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.
The Feb 2025 Radioddity Giveaway Results are In! Click Here to see who won!

Reply to thread

Message

Marconi, I'm not looking to argue. You'll notice before the part you quoted I clearly said "We have been working on ways to stack a pair, add null fill and beam tilt. One method does indeed involve inverting the lower antenna to hang it upside-down." When I say "We may also begin recommending stations using a single antenna at extreme elevations, side mount the antenna upside-down." Of course that all hinged on what the modeling results showed.

The idea hadn't even occurred to me until I saw my free space model indicating some degree of beam tilt so cut me some slack for being optimistic here. I appreciate your concern for my customers however, it's not justified since I wouldn't recommend anything until it were fully tested. The only thing I knew for sure prior to now about inverting unbalanced ground planes is that it had been common practice in reducing skywave interference on low band for decades.

I think you've also taken what I said about other peoples models and the high angle of radiation out of context. My findings on the radials are if you sweep them down like a normal ground plane, the result is an extremely high primary lobe around 40 degrees at typical mounting heights. If you want your model to reflect the situation I discussed then build the antenna like I was discussing. That would be a 3/4 wave ground plane with radials anywhere from 45 to 90 degrees.

<blockquote data-quote="Shockwave" data-source="post: 385005" data-attributes="member: 10882">Marconi, I&#039;m not looking to argue. You&#039;ll notice before the part you quoted I clearly said &quot;We have been working on ways to stack a pair, add null fill and beam tilt. One method does indeed involve inverting the lower antenna to hang it upside-down.&quot; When I say &quot;We may also begin recommending stations using a single antenna at extreme elevations, side mount the antenna upside-down.&quot; Of course that all hinged on what the modeling results showed. The idea hadn&#039;t even occurred to me until I saw my free space model indicating some degree of beam tilt so cut me some slack for being optimistic here. I appreciate your concern for my customers however, it&#039;s not justified since I wouldn&#039;t recommend anything until it were fully tested. The only thing I knew for sure prior to now about inverting unbalanced ground planes is that it had been common practice in reducing skywave interference on low band for decades.I think you&#039;ve also taken what I said about other peoples models and the high angle of radiation out of context. My findings on the radials are if you sweep them down like a normal ground plane, the result is an extremely high primary lobe around 40 degrees at typical mounting heights. If you want your model to reflect the situation I discussed then build the antenna like I was discussing. That would be a 3/4 wave ground plane with radials anywhere from 45 to 90 degrees.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shockwave, post: 385005, member: 10882"] Marconi, I'm not looking to argue. You'll notice before the part you quoted I clearly said "We have been working on ways to [U]stack a pair[/U], add null fill and beam tilt. One method does indeed involve inverting the lower antenna to hang it upside-down." When I say "We [U]may[/U] also begin recommending stations using a single antenna at extreme elevations, side mount the antenna upside-down." Of course that all hinged on what the modeling results showed. The idea hadn't even occurred to me until I saw my free space model indicating some degree of beam tilt so cut me some slack for being optimistic here. I appreciate your concern for my customers however, it's not justified since I wouldn't recommend anything until it were fully tested. The only thing I knew for sure prior to now about inverting unbalanced ground planes is that it had been common practice in reducing skywave interference on low band for decades. I think you've also taken what I said about other peoples models and the high angle of radiation out of context. My findings on the radials are if you sweep them down like a normal ground plane, the result is an extremely high primary lobe around 40 degrees at typical mounting heights. If you want your model to reflect the situation I discussed then build the antenna like I was discussing. That would be a 3/4 wave ground plane with radials anywhere from 45 to 90 degrees. [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom