-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
Regarding antennas, what does counterpoise mean?
- Thread starter Marconi
- Start date
"Does that make my wanting to determine the exact historical nature of some word that you include with that "the other half" idea pointless?"
No, it doesn't. But the meaning of names changes over time. I'll bet you can think of several things like that and not just about radios/antennas. The reasons for that are common usage, misinformation, misunderstanding, and just not knowing what the devil to call something even if you know exactly what you are talking about. Different names for exactly the same things because of different circumstances. 'Earthing' and 'grounding' are a very good example of that for instance.
So are you wrong? Not that I know of...
- 'Doc
No, it doesn't. But the meaning of names changes over time. I'll bet you can think of several things like that and not just about radios/antennas. The reasons for that are common usage, misinformation, misunderstanding, and just not knowing what the devil to call something even if you know exactly what you are talking about. Different names for exactly the same things because of different circumstances. 'Earthing' and 'grounding' are a very good example of that for instance.
So are you wrong? Not that I know of...
- 'Doc
thats the reason I made the post about MARCONI antennas Vs HERTZ antennas,.........
people were trying to attribute certain properties of a Marconi antenna (earth grounded/counterpoise/radials/TOH) to a Hertz antenna (isolated from earth/no counterpoise/radials), when by DEFINATION, the lack of those properties was the difference
Now I see why you brought it up.
So you are saying a hertz antenna is affected by the ground (earth), but not dependent upon it, while a Marconi antenna is both affected by the earth and dependent upon it or a substitute for it.
I ask because I do see the dipole, and every type antenna requiring a yin and a yang.
Physics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Ergo, the other half. . .
Did I miss something?
So you are saying a hertz antenna is affected by the ground (earth), but not dependent upon it, while a Marconi antenna is both affected by the earth and dependent upon it or a substitute for it.
I ask because I do see the dipole, and every type antenna requiring a yin and a yang.
Physics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Ergo, the other half. . .
Did I miss something?
All antennas are affected by 'ground' or dirt. How much it's affected, and how, depends to a large extent by how 'close' the antenna and 'ground'/dirt is to the antenna, and how that antenna 'uses' that 'ground'/dirt. If it's a 'part' of the antenna or not. Eg: ground mounted vertical, or height of dipole above 'ground'/dirt.
While ground/dirt does affect input impedance, the biggy is the antenna's radiation characteristics or radiation pattern. (Any input impedance can be matched to the rest of the antenna system. So in that respect SWR isn't as important as other characteristics of the antenna. That SWR isn't something to be ignored completely, but it isn't the important'est part. I think the important part is where that antenna 'puts' or 'gets' a signal to/from. AND how efficiently is handles the signal/power fed to it (resonance). That brings up another 'interesting' fact, that the more efficient the antenna, the narrower it's 'bandwidth'. And conversely, the wider it's 'bandwidth', the less efficient it is.
I've gotten really off topic so I'll quit...
- 'Doc
While ground/dirt does affect input impedance, the biggy is the antenna's radiation characteristics or radiation pattern. (Any input impedance can be matched to the rest of the antenna system. So in that respect SWR isn't as important as other characteristics of the antenna. That SWR isn't something to be ignored completely, but it isn't the important'est part. I think the important part is where that antenna 'puts' or 'gets' a signal to/from. AND how efficiently is handles the signal/power fed to it (resonance). That brings up another 'interesting' fact, that the more efficient the antenna, the narrower it's 'bandwidth'. And conversely, the wider it's 'bandwidth', the less efficient it is.
I've gotten really off topic so I'll quit...
- 'Doc
I would normally be ok with that, that is if recent publications followed suit. The problem with the changing definition theory you propose is it is not represented in recent publications of reputable sources. For example, the 16'th and 22'nd editions of the ARRL Antenna Book still use the old definition as a description of what a counterpoise is, and that is not unique to this series of books. Wikipedia, for example, also agrees, as well as the current version of the U. S. Marine Corpse Field Antenna Handbook. I have yet to see any respected publication even hint at a counterpoise being anything other than the traditional definition. The closest I can say I've seen is the 13'th Edition ARRL Antenna Book, which had a very open ended definition for what a counterpoise was that was two sentences long. However even then they had a diagram that perfectly describes the traditional meaning, and definitely not any other modern interpretation of the word.
You make a good case doc, but the sources I have seen don't agree with it, and because of that neither do I.
Perhaps you can reference one or more good modern books that sees things differently?
The DB
I don't know if the attached comments have been posted already, but Laport's name has been mentioned, and he maybe the most respected authority on antenna matters for his time.
It is not clear to me how he would setup his best choice option, but without having to read his very large book...here is an article on what I think he is briefly saying in conclusion to the counterpoise idea and its use.
Radio Antenna Engineering - Counterpoise
Be sure and also read the final comment at the bottom noted as # 1)
It is not clear to me how he would setup his best choice option, but without having to read his very large book...here is an article on what I think he is briefly saying in conclusion to the counterpoise idea and its use.
Radio Antenna Engineering - Counterpoise
Be sure and also read the final comment at the bottom noted as # 1)
Excellent, Marconi.
The article is as good as it gets.
He defines a counterpoise.
He differentiates it from a buried radials system.
He clarifies that it must be near enough to the earth to form a capacitance between it and the earth.
He uses photographs to represent the build details of the counterpoise pointing out that the photos are identical in detail to a counterpoise with the exception of there is no contact to ground whatsoever in a true counterpoise.
So, by Laporte's definition a counterpoise:
1. cannot be simply the other half of an antenna as in the two halves of a dipole.
2.cannot be a raised radial system that is too distant from the earth to form a capacitance with the earth.
3.cannot be a buried radial system.
LaPorte's definition of the counterpoise is specific in its mechanical properties, and in its electrical attributes.
Thanks.
The article is as good as it gets.
He defines a counterpoise.
He differentiates it from a buried radials system.
He clarifies that it must be near enough to the earth to form a capacitance between it and the earth.
He uses photographs to represent the build details of the counterpoise pointing out that the photos are identical in detail to a counterpoise with the exception of there is no contact to ground whatsoever in a true counterpoise.
So, by Laporte's definition a counterpoise:
1. cannot be simply the other half of an antenna as in the two halves of a dipole.
2.cannot be a raised radial system that is too distant from the earth to form a capacitance with the earth.
3.cannot be a buried radial system.
LaPorte's definition of the counterpoise is specific in its mechanical properties, and in its electrical attributes.
Thanks.
Last edited:
Laport does say all of those things Homer, but then he also talks about 15 kc - 500 kc, a very low area of the spectrum, and maybe we might ought to consider that in case it makes a difference working at 27205 kc.
We already think this conflation, as Cebik appropriately termed the growth of the idea, was a misunderstanding between Broadcast radio and the Amateur bands, where both were developing at about the same time.
I also read this idea was mostly concentrated in the 160 meter area by some avid Amateurs, and was virtually absent in 75/80 and higher frequency discussions. So, I think, like a lot of other things we hear, the idea just creept into the CB lexicon as a word...and there for sure to be misused.
We've seen some evidence of common use of the counterpoise idea around 1000 kc...and it is pretty clear to me that the idea may well be totally impractical for even more reasons than those reasons Laport describes.
Laport also gives us the idea that there is a best choice scenario that combines burial and counterpoise ideas somehow, and I take that to not only include efficiency and effectiveness, but he notes it may be practical when there is enough room and there are no legal or safety issues of concern.
LF and VLF antennas are likely animals all unto themselves.
You may be the only one I know that will ever experiment with the idea in 11 meters, but if you do...keep us posted.
We already think this conflation, as Cebik appropriately termed the growth of the idea, was a misunderstanding between Broadcast radio and the Amateur bands, where both were developing at about the same time.
I also read this idea was mostly concentrated in the 160 meter area by some avid Amateurs, and was virtually absent in 75/80 and higher frequency discussions. So, I think, like a lot of other things we hear, the idea just creept into the CB lexicon as a word...and there for sure to be misused.
We've seen some evidence of common use of the counterpoise idea around 1000 kc...and it is pretty clear to me that the idea may well be totally impractical for even more reasons than those reasons Laport describes.
Laport also gives us the idea that there is a best choice scenario that combines burial and counterpoise ideas somehow, and I take that to not only include efficiency and effectiveness, but he notes it may be practical when there is enough room and there are no legal or safety issues of concern.
LF and VLF antennas are likely animals all unto themselves.
You may be the only one I know that will ever experiment with the idea in 11 meters, but if you do...keep us posted.
In his book he has his main portion of what a counterpoise is in the Low Frequency section of the book, which covers 30 kHz to 300 kHz frequencies. He also has some information in the Medium Frequency range, which covers 300 kHz to 3 MHz. It is absent from the High Frequency antennas portion of the book entirely.
I have read some sources that show a counterpoise being used for 160 and 80 meters. That being said, in every antenna book up to the 10'th edition, and I believe all the way up to the 12'th edition as that is when that "series" of the books ends, there is a good description in the "160 Meter Antennas" chapters. In the 13'th edition there are two sentences on the subject, and those sentences are open to interpretation. This is one of the books that Cebik referred to in his article with the following text:
Cebik said:
The 13'th edition is also the last of the smaller book versions before moving to the larger format for the 14'th edition. I don't know about the 14'th and 15'th editions, but can say for sure that the 16'th edition has a good description that is touched upon in both the "Antenna Fundamentals" and the "Effects of the Earth" chapters.
Unfortunately the 13'th edition, with its lack of any real description is also the single longest running version of the book, being the latest version of the book available for six years. This was odd as there are even some years that consecutive versions of the book was released (example, 6'th edition copyright 1954, 7'th edition copyright 1955, 8'th edition copyright 1956)
In the 16'th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book, there was an experiment for a counterpoise for between 27 MHz and 30 MHz with 64 radials tested 5 feet above the ground in a 20 x 20 foot square area. I'll see if the pictures on that page scan fairly well, (the page is kinda tore up, that is what I get from a used book that cost me $5.00), and if they turn out I'll post them up with some of the accompanying text.
The DB
Here is a link to a guy looking for the experiment you note above. It was published in CQ, April, 1984.
TopBand: W3ESU/K8CFU 'minipoise' - any info?
Here is another article about the test these same guys did and it has some history too.
http://www.w1npp.org/events/2010/2010-F~1/ANTENNAS/HF-VER~1/830202~1.PDF
db, I also think I have the article you noted entitled: "Vertical Antennas: New Design and Construction Data."
It is 5 pages long, front and back.
Marconi,
You may be right that there is little to no mention of the counterpoise as it was originally understood primarily in the broadcast industry being used on many bands, including 11 meters. That it didn't make it into CB/11 meters is not surprising either. Until the internet with the forums that have broadened discussion on more technical aspects of the hobby it is well known that CB operators tended to simply put in a staion tuning for low SWR and transmit. Of course, this was owed to the lack of necessity to obtain a license.
Things are changing so that many CB Ops like me are wanting to know more because of exposure to more open discussion.
On the other hand, the problem with the internet is two-fold:
1. it is as rife with misinformation, and false information as it is with good information, and
2. the information available is entirely dependent upon someone taking the time to scan, or type in the data. Unless there is a personally compelling reason for someone to undertake the project no matter how much information is out there in written form, or someone's head, it isn't available.
So I think the matter of the counterpoise being properly understood, and more universally implemented, has been due to the lack of readily available information over the intervening years since its inception into the world of radio. In such a condition of poor communications standardization has suffered and it has devolved into opinion based ideas.
I do not, in spite of all this, conclude at all that simply because we have no pictures nor articles giving us a place to pin a sticky for whether the counterpoise was ever used by anyone other than the broadcast industry, or 160 meters, as seems to be indicated by the available info so far to necessarily be the case. I have no proof, yet, as with this open discussion of the subject more may come forth, but I simply do not have the necessary context for firmly assuming that to be the case.
What I do believe there is a firm case for is that the counterpoise can be implemented on any band. The use of other forms of radials systems evidences to me that there is nothing prohibitive to any band for the use of a counterpoise. We know that ground mounted GP antennas flourish in many bands including 11 meters. The expressed understanding of those writers we have access to regarding the counterppoise is that it is, where environmental conditions permit, the preferred way of obtaining a maximized distribution of currents across the ground over the ground mounted system. To me, it is clear, that if a ground mounted radials system is useful, the counterpoise is even more so.
I also took note of the suggestion in the article you referenced of there being yet another method of implementing the counterpoise than what we have discovered. While it wasn't perfectly clear to me, it did seem to say that one could improve the effects of the counterpoise over certain soils by having both a ground mounted radials system and a raised counterpoise immediately above that. If it is as we seem to have read I can only speculate as to why. Perhaps some of the answer is in one of the articles that said where there is a soil condition that has a thin layer of rich soil fill (ground seeding akin to salt saturation some have done?) over very bad soil it is not an optimum condition for a ground mounted radial setup. Perhaps what we are reading is in a context of the writer providing a little more than simple information, but also providing a suggestion for overcoming some radically bad soil conditions in order to get the most from the antenna/conunterpoise setup . . . ?
Maybe more will show up that clarifies this for me. I am going to read it a few more times, too.
You may be right that there is little to no mention of the counterpoise as it was originally understood primarily in the broadcast industry being used on many bands, including 11 meters. That it didn't make it into CB/11 meters is not surprising either. Until the internet with the forums that have broadened discussion on more technical aspects of the hobby it is well known that CB operators tended to simply put in a staion tuning for low SWR and transmit. Of course, this was owed to the lack of necessity to obtain a license.
Things are changing so that many CB Ops like me are wanting to know more because of exposure to more open discussion.
On the other hand, the problem with the internet is two-fold:
1. it is as rife with misinformation, and false information as it is with good information, and
2. the information available is entirely dependent upon someone taking the time to scan, or type in the data. Unless there is a personally compelling reason for someone to undertake the project no matter how much information is out there in written form, or someone's head, it isn't available.
So I think the matter of the counterpoise being properly understood, and more universally implemented, has been due to the lack of readily available information over the intervening years since its inception into the world of radio. In such a condition of poor communications standardization has suffered and it has devolved into opinion based ideas.
I do not, in spite of all this, conclude at all that simply because we have no pictures nor articles giving us a place to pin a sticky for whether the counterpoise was ever used by anyone other than the broadcast industry, or 160 meters, as seems to be indicated by the available info so far to necessarily be the case. I have no proof, yet, as with this open discussion of the subject more may come forth, but I simply do not have the necessary context for firmly assuming that to be the case.
What I do believe there is a firm case for is that the counterpoise can be implemented on any band. The use of other forms of radials systems evidences to me that there is nothing prohibitive to any band for the use of a counterpoise. We know that ground mounted GP antennas flourish in many bands including 11 meters. The expressed understanding of those writers we have access to regarding the counterppoise is that it is, where environmental conditions permit, the preferred way of obtaining a maximized distribution of currents across the ground over the ground mounted system. To me, it is clear, that if a ground mounted radials system is useful, the counterpoise is even more so.
I also took note of the suggestion in the article you referenced of there being yet another method of implementing the counterpoise than what we have discovered. While it wasn't perfectly clear to me, it did seem to say that one could improve the effects of the counterpoise over certain soils by having both a ground mounted radials system and a raised counterpoise immediately above that. If it is as we seem to have read I can only speculate as to why. Perhaps some of the answer is in one of the articles that said where there is a soil condition that has a thin layer of rich soil fill (ground seeding akin to salt saturation some have done?) over very bad soil it is not an optimum condition for a ground mounted radial setup. Perhaps what we are reading is in a context of the writer providing a little more than simple information, but also providing a suggestion for overcoming some radically bad soil conditions in order to get the most from the antenna/conunterpoise setup . . . ?
Maybe more will show up that clarifies this for me. I am going to read it a few more times, too.
Last edited:
Reflections isn't a document, it's a book, are you thinking of 'Another Look at Reflections' as can be found on the net?
Now that I open it up, yes that is the one, and it is in and of itself long enough to be a book as well... So there is also a book called reflections... Interesting... I will have to look one up...
After some quick research there are three of them... Apologies for the mistake. That being said, my main issue was with someone referring to a document (or in this case a book) and not narrowing it down further. When asked about it saying "the wording is clear" is being about as clear as mud. It is even worse now that he may have been referring to an entire book and not simply a 68 page .pdf document...
The DB