0
\$\begingroup\$

On many antenna product sheets the H-plane and E-plane angles are given. On some data sheets you can find the diagrams for aformentioned planes.

Are these values the same as where manufacturers define the azimuth and elevation diagrams, so one can figure out the coverage area or are these two definitions unrelated?

I.e. Is H-plane == azimuth? and E-plane == elevation? Or more accurate, can H-plane and E-plane diagrams be used for coverage computation?

See for e.g this, no info is given regarding azimuth or elevation.

Tnx

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ H plane is to do with the magnetic field and E plane is to do with the electric field generated. Maybe you should link to a data sheet if you are not 100% happy about the offerings so far. \$\endgroup\$ – Andy aka Feb 22 '16 at 18:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes I know H->magn E>electr. Hence my question whether they can be regarded as azimuth and elevation respectively. E.g one omni directional tetra antenna for ceiling mounting states the two H-plane and E-plan diagrams so I wanted to see if that corresponds to azimuth and elevation so I can compute the coverage area \$\endgroup\$ – niCk cAMel Feb 22 '16 at 18:40
0
\$\begingroup\$

The azimuth and elevation spherical coordinates are a mean to define a direction in a three-dimensional space. How you define which angle is the azimuth and which angle is the elevation is up to you. It's like setting up a (x,y,z) coordinates referential

Azimuth/Elevation diagrams shows the antenna's gain along those directions. Sometimes, we talk in E-plane and H-plane but those are different definitions, which are totally dependent on how the antenna is polarized. They can be related to azimuth/elevation, but the convention that links the two is author-dependent.

Example : A dipole antenna E-plane would be the one including the antenna itself while the H-plane would be the one perpendicular to it, like in : enter image description here

In your example datasheet, we have the following information about the E-field :

Polarization : vertical

Which indicates than the E-field lines are contained in vertical planes (containing the antennas vertical axis). Therefore, you can safely assume that the E-plane was chosen arbitrarily among the infinity of possible choices (every plane coplanar to a E-field line is a E-plane) and the H-plane was defined as its perpendicular plane. Both elevation and azimuth are defined in an implicit maner, but common sense would recommend elevation for E-plane and azimuth for H-plane, in this particular example. datasheet example

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ok, so as long as one keeps the "azimuth" and "elevation" in reference to the antenna (and not earth's horisontal plane), in plane text H=azimuth and E=elevation? \$\endgroup\$ – niCk cAMel Feb 22 '16 at 15:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ It depends on how it is defined on the diagrams. For example on my dipole antenna diagram, I could say elevation describes the angle along E-plane and azimuth along H-plane, but I am totally free do to the contrary so it depends on how the person that makes the diagram want's to do it. It's like setting up a (x,y,z) coordinates referential in a 3D space. However, "E-plane" and "H-plane" are totally antenna-dependent definitions. \$\endgroup\$ – MaximGi Feb 22 '16 at 15:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ Right. I'm interested in omni directional antennas, so I guess that is more straight forward. If most of the power is directed in 0 angle in the E-plane diagram, I can assume that it means in front of the antenna and elevation. And since H-plane diagram is more or less symmetrical, I assume it's the horizontal plane and azimuth. \$\endgroup\$ – niCk cAMel Feb 22 '16 at 15:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ sorry but I don't understand your comment... \$\endgroup\$ – MaximGi Feb 22 '16 at 16:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ As in my comment to @Andy aka I've found an omni directional antenna for ceiling mount and the product sheet only gives two diagrams 1 H-plane and 1 E-plane, not mentioning azimuth or elevation. My point was that in this case maybe it is obvious that they translate to azimuth and elevation!? \$\endgroup\$ – niCk cAMel Feb 22 '16 at 18:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.