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 the

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

[n4is]

John 

I think I understand where we disagree. Most low dipoles on 160m are 30 to
60 ft high, 1/4 wave high is not low for most stations. Very few can afford
a dipole at 120 ft high.
You right 50% is a ball parking number but it brings the attention to the
importance of 3D and separation between horizontal and vertical
polarization. In special on 160m, where I am a firm believer on two
different propagation path, one vert, and another horizontal.

By the way, what you mentioned about QSB is true, I observed this phenomenon
since the first year with the   HWF in 2009. QSB is  just a shift in
polarization between horizontal and vertical.

73's
JC
N4IS

-Original Message-
From: John Kaufmann  
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:36 AM
To: n...@n4is.com; topband@contesting.com
Subject: RE: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

JC, 

You said: " Every dipole or inverted V irradiate  50% of the power
horizontal polarized broadside with the wire and 50% of the power vertical
polarized along the wire."  You cited EZNEC as evidence.

I am merely pointing out that as a general rule, this is not true.  The
issue *is* math because that is precisely how you determine the fraction of
power that goes into horizontal polarization and into vertical polarization.
As I pointed out, the relevant math is a 3-dimensional integration of the
radiation pattern in spherical coordinates.  

Take a dipole that is 1/4 wavelength high, which we can all agree is "low"
in wavelength terms.  At a takeoff angle of 90 degrees (straight up), EZNEC
shows that the horizontal and vertical components of radiation are about the
same.  It is easy to think there is a 50/50 split in horizontal/vertical
power because of this.  However, this neglects the radiation at lower angles
where the large majority of the radiated power is produced.  At a 45 degree
takeoff angle, the broadside horizontal power dominates the vertical power
by about 4 dB and the ratio increases at lower angles.  If the dipole is
higher than 1/4 wavelength, the ratio becomes even greater.

The math does not lie.

73, John W1FV



-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
n...@n4is.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 8:50 AM
To: jkaufm...@alum.mit.edu; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

John

 

The issue here is not math. It is the interaction of fields and matter. A
good text book is Electromagnetic waves and radiating system  by Edward C
Jordan and Keith G. Balmain. Chapter 9.

 

You can not ignore the close proximity with ground on 160m antennas for both
transmit signal and receiving signal. Too close it became more a
transmission line, getting high the irradiation increase and the maximum
horizontal power radiated or receiving signal intensity are near 1 ½ wave
high. The take off angle depends on the ground itself.

 

73’s

JC

N4IS

 

From: John Kaufmann 
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 8:16 AM
To: n...@n4is.com; topband@contesting.com
Subject: RE: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

 

In considering the *total power* radiated by any antenna, you need to look
at the 3-dimensional antenna pattern, not a 2-dimensional slice.  The total
radiated power is the 3-dimensional integration of the 3-dimensional
radiation pattern.  It is convenient to do this in spherical coordinates
because that is how we visualize 3-dimensional patterns.   In spherical
coordinates the integration applies the *smallest* weighting at elevation
angles around zenith.  Even if the dipole is low, the calculation shows that
the fraction of power that goes straight up is small compared to the total
radiated power.   This is easily understood in 3-dimensional spherical
coordinates:
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/multivariable-calculus/integrating-multivar
iable-functions/triple-integrals-a/a/triple-integrals-in-spherical-coordinat
es.

73, John W1FV

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
n...@n4is.com <mailto:n...@n4is.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 6:58 AM
To: jkaufm...@alum.mit.edu <mailto:jkaufm...@alum.mit.edu> ;
topband@contesting.com <mailto:topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

Sorry ,  but all antenna's on 160m are close to the ground and it is the

case, you can check by yourself using EZENEC if you don't know how to

calculate the fields.

There is no misleading here.

73

JC

N4IS

 

-Original Message-

From: Topband mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com> > On Behalf Of John Kaufmann

Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 8:53 PM

To: topband@contesting.com <mailto:topband@contesting.com> 

Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

The statement that the half of a horizontal dipole's radiation is verticall

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

[n4is]

Hi John

On EZNEC  for sure  3D. do not use total field, under description select
horizontal and vertical field only and see the red line , vertical field and
green line horizontal field, use real ground.

Look it again.

73's
JC

-Original Message-
From: John Kaufmann  
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:36 AM
To: n...@n4is.com; topband@contesting.com
Subject: RE: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

JC, 

You said: " Every dipole or inverted V irradiate  50% of the power
horizontal polarized broadside with the wire and 50% of the power vertical
polarized along the wire."  You cited EZNEC as evidence.

I am merely pointing out that as a general rule, this is not true.  The
issue *is* math because that is precisely how you determine the fraction of
power that goes into horizontal polarization and into vertical polarization.
As I pointed out, the relevant math is a 3-dimensional integration of the
radiation pattern in spherical coordinates.  

Take a dipole that is 1/4 wavelength high, which we can all agree is "low"
in wavelength terms.  At a takeoff angle of 90 degrees (straight up), EZNEC
shows that the horizontal and vertical components of radiation are about the
same.  It is easy to think there is a 50/50 split in horizontal/vertical
power because of this.  However, this neglects the radiation at lower angles
where the large majority of the radiated power is produced.  At a 45 degree
takeoff angle, the broadside horizontal power dominates the vertical power
by about 4 dB and the ratio increases at lower angles.  If the dipole is
higher than 1/4 wavelength, the ratio becomes even greater.

The math does not lie.

73, John W1FV



-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
n...@n4is.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 8:50 AM
To: jkaufm...@alum.mit.edu; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

John

 

The issue here is not math. It is the interaction of fields and matter. A
good text book is Electromagnetic waves and radiating system  by Edward C
Jordan and Keith G. Balmain. Chapter 9.

 

You can not ignore the close proximity with ground on 160m antennas for both
transmit signal and receiving signal. Too close it became more a
transmission line, getting high the irradiation increase and the maximum
horizontal power radiated or receiving signal intensity are near 1 ½ wave
high. The take off angle depends on the ground itself.

 

73’s

JC

N4IS

 

From: John Kaufmann 
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 8:16 AM
To: n...@n4is.com; topband@contesting.com
Subject: RE: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

 

In considering the *total power* radiated by any antenna, you need to look
at the 3-dimensional antenna pattern, not a 2-dimensional slice.  The total
radiated power is the 3-dimensional integration of the 3-dimensional
radiation pattern.  It is convenient to do this in spherical coordinates
because that is how we visualize 3-dimensional patterns.   In spherical
coordinates the integration applies the *smallest* weighting at elevation
angles around zenith.  Even if the dipole is low, the calculation shows that
the fraction of power that goes straight up is small compared to the total
radiated power.   This is easily understood in 3-dimensional spherical
coordinates:
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/multivariable-calculus/integrating-multivar
iable-functions/triple-integrals-a/a/triple-integrals-in-spherical-coordinat
es.

73, John W1FV

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
n...@n4is.com <mailto:n...@n4is.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 6:58 AM
To: jkaufm...@alum.mit.edu <mailto:jkaufm...@alum.mit.edu> ;
topband@contesting.com <mailto:topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

Sorry ,  but all antenna's on 160m are close to the ground and it is the

case, you can check by yourself using EZENEC if you don't know how to

calculate the fields.

There is no misleading here.

73

JC

N4IS

 

-Original Message-

From: Topband mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com> > On Behalf Of John Kaufmann

Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 8:53 PM

To: topband@contesting.com <mailto:topband@contesting.com> 

Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

The statement that the half of a horizontal dipole's radiation is vertically

polarized is misleading and needs qualification.  There is a vertically

polarized component off the ends of the dipole but it is only of consequence

at takeoff angles approaching 90 degrees, in other words straight overhead.

I would argue that these takeoff angles are of little interest for long

distance propagation.   

At takeoff angles lower than 60 degrees or so, the total radiation pattern

of a dipole at any re

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

[John Kaufmann]

JC, 

You said: " Every dipole or inverted V irradiate  50% of the power
horizontal polarized broadside with the wire and 50% of the power vertical
polarized along the wire."  You cited EZNEC as evidence.

I am merely pointing out that as a general rule, this is not true.  The
issue *is* math because that is precisely how you determine the fraction of
power that goes into horizontal polarization and into vertical polarization.
As I pointed out, the relevant math is a 3-dimensional integration of the
radiation pattern in spherical coordinates.  

Take a dipole that is 1/4 wavelength high, which we can all agree is "low"
in wavelength terms.  At a takeoff angle of 90 degrees (straight up), EZNEC
shows that the horizontal and vertical components of radiation are about the
same.  It is easy to think there is a 50/50 split in horizontal/vertical
power because of this.  However, this neglects the radiation at lower angles
where the large majority of the radiated power is produced.  At a 45 degree
takeoff angle, the broadside horizontal power dominates the vertical power
by about 4 dB and the ratio increases at lower angles.  If the dipole is
higher than 1/4 wavelength, the ratio becomes even greater.

The math does not lie.

73, John W1FV



-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
n...@n4is.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 8:50 AM
To: jkaufm...@alum.mit.edu; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

John

 

The issue here is not math. It is the interaction of fields and matter. A
good text book is Electromagnetic waves and radiating system  by Edward C
Jordan and Keith G. Balmain. Chapter 9.

 

You can not ignore the close proximity with ground on 160m antennas for both
transmit signal and receiving signal. Too close it became more a
transmission line, getting high the irradiation increase and the maximum
horizontal power radiated or receiving signal intensity are near 1 ½ wave
high. The take off angle depends on the ground itself.

 

73’s

JC

N4IS

 

From: John Kaufmann  
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 8:16 AM
To: n...@n4is.com; topband@contesting.com
Subject: RE: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

 

In considering the *total power* radiated by any antenna, you need to look
at the 3-dimensional antenna pattern, not a 2-dimensional slice.  The total
radiated power is the 3-dimensional integration of the 3-dimensional
radiation pattern.  It is convenient to do this in spherical coordinates
because that is how we visualize 3-dimensional patterns.   In spherical
coordinates the integration applies the *smallest* weighting at elevation
angles around zenith.  Even if the dipole is low, the calculation shows that
the fraction of power that goes straight up is small compared to the total
radiated power.   This is easily understood in 3-dimensional spherical
coordinates:
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/multivariable-calculus/integrating-multivar
iable-functions/triple-integrals-a/a/triple-integrals-in-spherical-coordinat
es.

73, John W1FV

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
n...@n4is.com <mailto:n...@n4is.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 6:58 AM
To: jkaufm...@alum.mit.edu <mailto:jkaufm...@alum.mit.edu> ;
topband@contesting.com <mailto:topband@contesting.com> 
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

Sorry ,  but all antenna's on 160m are close to the ground and it is the

case, you can check by yourself using EZENEC if you don't know how to

calculate the fields.

There is no misleading here.

73

JC

N4IS

 

-Original Message-

From: Topband mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com> > On Behalf Of John Kaufmann

Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 8:53 PM

To: topband@contesting.com <mailto:topband@contesting.com> 

Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

The statement that the half of a horizontal dipole's radiation is vertically

polarized is misleading and needs qualification.  There is a vertically

polarized component off the ends of the dipole but it is only of consequence

at takeoff angles approaching 90 degrees, in other words straight overhead.

I would argue that these takeoff angles are of little interest for long

distance propagation.   

At takeoff angles lower than 60 degrees or so, the total radiation pattern

of a dipole at any reasonable height becomes dominated by the horizontally

polarized component that is broadside to the dipole.   The lower the angle

or the higher the dipole, the more insignificant the vertical component

becomes. This is all verifiable in EZNEC.  If this were not true, you would

not see the well-defined radiation patterns that are produced by HF Yagi's

at higher frequencies were the radiation is horizontally polarized for

vi

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

[n4is]

John

 

The issue here is not math. It is the interaction of fields and matter. A
good text book is Electromagnetic waves and radiating system  by Edward C
Jordan and Keith G. Balmain. Chapter 9.

 

You can not ignore the close proximity with ground on 160m antennas for both
transmit signal and receiving signal. Too close it became more a
transmission line, getting high the irradiation increase and the maximum
horizontal power radiated or receiving signal intensity are near 1 ½ wave
high. The take off angle depends on the ground itself.

 

73’s

JC

N4IS

 

From: John Kaufmann  
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 8:16 AM
To: n...@n4is.com; topband@contesting.com
Subject: RE: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

 

In considering the *total power* radiated by any antenna, you need to look
at the 3-dimensional antenna pattern, not a 2-dimensional slice.  The total
radiated power is the 3-dimensional integration of the 3-dimensional
radiation pattern.  It is convenient to do this in spherical coordinates
because that is how we visualize 3-dimensional patterns.   In spherical
coordinates the integration applies the *smallest* weighting at elevation
angles around zenith.  Even if the dipole is low, the calculation shows that
the fraction of power that goes straight up is small compared to the total
radiated power.   This is easily understood in 3-dimensional spherical
coordinates:
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/multivariable-calculus/integrating-multivar
iable-functions/triple-integrals-a/a/triple-integrals-in-spherical-coordinat
es.

73, John W1FV

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
n...@n4is.com <mailto:n...@n4is.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 6:58 AM
To: jkaufm...@alum.mit.edu <mailto:jkaufm...@alum.mit.edu> ;
topband@contesting.com <mailto:topband@contesting.com> 
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

Sorry ,  but all antenna's on 160m are close to the ground and it is the

case, you can check by yourself using EZENEC if you don't know how to

calculate the fields.

There is no misleading here.

73

JC

N4IS

 

-Original Message-

From: Topband mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com> > On Behalf Of John Kaufmann

Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 8:53 PM

To: topband@contesting.com <mailto:topband@contesting.com> 

Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

The statement that the half of a horizontal dipole's radiation is vertically

polarized is misleading and needs qualification.  There is a vertically

polarized component off the ends of the dipole but it is only of consequence

at takeoff angles approaching 90 degrees, in other words straight overhead.

I would argue that these takeoff angles are of little interest for long

distance propagation.   

At takeoff angles lower than 60 degrees or so, the total radiation pattern

of a dipole at any reasonable height becomes dominated by the horizontally

polarized component that is broadside to the dipole.   The lower the angle

or the higher the dipole, the more insignificant the vertical component

becomes. This is all verifiable in EZNEC.  If this were not true, you would

not see the well-defined radiation patterns that are produced by HF Yagi's

at higher frequencies were the radiation is horizontally polarized for

virtually all signals of interest.

73, John W1FV

-Original Message-

From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of

n...@n4is.com <mailto:n...@n4is.com> 

Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:06 AM

To: 'Roger Kennedy'; topband@contesting.com <mailto:topband@contesting.com> 

Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

Roger

Every dipole or inverted V irradiate  50% of the power horizontal polarized

broadside with the wire and 50% of the power vertical polarized along the

wire. After the first refraction it does not matter. 

This is an electro-magnetic wave law. You can check that on EZENEC, it is

not a anecdote.

 

The advantage over vertical 1/4 wave antenna is efficiency.  The vertical

efficiency depends on the ground plane resistance, it is common to see

invert L with only 50 % irradiated power, the other 50% is dissipated on the

ground.

"In Theory, we know everything, but nothing works"

"In Practice, everything works, but we don't know why"

We never will fully understand the 160m band.

73's

JC

N4IS

 

_

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

_

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

_

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

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

Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

[Roger Kennedy]

Yes, but according to EZNEC, a 160m dipole at 50ft produces very little
radiation at low angles, compared to one at 150ft.

But I'm sceptical about the accuracy of EZNEC with such a low antenna, as
it's just based on theory . . . I'm not convinced it can accurately model
the real-world situation of what is actually happening with the ground
underneath the antenna.  (remember - my 160m dipole is like a 20m dipole 3ft
off the ground!)

Roger G3YRO



Sorry ,  but all antenna's on 160m are close to the ground and it is the
case, you can check by yourself using EZENEC if you don't know how to
calculate the fields.

There is no misleading here.

73
JC
N4IS
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

[John Kaufmann]

In considering the *total power* radiated by any antenna, you need to look
at the 3-dimensional antenna pattern, not a 2-dimensional slice.  The total
radiated power is the 3-dimensional integration of the 3-dimensional
radiation pattern.  It is convenient to do this in spherical coordinates
because that is how we visualize 3-dimensional patterns.   In spherical
coordinates the integration applies the *smallest* weighting at elevation
angles around zenith.  Even if the dipole is low, the calculation shows that
the fraction of power that goes straight up is small compared to the total
radiated power.   This is easily understood in 3-dimensional spherical
coordinates:
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/multivariable-calculus/integrating-multivar
iable-functions/triple-integrals-a/a/triple-integrals-in-spherical-coordinat
es.

73, John W1FV

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
n...@n4is.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 6:58 AM
To: jkaufm...@alum.mit.edu; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

Sorry ,  but all antenna's on 160m are close to the ground and it is the
case, you can check by yourself using EZENEC if you don't know how to
calculate the fields.

There is no misleading here.

73
JC
N4IS



-Original Message-
From: Topband  On Behalf Of John Kaufmann
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 8:53 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

The statement that the half of a horizontal dipole's radiation is vertically
polarized is misleading and needs qualification.  There is a vertically
polarized component off the ends of the dipole but it is only of consequence
at takeoff angles approaching 90 degrees, in other words straight overhead.
I would argue that these takeoff angles are of little interest for long
distance propagation.   

At takeoff angles lower than 60 degrees or so, the total radiation pattern
of a dipole at any reasonable height becomes dominated by the horizontally
polarized component that is broadside to the dipole.   The lower the angle
or the higher the dipole, the more insignificant the vertical component
becomes. This is all verifiable in EZNEC.  If this were not true, you would
not see the well-defined radiation patterns that are produced by HF Yagi's
at higher frequencies were the radiation is horizontally polarized for
virtually all signals of interest.

73, John W1FV

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
n...@n4is.com
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:06 AM
To: 'Roger Kennedy'; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

Roger

Every dipole or inverted V irradiate  50% of the power horizontal polarized
broadside with the wire and 50% of the power vertical polarized along the
wire. After the first refraction it does not matter. 

This is an electro-magnetic wave law. You can check that on EZENEC, it is
not a anecdote.


The advantage over vertical 1/4 wave antenna is efficiency.  The vertical
efficiency depends on the ground plane resistance, it is common to see
invert L with only 50 % irradiated power, the other 50% is dissipated on the
ground.

"In Theory, we know everything, but nothing works"

"In Practice, everything works, but we don't know why"

We never will fully understand the 160m band.

73's
JC
N4IS


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

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

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

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

[lennart.michaelsson]

This reminds me of the fine signals 3Y0X was producing on 160 back in
February 2006.
They were using a 3 el horisontal beam 4 ft above the ice...

73
Len SM7BIC

-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Topband  För Roger Kennedy
Skickat: den 27 november 2018 11:39
Till: topband@contesting.com
Ämne: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX


Very interesting reading all the comments . . .

Bear in mind that MY Dipoles have always been pretty low, around 50ft.  Also
that the British stations I have done proper comparisons with all have
decent verticals, typically at least 70ft high and over 40 quarter wave
radials. (you would recognise their callsigns)

I personally suspect that having a poor ground under such a low dipole would
cause it to have more low angle radiation than EZNEC predicts (ie the
antenna "thinks" it's higher). This seems to be born out by the fact that
people who have a Dipole that is over a radial system (for their vertical)
DOESN'T seem to work so well for DX as mine does.

So although having my own Vertical AND a Dipole to compare would be great, I
would only consider it if I could get the Dipole a long way away from the
radials. (in practice I could never get a proper set of radials out, nor
could I go high enough - I live in a very ordinary street with a
normal-sized garden, so one leg of my Dipole goes across the street!)

I do at least now have a Receiving Loop in my Loft, which is vertically
polarised. (and has a pre-amp, set to make local signals the same strength
as my Tx antenna). It's very interesting to note the difference on signals
switching between the two. Occasionally, there can be 10dB difference . . .
but MOST of the time, DX signals are exactly the same strength on both
(which supports my 2 theories)

However, based on my signal reports from DX stations, it does seem that my
low Dipoles have always worked much better than most of you guys in NA that
have tried them . . . so I wonder why that is?  Is it down to these
Geomagnetic lines? 


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

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

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

[n4is]

Sorry ,  but all antenna's on 160m are close to the ground and it is the
case, you can check by yourself using EZENEC if you don't know how to
calculate the fields.

There is no misleading here.

73
JC
N4IS



-Original Message-
From: Topband  On Behalf Of John Kaufmann
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 8:53 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

The statement that the half of a horizontal dipole's radiation is vertically
polarized is misleading and needs qualification.  There is a vertically
polarized component off the ends of the dipole but it is only of consequence
at takeoff angles approaching 90 degrees, in other words straight overhead.
I would argue that these takeoff angles are of little interest for long
distance propagation.   

At takeoff angles lower than 60 degrees or so, the total radiation pattern
of a dipole at any reasonable height becomes dominated by the horizontally
polarized component that is broadside to the dipole.   The lower the angle
or the higher the dipole, the more insignificant the vertical component
becomes. This is all verifiable in EZNEC.  If this were not true, you would
not see the well-defined radiation patterns that are produced by HF Yagi's
at higher frequencies were the radiation is horizontally polarized for
virtually all signals of interest.

73, John W1FV

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
n...@n4is.com
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:06 AM
To: 'Roger Kennedy'; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

Roger

Every dipole or inverted V irradiate  50% of the power horizontal polarized
broadside with the wire and 50% of the power vertical polarized along the
wire. After the first refraction it does not matter. 

This is an electro-magnetic wave law. You can check that on EZENEC, it is
not a anecdote.


The advantage over vertical 1/4 wave antenna is efficiency.  The vertical
efficiency depends on the ground plane resistance, it is common to see
invert L with only 50 % irradiated power, the other 50% is dissipated on the
ground.

"In Theory, we know everything, but nothing works"

"In Practice, everything works, but we don't know why"

We never will fully understand the 160m band.

73's
JC
N4IS


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

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

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

Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

[Roger Kennedy]

Very interesting reading all the comments . . .

Bear in mind that MY Dipoles have always been pretty low, around 50ft.  Also
that the British stations I have done proper comparisons with all have
decent verticals, typically at least 70ft high and over 40 quarter wave
radials. (you would recognise their callsigns)

I personally suspect that having a poor ground under such a low dipole would
cause it to have more low angle radiation than EZNEC predicts (ie the
antenna "thinks" it's higher). This seems to be born out by the fact that
people who have a Dipole that is over a radial system (for their vertical)
DOESN'T seem to work so well for DX as mine does.

So although having my own Vertical AND a Dipole to compare would be great, I
would only consider it if I could get the Dipole a long way away from the
radials. (in practice I could never get a proper set of radials out, nor
could I go high enough - I live in a very ordinary street with a
normal-sized garden, so one leg of my Dipole goes across the street!)

I do at least now have a Receiving Loop in my Loft, which is vertically
polarised. (and has a pre-amp, set to make local signals the same strength
as my Tx antenna). It's very interesting to note the difference on signals
switching between the two. Occasionally, there can be 10dB difference . . .
but MOST of the time, DX signals are exactly the same strength on both
(which supports my 2 theories)

However, based on my signal reports from DX stations, it does seem that my
low Dipoles have always worked much better than most of you guys in NA that
have tried them . . . so I wonder why that is?  Is it down to these
Geomagnetic lines? 


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

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

[John Kaufmann]

The statement that the half of a horizontal dipole's radiation is vertically
polarized is misleading and needs qualification.  There is a vertically
polarized component off the ends of the dipole but it is only of consequence
at takeoff angles approaching 90 degrees, in other words straight overhead.
I would argue that these takeoff angles are of little interest for long
distance propagation.   

At takeoff angles lower than 60 degrees or so, the total radiation pattern
of a dipole at any reasonable height becomes dominated by the horizontally
polarized component that is broadside to the dipole.   The lower the angle
or the higher the dipole, the more insignificant the vertical component
becomes. This is all verifiable in EZNEC.  If this were not true, you would
not see the well-defined radiation patterns that are produced by HF Yagi's
at higher frequencies were the radiation is horizontally polarized for
virtually all signals of interest.

73, John W1FV

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
n...@n4is.com
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:06 AM
To: 'Roger Kennedy'; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

Roger

Every dipole or inverted V irradiate  50% of the power horizontal polarized
broadside with the wire and 50% of the power vertical polarized along the
wire. After the first refraction it does not matter. 

This is an electro-magnetic wave law. You can check that on EZENEC, it is
not a anecdote.


The advantage over vertical 1/4 wave antenna is efficiency.  The vertical
efficiency depends on the ground plane resistance, it is common to see
invert L with only 50 % irradiated power, the other 50% is dissipated on the
ground.

"In Theory, we know everything, but nothing works"

"In Practice, everything works, but we don't know why"

We never will fully understand the 160m band.

73's
JC
N4IS


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

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

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 inverted

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 co

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 agai

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

[F Z_Bruce]

experiment the following year when I also operated from the lighthouse in the 
Stew Perry TBDC.

The fact was the inverted vee had been responsible for 80 to 90 per cent of my 
QSOs - can’t remember exactly how many – while the vertical had only accounted 
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

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

Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

[n4is]

Roger

Every dipole or inverted V irradiate  50% of the power horizontal polarized
broadside with the wire and 50% of the power vertical polarized along the
wire. After the first refraction it does not matter. 

This is an electro-magnetic wave law. You can check that on EZENEC, it is
not a anecdote.


The advantage over vertical 1/4 wave antenna is efficiency.  The vertical
efficiency depends on the ground plane resistance, it is common to see
invert L with only 50 % irradiated power, the other 50% is dissipated on the
ground.

"In Theory, we know everything, but nothing works"

"In Practice, everything works, but we don't know why"

We never will fully understand the 160m band.

73's
JC
N4IS


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

Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

[Roger Kennedy]

Very interesting reading about the fact that people have consistently found
that Verticals aren't so good for 160m DX from Australia . . . 

But I wonder why I have always had good results with Dipoles for DX here in
Britain?  It's nothing special about my current QTH, as I have used similar
antennas at 6 different QTHs over the past 50 years.

I get that most North American stations have found that Dipoles are rubbish
for DX . . . so I guess there's something different over here. As I posted
previously, I have done hundreds of proper comparison tests alongside people
with good Verticals, and most of the time there has been no real difference
(on average).

I have also wondered WHY that is . . . is it that propagation angles on 160m
are actually much higher than people imagine? (unlike 80m) . . . or is it
that there is actually a lot more low-angle from a low Dipole like mine than
computer-modelling would suggest? (I don't believe the theoretical modelling
can ever properly take into account the ground underneath the antenna on
such a long wavelength, and when it is so very near the ground)

I only spent a couple of hours on 160m over the weekend, but managed to work
39 NA stations in the CQ WW contest. (always difficult picking out the DX
between all the hundreds of very strong Europeans on the band!)

Roger G3YRO


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

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

[Steve Ireland]

Hi Jerry

Thanks so much for posting that excellent article – I had forgotten about it! 
For those who want to understand more about geomagnetic lat/long and 
gyrofrequency effects on 160m, it is just about the best article I ever came 
across – and shows why 160m is truly THE ‘magic band’. 

Vy 73

Steve, VK6VZ


Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 08:25:07 -0600
From: K4SAV 
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX
everywhere - the facts
Message-ID: <5bf95f43.2060...@charter.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

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




---
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 repeati

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 d

Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

[Roger Kennedy]

Well I've often written about this subject . . .

I've been DX-ing on 160m for almost 50 years . . . and ALWAYS used a
horizontal half-wave dipole! (typically just 50 ft high)

At my present QTH, it isn't even the best antenna I've ever had . . . yet
people tell me that most of the time my signal compares favourable with
other Gs . . . who are nearly all using Verticals!

25 years ago, when I lived down south, I did a whole load of tests with my
good friend G3SED. My half wave dipole was better there, but again just at
50ft. Mike was using a 90ft Inverted L, with 50 radials.

We came on Top Band on numerous occasions on SSB, to get comparison reports
from dozens of different  North American stations, so we made sure we were
running the same power.  We asked the stations to carefully watch our
signals as we passed it back and forth a few times (to allow for any QSB).
And guess what? At least 80% of the time stations said we were the same
strength!

And I'm talking about right across to the Mid-West, South America . . .
sometimes African stations.

Yet I know this flies in the face of the "perceived wisdom" that a low
dipole will be rubbish for DX on Top Band.  I guess that's why most stations
I work are amazed when I tell them I'm using a Dipole !

Roger G3YRO

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

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 

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

[F Z_Bruce]

Its difficult to use Geomagnetic latitude as a basis of conductivity because of 
variables.

Robin VK6LK lived in Margaret River, Western Australia, and salt sea water was 
a few feet under ground. He used vertical antennas effectively. He caught rain 
water from his roof to storage for his drinking water.

In other areas, conductive ground can be much lower from the surface  
to  make horizontal low band antennas work best.   

There are areas of the earth that are sand, an insulator, and horizontal 
antennas can be much lower over the top surface.

Makes one wonder "whats under your feet/antenna" ?

73
Bruce-k1fz
https://www.qsl.net/k1fz/flag_antennas.html
  
 
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 07:40:10 -0800, "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" wrote:

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

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- F

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

[Steve Ireland]

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- 
From: n...@n4is.com

Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 8:38 PM
To: 'Steve Ireland' ; donov...@starpower.net ; 'Topband reflector'
Cc: 'Dave Olean'
Subject: RE: Topband: Vertical and horizontal polarized antennas in the same 
space (was Propagation improves from VK6 into Europe)


Hi Steve.

You are 100 % right, the V works like a top hat for a vertical TX antenna.

I it simple to detune any vertical TX antenna. Vertical TX antenna is the 
only way to work DX on topband!


You may ask about the inverted V or low dipole, they are not 100% 
horizontal, actually they are 50% horizontal on the broadside and 50% 
vertical along the wire.


Ground reflects horizontal sign

Topband: Vertical Antennas

[Eddy Swynar]

Hi Guys,

While I most certainly agree with what others such as Tom (W8JI) might offer 
here as to the value of TRUE "A" vs. "B" comparisons when it comes to how 
effective an antenna may be, I won't let a little thing like expediency deter 
me from erecting---and using---a "...less than stellar" antenna...

Case in point: at our summer cottage (a two storey affair, with an upper 
balcony), I lashed together some aluminum tubing to tie to the railing on the 
second floor with bungy cord: I made up the balance of its length for a 
1/4-wave 7-MHz vertical with a re-cycled old electrical extension cord dropped 
down from the aluminum, which terminates at the feed point some 3' above 
physical ground. I then unrolled 2 insulated counterpoise wires, 1/4-wavelength 
long, in opposite directions.

Surprisingly the doggone thing works very well into Europe, no doubt testament 
as to the effectiveness of the stations of our European friends(!) as much as 
anything else at this end of my QSOs...but the point is, it works quite well 
with just the 100-watts that I might pump into it from my now-ancient Yaesu 
FT-980 transceiver.

So don't despair, and---as the Nike slogan so aptly puts it---JUST DO IT!!!

~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
_
Topband Reflector