-
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
Its on youtube therefore it must be true...
Here you go, a completely different use of the word completely unrelated to the use of the word you linked to in your youtube video.
Ham Radio MARS Counter Poise Ground Saturn Dipole Antenna - YouTube
In your linked video he uses the term for half of what is essentially a dipole. In my linked video they simply increase the conductivity of the earth below a horizontal antenna. Which one of them is correct? They are on youtube so they must both obviously be true... Sure, whatever.
The reality of the situation is neither of them are true...
The internet is a big cause of the spread and misuse of the term. You can find someone who will agree with almost any use of the word on it, that doesn't make that use of the word correct. If you can find me a reputable source (that rules out the internet) that disagrees with not just some, but *ALL* of the reputable sources I have I would love to see it... I am also happy to quote from the reputable sources I have access to if you like, or you can simply look in two previous threads that talked about this topic that I participated in.
The DB
Hey DB, would W8JI be considered a reliable source? The idea of counterpoise is scattered all out into this article by W8JI.
http://www.w8ji.com/end-fed_vertical_j-pole_and_horizontal_zepp.htm
Someone posted this link: http://www.w1npp.org/events/2010/2010-F~1/ANTENNAS/HF-VER~1/830202~1.PDF
I'm surprised that no one is talking about this comprehensive and more recent testing (1979) of the idea regarding counterpoise. But maybe it is because the report all but discounts the capacitor response idea that goes back to 1920's or earlier thinking.
http://www.w8ji.com/end-fed_vertical_j-pole_and_horizontal_zepp.htm
Someone posted this link: http://www.w1npp.org/events/2010/2010-F~1/ANTENNAS/HF-VER~1/830202~1.PDF
I'm surprised that no one is talking about this comprehensive and more recent testing (1979) of the idea regarding counterpoise. But maybe it is because the report all but discounts the capacitor response idea that goes back to 1920's or earlier thinking.
Last edited:
I guess I should've asked why the guy in the vid angled his "counterpoise" away from the antenna centerline.
Lil'Yeshua, IMO he moved the antenna wire away from the antenna like he did to get it as far away from the feed line as possible.
Homer is right, he made a vertical dipole out of his Buddipole.
You can see his radio shows the setup was not perfectively effective regarding the match in the vertical position, but it was effective enough for the contacts he made.
As far as w8ji, he is very knowledgeable, however I respectfully disagree with his use of the term. If he were a posting member here I would love to see what he has to say about the debate at hand.
About the .pdf file you referred to, I have yet to have a chance to sit down and properly read it, and likely won't for a few days. I'm happy to give you any thoughts on it then if you would like...
The DB
Two strikes, I have one to go that might agree with your idea in your post #2 partially noted below.
BTW, you can check Google Patents and probably find plenty of other stuff using the word counterpoise there. Patent US3742511 - LOW-LOSS ANTENNA SYSTEM WITH COUNTERPOISE INSULATED FROM EARTH - Google Patents
Last edited:
Patents as a source of information, interesting, why didn't I think of that... Thanks for the link, will add it to the list of stuff I need to read through. The term "counterpoise" is used a lot in that page.
As far as the two strikes against me goes, I'm not so sure.
So one of those strikes is because I "respectfully disagree" with W8JI. Using that as a benchmark, wouldn't it be fair to put a strike against you because you disagree with W4RNL, who, unlike W8JI, (so far as I am aware) has done actual research on the term "ceounterpoise" and written a paper based on that research? Perhaps you have seen it?
As far as the article goes, reread the summary of findings. All the article does, in my opinion, is show that how people thought a "counterpoise" worked was not the case. It also shows that a "ground screen" system, which is effectively the same thing except grounded, is affected by the same things that a counterpoise is, namely the conductivity of the earth below the radials... If there is anything other than capacitance that can cause the effect measured in the radials of both systems and the earth below them I would love to know what that is.
I guess in the end it becomes a matter of opinion. One thing it definitely does not do is suggest any other version of what a "counterpoise" is, including W8JI's, is in any way justified as it only uses the word "counterpoise" to mean one thing, the traditional meaning.
The DB
As far as the two strikes against me goes, I'm not so sure.
So one of those strikes is because I "respectfully disagree" with W8JI. Using that as a benchmark, wouldn't it be fair to put a strike against you because you disagree with W4RNL, who, unlike W8JI, (so far as I am aware) has done actual research on the term "ceounterpoise" and written a paper based on that research? Perhaps you have seen it?
As far as the article goes, reread the summary of findings. All the article does, in my opinion, is show that how people thought a "counterpoise" worked was not the case. It also shows that a "ground screen" system, which is effectively the same thing except grounded, is affected by the same things that a counterpoise is, namely the conductivity of the earth below the radials... If there is anything other than capacitance that can cause the effect measured in the radials of both systems and the earth below them I would love to know what that is.
I guess in the end it becomes a matter of opinion. One thing it definitely does not do is suggest any other version of what a "counterpoise" is, including W8JI's, is in any way justified as it only uses the word "counterpoise" to mean one thing, the traditional meaning.
The DB
I was waiting on you to say whether you considered W8JI a worthy source before I started reading up on his ideas about the counterpoise...if that were even possible. I don't even enjoy reading W8JI's stuff, because he leaves out way to much detail, and he is too categorical for me.
I also don't think the Cebik link above is any proof of the idea of a counterpoise, one way or another. The way I read it...the only thing Cebik did is present such ideas published by others over time.
Cebik did make a claim in conclusion that the term was based on mechanical science, and went on to say there is no scientifically reliable source in RF for the idea as far back as he could source, and the maybe we should just decline using the term...unless a full description of its use is also provided.
DB, if and when you read the article describing the 1979 testing by Doty, Frey, Mills, and others at:
http://www.w1npp.org/events/2010/2010-F~1/ANTENNAS/HF-VER~1/830202~1.PDF
I think you'll find that they determined that even though there is capacitance to Earth associated with the counterpoise idea, their results did not support the capacitor two plate idea as noted early on in writings. They also indicated that the resistance around an antenna varies by as much as 2:1 in areas, and the capacitance also varies with the changes in resistance. This finding was also noted to be totally different from prior considerations and technical writings.
They went on to say they were quite surprised to find their results basically did not support the prior 60 years of understanding on this subject, and that the relationships present around the base of a 1/4 wave radiator were far more complicated than had previously been imagined.
I can't say this testing effort was infalable, I know nothing about these men. But they do provide reports, and show some evidence of work, so I figure that is just as worthy of consideration...as are WORDS from others.
If you find some specific testing work by Cebik on the counterpoise, I would like to read it. Cebik does tend to show details in his testing work and he even explains his ideas sometimes...rather than just making catergorical statements.
Well, now, Marconi, at least you are starting to refer to the counterpoise within the limits of the original historical context.
It is indeed a worthwhile tangent for discussion with respect to whether it can be reliable in use as it was supposed to be. Whether or not, it won't change what a true counterpoise is.
I will have to read the materials thoroughly to properly comment, but I venture to say that the value of the counterpoise is suppose to be most appreciated over poor soil than over good. My soil is poor.
When I am able I will try to test the idea in my backyard. I just am not sure whether I have enough room to put it together out there.
It is indeed a worthwhile tangent for discussion with respect to whether it can be reliable in use as it was supposed to be. Whether or not, it won't change what a true counterpoise is.
I will have to read the materials thoroughly to properly comment, but I venture to say that the value of the counterpoise is suppose to be most appreciated over poor soil than over good. My soil is poor.
When I am able I will try to test the idea in my backyard. I just am not sure whether I have enough room to put it together out there.
Marconi, I did read the article before my last post. You are correct, they concluded that the counterpoise does not function as it was traditionally thought to function.
A quote from myself in homers original thread:
Direct link to that post.
I was asking these types of questions right from the start. I did assume (along with many before that article was written) that the counterpoise had similar currents throughout, which the article you presented showed was incorrect.
I don't think it rules out the "acts like a plate of a capacitor" idea, but instead shows the volatility of the other plate (the earth below) and its effect on the counterpoise itself. This effect does make sense, and I think demonstrates that the definition of the term "counterpoise" applies here (between the elevated radial system and the earth below) perfectly.
I guess we have two different views based on the same information.
The DB
A quote from myself in homers original thread:
Direct link to that post.
I was asking these types of questions right from the start. I did assume (along with many before that article was written) that the counterpoise had similar currents throughout, which the article you presented showed was incorrect.
I don't think it rules out the "acts like a plate of a capacitor" idea, but instead shows the volatility of the other plate (the earth below) and its effect on the counterpoise itself. This effect does make sense, and I think demonstrates that the definition of the term "counterpoise" applies here (between the elevated radial system and the earth below) perfectly.
I guess we have two different views based on the same information.
The DB
I don't have the understanding of capacitance to discuss the issue. I just reported that the guy's doing the 1979 testing in North Carolina discounted the claim, and that prior to that point the science was claiming that the counterpoise worked like a large capacitor.
These guy's report also seemed to draw this conclusion based on the fact that their test results showed the resistance in the Earth around the base of the antenna was not...as evenly distributed (homogeneous) as the prior 60 years of RF science had suggested.
IMO, claims on both sides of the issues above would depend on the facts, so you could be right DB.
I can't deny that my models show the counterpoise idea producing a little better gain compared to the traditional raised radial setup when both are low and at the same height above Earth. I also think this report also indicated the counterpoise could in some cases produce better results, and they explained why as well.
So, I don't think this report is suggesting the counterpoise is of no benefit, just that some of the ideas on how it worked were surprising and different from what had been indicated over the prior 60 years.
For me, knowing that the counterpoise can work well in some situations is far more important than knowing precisely how it works.
I did model my 1/4 wave at 1.85 mhz with 160 radials at 15' above ground, and it too is not able to equal the gain of the same radiator with a rectangle shaped counterpoise at 15' feet above Earth. Too bad Eznec won't let me model radials below the ground.
At this point it might be good to know why the counterpoise all but disappeared from discussion and use.