*Antron, need help!
Frizz
I am about to install (finally) an antenna for my base station on a
tree near my house. The only thing is that I do not want to have to keep
climbing up the tree to adjust the SWR and would like to know of a good way
to do it on the ground. Anyone know how to do this? Just hook it up and
test or is there some other way that involves me not being close to the
antenna? Also, about grounding, whenever I try to calibrate my SWR meter (a
Dosy, but hey it was free!) it jumps all around on the scale. Could this
be do to some ground fault? I made this test with the antenna placed
against the tree and can't really see why it would do this. Thanks it
advance!!!!
Jay
pipe. And you can easly raise and lower the A99 to adjust the SWR rings. It
should be close enough to be good to go. Make sure the coax comes down the pipe
straight, it part of the antenna for about 9 feet or so.
Then I would use this pipe as a mounting mast for the A99 in the tree. Big-Ten-4
Jay in the Mojave.
John Jenkins
wrote:
> I am about to install (finally) an antenna for my base station on a
>tree near my house. The only thing is that I do not want to have to keep
>climbing up the tree to adjust the SWR and would like to know of a good way
If its an Antron-99 its supposed to be factory tuned to the middle of
the 11-meter band so you shouldn't need to tune it at all.
John D. Kasupski, KC2FNG, KNY2VS
wrote:
>If its an Antron-99 its supposed to be factory tuned to the middle of
>the 11-meter band so you shouldn't need to tune it at all.
An antenna being mounted that close to a tree may well require some
tuning nevertheless. Also, if the antenna is less than 1/4 wavelength
above the ground, you will have a high SWR reading.
One should also check SWR any time an antenna is installed to make
sure there is no open or shorted connection in the feedline (which on
CB is almost always a coaxial cable), since if there is a feedline
problem, all the tuning of the antenna in the world won't help any.
73 and good DX'ing,
John D. Kasupski
KC2FNG, KNY2VS, KJK-14120, KSO-9650
Note: this address does not accept unsolicited e-mail. Please contain all
discussion regarding USENET posts to the appropriate newsgroup thread.
Unit 082 Tim
>An antenna being mounted that close to a tree may well require some
>tuning nevertheless. Also, if the antenna is less than 1/4 wavelength
>above the ground, you will have a high SWR reading.
>
>One should also check SWR any time an antenna is installed to make
>sure there is no open or shorted connection in the feedline (which on
>CB is almost always a coaxial cable), since if there is a feedline
>problem, all the tuning of the antenna in the world won't help any.
>
73 and best regards de tim unit 082
IR-DX Group http://home.wxs.nl/~19ir01
LD-DX Group http://come.to/limadelta
Kp-DX Group http://www.gate.net/~kp
Daily Updated 11 Meter DX News
http://home.t-online.de/home/IRDX.GERMany/dxnews~1.htm
John D. Kasupski, KC2FNG, KNY2VS
wrote:
>sounds like kasupski quoted something out of his radio shack study guide.
I've never even read a ham radio license study guide. Perhaps you
missed it when I posted the story of how I happened to wind up with a
ham ticket.
You see, I'm not a ham who happens to be interested in other facets of
the radio hobby. I'm an SWL who happens to have a ham ticket.
I went to a hamfest this past September to look for an HF receiver to
use as a backup to the one I have been using for the past two years or
so. While we were there, they were giving the exams and taking
walk-ins. One of the guys I went there with, who has a General class
ham ticket, joked with me that if I had studied for a month or so
before the hamfest, I could walk in there and get a ham ticket.
I replied to him that I could probably pass the written test for a
Novice class license without studying, just on the knowledge I have
gained from 33 years as an SWL. He laughed. So I made a bet with him.
I told him I'd go in and take the test, if I passed it, he paid the
$6.30 or whatever, if I flunked, I paid for it...and the loser also
had to buy lunch.
We shook on it...I went in, took the Element 2 written test, and
passed, as I expected I would. The VE asked if I wanted to take
Element 3a. I had nothing to lose at that point, since my buddy was
now paying for the test (and lunch) anyway, so I said, yeah, sure,
I'll take the Element 3A test.
Much to my surprise, I passed Element 3A also, thus qualifying for a
Technician class ham ticket, which was issued by FCC six days later.
So, you could say I got a ham ticket without studying for a single
minute...OR you could say I studied for 33 years as an SWL. Either
way, I've never seen the inside of a study guide. I learned what I
know about radio from 33 years as an SWL, 24 years as a CB operator,
and 22 years as a scanner monitor.
The exams are not that difficult...at least not the ones for the
entry-level Novice and Technician licenses. I'm told the ones for
General, Advanced, and Extra are more difficult. I'll find out about
that when I get my code speed up high enough to test for a license
upgrade. But the tests for Elements 2 and 3a are not as difficult as
some people would have you believe.
Dillo
I talk alot on Channel 15 but I noticed my SWRs were a bit higher when I go
above channel 40 or if I go very far below channel one so I recently
purchased an MFJ-949e Deluxe Versa Tuner for $150 and I use it to bring my
SWRs down to 1.1:1 everywhere I go.
Not only does it seem to help keep my RCi 2970 a bit cooler but it has
dramatically affected my output to some of my regular contacts on some of
those other frequencies.
The MFJ 949e is usually available from any good CB shop and I feel they
are very much worht the extra money.
THe MFJ 949e installs in-line on your coax by way of a coax jumper from
your transmitter and is not only very easy to install but also very easy to
operate.
The Smokin' Armadillo
Southeastern, PA
Frizz wrote in message <7vho66$5ao$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
>OK,
> I am about to install (finally) an antenna for my base station on a
>tree near my house. The only thing is that I do not want to have to keep
>climbing up the tree to adjust the SWR and would like to know of a good way
Unit 082 Tim
brain (we dont know how you did it) and basic knowledge of fcc laws and a
little theory can pass the tech test. now i'm not sure why somebody would want
to talk to other geeks on the repeaters but its not a hard or impressive thing
at all.
AB7RS
meter.
The antron should be fine if you follow the instructions that came
with it for tip lenghth,leave the rings in the middle.This is a base
antenna and much wider than most mobiles so stop worrying and start
talking.
DR KAVORKIAN
John D. Kasupski, KC2FNG, KNY2VS <kny...@buffnet.net> wrote in
> An antenna being mounted that close to a tree may well require some
> tuning nevertheless. Also, if the antenna is less than 1/4 wavelength
> above the ground, you will have a high SWR reading.
Man you are realy something, Explain to the group how an Antron's match
would be affected by being close to the earth. You can take a 3 element beam
and stand it on end, aiming up into the sky and tune the match and get real
close by doing this, so once again you are the only one impressed, You know
you can have a amateur lisense and still be a mudduck, and you sir have
proved this point.
John your so smart,
Try to rip CBer's apart,
Open your mouth you fart,
And its picking your brain!
I told you back when,
That if you do this again,
I'll get under your skin,
Now lower your arm, give me a vein!
Pull down your nose.
And you won't get the DOSE!
)=======]llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll}>----------,
',
DR.KAVORKIAN Got down!
KLHOKANSON
It does not need a ground plane to work properly. Check the match, and it
should be just fine before you install it in the tree.
Also see: http://click.go2net.com/adpopup?site=va&area=COMPUTERS&shape=banner
Dwight Stewart
DR KAVORKIAN wrote:
>
> John D. Kasupski, KC2FNG, KNY2VS <kny...@buffnet.net> wrote in
>
> > An antenna being mounted that close to a tree may well require some
> > tuning nevertheless. Also, if the antenna is less than 1/4 wavelength
> > above the ground, you will have a high SWR reading.
>
> Man you are realy something, Explain to the group how an Antron's match
> would be affected by being close to the earth.
I'll take care of this one, John. First of all Kovorkian, you can
start learning about this by reading the Solarcon A-99 owners manual.
Under the installation instructions, it says... "For best performance,
mount your antenna at least nine feet above the roof of the nearest
building and 18 feet above or away from any metal object or structure."
Under the troubleshooting section concerning SWR problems, it
states... "Be sure the antenna is installed at least 9 feet above the
roof of the nearest building and 18 feet above or away from any other
metal objects in the area."
The reasons for these warnings, Kovorkian, is that an antenna of this
type is adversely affected by nearby objects. This would also include
the ground. Of course, since very few people would mount an antenna
like this that low to the ground, I would imagine that Solarcon did not
see any reason for mentioning the ground in the manual.
Now, we can get into a complicated explination of why an antenna might
be affected by nearby objects, but it might be easier to realise if you
simply tried it for yourself. Locate the antenna near the ground and
take an SWR reading. Now locate the antenna ten feet in the air on a
metal pole and take another reading. You will quickly see that the SWR
drops as the antenna is moved higher above the ground.
With the A-99, it is possible to get a good SWR reading over wide
range of frequencies if it is installed correctly according to the
instructions. In fact, with this antenna, best performance can be
achieved by installing the antenna about forty feet in the air on a
well-grounded metal pole, with no object within twenty-five feet in any direction.
The GPK-1 ground plane kit will slightly improve line-of-site
distance, but will slightly decrease skip performance. In other words,
the ground plane kit will pull the signals closer to the ground, with
less signal going up into the air above the antenna.
By the way, one word of warning about the A-99 installation. Make
sure to use the two included lock washers between the three antenna
sections. The antenna was designed to be used with these two lock
washers in place - the SWR was tuned with these lock washers in mind,
and the lock washers insure good electrical connection between the
antenna sections (important as the connections age).
Dwight Stewart
Amateur Radio, Technician
F.C.C. License: W5NET
http://www.qsl.net/w5net
Barry
> I'll take care of this one, John. First of all Kovorkian, you can
> start learning about this by reading the Solarcon A-99 owners manual.
> Under the installation instructions, it says... "For best performance,
> mount your antenna at least nine feet above the roof of the nearest
> building and 18 feet above or away from any metal object or structure."
>
> Under the troubleshooting section concerning SWR problems, it
> states... "Be sure the antenna is installed at least 9 feet above the
> roof of the nearest building and 18 feet above or away from any other
> metal objects in the area."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Dwight Stewart
> Amateur Radio, Technician
> F.C.C. License: W5NET
> http://www.qsl.net/w5net
My limited experience would agree with Dwight and John. When I bought my
A99 I initailly just hooked it up and leaned it agaisnt the fence to see if
it worked. The SWR was high but not unusable (3:1). I later mounted it on
30' pole attached to the side of the house ( house is 18' high at gutters
two feet of pole is in ground) and the SWR is 1:1. The Radio is a Uniden
Madison.
Barry
Jack Thurston
Check out these links at:
http://www.angelfire.com/az/firecommunications/debunk.txt
(bottom of page)
http://www.angelfire.com/az/firecommunications/ant99ant.txt
Jack
Hightower03
On 31 Oct 1999 20:30:30 GMT, zeroei...@aol.come (Unit 082 Tim) wrote:
>sounds like kasupski quoted something out of his radio shack study guide.
>
>>An antenna being mounted that close to a tree may well require some
>>tuning nevertheless. Also, if the antenna is less than 1/4 wavelength
>>above the ground, you will have a high SWR reading.
>>
>>One should also check SWR any time an antenna is installed to make
>>sure there is no open or shorted connection in the feedline (which on
>>CB is almost always a coaxial cable), since if there is a feedline
>>problem, all the tuning of the antenna in the world won't help any.
>>
>
>
Hightower03
would be affected by being close to the earth. Read Dwight Stewart's very good
explanation. So the only point that was proved was by you, care to guess what
that point was? (Who's the mudduck now?)
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 20:22:29 -0600, "DR KAVORKIAN" <32p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>John D. Kasupski, KC2FNG, KNY2VS <kny...@buffnet.net> wrote in
>
>> An antenna being mounted that close to a tree may well require some
>> tuning nevertheless. Also, if the antenna is less than 1/4 wavelength
>> above the ground, you will have a high SWR reading.
>
>Man you are realy something, Explain to the group how an Antron's match
Unit 082 Tim
>would be affected by being close to the earth. Read Dwight Stewart's very
>good
>explanation. So the only point that was proved was by you, care to guess
>what
>that point was? (Who's the mudduck now?)
the origanal subject was "would being close to a tree cause problems?", and the
answer is no! ive had too many antennas work just fine in trees with the same
good match that i had on the ground
73 and best regards de tim unit 082
DR KAVORKIAN
perfect, with 10 watts in on the bird 43 it would barely move the miliwatt
slug on reflect, I have not tuned it since I removed it from the top of a
50' push up pole, the match was the same there as it was on the 5' pole on
the ground.
So my point was still proved, how many times have you had this problem with
an Anton? I personally know that a tree would affect it because of its
location as opposed to the radiation pattern of this antenna, Hightower why
dont you explain to the group how the earth would affect this antenna, but
say guy wires at the base of the Anton would not, also explain to me how
tuning (as John put it) would help an antenna that was reacting to something
close by, Now I could understand if John had said something about matching
the antenna, inductance, capacitence etc. etc., but he told the guy that
"some tuning might be required" all he did was point the guy in the wrong
direction, It sure is funny how you post so little, but when you do you
stick your foot in your mouth taking up for a asshole whinebag, who instead
of helping someone out only confuses people.
Hightower03 <hight...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991101163838...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> Color your face RED, an Antron's match could and
> would be affected by being close to the earth. Read Dwight Stewart's very
good
> explanation. So the only point that was proved was by you, care to guess
what
> that point was? (Who's the mudduck now?)
>
>
DR KAVORKIAN
Dwight Stewart <ste...@amouse.net> wrote in message
news:381D837E...@amouse.net...
> I'll take care of this one, John.
I bet you will!
>
> Under the troubleshooting section concerning SWR problems, it
> states... "Be sure the antenna is installed at least 9 feet above the
> roof of the nearest building and 18 feet above or away from any other
> metal objects in the area."
OK where does it say that the earth will effect it?
> Now, we can get into a complicated explination of why an antenna might
> be affected by nearby objects, but it might be easier to realise if you
> simply tried it for yourself. Locate the antenna near the ground and
> take an SWR reading. Now locate the antenna ten feet in the air on a
> metal pole and take another reading. You will quickly see that the SWR
> drops as the antenna is moved higher above the ground.
Done did this, Have you?
> With the A-99, it is possible to get a good SWR reading over wide
> range of frequencies if it is installed correctly according to the
> instructions. In fact, with this antenna, best performance can be
> achieved by installing the antenna about forty feet in the air on a
> well-grounded metal pole, with no object within twenty-five feet in any
>direction.
What would you do about guy wires? Don't say use insulators, I had my antron
up without insulators and still had damn near 0 reflective watts. And why
would you need a well-grounded metal pole to acheive a better match? you
allready try to make a point that to much counterpoise would affect this
antenna, grounded for lightning, rfi etc. etc. but your not making yourself
clear.
> The GPK-1 ground plane kit will slightly improve line-of-site
> distance, but will slightly decrease skip performance. In other words,
> the ground plane kit will pull the signals closer to the ground, with
> less signal going up into the air above the antenna.
Acording to you anything close to the antenna will affect its performance.
and how will this lesson the performance in DX? I would think this would
lower your angle of radiation causing this antenna to not be as much of a
"cloud burner"
Do you think that straight up is the best way to work DX? the RF energy is
wasted.
John Jenkins
>Color your face RED, an Antron's match could and
>would be affected by being close to the earth. Read Dwight Stewart's very good
>explanation. So the only point that was proved was by you, care to guess what
>that point was? (Who's the mudduck now?)
I tell you what guys, if anyone os going to buy an Antron-99 and mount
it on the ground, they deserve to have a high SWR....
Bill Nelson
:
: The GPK-1 ground plane kit will slightly improve line-of-site
: distance, but will slightly decrease skip performance. In other words,
: the ground plane kit will pull the signals closer to the ground, with
: less signal going up into the air above the antenna.
But the best radiation angle for skip is right at the horizon, NOT up
into the air. The ground plane has always improved the range over
which skip has worked for me.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Dwight Stewart
DR KAVORKIAN wrote:
>
> Dwight Stewart <ste...@amouse.net> wrote in message
> news:381D837E...@amouse.net...
>
> > range of frequencies if it is installed correctly according to the
> > instructions. In fact, with this antenna, best performance can be
> > achieved by installing the antenna about forty feet in the air on a
> > well-grounded metal pole, with no object within twenty-five feet in any
> >direction.
>
> What would you do about guy wires? Don't say use insulators, I had my antron
> up without insulators and still had damn near 0 reflective watts. And why
> would you need a well-grounded metal pole to acheive a better match? you
> allready try to make a point that to much counterpoise would affect this
> antenna, grounded for lightning, rfi etc. etc. but your not making yourself
> clear.
I didn't say that a well-grounded metal pole would achieve "a better
match." I said "best PERFORMANCE can be achieved by installing the
antenna about forty feet in the air on a well-grounded metal pole." I
don't know how I can say that more clearly.
As for the need for a well-grounded metal pole, virtually all antenna
systems require a good ground for best performance (certainly this
antenna does). Unless you run a wire down from the antenna mount, the
only way to achieve that ground is through the metal mast.
And, as for guy wires, of course they have to used with a metal pole.
Therefore, I didn't think I even had to mention them.
> > The GPK-1 ground plane kit will slightly improve line-of-site
> > distance, but will slightly decrease skip performance. In other words,
> > the ground plane kit will pull the signals closer to the ground, with
> > less signal going up into the air above the antenna.
>
> Acording to you anything close to the antenna will affect its performance.
> and how will this lesson the performance in DX?
Experience, Kavorkian. That is how I know the GPK-1 ground plane kit
will "slightly improve line-of-site distance, but will slightly decrease
skip performance." I have been using this antenna for years, both with
and without the GPK-1. And you probably already know that I have this
antenna right now.
Dwight Stewart
Bill Nelson wrote:
>
> Dwight Stewart (ste...@amouse.net) wrote:
> :
> : The GPK-1 ground plane kit will slightly improve line-of-site
> : distance, but will slightly decrease skip performance. In other words,
> : the ground plane kit will pull the signals closer to the ground, with
> : less signal going up into the air above the antenna.
>
> into the air. The ground plane has always improved the range over
> which skip has worked for me.
Worked just the opposite for me both times I tried the GPK-1 ground
plane kit. It reduced skip contacts, but increased my signal level over
line-of-sight. I thought I was just imagining things the first time,
but the second time I had a another A-99 sitting twenty feet away that I
could switch between. Several skip contacts reported lower signal
levels on the one with the GPK-1 ground plane kit. I have not used the
GPK-1 since.
Hightower03
was replying to the posts that were made about ground affecting the antenna.
And the answer to the "tree" part of the question isn't always NO. I have had
antennas that change tuning by the change in seasons "leaves to no leaves
condition" It depends on (for the most part) how close the high voltage node
of the antenna is to surrounding objects.
On 01 Nov 1999 22:19:07 GMT, zeroei...@aol.come (Unit 082 Tim) wrote:
>>Color your face RED, an Antron's match could and
>>would be affected by being close to the earth. Read Dwight Stewart's very
>>good
>>explanation. So the only point that was proved was by you, care to guess
>>what
>>that point was? (Who's the mudduck now?)
>
Hightower03
>I had a Anton 99 on a pole 5' off of the ground, the match is damn near
>perfect, with 10 watts in on the bird 43 it would barely move the miliwatt
>slug on reflect, I have not tuned it since I removed it from the top of a
>50' push up pole, the match was the same there as it was on the 5' pole on
>the ground.
Your point is proved in your location for you. Doesn't mean that it will hold
true for every location.
>So my point was still proved, how many times have you had this problem with
>an Anton? I personally know that a tree would affect it because of its
>location as opposed to the radiation pattern of this antenna,
Are you talking about the tree being in the plane of the radiation pattern? I
have seen this with many different antennas.
>Hightower why dont you explain to the group how the earth would affect this
antenna,
Not just this antenna, but any antenna that's ground mounted. An antenna
that's ground mounted is affected more by ground conductivity than one that
mounted 1/4 wave or higher. Thats why you see AM broadcast antennas mounted in
swampy or low lying areas. The ground conductivity is better, and moving the
same antenna to a lower ground conductivity would not only effect the
efficiency but also the tuning of the antenna.
> but say guy wires at the base of the Anton would not, also explain to me how
>tuning (as John put it) would help an antenna that was reacting to something
>close by,
If the antenna is reacting to something close by, say a tree acting like end
loading. Why do you think that tuning wouldn't help?
> Now I could understand if John had said something about matching
>the antenna, inductance, capacitence etc. etc., but he told the guy that
>"some tuning might be required" all he did was point the guy in the wrong
>direction,
Any time you move an antenna to a different location "some tuning might be
required" Thats a perfectly valid statement. Why don't you see antenna
manufactures pre tuning their antenna and including in the paperwork a
notation "This antenna was tuned at our location, no tuning will be necessary
when installed at your location"
> It sure is funny how you post so little, but when you do you
>stick your foot in your mouth taking up for a asshole whinebag, who instead
>of helping someone out only confuses people.
I really wasn't taking up for anyone, I was responding to your post that height
above ground wouldn't effect the antenna.
Rig Doctor
is, the addition of ground radials should not improve the performance of this
stick as the radiation angle should be 0 degrees anyway. Seriously here. I
agree that you want the lowest angle of radiation to talk the farthest. I
think this is why those Super-Scanner antennas seem to have an edge for DX.
Just my finding here.
Bill Nelson wrote:
> Dwight Stewart (ste...@amouse.net) wrote:
> :
> : The GPK-1 ground plane kit will slightly improve line-of-site
> : distance, but will slightly decrease skip performance. In other words,
> : the ground plane kit will pull the signals closer to the ground, with
> : less signal going up into the air above the antenna.
>
> But the best radiation angle for skip is right at the horizon, NOT up
> into the air. The ground plane has always improved the range over
> which skip has worked for me.
>
> --
> Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Dwight Stewart
>
> What is this Antron? I thought that it was an end-fed dipole. If it really
> is, the addition of ground radials should not improve the performance of this
> stick as the radiation angle should be 0 degrees anyway. Seriously here. I
> agree that you want the lowest angle of radiation to talk the farthest. I
> think this is why those Super-Scanner antennas seem to have an edge for DX.
> Just my finding here.
Actually, its the Solarcon A-99. It used to be sold by a company
called Antron (the model number was 99 - hince the Antron 99). However,
the company split up several years ago, with one owner keeping the name
"Antron" and another owner keeping the rights to that antenna.
The second owner started a new company, called "Solarcon," and renamed
the antenna the "A-99." However, since many older operators still know
the antenna as the "Antron 99," the name still sticks to this day.
It is described by the company as a "half wave over a quarter wave
variable mutual transductance tuned antenna." It is normally sold in a
"big-stick" style arrangement, but has optional ground plane radials
that can be added for an additional cost (the GPK-1 ground plane kit).
It is very popular in the CB band, especially with freebanders. It
can handle higher power levels and has a very wide bandwidth.
Richard Camarata
be standing off a few feet 1 ,2 3 ???
Unit 082 Tim <zeroei...@aol.come> wrote in message
news:19991101171907...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
> >Color your face RED, an Antron's match could and
> >would be affected by being close to the earth. Read Dwight Stewart's
very
> >good
> >explanation. So the only point that was proved was by you, care to guess
> >what
> >that point was? (Who's the mudduck now?)
>
> the origanal subject was "would being close to a tree cause problems?",
and the
> answer is no! ive had too many antennas work just fine in trees with the
same
> good match that i had on the ground
>
>
>
> 73 and best regards de tim unit 082
Rig Doctor
coaxial dipole and my argument still holds true. The ground radials should offer no
improvement.
MR1VULTURE
should work fine
Dwight Stewart
Rig Doctor wrote:
>
> Okay, I can get my head around this. That still makes it a derivation of the
> coaxial dipole and my argument still holds true. The ground radials should offer no
> improvement.
You won't get any argument with me on that (improvement). Like I said
earlier, any effect is slight. In my case, there was a slight decrease
in skip performance and a slight increase in line-of-sight performance.
And we're talking about slight - not enough to move a needle, but you
could hear a slight difference.
Actually, because of that, none of this really matters. In the end,
in my opinion the GPK-1 ground plane kit simply does not offer enough of
a performance increase to justify its cost.
Considering that it would also be a huge pain to install the antenna
with radials in a tree (the original question), I would recommend just
using the basic antenna and forgetting the ground plane kit (sorry I
brought it up).
Bob C.
>
> Bill Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Dwight Stewart (ste...@amouse.net) wrote:
> > :
> > : The GPK-1 ground plane kit will slightly improve
line-of-site
> > : distance, but will slightly decrease skip performance. In
other words,
> > : the ground plane kit will pull the signals closer to the
ground, with
> > : less signal going up into the air above the antenna.
> >
> > But the best radiation angle for skip is right at the horizon,
NOT up
> > into the air. The ground plane has always improved the range
over
> > which skip has worked for me.
>
The optimum radiation angle depends on where you want to talk.
It's very much like a billiard shot when you think of the ionosphere
as one of the bumpers. I find that a higher angle of radiation seems
to work best for me for skip but that depends on where you are in
relation to the other stations and the height of the ionoshere at
your particular time of day. Whatever works for you.
Everything at RF is a trade-off in one way or another.
BobC
Sharon Sherwood
Dwight Stewart <ste...@amouse.net> wrote:
>
>DR KAVORKIAN wrote:
>>
>> John D. Kasupski, KC2FNG, KNY2VS <kny...@buffnet.net> wrote in
>>
>> > An antenna being mounted that close to a tree may well require some
>> > tuning nevertheless. Also, if the antenna is less than 1/4 wavelength
>> > above the ground, you will have a high SWR reading.
>>
>> Man you are realy something, Explain to the group how an Antron's match
>> would be affected by being close to the earth.
>
> I'll take care of this one, John. First of all Kovorkian, you can
>start learning about this by reading the Solarcon A-99 owners manual.
>Under the installation instructions, it says... "For best performance,
>mount your antenna at least nine feet above the roof of the nearest
>building and 18 feet above or away from any metal object or structure."
>
> Under the troubleshooting section concerning SWR problems, it
>states... "Be sure the antenna is installed at least 9 feet above the
>roof of the nearest building and 18 feet above or away from any other
>metal objects in the area."
>
> The reasons for these warnings, Kovorkian, is that an antenna of this
>type is adversely affected by nearby objects. This would also include
>the ground. Of course, since very few people would mount an antenna
>like this that low to the ground, I would imagine that Solarcon did not
>see any reason for mentioning the ground in the manual.
>
> Now, we can get into a complicated explination of why an antenna might
>be affected by nearby objects, but it might be easier to realise if you
>simply tried it for yourself. Locate the antenna near the ground and
>take an SWR reading. Now locate the antenna ten feet in the air on a
>metal pole and take another reading. You will quickly see that the SWR
>drops as the antenna is moved higher above the ground.
>
> With the A-99, it is possible to get a good SWR reading over wide
>range of frequencies if it is installed correctly according to the
>instructions. In fact, with this antenna, best performance can be
>achieved by installing the antenna about forty feet in the air on a
>well-grounded metal pole, with no object within twenty-five feet in any direction.
>
> The GPK-1 ground plane kit will slightly improve line-of-site
>distance, but will slightly decrease skip performance. In other words,
>the ground plane kit will pull the signals closer to the ground, with
>less signal going up into the air above the antenna.
>
> By the way, one word of warning about the A-99 installation. Make
>sure to use the two included lock washers between the three antenna
>sections. The antenna was designed to be used with these two lock
>washers in place - the SWR was tuned with these lock washers in mind,
>and the lock washers insure good electrical connection between the
>antenna sections (important as the connections age).
>
>Dwight Stewart
>Amateur Radio, Technician
>F.C.C. License: W5NET
>http://www.qsl.net/w5net
Now could you tell us why?
Donald Sherwood
"Fuck around, Fuck around, go home crying!"
Stupidity Kills, Just not often enough.
DickHead No. 2
Sharon Sherwood
expl...@voyager.org (John Jenkins) wrote:
>On 01 Nov 1999 21:38:38 GMT, hight...@aol.com (Hightower03) wrote:
>
>>Color your face RED, an Antron's match could and
>>would be affected by being close to the earth. Read Dwight Stewart's very good
>>explanation. So the only point that was proved was by you, care to guess what
>>that point was? (Who's the mudduck now?)
>
>I tell you what guys, if anyone os going to buy an Antron-99 and mount
>it on the ground, they deserve to have a high SWR....
I'll add to that, If anyone is going to buy an A99, they deserve high swr's.
Sharon Sherwood
bi...@peak.org (Bill Nelson) wrote:
>Dwight Stewart (ste...@amouse.net) wrote:
>:
>: The GPK-1 ground plane kit will slightly improve line-of-site
>: distance, but will slightly decrease skip performance. In other words,
>: the ground plane kit will pull the signals closer to the ground, with
>: less signal going up into the air above the antenna.
>
>But the best radiation angle for skip is right at the horizon, NOT up
>into the air. The ground plane has always improved the range over
>which skip has worked for me.
>
>--
>Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
>
Huh, I always thought skip was the radio wave bouncing through the upper Ionisphere, and then
finding a less dense pocket of O3, and the signal falls back to earth. But, I guess I was wrong.
Sharon Sherwood
Dwight Stewart <ste...@amouse.net> wrote:
>
>Bill Nelson wrote:
>>
>> Dwight Stewart (ste...@amouse.net) wrote:
>> :
>> : The GPK-1 ground plane kit will slightly improve line-of-site
>> : distance, but will slightly decrease skip performance. In other words,
>> : the ground plane kit will pull the signals closer to the ground, with
>> : less signal going up into the air above the antenna.
>>
>> But the best radiation angle for skip is right at the horizon, NOT up
>> into the air. The ground plane has always improved the range over
>> which skip has worked for me.
>
>
> Worked just the opposite for me both times I tried the GPK-1 ground
>plane kit. It reduced skip contacts, but increased my signal level over
>line-of-sight. I thought I was just imagining things the first time,
>but the second time I had a another A-99 sitting twenty feet away that I
>could switch between. Several skip contacts reported lower signal
>levels on the one with the GPK-1 ground plane kit. I have not used the
>GPK-1 since.
>
>
>Dwight Stewart
>Amateur Radio, Technician
>F.C.C. License: W5NET
>http://www.qsl.net/w5net
Skip is by No Means a way to iterpret antenna effiecency or range. Think about the word first
"Propagation".
Pll02a
>From: Sharon Sherwood Sha...@ix.netcom.com
>Date: Sat, 20 November 1999 06:00 PM EST
>Message-id: <81791d$7b9$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>
>
>In article <7vm5hd$t2i$3...@bashir.peak.org>,
> bi...@peak.org (Bill Nelson) wrote:
>
>>Dwight Stewart (ste...@amouse.net) wrote:
>>:
>>: The GPK-1 ground plane kit will slightly improve line-of-site
>>: distance, but will slightly decrease skip performance. In other words,
>>: the ground plane kit will pull the signals closer to the ground, with
>>: less signal going up into the air above the antenna.
>>
>>But the best radiation angle for skip is right at the horizon, NOT up
>>into the air. The ground plane has always improved the range over
>>which skip has worked for me.
>>
>>Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
>>
>
> Huh, I always thought skip was the radio wave bouncing through the upper
>Ionisphere, and then
>finding a less dense pocket of O3, and the signal falls back to earth. But, I
>guess I was wrong.
>
>Donald Sherwood
i had 2 antrons myself at diferent times and had been pleased with both of
them.
THE WAY THE THEROY GOES.
if you could "see" the signal radiating from an antenna like the A-99, it would
look something like a big beach ball with the antenna sticking through the
middle of it.
this is somewhat good for skip in some ways as the signal from the top of the
"beach ball" is heading for the sky and, if conditions are right, will bounce
off from the ionosphere to come down somewhere else.
if you add the skip kit, it will pull the shape of that beach ball down to
something that resembles a doughnut.
this more or less concentrates the power of your signal by squeezing it into a
smaller area and sending out toward the horizon at a somewhat higher ERP,
(effective radiated power). like putting your thumb over the end of a garden
hose. you're not getting any more water from the water company, just pushing
the same amount through a smaller space while getting more pressure.
on average over flat terrain, the horizon is 12 miles before the curvature of
the earth takes things on the surface out of the line of sight. this is why
broadcast antenas are so high. i don't suggest this but if you were to climb to
the top of one of these towers with a pair of binoculars and you'll see farther
than 12 miles. this is why they have a greater than 12 mile line of sight range
than your average push up pole.
also, at 100 kw to 1 megawatt, you'll get a nice tan from the inside out. :(
with this "doughnut" and higher ERP shooting straight out of the middle of your
antenna toward the horizon, when it passes the 12 mile limit, some of your
signal will follow the curvature of the earth, (ground wave), but more of it
will pass to the ionosphere, (skywave), past the horizon and bounce off and
land somewhere at a higher signal strength.
there are MANY variables when one speaks of skip like final polarization when
the signal make land fall, ( horizontal like a tv antenna or vertical like an
antron), and which direction that it goes. this depends on season, the time of
day, (position of the sun in the sky), and the 11 year solar sun spot cycle.
the higher incidence of sun spots, the better for skip. regardless of wether
you use a horizontal or vertical antenna and contrary to what some may believe,
when talking skip, you have no control over the final polarity of your signal
when it hits the ground as it can change several times in transit. a flat
dipole beam is horizontally polarized and it's signal will pretty much stay
that way regarding a ground wave contact. when it hits the ionosphere, it may
be subject to "ducting" which, again, if you could "see" it, it will look,
simply speaking, like it's bouncing around inside an air conditioning duct.
this can change the signal as to wether it's sine wave is moving up and down or
from side to side.
ON AVERAGE, the skip distance is about 2500 miles from transmitting antenna to
receiving antenna on a single bounce.
if the ionosphere and earth cooperate, there are often multiple skips where the
signal will bounce from earth to sky back to earth and back to sky several
times hence 5,000 or 10,000 mile contacts.
mind you, i've yet to "see" a radio signal but this is the way the theory goes.
:)
BEFORE i get blasted by the RF police, (if they read this far before they start
shooting),these are very simplistic terms that are ment to bring a mental
picture of what's happening to a radio signal as it goes from point A to point
B after it passes through customs. this doesn't have, nor does it need, all of
the technical why's and where for's for the purposes of this discussion.
i hope this helps.
jeff
Ţ®özĺ©625™
>if you add the skip kit, it will pull the shape of that beach ball down to
>something that resembles a doughnut.
>with this "doughnut" and higher ERP shooting straight out of the middle of
Bill Nelson
: >
: >But the best radiation angle for skip is right at the horizon, NOT up
: >into the air. The ground plane has always improved the range over
: >which skip has worked for me.
: Huh, I always thought skip was the radio wave bouncing through the upper Ionisphere, and then
: finding a less dense pocket of O3, and the signal falls back to earth. But, I guess I was wrong.
Yes, the signal does bounce of one or another of the ionization layers in
the atmosphere. But the bit about a "less dense pocket of O3) is bogus.
It is unlikely that there are multiple bounces in the ionosphere before
returning to the Earth, but it "could" happen. The usual path for any
multiple bounce skip is: transmitter to ionosphere to Earth to ionosphere
to Earth ... to receiver.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
PLLO2A
>returning to the Earth, but it "could" happen.
under the right conditions, this is called ducting.
it's kind of like the radio wave traveling through a wave guide as in a
microwave oven or transmitter, only at lower freqs.
i've never heard of the O3 thing either unless it's one of the ionized gasses
up there? if it were less dense, i would think the wave would travel out into
space though.
what ever.
have a good day.
jeff
Bill Nelson
: >It is unlikely that there are multiple bounces in the ionosphere before
: >returning to the Earth, but it "could" happen.
:
: under the right conditions, this is called ducting.
That generally occurs in the troposphere - far below the ionosphere.
: it's kind of like the radio wave traveling through a wave guide as in a
: microwave oven or transmitter, only at lower freqs.
: i've never heard of the O3 thing either unless it's one of the ionized gasses
: up there? if it were less dense, i would think the wave would travel out into
: space though.
O3 is ozone. It is not an ionized gas.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)