finger of land
> surrounded by sea for over 300 degrees.
>
> In a Stew Perry TBDC in the early 2000s, with the assistance of my friend
> Phil VK6PH, we put up a full-sized quarter-wave wire vertical on the most
> seaward side of the lighthouse, less than 60 metres from the sea. This was
> fed against a quarter wave counterpoise and the feeder decoupled with a
> large ferrite choke to stop common mode effects.  On the other side of the
> lighthouse was an inverted vee half-wave dipole. Both antennas were
> supported from the lighthouse balcony (at about 40m!) and detuned when not
> in use. An Yaesu FT-1000MP was used, running less than 100W
>
> Unfortunately conditions were poor during our evening time into North
> America, but at about three hours before sunrise the 160m band opened into
> Europe.  Right from this point, the vertical was slightly down on the
> inverted vee by a few dB, but I would always call on the vertical first and
> then switch onto the inverted vee if I got no response.  All the way until
> just after sunrise, the inverted vee outperformed the vertical, mostly
> raising the stations who did not hear us on the vertical.
>
> The only time this situation was reversed was when 160m started to go out
> as the sun started to rise and I had by then switched over to just calling
> stations on the inverted vee.
>
> After about five minutes of this, the Europeans I could still hear were
> not coming back to me anymore.  Out of curiosity, I switched to the
> vertical – and found I could still raise a few of them.  I recall vividly
> the last QSO with a CT1 using the vertical about 20 minutes after sunrise,
> exchanging 559 reports.
>
> The crazy thing is that the vertical appeared to be doing exactly what a
> dipole is known for doing on 160m in the northern hemisphere in some cases
> – extending the sunrise opening. However, this was the only time the
> vertical outperformed the inverted vee.
>
> As far as I know, Mike VK6HD never experienced this phenomenon when he was
> comparing his inverted-L quarter wave antenna 

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX everywhere - the facts

[Steve Ireland]

 
for three or four.

Mike VK6HD, Phil VK6GX and I are not the only ones to have experienced the 
“verticals aren’t always best for DX” situation here. About five to ten years 
ago, I understand a group of German DXers came here and operated in the CQ WW 
CW (I think). 

The group operated from the the Northern Corridor superstation VK6ANC/VK6NC, 
using a quarter wave vertical on 160m. After disappointing results, one of the 
ops (Mar DL3DXX, I think) recalled Mike, Phil and I used inverted vees at 90 to 
110’ and suspended a inverted vee dipole as high as they could and changed over 
to using this. My understanding is then they found they could work a much 
larger amount of DX stations on 160m.

Vy 73

Steve, VK6VZ 

From: donov...@starpower.net 
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 12:56 AM
To: Topband reflector 
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX everywhere - 
the facts

Hi Rick and Steve, 

Steve's QTH is almost directly north of the south geomagnetic pole.
His  latitude is approximately 32 degrees south geographic latitude
and approximately 43 degrees south geomagnetic latitude.   His QTH
is at approximately the same geomagnetic latitude as the Georgia
in the northern hemisphere.

http://sdnet.thayer.dartmouth.edu/aacgm/aacgm_calc.php#AACGM

I can't comment on the actual horizontal vs. vertical polarization
experience of topband operators in the Georgia.; however, W8JI lives
in Georgia and his experience with a very high horizontally polarized
dipole was mostly unfavorable compared to his 4-square vertical
array.   Georgia probably has reasonably good soil conductivity.

My suspicion is that the soil in the Fresnel zone of Steve's vertical
antennas  (the mostly far field region where ground gain is developed)
has very poor conductivity.  Poor Fresnel Zone conductivity has very
little impact on the performance of horizontally polarized antennas.

AM broadcast antenna engineers who have worked in VK6 may have
some experience with soil conductivity impacts on the effectiveness
of AM broadcasting antennas in that area.

73
Frank
W3LPL



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX everywhere - the facts

[K4SAV]

Here is an interesting pdf document including information on the effects 
of Earth's Electron Gyrofrequency on 160 meters.


The 160-Meter Band: An Enigma Shrouded in Mystery
http://solar.spacew.com/cq/cqmar98.pdf

Jerry, K4SAV


On 11/24/2018 5:08 AM, Steve Ireland wrote:

Hi Frank (and Rick)

Somewhere I have a map of the lines of geomagnetic latitude superimposed on a 
Mercator projection of the world, but I can’t find it right now.  Unlike the 
ruler-straight lines of conventional latitude, geomagnetic latitude lines 
wander across the world like a collection of snake tracks.

As a result of how geomagnetic latitude snakes across the globe, a comparison 
can’t be directly made between similar geomagnetic latitudes in the northern 
and southern hemispheres – where Tom W8JI lives is probably very different to 
me in terms of the closeness of his geomagnetic latitude to the electron 
gyro-frequency.  As Carl K9LA points out, the geomagnetic latitude relates to 
polarization and involves the ordinary and extraordinary waves that propagate 
through the ionosphere, and how 160m is affected by being close to the electron 
gyro-frequency.

About 10 to 15 years ago, Carl, Nick Hall-Patch VE7DXR and Bob NM7M (SK) (also 
a physicist like Carl, as I’m sure you recall) helped Mike VK6HD (SK) and I to 
understand why our horizontal cloud-warmers outperformed efficient vertical 
antenna systems in SW WA.

You are quite correct, the Fresnel zone where I live (the mostly far field 
region where ground gain is developed) has very poor conductivity. And, to 
repeat your point as this is not as widely known as it should be, poor Fresnel 
Zone conductivity has very little impact on the performance of horizontally 
polarized antennas, while having a major impact on vertically polarised ones.

While the Fresnel (far field) zone of my location, is basically rock (granite 
and ‘coffee rock’), Mike’s final location beside the Kalgan estuary appeared to 
have much better Fresnel zone conductivity, with less rock than me and, in 
around half the compass directions, salt water.  However, his inverted-L with 
an 80’ vertical section over 120 buried quarter-wave radials at Kalgan 
performed only marginally better than our previous attempts at vertical antenna 
systems did.

On this basis, I came to the conclusion that the dominant problem was likely to 
be the geomagnetic latitude issue, rather than poor conductivity in the Fresnel 
zone – which it certainly is also an issue here.

To investigate this further, I sought out the opportunity to operate directly 
by the sea here with a good vertical antenna. After much paperwork, I managed 
to get permission to operation from the Cape Leeuwin lighthouse, which is 
40m-plus high and on a narrow finger of land surrounded by sea for over 300 
degrees.

In a Stew Perry TBDC in the early 2000s, with the assistance of my friend Phil 
VK6PH, we put up a full-sized quarter-wave wire vertical on the most seaward 
side of the lighthouse, less than 60 metres from the sea. This was fed against 
a quarter wave counterpoise and the feeder decoupled with a large ferrite choke 
to stop common mode effects.  On the other side of the lighthouse was an 
inverted vee half-wave dipole. Both antennas were supported from the lighthouse 
balcony (at about 40m!) and detuned when not in use. An Yaesu FT-1000MP was 
used, running less than 100W

Unfortunately conditions were poor during our evening time into North America, 
but at about three hours before sunrise the 160m band opened into Europe.  
Right from this point, the vertical was slightly down on the inverted vee by a 
few dB, but I would always call on the vertical first and then switch onto the 
inverted vee if I got no response.  All the way until just after sunrise, the 
inverted vee outperformed the vertical, mostly raising the stations who did not 
hear us on the vertical.

The only time this situation was reversed was when 160m started to go out as 
the sun started to rise and I had by then switched over to just calling 
stations on the inverted vee.

After about five minutes of this, the Europeans I could still hear were not 
coming back to me anymore.  Out of curiosity, I switched to the vertical – and 
found I could still raise a few of them.  I recall vividly the last QSO with a 
CT1 using the vertical about 20 minutes after sunrise, exchanging 559 reports.

The crazy thing is that the vertical appeared to be doing exactly what a dipole 
is known for doing on 160m in the northern hemisphere in some cases – extending 
the sunrise opening. However, this was the only time the vertical outperformed 
the inverted vee.

As far as I know, Mike VK6HD never experienced this phenomenon when he was 
comparing his inverted-L quarter wave antenna against his inverted vee dipole.  
However, my vertical antenna was directly adjacent to the sea, surrounded by 
sea, which may have helped.

The final event was highly interesting, but did not sway me into 

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX everywhere - the facts

[Steve Ireland]

 
for three or four.

Mike VK6HD, Phil VK6GX and I are not the only ones to have experienced the 
“verticals aren’t always best for DX” situation here. About five to ten years 
ago, I understand a group of German DXers came here and operated in the CQ WW 
CW (I think). 

The group operated from the the Northern Corridor superstation VK6ANC/VK6NC, 
using a quarter wave vertical on 160m. After disappointing results, one of the 
ops (Mar DL3DXX, I think) recalled Mike, Phil and I used inverted vees at 90 to 
110’ and suspended a inverted vee dipole as high as they could and changed over 
to using this. My understanding is then they found they could work a much 
larger amount of DX stations on 160m.

Vy 73

Steve, VK6VZ 







What Steve and Nick VE7DXR were referring to is the geomagnetic latitude in 
relation to polarization - not ground conductivity. 

This involves the ordinary and extraordinary waves that propagate through the 
ionosphere, and how 160m is affected by being close to the electron 
gyro-frequency

From: donov...@starpower.net 
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 12:56 AM
To: Topband reflector 
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX everywhere - 
the facts

Hi Rick and Steve, 

Steve's QTH is almost directly north of the south geomagnetic pole.
His  latitude is approximately 32 degrees south geographic latitude
and approximately 43 degrees south geomagnetic latitude.   His QTH
is at approximately the same geomagnetic latitude as the Georgia
in the northern hemisphere.

http://sdnet.thayer.dartmouth.edu/aacgm/aacgm_calc.php#AACGM

I can't comment on the actual horizontal vs. vertical polarization
experience of topband operators in the Georgia.; however, W8JI lives
in Georgia and his experience with a very high horizontally polarized
dipole was mostly unfavorable compared to his 4-square vertical
array.   Georgia probably has reasonably good soil conductivity.

My suspicion is that the soil in the Fresnel zone of Steve's vertical
antennas  (the mostly far field region where ground gain is developed)
has very poor conductivity.  Poor Fresnel Zone conductivity has very
little impact on the performance of horizontally polarized antennas.

AM broadcast antenna engineers who have worked in VK6 may have
some experience with soil conductivity impacts on the effectiveness
of AM broadcasting antennas in that area.

73
Frank
W3LPL














From: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" 
To: "Steve Ireland" , n...@n4is.com, 
donov...@starpower.net, "Topband reflector" 
Cc: "Dave Olean" 
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 3:40:10 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX everywhere - 
the facts

Holy YMMV. Thanks for your great posting of what most of us didn't know
(I know I didn't).  Do you have any numerical data concerning the ground
conductivity in VK6 vs the VK east coast?  The conductivity at my
QTH is around 30mS, so obviously you are in an alternative universe
by comparison.  I am trying to separate out ground conductivity vs
geomagnetic latitude.  Isn't the VK east basically at the same
latitude as VK6?  It would be interesting to try a vertical on
the beach on the Indian Ocean in VK6.  This would presumably eliminate
the ground conductivity issue, leaving only the geomagnetic stuff.

73
Rick N6RK

On 11/22/2018 1:49 AM, Steve Ireland wrote:
> Hi JC
> 
> In my experience, here in the southern hemisphere and relatively close 
> to the equator, I wish that "Vertical TX antenna is the only way to work 
> DX on topband!"
> 
> Unfortunately vertical antennas mostly don't work here well where I am 
> in south-western WA - there is too much ground loss in the far field and 
> poor geomagnetic latitude for them.
> 
> When I lived in the UK and was G3ZZD (1971 to 1989) , I used verticals, 
> inverted-Ls and inverted-tees over elevated radials exclusively for 
> low-band DXing. It was very disappointing to find that when I moved into 
> the Perth Hills in 1995 and got back on 160m that verticals didn't work 
> like they did at my previous QTHs in the UK.
> 
> Mystified by this situation, I contacted Dr Nick Hall-Patch, a 
> radio/physics scientist at a university in British Columbia, who 
> explained the wonders of geomagnetic lat/long to me - and pointed out at 
> my geomagnetic lat/long a (mainly) vertical polarised antenna might only 
> break even with a (mainly) horizontal antenna, even if the ground 
> conductivity was good.
> 
> Mike VK6HD, who was my mentor on 160m, had learnt about the favouring of 
> our location for predominantly horizontal polarisation many years before 
> - and, after trying a raft of inverted-Ls and various ways of 
> shunt-loading his tower, settled on using a flat-top dipole or inverted 
> vee dipole as high in the 

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX everywhere - the facts

[n4is]

Hi Frank

 

I can comment on horizontal polarization. I am experiencing both polarization 
since 1980; with a vertical and a inverted V at 30m and 40m later; also with 
high DRF receiving antennas like the HWF and VWF since 2006.

 

Here my 2 cents.

 

 

There are 3 steps.

 

1.  Make the power out of your antenna.
2.  Get the wave up to be refracted down.
3.  After refracted the wave get propagated.

 

These 3 different things need attention. I will comment 3 to 1

 

3-

*   Does not matter the original polarization after the wave refract it 
splits in horizontal and vertical polarization.
*   The propagation is different for both waves, ordinary and extraordinary.
*   The attenuation is also different during the path. It is normal for me 
here in South Florida, 23 degree North, to hear VK6 on horizontal HWF 30 
minutes before SR coming from 210 degree SSW, and nothing on the VWF vertical, 
then at Sunrise’ the signal change  to direct path W and peak at SR only on the 
VWF, no copy on the HWF. 
*   W8JI did not have a horizontal RX antenna with high RDF to compare with 
high RDF RX antennas.

 

 

2

 

*   The direction is very important, N-S is affected by the inclination of 
the earth magnet field.  Signals from south are stronger on horizontal,  there 
is less  attenuation near the equator for horizontal pol. 
*   Working stations from Africa or pacific , W -E, it’s is normal to 
experience long and deep QSB, The polarization shift slowly between vertical 
and horizontal, the signal is Q5 on the Horizontal WF, after few minutes fade 
and become Q5 on the Vertical WF.
*   This is the same on 160 80 , but on not on 40m where horizontal 
polarization is always better.

 

1

 

*   Ground interaction between matter (ground) and radio frequency wave is 
the same everywhere on 160m. Horizontal signal has a -1 factor and cancel 
signals near the ground, The inverted V or Dipole is always near to the ground 
on 160m (500ft), the irradiation patter is 50% vertical and 50% horizontal.
*   My first experience with a ¼ wave full size vertical was in Brazil back 
in 1990, I worked 9V1XQ with 400 w using the ¼ TX vertical. Few month later I 
installed a inverted V at 120 ft. high.
*   All A/B tests did show 10 db improvement on the inverted V over the 
vertical with a poor ground plane. 
*   The issue is what kind of test you can do. Well we test SSB with local 
guys , 4000 miles QSO’s on CW, but it is hard to test with 8000 miles  or more.
*   Before 2000, PY1RO had a 20 years sked with Mike VK6HD near SR and 
never completed one QSO. In the last 20 years there was several QSO’s PY-VK6 
with signals coming from NNE near SS. Hard to tell if the vertical TX antenna 
was used or not on the VK6HD side.
*   Vertical for 160m on South America used to be very rare. Nowadays we 
have several great signals using ¼ wave vertical, LU8DPM , PP5JR, PY2RO and 
others. The difference between them and the guys  using an inverted V are at 
least 10 db better here in Florida for the vertical antenna.
*   W4ZV , Bill always tell me to get and inverted V to work pacific, Bill 
loves his inverted V. Here in my QTH, I don’t have the space for one, but I 
never feel necessary because I work pacific with my Vertical and listening on 
the HWF all the time.

 

Using the HWF in my city lot I just don’t hear any manmade noise from the city 
around me, I have common node noise under control. The signals are always weak 
then the HWF, but always with better signal to noise ratio then the VWF. 

 

The issue in 160m is that the HWF needs to be above 85ft. 90 is good, 120 is 
better and 160ft at K9CT or 200ft like W8LRL is just fantastic.

 

The HWF works very well on 80m at 60ft high and above. RDF makes a huge 
difference on RX signal to noise ratio. 

 

My measurements over the last 10 year indicate for each one db increase on RDF 
the signal to noise ration increases two db.

 

On 160m RX there are two very different propagation path, one horizontal and 
another vertical. But for TX. If it is V or H does not matter, what only matter 
is the irradiated power efficiency to get the wave refracted by the ionosphere. 

 

 

73’s

N4IS

JC

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX everywhere - the facts

[Carl Luetzelschwab]

What Steve and Nick VE7DXR were referring to is the geomagnetic latitude in
relation to polarization - not ground conductivity.

This involves the ordinary and extraordinary waves that propagate through
the ionosphere, and how 160m is affected by being close to the electron
gyro-frequency.

Carl K9LA
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX everywhere - the facts

[donovanf]

Hi Rick and Steve, 


Steve's QTH is almost directly north of the south geomagnetic pole. 
His latitude is approximately 32 degrees south geographic latitude 
and approximately 43 degrees south geomagnetic latitude. His QTH 
is at approximately the same geomagnetic latitude as the Georgia 
in the northern hemisphere. 


http://sdnet.thayer.dartmouth.edu/aacgm/aacgm_calc.php#AACGM 


I can't comment on the actual horizontal vs. vertical polarization 
experience of topband operators in the Georgia.; however, W8JI lives 
in Georgia and his experience with a very high horizontally polarized 
dipole was mostly unfavorable compared to his 4-square vertical 
array. Georgia probably has reasonably good soil conductivity. 


My suspicion is that the soil in the Fresnel zone of Steve's vertical 
antennas (the mostly far field region where ground gain is developed) 
has very poor conductivity. Poor Fresnel Zone conductivity has very 
little impact on the performance of horizontally polarized antennas. 


AM broadcast antenna engineers who have worked in VK6 may have 
some experience with soil conductivity impacts on the effectiveness 
of AM broadcasting antennas in that area. 


73 
Frank 
W3LPL 
















- Original Message -

From: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist"  
To: "Steve Ireland" , n...@n4is.com, 
donov...@starpower.net, "Topband reflector"  
Cc: "Dave Olean"  
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 3:40:10 PM 
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX everywhere - 
the facts 

Holy YMMV. Thanks for your great posting of what most of us didn't know 
(I know I didn't). Do you have any numerical data concerning the ground 
conductivity in VK6 vs the VK east coast? The conductivity at my 
QTH is around 30mS, so obviously you are in an alternative universe 
by comparison. I am trying to separate out ground conductivity vs 
geomagnetic latitude. Isn't the VK east basically at the same 
latitude as VK6? It would be interesting to try a vertical on 
the beach on the Indian Ocean in VK6. This would presumably eliminate 
the ground conductivity issue, leaving only the geomagnetic stuff. 

73 
Rick N6RK 

On 11/22/2018 1:49 AM, Steve Ireland wrote: 
> Hi JC 
> 
> In my experience, here in the southern hemisphere and relatively close 
> to the equator, I wish that "Vertical TX antenna is the only way to work 
> DX on topband!" 
> 
> Unfortunately vertical antennas mostly don't work here well where I am 
> in south-western WA - there is too much ground loss in the far field and 
> poor geomagnetic latitude for them. 
> 
> When I lived in the UK and was G3ZZD (1971 to 1989) , I used verticals, 
> inverted-Ls and inverted-tees over elevated radials exclusively for 
> low-band DXing. It was very disappointing to find that when I moved into 
> the Perth Hills in 1995 and got back on 160m that verticals didn't work 
> like they did at my previous QTHs in the UK. 
> 
> Mystified by this situation, I contacted Dr Nick Hall-Patch, a 
> radio/physics scientist at a university in British Columbia, who 
> explained the wonders of geomagnetic lat/long to me - and pointed out at 
> my geomagnetic lat/long a (mainly) vertical polarised antenna might only 
> break even with a (mainly) horizontal antenna, even if the ground 
> conductivity was good. 
> 
> Mike VK6HD, who was my mentor on 160m, had learnt about the favouring of 
> our location for predominantly horizontal polarisation many years before 
> - and, after trying a raft of inverted-Ls and various ways of 
> shunt-loading his tower, settled on using a flat-top dipole or inverted 
> vee dipole as high in the air as he could get it. Independently, Phil 
> VK6GX (formerly VK6ABL) went a similar journey to Mike and also settled 
> an identical philosophy for 160m antennas. 
> 
> As outlined in my tribute on Mike's QRZ.com page, when Mike moved to his 
> final QTH, near Albany, on several hectares besides the Kalgan River 
> estuary, he finally thought he had found a location where a vertical 
> would work. Over about 18 months, he laid down a full-size broadcast 
> ground screen of 120 quarter wave radials and put up an inverted-L with 
> an 80 feet vertical section over it. He compared this very carefully 
> against an inverted vee dipole at 90', which was detuned/shorted when 
> the vertical was in use. 
> 
> Mike then embarked on 18 months of testing - and much to his 
> disappointment discovered that the inverted-L was mostly up to two 'S' 
> points down on the inverted vee dipole. The only times the vertical was 
> better was occasionally over one and half hours before sunrise - and 
> similarly it could sometimes be better over one a half hours after sunset. 
> 
> The good news is once in a blue moon the vertical would work better than 
> the dipole on

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX everywhere - the facts

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

Holy YMMV. Thanks for your great posting of what most of us didn't know
(I know I didn't).  Do you have any numerical data concerning the ground
conductivity in VK6 vs the VK east coast?  The conductivity at my
QTH is around 30mS, so obviously you are in an alternative universe
by comparison.  I am trying to separate out ground conductivity vs
geomagnetic latitude.  Isn't the VK east basically at the same
latitude as VK6?  It would be interesting to try a vertical on
the beach on the Indian Ocean in VK6.  This would presumably eliminate
the ground conductivity issue, leaving only the geomagnetic stuff.

73
Rick N6RK

On 11/22/2018 1:49 AM, Steve Ireland wrote:

Hi JC

In my experience, here in the southern hemisphere and relatively close 
to the equator, I wish that "Vertical TX antenna is the only way to work 
DX on topband!"


Unfortunately vertical antennas mostly don't work here well where I am 
in south-western WA - there is too much ground loss in the far field and 
poor geomagnetic latitude for them.


When I lived in the UK and was G3ZZD (1971 to 1989) , I used verticals, 
inverted-Ls and inverted-tees over elevated radials exclusively for 
low-band DXing. It was very disappointing to find that when I moved into 
the Perth Hills in 1995 and got back on 160m that verticals didn't work 
like they did at my previous QTHs in the UK.


Mystified by this situation, I contacted Dr Nick Hall-Patch, a 
radio/physics scientist at a university in British Columbia, who 
explained the wonders of geomagnetic lat/long to me - and pointed out at 
my geomagnetic lat/long a (mainly) vertical polarised antenna might only 
break even with a (mainly) horizontal antenna, even if the ground 
conductivity was good.


Mike VK6HD, who was my mentor on 160m, had learnt about the favouring of 
our location for predominantly horizontal polarisation many years before 
- and, after trying a raft of inverted-Ls and various ways of 
shunt-loading his tower, settled on using a flat-top dipole or inverted 
vee dipole as high in the air as he could get it. Independently, Phil 
VK6GX (formerly VK6ABL) went a similar journey to Mike and also settled 
an identical philosophy for 160m antennas.


As outlined in my tribute on Mike's QRZ.com page, when Mike moved to his 
final QTH, near Albany, on several hectares besides the Kalgan River 
estuary, he finally thought he had found a location where a vertical 
would work. Over about 18 months, he laid down a full-size broadcast 
ground screen of 120 quarter wave radials and put up an inverted-L with 
an 80 feet vertical section over it. He compared this very carefully 
against an inverted vee dipole at 90', which was detuned/shorted when 
the vertical was in use.


Mike then embarked on 18 months of testing - and much to his 
disappointment discovered that the inverted-L was mostly up to two 'S' 
points down on the inverted vee dipole.  The only times the vertical was 
better was occasionally over one and half hours before sunrise - and 
similarly it could sometimes be better over one a half hours after sunset.


The good news is once in a blue moon the vertical would work better than 
the dipole on long distance DX - and enabled Mike to work P4 (Aruba) and 
HC.


Almost entirely the rest of Mike's 260+ countries on 160m were worked on 
flat-top or inverted vee dipoles.


After another year or so, Mike quietly took the inverted-L down - and 
concentrated instead on improving his 160m reception through the use of 
Beverage antennas.


For many years, Mike and I were treated by several knowledgeable 160m 
DXers as being either incompetent or deluded about a simple horizontal 
cloud warmer being better than a vertical in south-western WA.  I used 
to get angry about it, but Mike (who was older and wiser) would just 
laugh and say let those in the rest of the world have their own beliefs 
about what actually happens where we live.


If the books in English on 160m antennas and operating had been written 
in VK6, rather than in high latitude USA and Europe, they would say very 
different things about verticals, along the lines of: "Don't torture 
yourself." ;-) Note also that verticals seem to work just fine in the 
rest of Australia on 160m, but not in relatively coastal south-western VK6


Practically for me, verticals of all kinds are occasionally useful at 
this QTH in working middle distances around 1,000 to 5,000 km, such as 
in the western Pacific. Later this year, I'll carry out the switching 
arrangements so I can use my 160m doublet as a top-loaded vertical, but 
I'm not expecting much in the way of good results, except at these 
distances (in which I've already just about worked all the countries 
there is ;-)).


By the way, I have a ground screen of over 30 x 30m radials and a K2AV 
counterpoise over them - for all the good they (don't) do me. If I was 
back in Kent as G3ZZD they would do very well for me.


Vy 73

Steve, VK6VZ (also G3ZZD and VY2LF)




-Original Message-