On 12/3/22 12:39 PM, Leeson wrote:
My thought on this is that the very shallow angle grazing reflection
from the dielectric discontinuity at the distant ground surface is
pretty much 100%. The ground permittivity and conductivity variability
would have a bigger effect for higher radiation angles.
Only for Horizontal Polarization.
For vertical pol, it's a lot more influenced by the soil properties,
more to the point, the phase angle of the reflection varies with soil
properties and angle, a lot more than for H-pol. H-pol has a reflection
phase of pretty close to zero degrees regardless of the angle of
incidence. (this is why HFTA only does horizontal pol - it's easier to
calculate)
The ARRL Antenna Book has some graphs that show that at 1.8 MHz, the
pseudo brewster angle (where the reflection coefficient magnitude is
lowest) changes from about 1-2 degrees for the proverbial salt marsh to
30 degrees for "extremely poor", with "average" coming in around 8 degrees.
For fire protection and layout reasons, I have only two elevated
radials on my full-size quarter-wave vertical, and it seems
competitive enough. Because the SWR is low without any matching, I
assume there's some ground loss, but my 12° sloping foreground seems
to make up for it. From modeling, I expect a little gain to the
northeast from the 140' tower reflector behind it.
We used two full-size half-wave verticals above a sloping foreground
in our HC8 station, with very good results. One was always a little
better, but it was hard to predict which one by direction alone.
"Person with one watch knows what time it is; with two, never quite
sure."
Dave
On 12/3/22 10:21 AM, Brian Beezley wrote:
Paul, W9AC: "Isn't the measured probe result only useful for
near-field system efficiency analysis? By near-field I mean to obtain
system efficiency within a wavelength or so of a vertical radiator.
But for skywave propagation field strength, don't we also need to
know more about the ground conductivity much further out to more than
1km on 160m?"
Paul, I don't know how distant ground affects 160m specifically. But
if you're on a hilltop, at low elevation angles your signal may
reflect or diffract from ground miles away. Its permittivity and
conductivity might be quite different than that of the ground beneath
your antenna.
I think the main usefulness of knowing your ground characteristics is
to predict antenna efficiency. That could easily determine your
choice between a horizontal and vertical antenna on 80m or 40m.
If you have some idea of the ground quality far away, you could
create a separate model with that value to study low-angle effects.
You could take a drive and go measure distant ground. But you'd
probably have to take a number of measurements to satisfy yourself
that you had a representative sample. My ground probe calculator
includes a utility that will average probe measurements. I had in
mind making multiple measurements near the antenna, but you could use
it to create an average of far-away ground for a low-angle model.
Brian
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|