Another Way to Look

at Vertical Antennas
What’s the difference between a dipole and a vertical?
Maybe not as much as you think. Come along
and try another point of view.

By Rudy Severns, N6LF

T
he grounded vertical is one of “ground plane” and so on. In this view, evated ground systems with only 4 to
the earliest radio antennas, we retain the concept that ground is an 8 λ/4 radials can be very competitive
well known to Marconi and integral part of the antenna and an with the more-traditional 120-buried-
widely used today by amateurs, particu- ungrounded vertical must have some radial antenna, although that is the
larly for 80 and 160 meters. VHF verti- structure that replaces the “real” ground. subject of some controversy, due to the
cals with “ground planes” are also popu- While this conceptual framework has difficulties experienced with experi-
lar. Traditionally, ground has been served us well for over 100 years, it tends mental verification. There is even the
viewed as an integral part of the an- to limit our thinking to more traditional heresy that radials as short as λ/8 may
tenna—in effect supplying the “missing” solutions. A change in viewpoint exposes be only marginally less effective than
part of the antenna, since, at useful variations, better suited for par- full λ/4 radials and have significant
low frequencies at least, the vertical ticular applications. practical advantages. Elevated-radial
portion of the antenna is usually The traditional view, stemming systems have their own drawbacks,
less than λ/2. Even when the antenna is largely from the work of Brown, Lewis such as (1) nonuniform radial cur-
not grounded, but raised above ground, and Epstein1 in the 1930s, is that a λ/4 rents, 4 which lead to asymmetrical
we still use the terms “elevated vertical, with a ground system of 100 or patterns and perhaps increased loss,
ground system,” “counterpoise ground,” more long radials, is the ideal—any- and (2) the need for an isolation choke
thing else is an inferior compromise. at the feed point. A network of wires,
Recent work, 2,3 using primarily arranged in a circle λ/2 in diameter
PO Box 589 NEC modeling, has indicated that el- and suspended above ground, may be
Cottage Grove, OR 97424 more trouble than simply burying the
rudys@ordata.com 1 Notes appear on page 32. wires. There has been considerable
discussion—regarding traditional λ/4 pole in proximity to ground—rather antenna, h, is less than λ/4, top load-
radials used in elevated ground sys- than as a grounded monopole—opens ing is commonly employed. However,
tems—as to whether these are a poor possibilities not usually considered top loading is usually not considered
choice or not and whether other ar- with the more traditional point of view. when h ≥ λ/4. This may be due to our
rangements may be superior. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 For example, with a full λ/4 vertical, past view that we need an extensive
Because most amateurs are severely one would not normally consider add- set of buried radials, or equivalently,
limited by available space and the cost ing a top hat for loading. However, in so an elevated system of λ/4 radials. For
of towers and extensive ground sys- doing, the diameter of an elevated a λ/4 vertical, the diameter of the ra-
tems, the traditional buried-radial or ground system at the base of the an- dial system will be ≈λ/2, changing only
even the elevated λ/4-radial systems tenna can be drastically reduced, seem- slowly as the number of radials is var-
are frequently infeasible. What is ingly out of proportion to the size of the ied. On the other hand, if we lengthen
needed is a wide range of other choices top loading hat. This can be a very real the vertical section beyond λ/4, add
for the antenna structure from which advantage by reducing the footprint of some top loading or even some induc-
to choose the best compromise for a the antenna. A shortened, horizontal tive loading, the diameter of the bot-
given situation. Obviously, the final dipole antenna with a hat at each end is tom radial structure drops rapidly.
design should sacrifice as little perfor- very well known; it draws little com- A simple example illustrating this
mance as possible. ment. Nevertheless, vertically orient- point is given in Figs 3 and 4. Fig 3
An alternate way to look at verticals ing the antenna and manipulating the shows an asymmetrical λ/4 dipole with
has been suggested by Moxon (see end-loading devices to suit the applica- two radials (L1 and L2) at each end. L2
Note 5) and others: tion is not so common—although the is varied from zero to 22.3 feet, and L1
1. The antenna is a shortened (less antennas are conceptually identical! is readjusted, as needed, to resonate the
than λ/2) vertical dipole with loading. antenna at 3.790 MHz.
The loading may be symmetrical or Loaded Dipoles in Free Space Clearly, adding even a small amount
asymmetrical, lumped or distributed, One of the simplest ways to resonate of top loading (L2) greatly reduces the
inductive or capacitive, or a combina- a shortened dipole (less than λ/2) is to length of the bottom radials (L1), and
tion of all of these. Usually, the load- add capacitive elements or “hats” at consequently the land area required
ing contributes little to the radiation, the ends, as shown in Fig 1. As indi-
although some loading structures may cated, the feed point may be anywhere
radiate. along the radiating portion of the an-
2. Ground is not part of the antenna. tenna. Fig 1 shows symmetrical end
However, the interaction between loading. Fig 2 shows extreme asym-
ground and the antenna—and the loss metrical loading, where only one ca-
in the ground—must certainly be pacitive loading structure is used.
taken into account. This includes both This is, of course, the familiar ground-
near and far fields. plane antenna being viewed as an
This view can the maintained even asymmetrical dipole. Actual antennas
when a portion (or all!) of the antenna can vary between these two extremes,
is buried. since they incorporate various sizes
At first glance, this seems a trivial and geometries of loading hats to suit
conceptual change. Nonetheless, look- particular applications. Fig 3—1Asymmetric two-radial dipole.
ing at a vertical as a short, loaded di- When the vertical portion of the F R = 3.790 MHz.

Fig 1—Short loaded dipole.

Fig 2—Asymmetrical dipole. Fig 4—Effect of top loading on radial length.

for installation. This is a matter of Only NEC 2 and 4 do this. Of course, if care must be used when modeling a
considerable practical importance to the lower part of the antenna is buried in vertical with a complex loading system
those with restricted space in which to the ground, only NEC 4 is suitable. near ground.
erect an antenna. With somewhat Loading structures may consist of a
more complex loading elements, the web of wires with multiple wires at each A Design Example
footprint can be reduced even further. junction, perhaps of different diam- The advantages of employing a dif-
In addition to greatly reducing the eters, and with small angles (less than ferent conceptual approach can be
length of the radials, a number of 90°) between adjacent wires attached to illustrated using the 160-meter verti-
other things happen during the above the same node. MININEC-based soft- cal used at N6LF, where an effective
exercise: ware can model multiple acute angles if antenna was built on a very difficult
1. With only two radials and no top segment tapering is used, but if many site at low cost.
loading, the radiation pattern varies wires are used in the structure, the The site is on a narrow ridge—
with azimuth by about 0.7 dB, making number of segments becomes quite approximately 60 feet wide at the top—
the pattern slightly oval. This pattern large. MININEC Broadcast Profes- in a forest. There is no possibility of
asymmetry essentially disappears as sional, using a different segment-cur- installing an extensive buried radial
the radials (L1) are shortened with top rent distribution, does an even better system because of the dense forest,
loading (L2). job without the need for tapering. How- heavy underbrush, steep slopes and
2. When placed over ground, the ever, both of these programs do not very large old-growth stumps. Even an
currents in individual λ/4 radials are model the interaction properly for very elevated system of normal size, about
rarely equal. This can lead to asym- low antennas over real ground. NEC 2 260 feet in diameter, is not practical.
metric patterns and increased loss. can model the ground effects correctly, A support for the antenna was con-
The current asymmetry rapidly de- but may not handle the multiple small structed from three Douglas fir trees,
creases as the radials are shortened. angles properly, especially if different fastened together to form an A frame
3. The peak gain, and the angle at diameter conductors are connected. (see the sidebar “A Large A-Frame
which it occurs, changes relatively NEC 4 is much better in this respect, Mast, Inexpensively” for details). This
little as top loading is added and bot- but is not widely used by amateurs be- resulted in a support 135 feet high.
tom radials shortened while keeping cause of its expense. Allowing eight feet from the bottom of
the vertical section the same length. Real grounds are frequently strati- the antenna to ground and a few feet
4. Small amounts of inductive loading fied beginning only a few feet down. On of slack at the top for sway in high
could also be used to supplement or even 160 meters, the skin depth is of the winds, the final vertical length is 120
replace the top loading. As long as the order of 15 to 20 feet, and it is common feet—very close to λ/4. Because the
vertical section is close to λ/4, the radial to have several layers with different antenna is located over 700 feet from
lengths can be reduced to λ/8 without electrical properties over that dis- the shack, 75 Ω Hardline coax (a free-
seriously increasing losses. tance. Even in homogeneous ground, bee from the local CATV company) is
the effect of rain and subsequent dry- used for the transmission line. The
Modeling Issues ing creates a varying conductivity pro- antenna was designed to have a 75-Ω
The realization that everything— file. None of the presently available feed-point impedance to match the
from the length of the radiator to the software addresses this problem. The transmission line. The feed-point im-
type and distribution of loading—is a validity of NEC 2 or 4 modeling for pedance at the junction of the lower
potential variable that may be ad- ground has been questioned because of hat and the vertical wire was manipu-
justed to achieve specific ends, is a differences between experimental lated by adjusting the relative sizes of
very liberating idea. Unfortunately, it measurements and predictions made the bottom-hat and top-loading wires.
brings its own set of problems. Which by modeling. This is a critical issue. If Alternately, I could have used a larger
variations are best for a given applica- NEC is fundamentally deficient with hat on the bottom and moved the feed
tion? A multitude of questions arise regard to ground modeling, then the point up into the vertical part of the
when judging any particular varia- comparisons to date between buried- antenna, but this was not done be-
tion. radial and elevated-radial systems are cause of the limited space available for
The large number of possibilities and invalid. That includes the work re- the bottom hat. I also tried some in-
questions cannot be dealt with analyti- ported in this article! On the other ductive loading at the base and at the
cally, at least beyond an elementary hand, NEC modeling may be fine, but junction of the top-loading wires.
level. The only practical way to deal with the problem lies with the highly vari- Relatively small amounts of inductive
the many variables is to systematically able nature of real ground. This is par- loading—with very little additional
explore the possibilities with NEC, ticularly so down to depths of 15 to 20 loss—would further reduce the size of
MININEC or other CAD modeling soft- feet, which cannot be simulated with either or both of the capacitive loading
ware. Yet, even that is not a simple NEC, but that could greatly modify elements. I did not keep any inductive
matter. Each modeling program has par- experimental results. Some support loading because sufficient space was
ticular strengths and weaknesses that for this view comes from experimental available for the arrangement shown.
affect its use for this problem. The bot- work at higher frequencies. There the The final antenna is shown in Fig 5.
tom portion of a vertical for 80 or 160 skin depth is much less, and modeling There are four radials at the bottom,
meters is usually very close to ground predictions are in much better agree- connected by a skirt wire at the ends.
(less than 0.05 λ). For these applications, ment with experiments. The diameter of this bottom-loading
the modeling software should imple- The presently available software, structure is only 40 feet, compared
ment the Norton-Sommerfeld ground while a remarkable achievement, is with 260 feet for normal λ/4 radials.
and properly model the current distribu- not totally satisfactory to fully exploit Two sloping wires are used for loading
tion in the lower part of the antenna as the possibilities. The suggested point at the top. A sloped top hat may not be
modified by induced ground currents. of view brings this out. A great deal of optimal when compared to horizontal
wires: The radiation resistance is would have been any better than the one of the drawbacks of very small bot-
somewhat lower. Nevertheless, this small hat that was adopted. tom-loading structures: A choke with
arrangement is very simple and allows Any antenna with an elevated radial enough inductance to avoid interac-
the antenna to be tuned by changing system needs an isolation choke (com- tion may not be practical, at least on
the angle of the wires with the vertical mon-mode choke, or balun, if you pre- 160 meters. Since the current in the
portion of the antenna. This can be fer) on the transmission line near the choke is relatively small, additional
done from ground level by shifting the feed point. One effect of moving the losses due to ground currents will not
attachment points for the guy lines loading from the bottom to the top of be very large. The Q of the choke, how-
supporting the sloping wires. the antenna is to increase the poten- ever, must be high to limit losses in the
Christman’s comparison (see Note tial between the feed point and ground. choke itself.
2) between a 120-buried-radial verti- This requires more inductance in the The monster balun shown here is
cal and an elevated four-radial verti- isolation choke to properly decouple extreme and not required. A much
cal (both with h = λ/4) indicates that the transmission line. For this appli- smaller choke could be used. The large
the gain and radiation-pattern differ- cation, I happened to have a roll of structure was used because it was ac-
1
ences between the antennas are quite /2-inch Hardline. The roll was about tually very convenient with the mate-
small: 0.35 dB for peak gain, 1° for two feet in diameter, so I simply ex- rials on hand.
peak gain angle. Because the differ- panded it into a coil three feet long and
ence is so small, I have chosen to use two feet in diameter with a simple
the four-radial elevated antenna as wood framework to hold it in place.
the reference antenna, since it is much Fig 7 is a photo of this king-sized
easier to model than a complete 120- decoupling choke.
buried-radial antenna. The result was a choke with 350 µH
Using NEC4D for modeling, radia- of inductance (4 kΩ at 1.840 MHz).
tion-patterns for a four-radial ground- When this value of inductance was
plane antenna and this antenna were placed in the model with a buried
compared. The result is presented in transmission line, there was still some
Fig 6. The model assumes ground of interaction; resonance was displaced
average electrical characteristics un- downward. This was also found true
der the antenna (σ = 0.005 S/m; ε = 13). on the actual antenna. This illustrates
The wire used was #13 copper, and its
loss was included in the modeling. The
price paid for drastically reducing the
diameter of the bottom loading struc-
ture is a peak-gain reduction of 0.5 dB.
This is a fair trade for dramatically
easing the installation of the lower
loading element because 0.5 dB will
probably not be detectable in actual
operation. In the real world, where
full-size (λ/4) radials very likely have
varying currents (see Notes 4 and 8),
the smaller antenna may not, in fact,
be inferior at all. In this particular
example, full-size radials would need
to zigzag down a steep hillside at vari-
ous angles. It is very doubtful they Fig 5—Antenna configuration.

Fig 7—Rudy and the “small” decoupling

choke.

Fig 8—Flat versus drooping loading

Fig 6—Comparative radiation pattern. wires.
A Large A-Frame Mast, Inexpensively
A λ/4 vertical is about 70 feet tall on
80 meters, and 130 feet on 160
meters. Getting this height with a
tower can be expensive. I needed
a less-expensive alternative. In the
Pacific Northwest, fir trees with
heights greater than 100 feet are
common, and can usually be pur-
chased locally and inexpensively if
they are not already growing on your
property. In the southeastern US,
there are extensive pine forests
which, while not typically as tall as the
firs, can be used in the same way. I
have many tall Douglas Fir trees on
my property, so I selected three of
them, two with 12-inch diameter
bases and one of about 8 inches. I
trimmed the top off the two larger
trees at a point where they were about
five inches thick. This gave me two
poles approximately 80 feet long.
Since I was only going to support a
wire vertical, I topped the smaller tree
at a point where it was roughly two
inches thick. This gave me a pole 60
feet long. I was trying to have the
cross-sectional area at the top of each
large pole roughly equal to the area at
the base of the smaller pole when
they were overlapped.
The next step was to drag the poles
to the antenna site and assemble the
Fig 9
A-frame shown in Fig 9:
1. I bought a large, used railroad tie
and cut it in half at the middle of its
length. I then buried each half verti- the post and pole butt. I then inserted which would have greatly reduced the
cally with about 18 inches above the a length of 1.5-inch galvanized iron weight.
ground to form a pivot post. I placed water pipe as the shaft for the pivot. I choose not to raise the mast to a
the posts about 10 feet apart. To keep the pipe from slipping out, I vertical position because I wanted the
2. I placed the two large poles, put a pipe cap on each end as a antenna and the loading structures to
side-by-side, midway between the two retainer. stand clear of the mast and any guys.
posts. 6. The next step was to attach two As shown in Fig 9B, I left frame tilted
3. I placed the smaller pole on top halyards (one spare, just in case!) to about 15° from vertical and bent the
of the two large poles—overlapping the top of the mast. I used two small top over like a fishing pole, so it is
by about five feet—and lashed the pulley blocks—the kind typically used even farther out from the base. The
three poles together using #9 galva- on sailboats—and then rove a green pole bent relatively easily, and
nized smooth iron fence wire as length of black, sun-resistant, 3/8-inch the bend became permanent when
indicated in Fig 9C. To begin the lash- Dacron line through each block. The the wood dried out.
ing, I stapled the end of the wire; as I lines were long enough to form a con- I used two wire-cable back-guys,
applied each turn, I tightened it with a tinuous loop reaching the ground, so anchored at the junction of the poles,
claw hammer. After 15 turns or so, I I could hoist or recover the antenna at to hold the mast in place. Although
stapled the free end. will. the weight of the mast makes it un-
4. I then spread the butt ends of the 7. Finally I erected the A frame. In likely it would blow over towards the
large poles out to the pivot posts. [Did my case, I used a nearby tree as a gin guys, I use the spare halyard as a guy
you use a team of mules, or pole (suitably guyed!!) along with from the top of the mast in the oppo-
just your burly “pecs”?—Ed.] This three steel blocks and a long length of site direction to the wire guys. This ar-
spreading tightened the lashings very wire rope. Hoisting power was sup- rangement minimizes conductors in
nicely (!) so that the three poles were plied by a small tractor. I took great the near field of the antenna.
solidly connected. care because of the forces involved. The cost of the entire exercise was
5. I wanted to raise and lower the A The initial lift required a pull of over less than $75, and I expect to get
frame at will and keep the pole ends 1000 pounds and the A frame weighs many years of use from the mast. Of
away from soil contact (rot!). There- over a ton. (Green trees are heavy!) course, I had the trees, the tractor and
fore, I created a pivot at each post by If I were more patient, I could have al- the hoisting tackle, which kept the
drilling a 2-inch-diameter hole through lowed the trees to dry out (months!), cost very low.
Table 1—Antenna Comparison at 3.510 MHz
Antenna h (ft) L1 = L2 (ft) Zmiddle Ω Zend Ω Peak gain (dBi) Peak angle ° Wire loss (dB) 2:1 BW (kHz)
λ/2 137 0 91 >5000 +0.30 16 0.08 270
Lazy-H 120 4.4 96 1096 +0.28 17 0.07 280
Lazy-H 100 10.4 94 384 +0.12 19 0.07 280
Lazy-H 80 17.4 81.3 180 -0.06 20 0.08 260
Lazy-H 69.8 21.6 71.2 127 -0.07 21 0.09 240
Lazy-H 60 26.3 59.7 90.9 -0.15 22 0.10 200
Lazy-H 40 38.3 33.7 40.8 -0.38 24 0.16 140
Lazy-H 30 45.6 21.5 23.8 -0.59 25 0.23 100
λ/4 (2 radials) 69.8 — — 38.8 +0.11 by-0.39 22 0.15 200
λ/4 (4 radials) 69.8 — — 35.7 +0.21 22 0.13 175

More Modeling two different configurations as shown tenna modeling software should be very
In the process of developing this in Fig 8. The modeling shows that the careful when setting up the model and
antenna, a great deal of additional drooping wires must be lengthened to interpreting results.
modeling was performed to explore the achieve resonance, the radiation
effect on performance of different resistance is significantly lower with Acknowledgement
loading arrangements. One of the drooping wires and the far-field pat- In addition to the referenced papers,
more interesting variations was a tern is essentially the same. From a other workers in this field have
symmetrically loaded, two-radial an- practical point of view, the use of pointed out the advantages of the
tenna called a Lazy-H vertical (see drooping wires greatly simplifies the point of view presented here. This idea
Note 6). This antenna is intended to structure, and has very little effect on is certainly not the author’s creation,
be supported between two trees. The the far-field pattern. It may reduce the although I wholeheartedly endorse it.
antenna is identical to that shown in efficiency of the antenna if the radia- Moxon’s work deserves careful read-
Fig 3, except that L1 = L2. Table 1 tion resistance is lowered too much, ing. I am indebted to Dr. L. B. Cebik,
gives a comparison between a full λ/2 however. This is the kind of trade-off W4RNL; Dick Weber, K5IU, and
vertical, a λ/4 ground-plane with two information critical to a new design. Grant Bingeman, KM5KG, for their
and four radials and the Lazy-H with In general, modeling this class of comments and support.
different values of h (height of the antennas shows that peak gain and
vertical portion) varying from 120 peak-gain angle primarily determined
down to 30 feet. Note that the λ/4 by ground characteristics and the Notes
1Brown, Lewis and Epstein, “Ground Sys-
Lazy-H is within 0.3 dB of the four- height of the vertical radiator, h. The
loading means has only a second-order tems as a Factor in Antenna Efficiency,”
radial λ/4 vertical and has greater
IRE Proceedings, June 1937, Vol 25, No.
bandwidth. If two supports are avail- effect on the radiation pattern. A vari- 6, pp 753-787.
able, the Lazy-H is much easier to fab- ety of loading arrangements can sat- 2A. Christman, “Elevated Vertical Antennas
ricate than the four-radial version, isfy a particular situation with little for the Low Bands: Varying the Height and
and has significant size in only two loss of performance—as long as we Number of Radials,” ARRL Antenna Com-
dimensions instead of three. I as- keep the radiation resistance high pendium, Vol 5, 1996, pp 11-18.
3A. Christman, “Elevated Vertical Antenna
sumed #13 copper wire and average enough to control losses.
Systems,” QST, Aug 1988, pp 35-42.
ground for the models. Z end is the im- 4R. Weber, “Optimal Elevated Radial Verti-
pedance at the junction of the vertical Conclusions
cal Antennas,” Communications Quar-
section’s lower end and the lower radi- This article has advocated a different terly, Spring 1997, pp 9-27.
5L. Moxon, “Ground Planes, Radial Systems
als. The bottom of all the antennas is conceptual view of vertical antennas:
assumed 10 feet above ground. They can be viewed as loaded dipoles and Asymmetric Dipoles,” ARRL Antenna
In the 160-meter example given close to ground. Changing the point of Compendium, Vol 3, 1992, pp 19-27.
6R. Severns, “The Lazy-H Vertical Antenna,”
earlier, the top loading structure was view makes it easier to recognize the Communications Quarterly , Spring 1997,
simply a pair of drooping wires led to wide range of options available for con- pp 31-40.
anchor points near ground. The ques- figuring a high-performance vertical to 7J. Belrose, “Elevated Radial Wire Systems
tion arises as to the comparison be- meet the needs of a particular site and For Vertically-Polarized Ground-Plane
tween flat configurations, like that set of limitations. To assess the many Type Antennas,” Part 1, Communications
shown for the Lazy-H and the droop- options, we need the help of software. Quarterly, Winter 1998, pp 29-40; Part 2,
Spring 1998, pp 45-61.
ing-wire alternative. This question Unfortunately, no available software 8D. Weber, “Technical Conversations,”
can be quickly answered by modeling package provides the desired computa- Communications Quarterly , Spring 1998,
an end-loaded dipole in free space with tional capabilities. Users of any an- pp 5-7 and 98-100.