On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:26:26 -0700, KF6PYF@blaze1024.com wrote:
>Ground mounting has become popular not because it works better but
>because DX engineering sells all sorts of neat accessory's to
>in ground mounting.
W8JI has correctly identified the issues with respect to elevated
and ground mounting. It's highly dependent on clutter around the
antenna, losses in the ground system, the operating frequency, and
what terrain does to vertical angle.
At my present QTH in CA, a ground mounted, top-loaded vertical with
40 radials 70 ft long works VERY well on 80 and 160. But a ground-
mounted quarter wave vertical for 40 meters with that same radial
system works very poorly. As Tom has suggested, my judgments as to
what works and what doesn't are based on actively switching during
contests between these antennas and high dipoles. When an antenna
is working well, the differences between it and a reference will
vary depending on what vertical angles are propagating between you
and the other station, and which antenna has the advantage will
vary from hour to hour, and from one distant QTH to another, so you
need a lot of observation to make a good evaluation.
Before making the sweeping judgement you've stated here, I suggest
a serious study of relevant sections of the ARRL Antenna Book.
Jim Brown K9YC
TowerTalk mailing list