[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)

To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)
From: John Graves <jh.graves@verizon.net>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 16:20:56 -0500
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
  I have had until recently, an R7 that worked almost anywhere I wanted 
to try, but if you want to talk 1.4 wave verticals, I would thing you 
want to start with Severns article in QST  (In 2000).  Also wasn't there 
an earlier article recarding vertical ground systems by Sommers or 
Somers?  Anyway, The conclusion I drew from them is that traditional 
ground systems are fine but if you are going to compromise, then a lot 
of short radials are better than a few long ones.  I can't remember the 
author but there was another article (maybe by one of the two authors I 
cited)  that claimed the big exception is for elevated radials.  The 
article claimed (as I recall) that 4 elevated radials performed as well 
as 32 ground radials.  In either case, it sounds as though there are 
several options available to us vertical users that make for a better 
than average antenna system

John -- WA1JG


On 1/5/2011 12:42 PM, Richards wrote:
> There is a question or two on the Extra Class Exam
> that makes the same point.   You add ground radials to
> to a quarter wave vertical antenna to increase low radiation
> angle.   Gordon West says so on his audio discs....    ;-)
> =================  JHR  ===================
> On 1/5/2011 12:09 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
>> Hi Rick,
>> I'll have to review this, maybe I am suffering from a false memory, or
>> an accurate memory of false information. I thought that a poor
>> counterpoise under a vertical reduced the overall efficiency AND had a
>> negative effect on the pattern diminishing the low angle radiation more
>> than the higher angle radiation. N6LF's studies may help clear it up.
>>> The number of radials won't really affect the angle of radiation.
>>> With a poor ground, you will still have a low take-off angle; you'll just
>>> had a heck of a lot of ground losses.
> ================================================
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
TenTec mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>