Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Topband: Elevated Linear Counterpoise vs. Elevated Folded Counterpoise (

To: <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Topband: Elevated Linear Counterpoise vs. Elevated Folded Counterpoise (FCP)
From: "Richard Fry" <rfry@adams.net>
Reply-to: Richard Fry <rfry@adams.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:04:17 -0500
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>
A certain Topband poster apparently originated and supports driving a 160m vertical monopole against an elevated, folded counterpoise ("FCP") in situations where dense and uniform buried radials are deemed impractical/undesirable/unnecessary.

Recently this same proponent posted this exchange in a Topband thread:

(B) What is the "ideal" number of elevated radials that one should use...?

Somewhere between 16 and 32 it gets hard to see any further change. For commonly achievable 160m heights of radials, the degree of change depends some on height and more on quality of ground.

Later posts on Topband with links to real-world systems and NEC4 calculations showed that driving a monopole against just four 1/4-wave, elevated radials produces close to 100% radiation efficiency, regardless of earth conductivity in a horizontal radius of 1/2-wavelength from the base of the monopole.

Here is a clip of one web post I saw from this proponent describing the physical layout of an FCP for 160m:

Counting FCP segments 1 through 5. 33 feet per segment. Directions used are for illustration only.

1: center to 33 feet east
2: 33 feet east back to center
3: center to 33 feet west
4: 33 feet west back to center
5: center to 33 feet east and end insulator.

The description seems to define a single conductor zig-zagging back and forth roughly along the same linear axis.

So the question becomes, does a single elevated "FCP" (folded) radial configured in a zig-zag physical form enable the same antenna system radiation efficiency as if such a conductor/conductors are linear, and which according to this proponent need at least 16 such linear conductors for system performance approaching 100% radiation efficiency?

Also, are there any scientifically valid proofs/measurements that the radiated fields of a real-world monopole system when using an FCP of this description will equal, or even approach the efficiency of that monopole when driven against just 4 x 1/4-wave horizontal radials installed at the same elevation, at physical intervals of 90 degrees?

Clarifications/comments gratefully sought.

RF
_________________
Topband Reflector

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Topband: Elevated Linear Counterpoise vs. Elevated Folded Counterpoise (FCP), Richard Fry <=