[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'" <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)
From: "Rick - NJ0IP / DJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 16:43:18 -0500
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
That excellent (long) article was in QEX, but for us non-engineer guys,
there was an excellent shortened article published in QST last year.

I had always heard that elevated radials enabled you to get good results
with far less.
That article was the first time I read something concrete about it.

Since most of my operations in my life have been portable, I'm not much of a
fan of any type of radial.
They are OK for long term use, but for temporary installations, NOT.
That's why I chose the vertical dipole as portable antenna of choice.  It
needs NO radials!
Even when shortened considerably, it will outperform the normal quarter wave
and especially trap vertical unless they have at least 16 radials (or 4
elevated) PER BAND.  What a mess!

However, if I ever finally reach what I consider to be a long-term QTH, I
will install a 40m quarter wave vertical and as many ground mounted radials
as possible.  They will be about 5 or 6 meters long, each.  For single band
and long term, it is a better solution.


-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of John Graves
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 4:21 PM
To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)

  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
>>> 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

TenTec mailing list

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