The AM Forum
June 26, 2024, 01:55:26 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Links Staff List Gallery Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hy-Tower Vertical-video-erection and analysis  (Read 6706 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Burt
Guest
« on: August 20, 2011, 10:04:38 PM »

Hy-Tower
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzeDiTM1-JE

I would be interested in anyone's evaluation of my methodolgy and your conclusions and/or questions
Burt
Logged
KA0HCP
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1185



« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2011, 01:22:06 AM »

Thanks Burt.  The productions keep getting better.   The Flex radio makes for great demos.   Amazing to see how well a top end vertical does in comparison to several other antennas.   I think every ham should have a vertical in his hip pocket regardless of what other antennas he has.

cheers, Bill.
Logged

New callsign KA0HCP, ex-KB4QAA.  Relocated to Kansas in April 2019.
AJ1G
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1291


« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2011, 09:33:55 AM »

Enjoyed seeing former Red Sox pitcher Tom McCarthy delivering your base concrete in one of your other Hy-Tower install videos.  The Sox could have used him in the 6th in KC last night....
Logged

Chris, AJ1G
Stonington, CT
flintstone mop
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5047


« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2011, 02:25:55 PM »

Good video.
I have A-B'd antennas and there is usually no clear 'winner'. The Yagi may have some advantage depending on height and the number of elements (gain) over a vertical. But if one is looking for reliability and ease of repair/maintenance I would go for the Hy-tower or its 'brother'.
My Yagi is 70 feet in the air and if he gets in trouble, it's gonna cost $600 to get to it and then cost of parts to repair. Utility pole was not a good choice for me. Too embarrassed to reveal cost of the utility pole. I shudda have taken the few extra steps and filed permits for a climbable tower 60 feet high.
Good idea on raising the tower.......two guys and walk it upright.
Fred
Logged

Fred KC4MOP
KA3ZLR
Guest
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2011, 02:36:26 PM »

Hi Burt,

 A Nice Piece of work O.M. Smiley

73
Jack
KA3ZLR
Logged
Burt
Guest
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2011, 08:12:22 PM »

I got this comment on You Tube:
You do realize that reception performance is a very poor way of evaluating an antenna. Your G5RV for example might perform well on receive yet on transmit the vast majority of your TX signal is dissipated as heat in the matching section where on the Vertical with at least 60 radials down the vast majority of your TX signal will be radiated instead of dissipated as heat in the feed line and tuner. The Hy-tower with at least 60 radials down will put out a much stronger signal then a G5RV.

Thoughts? Is he right?
Logged
ke7trp
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3654



« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2011, 02:01:34 AM »

"Reciprocity
 
It is a fundamental property of antennas that the electrical characteristics of an antenna described in the next section, such as gain, radiation pattern, impedance, bandwidth, resonant frequency and polarization, are the same whether the antenna is transmitting or receiving. For example, the "receiving pattern" (sensitivity as a function of direction) of an antenna when used for reception is identical to the radiation pattern of the antenna when it is driven and functions as a radiator. This is a consequence of the reciprocity theorem of electromagnetics. Therefore in discussions of antenna properties no distinction is usually made between receiving and transmitting terminology, and the antenna can be viewed as either transmitting or receiving, whichever is more convenient."





Logged
K6JEK
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1188


RF in the shack


« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2011, 03:04:03 AM »

"Reciprocity
 
It is a fundamental property of antennas that the electrical characteristics of an antenna described in the next section, such as gain, radiation pattern, impedance, bandwidth, resonant frequency and polarization, are the same whether the antenna is transmitting or receiving. For example, the "receiving pattern" (sensitivity as a function of direction) of an antenna when used for reception is identical to the radiation pattern of the antenna when it is driven and functions as a radiator. This is a consequence of the reciprocity theorem of electromagnetics. Therefore in discussions of antenna properties no distinction is usually made between receiving and transmitting terminology, and the antenna can be viewed as either transmitting or receiving, whichever is more convenient."

Yes but with all that gain available in receive it's easy to miss how lossy an antenna is. In Burt's case, though, you could look at the signals on the panadapter display. Just listening, though, you'd be fooled. My receive antennas sound louder than my transmit antennas because I'm hearing the S/N and I have gain to burn.
Logged
WD8BIL
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4403


« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2011, 08:48:26 AM »

Even on a 160 Meter S1 noise night my 40 meter dipole hears "better" 160M signals than the 160M perverted L.

On transmit the L has given me better signal reports than any other 160M antenna I've had in the last 20 years.

Great for transmit..... sucks on receive. Maybe that's why the serious DXers use seperate RCV antenna arrays. Actually.... it is why... this is no secret and has been known for decades.
Logged
ke7trp
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3654



« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2011, 01:52:47 PM »

Signal to noise ratio is important.

But the antenna peformance is reciprical. The man that sent him the message is wrong.

I have verts and wire here. There is no ryme or reason.  Some days the Vert blows the wire away.

C



 
Logged
WD8BIL
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4403


« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2011, 04:31:40 PM »

Quote
But the antenna peformance is reciprical.

This seems true only when the received wave arrives at the antenna at the same angle the transmitted wave leaves.

The transmitted wave angle can be controlled by a few variable to the operator. No so when receiving.
Logged
The Slab Bacon
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3929



« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2011, 06:22:00 PM »

this explains it a little better.......................

"For a number of years now work has been proceeding in order to bring
perfection to the crudely conceived idea of a machine that would not
only supply inverse reactive current for use in unilateral phase
detractors, but would also be capable of automatically synchronizing
cardinal grammeters. Such a machine is the "Turbo-Encabulator."
Basically, the only new principle involved is that instead of power
being generated by the relative motion of conductors and fluxes, it is
produced by the modal interaction of magneto-reluctance and capacitive
directance.

The original machine had a base-plate of prefabulated amulite,
surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two
spurving bearings were in a direct line with the pentametric fan. The
latter consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzelvanes, so fitted to the
ambifacient lunar waneshaft that side fumbling was effectively
prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus-o-delta type placed
in panendermic semi-boloid slots in the stator, every seventh conductor
being connected by a non-reversible tremie pipe to the differential
girdlespring on the "up" end of the grammeters.

Forty-one manestically spaced grouting brushes were arranged to feed
into the rotor slip-stream a mixture of high S-value
phenylhydrobenzamine and five per cent reminitive tetryliodohexamine.
Both of these liquids have specific pericosities given by P=2.5Cn^6.7
where n is the diathetical evolute of retrograde temperature phase
disposition and C is Cholmondeley's annular grillage coefficient.
Initially, n was measured with the aid of a metapolar refractive
pilfrometer (for a description of this ingenious instrument, see L. E.
Rumpelverstein in "Zeitschrift f|r Elektrotechnistatischs-
Donnerblitze" vol. vii), but up to the present date nothing has been
found to equal the transcendental hopper dadoscope (see "Proceedings of
the Peruvian Academy of Skatological Sciences" June, 1914.)

Electrical engineers will appreciate the difficulty of nubing together a
regurgitative purwell and a supramitive wennelsprocket. Indeed, this
proved to be a stumbling block to further development until, in 1942, it
was found that the use of anhydrous nangling pins enabled a kryptonastic
bolling shim to the tankered.

The early attempts to construct a sufficiently robust spiral
decommutator failed largely because of a lack of appreciation of the
large quasi-piestic stresses in the gremlin studs; the latter were
specially designed to hold the roffit bars to the spamshaft. When,
however, it was discovered that wending could be prevented by a simple
addition to the living sockets, almost perfect running was secured.

The operating point is maintained as near as possible to the h.f. rem
peak by constantly fromaging the bitumogenous spandrels, This is a
distinct advance on the standard nivelsheave in that no dramcock oil is
required after the phase detractors have remissed.

Undoubtedly, the turbo-encabulator has now reached a very high level of
technical development. It has been successfully used for operating nofer
trunnions. In addition, whenever a barescent skor motion is required, it
may be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocating dingle arm to
reduce sinusoidal depleneration."


 Wink  Shocked  Huh  Grin

Logged

"No is not an answer and failure is not an option!"
N8UH
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 194



« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2011, 03:11:41 AM »

Yer killin' me Slab...  Grin Grin Grin
Logged

-Tim
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands
 AMfone © 2001-2015
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.057 seconds with 19 queries.