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

Yep, IMO the height does have its affects, and at some points even a foot or two seems to make a notable difference in cmc magnitude. That said however, and if my Eznec files are even close, I don't find this magnitude, due to height, being exactly linear in form like I use to think.

Within about 100' feet that I've checked, I see maybe 2 or 3 points in this height range where these current affects tend to get better and then worse. Maybe the affects of height/cmc are more sinuous in form than linear.

So, I guess we can't always say that higher is better. On occasion I've experienced such antenna responses, but I didn't understand it. I probably figured that it was conditions, and that in time it would change. I'm not sure, and I don't know as I can prove this idea, but maybe it is something to consider. I was surprised to see the current magnitude vacillate on the mast as I increased height 1' foot at a time.

I also have not yet determined that all vertical antennas act the same in this regard.

<blockquote data-quote="Marconi" data-source="post: 310948" data-attributes="member: 903">Yep, IMO the height does have its affects, and at some points even a foot or two seems to make a notable difference in cmc magnitude. That said however, and if my Eznec files are even close, I don&#039;t find this magnitude, due to height, being exactly linear in form like I use to think. &nbsp;Within about 100&#039; feet that I&#039;ve checked, I see maybe 2 or 3 points in this height range where these current affects tend to get better and then worse. Maybe the affects of height/cmc are more sinuous in form than linear.&nbsp; So, I guess we can&#039;t always say that higher is better. On occasion I&#039;ve experienced such antenna responses, but I didn&#039;t understand it. I probably figured that it was conditions, and that in time it would change. I&#039;m not sure, and I don&#039;t know as I can prove this idea, but maybe it is something to consider. I was surprised to see the current magnitude vacillate on the mast as I increased height 1&#039; foot at a time.&nbsp;I also have not yet determined that all vertical antennas act the same in this regard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Marconi, post: 310948, member: 903"] Yep, IMO the height does have its affects, and at some points even a foot or two seems to make a notable difference in cmc magnitude. That said however, and if my Eznec files are even close, I don't find this magnitude, due to height, being exactly linear in form like I use to think. Within about 100' feet that I've checked, I see maybe 2 or 3 points in this height range where these current affects tend to get better and then worse. Maybe the affects of height/cmc are more sinuous in form than linear. So, I guess we can't always say that higher is better. On occasion I've experienced such antenna responses, but I didn't understand it. I probably figured that it was conditions, and that in time it would change. I'm not sure, and I don't know as I can prove this idea, but maybe it is something to consider. I was surprised to see the current magnitude vacillate on the mast as I increased height 1' foot at a time. I also have not yet determined that all vertical antennas act the same in this regard. [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom