Community Forums

Hiper V vs Hiper V+...
 
Share:

Hiper V vs Hiper V+10 antenna model with OPUS  

Page 3 / 4

leegreen
Posts: 1685
Member
(@leegreen)
1,000+ posts
Joined: 8 years ago

I have successfully sent hundreds of static files from the Hiper-V to OPUS. Never tried the 100mm adapter with OPUS. If you are using the adapter, just apply the correction in your antenna height.

Reply
2 Replies
standing on the corner
(@standing-on-the-corner)
Joined: 5 years ago

50+ posts
Posts: 68

negative. this is incorrect and will produce an error of 5 cm.

Reply
Aaron K Burns
Member
(@aaron-k-burns)
Joined: 2 years ago

20+ posts
Posts: 22

I'm really glad I was barking up the right tree.

So NGS confirmed the Hiper V 100mm adapter causes the antenna phase center to be different. Which like you said, cannot be made up with just the HI measurement alone...if you are using the adapter you have to select that antenna configuration in OPUS.

Did you say you were going to run a static at 2m Hiper V and a static with the Hiper V +10cm adapter on the same point as a proof of concept?

Reply
David Livingstone
Posts: 939
(@david-livingstone)
500+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

Causes the phase center to be different?  I'm sorry, this doesn't make any sense to me, it seems that it would make it exactly 10cm higher.  You are still suppose to measure to the bottom of the mount.  The entire thing doesn't make sense to me but maybe I'm missing something obvious.  I've never used the little 10cm pole so its a moot point to me I guess.

Reply
1 Reply
standing on the corner
(@standing-on-the-corner)
Joined: 5 years ago

50+ posts
Posts: 68

I was at a loss as well.

Fact-

2.100 m input height using 2.000 m tripod, the .100 m adapter and the hyper_v model will produce a solution 0.052 m different than-

2.000 m input height using 2.000 m tripod, the .100 m adapter and the hyper_v+10 model.

 

I thought a ground plane type antenna would negate anything happening under the antenna but that is NOT the case.

NGS has checked their models and believe them to be correct. "I tested the calibrations in OPUS using two sets of the original test data, which had been collected both with and without the standoff [.100 m adapter].  When processing data collected with the standoff in place, I used TPSHIPER_V+10 with a zero (in my case) antenna height [concrete pier].  Conversely, when using data without the standoff, TPSHIPER_V was chosen, again with a zero antenna height."

They attribute this difference to near-field multipath. see attached file.

 

How do you mount the antenna on a tripod with the rtk radio attached, and NOT use the .100 adapter??

 

 

Reply
Bill93
Posts: 5524
Member
(@bill93)
5,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

If the 10 cm adapter has that much effect on this antenna, how much variation are we getting with other antenna models as they are mounted on a metal tripod vs fiberglass tripod vs fiberglass pole vs metal pole?

Makes me glad I used the old ground plane antenna 14532.00 for all my GPSonBM submissions.  That should be less susceptible to what is underneath.

Reply
1 Reply
standing on the corner
(@standing-on-the-corner)
Joined: 5 years ago

50+ posts
Posts: 68

I have a question into NGS asking for which model they recommend for a 2m carbon fiber rod.  No response yet.

 

Reply
GeeOddMike
Posts: 936
Member
(@geeoddmike)
500+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

The assumption that the two antennas are the same seems incorrect given that they have different part numbers. Why would a different part number be assigned to a unit that only differed by a 10-cm rod?

Attached are the graphics associated with the antenna phase model. While externally they look identical, the internals probably do not. I also attach an extract from an old OPUS static extended solution showing exactly how the tool determines antenna height wrt phase centers.

FWIW: On a related matter, years ago there was a problem due to an antenna manufacturer’s attempt to fix a problem with their unit. It involved a physical change to the antenna’s internals. It was impossible to determine which of the models had the change by external examination. The only way to tell which units had the change was to do so via the serial number. In this case the manufacturer’s  model number was not changed to reflect the modification. 

31DCFD28 CE41 43BA B2F8 4B200D2D5A6F
0F37AC8F DF60 4129 A67B DC9C465B51A0

8453587B D860 4FE3 A527 3FDB0827802B

Reply
1 Reply
Aaron K Burns
Member
(@aaron-k-burns)
Joined: 2 years ago

20+ posts
Posts: 22

I think the whole difference in the phase center is that the adapter is not under the antenna...it's right beside it. Wasn't the Hiper V the first Topcon GPS to have the antenna mounted on the bottom of the unit? I always assumed so that they wouldn't break as much as when they were mounted on the top like the Hiper Lite or GA. Below is a picture of the Hiper V antenna:

https://www.benchmarksupply.com/topcon-hiper-v.html

Also, the ref measurement is to the bottom of the adapter and not the bottom of the mount??? Was that diagram taken from NGS as well GeeOddMike? Are the part numbers because there are some Hiper Vs that did not have the bottom antenna mount?

Reply
GeeOddMike
Posts: 936
Member
(@geeoddmike)
500+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

3168A222 DDE7 4D95 81E7 22A8ACB71021

From the antenna calibrations link on the NGS home page choose browse by manufacturer.

The antenna drawings are from this page. The “spacer” appears centered not offset.

 

 

Reply
Page 3 / 4