-
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.
¿ is height really might?
- Thread starter Wire Dawg
- Start date
Reliability is, and that's why we tune our system, and not just the antenna, if height played no part in reliable DX, then there'd be no point in a tall tower, we are talking horizontal polarisation by the way, I do mighty fine with a vertical at ground height
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
i don't think that . but i suspect it may come from farther away sometimes .
i think it's pretty obvious that the serious CB'er will have a vector , a gainmaster , a A99 and a starduster up all at the same time with a coax switch box . if not than you're a mud duck and should report to the swamp immediately .
oh ..... dont forget about a few beams ......
I have always said that when trying to determine the "proper" antenna height it is far more important to make sure that your antenna does not exhibit a deep null in the desired pattern rather than try and orient it so that the peak is optimized in the target area of interest. Nulls can be MANY dB deeper than a peak will gain you. Yes different distances can have different optimum TOA's however for all practical purposes where one has a fixed height it is best to simply install the antenna as high as you can and be happy working whoever you do wherever they are and don't worry about what you can't hear unless you are prepared to do the install all over again.
My plans to buy & ship a Universal Tower 4-40 to raise the quad at my overseas distant station are stopped: it will stay at 28'. Big savings! Now that I know not to expect a new world from going up 40', I'm happy to maintain status quo. I will remain curious about how the quad would perform at the suggested 40'. It's great as it is.
I often speak to a chap in Australia who has a 200' tower with stacked 5 element monobanders, granted this is for 20m, but he's still not happy, his antenna at 200' doesn't have as low enough take off angle as he'd like. The difference between his lower antenna and upper antenna on our last contact was over 30dB, that is a huge difference
I often speak to a chap in Australia who has a 200' tower with stacked 5 element monobanders, granted this is for 20m, but he's still not happy, his antenna at 200' doesn't have as low enough take off angle as he'd like. The difference between his lower antenna and upper antenna on our last contact was over 30dB, that is a huge difference
He should learn something about antennas. The 200 feet is high enough that he will not see any difference in going higher. It is a full three wavelengths high on 20m. The upper antenna has as low a TOA as he is going to get. As for the 30 dB difference, that is an anomaly and almost never happens. It must have been an odd coincidence of propagation that placed you in the null of the pattern of the lower antenna yet in the peak of the upper one.
I make a comment in a forum about a discussion I had with someone and that's all you need to decide he needs to learn something about antennas, if only everything in life were that straight forward :blink:
As for the difference between the two antennas, that's most definitely one of the reasons why he has a stack and not just one antenna!
As for the difference between the two antennas, that's most definitely one of the reasons why he has a stack and not just one antenna!
There are quite a few things that could account for a difference of that much, 30 dBs, but just antenna height alone isn't one of them. There have to be other differences, no idea what they may be, but I'm more than willing to think that there has to be. A difference in polarization, for instance.
And just as your friend would probably tell you, antennas at different heights will be the 'best' one at some particular time, never always the higher one is the 'best', sometimes lower ones would be. That also tells you that the angle of reception has changed, which is does quite often. So, the lowest angle of reception/radiation isn't always the best. Which also tells me that there is no 'best' antenna height for all occasions. You 'get' what you can until it becomes ridiculous. As much as I'd love to have antennas at that height, I'm afraid that 200 feet is ridiculous for my circumstances. I'm really 'lucky' to be able to have 20 feet at times. And while that friend may hear a lot more than I can, I ain't done bad, you know? Certainly haven't done as much as quick as he has, maybe, but who cares?
Oh well...
- 'Doc
And just as your friend would probably tell you, antennas at different heights will be the 'best' one at some particular time, never always the higher one is the 'best', sometimes lower ones would be. That also tells you that the angle of reception has changed, which is does quite often. So, the lowest angle of reception/radiation isn't always the best. Which also tells me that there is no 'best' antenna height for all occasions. You 'get' what you can until it becomes ridiculous. As much as I'd love to have antennas at that height, I'm afraid that 200 feet is ridiculous for my circumstances. I'm really 'lucky' to be able to have 20 feet at times. And while that friend may hear a lot more than I can, I ain't done bad, you know? Certainly haven't done as much as quick as he has, maybe, but who cares?
Oh well...
- 'Doc
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
i've wondered about folks saying "once a antenna gets a few wavelengths high about it having very diminished returns for going higher" or something similar . i think frequency effects that a lot . the folks that operate on centimeter bands can make vectors out of paper clips or make beams using a drinking straw for the boom .... and just sitting them on a end table will have it several Wl's high . that's a lot easier than working with something almost 100 times bigger on the CB band , LOL .
but on the CB band many folks do pretty well with just a 20 ft feed-point . very few folks can invest in a tower so they just put it on the side of the house several feet above the peak . if you're in a 2 or 3 story house then you're lucky in the antenna height aspect . and some folks use trees ......
but on the CB band many folks do pretty well with just a 20 ft feed-point . very few folks can invest in a tower so they just put it on the side of the house several feet above the peak . if you're in a 2 or 3 story house then you're lucky in the antenna height aspect .
and some folks use trees ......
Yes it is if he truly was not satisfied with his 200 feet of elevation as you said. Going higher would not improve things at all. It is for THAT reason I said he should learn a bit more about antennas. If he knew things could not get any better then he would not be dissatisfied with his height because it would be as good as it gets. Well, that is if he is a reasonable person and is not one of those that are just never satisfied regardless of what they have.
You don't suppose the extra gain as well as the extra height has a bit to do with that do you?
Waaaay back in the day my 5/8 GP couldn't hold a candle to my Wilson Shooting Star at the same height either. Because you were so sure of this I thought you had modelled this and knew what you were talking about, but my curious nature got the better of me and I decided to carry out some rudimentary modelling of my own, and guess what, you're wrong. Not satisfied with suggesting the chap needs to study antenna theory, you now switch tack and suggest he may be unreasonable too and never satisfied.
Seriously bad form old chap, your argument is weak so you change tack to an out and out ad hominem, all this based on my one liner, I'm disappointed to be honest, I thought we were discussing antennas, not trying to rip someone a new one for no other reason than to point score
I don't understand why you'd condemn someone, who you've never met, never spoken to, and worst of all, don't even know his identity, I really don't.
Building a contest station takes money, there's no doubting that, it also takes dedication, and for a lot of people, just like race car builders or drag car builders, they want to push the boundaries, they want to be the best, they put their own money into their pursuit and we the general masses benefit from this, we get a better understanding, not just based on theory, but by real World results, I'd love to have the money to splash on such a station, but to be honest I'd be too lazy to put the effort in even I won the lotto.
For info this chap used to have a 250' tower when running phased quad antennas, but changed the mast when he went to Yagis, so I guess he knows what he was talking about
W5LZ, as for 30dB difference, why don't you believe this to be possible, you don't propose a different mechanism, but doubt the possibility anyway.
"condemned"?
Really? Oh my! So far, about all I've seen is disagreement. As for why I believe that about the 30 dB thingy, it's partially from knowing a -little bit- about antennas at various heights and partially from a -little bit- of experience. Mix that together with some supposition and there you go. Am I some kind of expert? No, but I do try to think about them, what may be reasonable and unreasonable. I think that's about 'normal', isn't it?
- 'Doc
Really? Oh my! So far, about all I've seen is disagreement. As for why I believe that about the 30 dB thingy, it's partially from knowing a -little bit- about antennas at various heights and partially from a -little bit- of experience. Mix that together with some supposition and there you go. Am I some kind of expert? No, but I do try to think about them, what may be reasonable and unreasonable. I think that's about 'normal', isn't it?
- 'Doc