-
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.
Regarding antennas, what does counterpoise mean?
- Thread starter Marconi
- Start date
It has a radial system, they are angled up and are topped with a ring. Do some searching on this site, there are some very good and long threads on that antenna design specifically.
The DB
well, I am 5 days older than dirt,..... in another post I even mentioned a KRAKO SPARK-OMATIC:blink:
Then you are 4 days older than me, and slightly younger than Marconi.
I once owned a Spark-o-matic or two.
I once owned a Spark-o-matic or two.
Homer, I still think you comparison of the counterpoise to a mobile has some merit relative to today, even though the old original use of the term applied mostly to the old broadcast antennas we've recently looked at.
After having seen these old broadcast antennas, I still think VK1OD's first definition, starting where he says:
In the link below, this definition is near the top and covers several ideas all the way down to the topic ARRL.
Counterpoise - what does it mean?
I think I'll try a model at 820 khz, like the last example I posted, and see how different it is from the classic "Counterpoise example" model I first made.
After having seen these old broadcast antennas, I still think VK1OD's first definition, starting where he says:
is also on point.
In the link below, this definition is near the top and covers several ideas all the way down to the topic ARRL.
Counterpoise - what does it mean?
I think I'll try a model at 820 khz, like the last example I posted, and see how different it is from the classic "Counterpoise example" model I first made.
After reading 'VK1OD's remarks, I've decided (at least for my own use) that counterpoise is a generic term used to describe the "other half" of a two pole (+/-) antenna. It has no exact/specific definition and has to be defined for each instance of use (such as is done with the term 'shoe' as a generic name for a foot covering of whatever type/style).
- 'Doc
- 'Doc
So, based on VK1OD's article you have decided that it "has no exact/specific definition" and have decided use it in the way you want to.
Interesting, as the article you base this decision on clearly sees this as part of the problem.
VK1OD said:
So effectively you are using his article to do exactly what he says is happening with the term, and using it how you think it should be regardless of what it actually means by definition or historically.
That being said, I do think you have been following the other part of the quote above, namely the part about avoiding its use. I don't know that I have seen you use the term (outside of this thread) it in quite some time.
The DB
Here is a thought.
The way we seem to be trying to apply the term "counterpoise" to antennas today seems to be a part that functions and is needed to make the "radiator" function. What if that is not the case?
Historically a counterpoise was another name for a "capacitive ground" system. I think the key lies in this name. You have a capacitor that is made up of the radial network that is isolated from ground, and the ground below it.
We see a capacitor as a device that uses two plates to store a charge. That charge is actually made up of two separate charges, at any given time one plate has a positive charge while the other has a negative charge. These charges we know are equal and opposite, hence the link into the definition given by VK1OD and every other definition out there for counterpoise when dealing with forces of any kind.
We know that the historic capacitive ground uses capacitance to link that part of the antenna to the earth below, and all of the rules of a capacitor apply.
Therefore, when referring to the traditional usage of the term "counterpoise" it is not describing the relationship between the "antenna" and its "other half" but the very method of attaching that "other half" to the ground electrically.
Thoughts?
The DB
The way we seem to be trying to apply the term "counterpoise" to antennas today seems to be a part that functions and is needed to make the "radiator" function. What if that is not the case?
Historically a counterpoise was another name for a "capacitive ground" system. I think the key lies in this name. You have a capacitor that is made up of the radial network that is isolated from ground, and the ground below it.
We see a capacitor as a device that uses two plates to store a charge. That charge is actually made up of two separate charges, at any given time one plate has a positive charge while the other has a negative charge. These charges we know are equal and opposite, hence the link into the definition given by VK1OD and every other definition out there for counterpoise when dealing with forces of any kind.
We know that the historic capacitive ground uses capacitance to link that part of the antenna to the earth below, and all of the rules of a capacitor apply.
Therefore, when referring to the traditional usage of the term "counterpoise" it is not describing the relationship between the "antenna" and its "other half" but the very method of attaching that "other half" to the ground electrically.
Thoughts?
The DB
I think DB is being a little hard on you, Doc, although I clearly see his point.
The difference in what you intend to do is use the word then supply it a definition from a list of the available mis-definitions as opposed to just using the word indescriminately. That is a slight improvement. It will give us the option of taking a permanent marker and crossing out the word counterpoise and just reading what it is you are talking about.
I am messing with you a little. But seriously, using a term in the wrong way doesn't make it right even when we explain why we used it wrong.
Unless you are the Oscar Meyer guy, you won't be driving your hotdog to work, although you might eat it for lunch.
At least you are reading this stuff and trying to help sort through it.
I do like using "the other half" for the other half. However, in none of the articles I've read that try to identify the original historic meaning of the term counterpoise have the authors identified it as the other half, but as a capacitive ground that improves the performance of the antenna by bonding it through capacitance to the other half, the ground beneath (ie the ground plane).
I maintain that the differing authors agree when referencing the historical origins of the term and concept of the counterpoise as it applied to antenna usage. It was a network beneath the antenna but slightly above and disconnected from the earth or a structure such as a building beneath it that form a capacitive union with the true ground(plane) beneath. And without the capacitive bonding with mother earth, or in the case of a tall building, the building's structural mass, the concept was non-existent. So, to me, the other half in the scenario of a capacitive ground was not the counterpoise, but the earth beneath, or the structure of a building upon which the antenna stood. If that capacitive ground can not be created due to too much distance between the radial network and the earth or other structure, then we do not have a counterpoise in the historical sense.
No, it probably won't matter in the long run. Not enough time left in my lifetime to retrain the whole world even if I cared to. But rest assured, if I use the word counterpoise it will be as it was used by those who originally coined the term in relation to antenna science. I just refuse to call my bunny slippers Brogans.
I have explored this train of thought, yet I find there to be no evidence in the writings we've supplied that the term counterpoise was so abstractly used as folks do today. They referred to the radial network itself as the counterpoise.
I do agree that any other result of using something similarly constructed, but not capable of establishing the capacitance required for unity with the groundplane beneath, is not a counterpoise despite its similar appearance. That either may provide the mass, or electrical properties that constitute the other half of an antenna electrically is a coincidence of their design natures, but unless one is so constructing the radial network so as to provide the capacitor that defines it as a counterpoise, it isn't one - historically speaking.
Riding a wild pony or a Ford muscle car may both be an experience with a Mustang, and may get you where you're going, but they ain't the same thang.
While it may not be the exact definition of the word, when the word 'counterpoise', or 'groundplane' is used to describe a part of an antenna system, I have a fairly decent idea of what is meant by it's use. When you consider the term and how it's used, it's context, I think most people have at least an inkling of of an idea of what's being talked about.
So, from this moment onward I declare that 'TOH' is the proper term to use to describe such objects when it's exact name is in question. It doesn't matter if anyone else wants to use that new term, I plan on using it and I'm willing to bet that people will know what I'm talking about. Everyone has my permission to use 'TOH' when the occasion warrants.
How'zat?
Carry on...
- 'Doc
So, from this moment onward I declare that 'TOH' is the proper term to use to describe such objects when it's exact name is in question. It doesn't matter if anyone else wants to use that new term, I plan on using it and I'm willing to bet that people will know what I'm talking about. Everyone has my permission to use 'TOH' when the occasion warrants.
How'zat?
Carry on...
- 'Doc