TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] OT: Openwire/Window Line and Bad Wx

To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] OT: Openwire/Window Line and Bad Wx
From: k6jek <k6jek@comcast.net>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 13:51:46 -0700
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
Steve,

Where are you getting losses out of EZNEC? I did re-run the the dipole at 25 
and 55. As expected, all sorts of things are different. But where are you 
reading losses?

Jon

On Aug 3, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Steve Hunt wrote:

> Now re-run EZNEC with the dipole at 25ft and at 55ft over average ground, and 
> compare the losses reported by EZNEC with your figures; you'll see something 
> very different!
> 
> Orr's "logic" is way too simplistic!
> 
> Steve G3TXQ
> 
> 
> 
> On 03/08/2013 20:34, k6jek wrote:
>> This is the quote I've wondered about. It's from Bob Orr, W6SAI's, Antenna 
>> Handbook.
>> 
>> "Antenna radiation resistance is influenced by antenna height. Assume the 
>> antenna is an 80-meter dipole. A common height for this antenna is about 25 
>> feet, which is approximately 0.1 wavelength. Theory shows that the radiation 
>> resistance for this example should be about 20 ohms. Actual antenna 
>> measurements above "average ground" often reveal a radiation resistance of 
>> about 45 to 55 ohms -- a nice match for a coax line!
>> 
>> The extra 25 to 35 ohms is a result of ground loss, and is equivalent to 
>> placing a resistor of this value in series with the antenna feedpoint. In 
>> this instance over half the transmitter power is dissipated in ground loss."
>> 
>> If you follow this logic and model a 75M dipole at various heights over both 
>> perfect and average ground, you come up with some interesting numbers.
>> 
>> 25' Z perfect: 19.8; Z average: 45.8. Loss 57% (just as Orr says)
>> 35' Z perfect:  35.5 Z average: 53.5; Loss 34%
>> 45' Z perfect:  51.5 Z average: 63.8; Loss 19%
>> 55' Z perfect:  67.2 Z average: 73.4; Loss 8%
>> 
>> Modeled with EZNEC 5.0. I ignored reactance which seems to be what Bob Orr 
>> did.
>> 
>> If you believe this logic it makes a good case for height. But is it right?
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>