Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters

 To: "Jim Brown" , Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters "jeremy-ca" Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:07:58 -0400
 ```----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Brown" To: 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 ground. > > 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 otherwise. > >>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. Carl KM1H > > 73, > > Jim Brown K9YC > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > _______________________________________________ > TowerTalk mailing list > TowerTalk@contesting.com > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk ```
 Current Thread Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters, (continued) Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters, jeremy-ca Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters, Ken Bessler [TowerTalk] Ground Conductivity - Was:Re: Inverted L for 160 meters, Pete Smith Re: [TowerTalk] Ground Conductivity - Was:Re: Inverted L for 160meters, Dan Zimmerman N3OX Re: [TowerTalk] Ground Conductivity - Was:Re: Inverted L for 160meters, Joe Giacobello Re: [TowerTalk] Ground Conductivity - Was:Re: Inverted L for 160meters, Ken Bessler Re: [TowerTalk] Ground Conductivity - Was:Re: Inverted L for 160meters, Jim Lux Re: [TowerTalk] Ground Conductivity - Was:Re: Inverted L for 160meters, jeremy-ca Re: [TowerTalk] ground conductivity chart, David Thompson Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters, Jim Brown Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters, jeremy-ca <= Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters, David Gilbert Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters, jeremy-ca Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters, David Gilbert Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters, David Gilbert Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters, jeremy-ca Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters, Jim McLaughlin Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters, jeremy-ca Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 Meters, VR2BrettGraham Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 Meters, John/K4WJ