----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Brown" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:57:45 -0400, jeremy-ca wrote:
>>With 32 radials 12' high I never waited in pileups very long.
> What you have is a conventional radial system that happens to be 12 ft
> off the ground. My 160 vertical currently has 40 radials that are 70 ft
> long, and it works fairly well too. A true elevated radial system can be
> effective with as few as four radials.
A tree can be effective as an antenna also. It all depends upon what level
of efficiency you are happy with.
What you are talking about is called a ground plane and has been around
since the 30's. The original concept was to have the base at least 1/4 above
> There's nothing WRONG with having radials 12 ft off the ground on 160,
> but they are not "elevated" radials, they act just like they were laying
> on the ground, because AS A FRACTION OF A WAVELENGTH, they are nearly on
> the ground.
Yes they are elevated radials, you are the only one Ive heard of that thinks
>>Belrose and others have published also and believe that 12' is adequate
>>on 160 in many cases.
> I've read some pieces by Belrose and by the late Carl Smith on the
> subject, none of which say that 12 ft high radials can be considered
> "elevated" on 160.
Elevated & raised are terms that are interchanged. I wouldnt expect someone
of Belrose's stature to set an exact height as a golden rule.
>>BC band engineers have proven that an elevated
>>system delivers the same field strength OR BETTER than a classic 128
>>buried radials at the same site.
> Perhaps you might cite the specific references in the literature that
> say that. The ones I've read don't say that.
I guess you can find them the same way I did; try Google. I'll even give you
a couple of key words to assist. Elevated Radials; Unipole; Folded Unipole;
Broadcast Antennas to name a few.
> Jim Brown K9YC
> TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk mailing list