I don't really understand the intricacies of the electron gyro-frequency
effect, but from what little I do understand the difference between
vertical and horizontal polarization can be significant for some paths
on 160m. The only comments that I've every read concerning the OH8X 160
array was that the signal from it was somewhat underwhelming relative to
the expectations for it.
I worked one of the 3B9 DXpeditions on 160m with 100 watts from my QTH
in southern Arizona using a 2-element horizontally polarized wire yagi
that I ran across a canyon behind my house. It was about 200 feet above
the canyon floor, with a sloping terrain extending miles beyond that,
and resulted in the longest QSO they made on 160m. The path was open
for me for about 50 minutes and I thought that was pretty special, but
Bob Brown (NM7M) later sent me an email to tell me that he had
calculated that horizontal polarization for that particular path had
about 10.5 db disadvantage compared to vertical polarization (due to the
gyro-frequency effect). No way I could have put up a comparable
vertically polarized yagi, but still ... 10+ db is a huge deal on 160m.
The OH8X monster yagi was only rated for 12 dbi gain.
It would seem that a well-designed super array of vertical elements
might possibly be a better option (cheaper, simpler, more reliable) for
the OH8X team than replacing the big yagi array, although for some paths
vertical polarization might even be worse than horizontal. As I say,
I'm not an expert. My only point is that the 12.9 dbi gain spec for the
now deceased antenna doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 12/10/2013 7:43 AM, john@kk9a.com wrote:
The whole tower rotated, harmonic oscillation may have been the
destructive factor. It would definitely be nice to use star guys on a
structure like this.
I wonder how well the 160m yagi worked compared to a large vertical array.
John KK9A
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] [MWA] OH8X 80-160 monster tower collapses
From: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 05:45:50 -0800
On 12/10/13 5:34 AM, Djordan (personal) wrote:
I wonder what the original design spec was for the system 75mph or 100mph...
Wonder what the cost differential would have been to raise the spec 25 mph.
On a large system like this, often times the limiting aspect/failure mode
is not a simple strength to resist aerodynamic drag effect, but some
interaction, or a dynamic effect.
The Tacoma Narrows bridge did not fail because it wasn't strong enough. It
failed because it wasn't *stiff* enough and the design had significant
wind induced torsional loads. One might say that the "Q" was too high,
although the aerodynamic design was also such that the wind excited the
oscillation in the first place.
Until some sort of failure analysis is done, we don't know if perhaps
there was a failed component, etc. That is the design accommodated the
expected loads, with a factor of safety to account for manufacturing
variability, but it was that non-zero probability of failure that bit
them.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|