×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Elevation Patterns of Ground Mounted Vertical Monopoles

Elevation Patterns of Ground Mounted Vertical Monopoles

Elevation Patterns of Ground Mounted Vertical Monopoles

(OP)
.
Possibly of interest to some readers of this Forum, here is part of a post I wrote for an antenna newsgroup for amateur radio operators ...

Ground-mounted verticals up to 5/8-wave high used by ham operators have the same elevation pattern shapes as those used by broadcast stations.  The peak radiation launched from all of them occurs in the horizontal plane, and reduces slowly and smoothly for lower elevation angles above the horizontal plane.  It could well be that the DX you do work results from radiation at a much lower elevation angle than believed possible when looking at the usual NEC calculations and plots for that vertical antenna.

The first link below leads to a scan of a graphic from Section 10 of Terman's Radio Engineers' Handbook (1943).   It shows the "takeoff angles" needed to serve various distances from a ground-mounted, vertical monopole radiator via its skywave, and the resulting skywave fields there for the conditions stated.  The reflection coefficients apply to the E-layer.

Terman's work shows that the elevation pattern of such a radiator over lossy earth does not approach zero field near the horizontal plane -- as is a common interpretation when looking at their NEC evaluations.

Terman's text (p. 743) also states that the reduction in skywave field after a peak at ~130 miles results from the ERP at the elevation angles serving those ranges not compensating for the greater losses of those longer paths.

But the skywave fields at 1000+ miles with takeoff angles of 1 degree and less are far from approaching zero (no matter what we think NEC is telling us).

  http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h85/rfry-100/TermanFig55.jpg

Discussion invited...

RF   http://rfry.org

RE: Elevation Patterns of Ground Mounted Vertical Monopoles

On Figure 55 as referenced, what is the meaning of the horizontal axis for the 'Angle' curve - is that angle vs. distance?

RE: Elevation Patterns of Ground Mounted Vertical Monopoles

(OP)
Yes, it is.

RE: Elevation Patterns of Ground Mounted Vertical Monopoles

Why is radiation angle a function of distance?

(Doesn't seem to make sense on its face.)

RE: Elevation Patterns of Ground Mounted Vertical Monopoles

(OP)
It is _distance_ that is a function of radiation angle (for a single hop of skywave).

RE: Elevation Patterns of Ground Mounted Vertical Monopoles

Isn't it more usual to plot the independent variable (angle in this case) on the X-axis?

RE: Elevation Patterns of Ground Mounted Vertical Monopoles

(OP)
This was Terman's method to show the data in a manner he wanted.

RE: Elevation Patterns of Ground Mounted Vertical Monopoles

Getting back to the primary point: I suspect that there isn't as much of a gap between Terman and NEC as there might sometimes appear. If there are differences in the output, it almost certainly comes down to different assumptions on the input. I suspect that Terman would have happily embraced NEC if he'd been born just a bit later.

RE: Elevation Patterns of Ground Mounted Vertical Monopoles

(OP)
"Getting back to the primary point: I suspect that there isn't as much of a gap between Terman and NEC as there might sometimes appear."
_________

Agree.  NEC will give ~ the same output result as developed by Terman and other early authors as long as its operation is understood, and it is used correctly for the model circumstances.

But a common belief when looking at the NEC far-field elevation pattern of a ground-mounted vertical monopole up to 5/8-wave high over real ground is that it radiates zero field in the horizontal plane.  But this is untrue.  If it was, then MW broadcast stations would have no daytime groundwave coverage, yet that field is the source of most of their income.

The error isn't the fault of NEC, but the operator.

RE: Elevation Patterns of Ground Mounted Vertical Monopoles

Aren't most MW (AM broadcast) verticals typically installed over a field of quarterwave radials? I've read that any more than Qty 120 is just a waste...

RE: Elevation Patterns of Ground Mounted Vertical Monopoles

(OP)
Yes, they are.  A benchmark, 1937 IRE paper by Brown, Lewis & Epstein of RCA Labs first investigated the effectiveness of such buried ground systems using radials of various numbers and lengths.  They found that a vertical monopole using about 120 radials each 0.41-lambda in length radiates an h-plane field at one mile that was within a few percent of the theoretical maximum for the applied power and antenna configuration, no matter what the frequency and earth conductivity at the antenna site.  

More and longer radials weren't worth the investment for the small improvement in radiated fields that they could provide.

BL&E's findings were the basis for the FCC rules applying to AM broadcast station antenna requirements to the present day.

RE: Elevation Patterns of Ground Mounted Vertical Monopoles

Then the typical MW (AM Broadcast) antenna is installed over 'real GOOD ground', as opposed to 'real (lossy) ground'. Thus we can't really use them as an example to support any conclusions about the accuracy of NEC over 'real ground'.

I think I read somewhere that one of the advantages of NEC4 over NEC2 is the accuracy of the ground modeling. This seems to confirm that the ground modeling in NEC2 isn't 'The Last Word' on what must be a very complicated subject.

Then again, I'm not sure that a guy with a slide rule in the 1930s could have done much better either, no matter how smart he was.

RE: Elevation Patterns of Ground Mounted Vertical Monopoles

(OP)
"Then again, I'm not sure that a guy with a slide rule in the 1930s could have done much better either, no matter how smart he was."
__________

BL&E's investigations were not a slide rule study, they used real hardware in the real world.  And THAT is why their conclusions have proven valid in practice, ever since (some NEC conclusions notwithstanding).

RE: Elevation Patterns of Ground Mounted Vertical Monopoles

I meant Terman.

(Sorry, I wasn't specific.)

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources