Carlos,
Note that I referred to "horizontally POLARIZED" and "vertically
POLARIZED" antennas. My comments on, and analysis of, the Waller Flag
were based on my model of a vertical Waller loop. A horizontal Waller
Flag at a height great enough to have useful sensitivity is not even
close to being practical for me.
Also, that tutorial I cited on horizontal and vertical antennas is
specifically oriented toward TX performance, where the primary objective
is usually gain in the direction and elevation of DX rather than RDF.
73, Jim K9YC
On Mon,9/7/2015 5:41 PM, JC wrote:
The concept of horizontal dipole is just a name for a wire parallel to the
ground. If you change the description from TOTAL Field on EZENEC and use
Horizontal and Vertical field your results won't be the same. On low bands
Total Field is just one dimension. Horizontal and Vertical makes all the
difference in propagation and signal to noise ratio.
JC
N4IS
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Brown
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 5:32 PM
To:topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: [WARNING: A/V UNSCANNABLE]RE: Waller Flag Question
On Mon,9/7/2015 1:05 PM, K1FZ-Bruce wrote:
>Thanks Jim, There are new hams that do not know how horizontal
>antennas patterns change over ground.
Right. In general, horizontally polarized antennas only care about height,
while vertically polarized antennas care SOME about height, but mostly about
soil conductivity. I gave a talk at Pacificon and to a couple of ham clubs
on this based on an extensive NEC modeling study.
Slides are here.
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|