Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters

 To: "David Gilbert" Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters "jeremy-ca" Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:19:06 -0400
 ```----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gilbert" To: "jeremy-ca" Cc: ; "Jim Brown" Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters > > Wrong again, Carl. I've seen it mentioned here several times on this > reflector that radials such a small a percent of a wavelength above > ground really don't act as tuned elevated radials since they couple so > closely to the ground, and that would seem to make intuitive sense. What you really mean is that on this reflector you have read something that happens to agree with your view while dismissing all others. What a great concept. If > you start with radials laying on the ground and closely coupled to it, > then raise them a foot or so off the ground, then raise them some more, > then some more ... the determining factor for when they begin to act > independently of the ground is going to be some function of a wavelength. The ONLY determining factor is the field strength at x wavelengths if doing an A-B comparison between on ground and at some elevated distance. However, unless you spend all of your time on 160M AM or SSB ragchewing with locals, the radiation at 0 to maybe 10 degrees is meaningless. I suggest that you study ON4UN's book (The 4th Edition is the latest) as well as other writings that detail the angles necessary for DX work and why an obsession with installing a perfect ground is a waste of time. Carl KM1H > Dave AB7E > > > > jeremy-ca wrote: >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 [TowerTalk] Ground Conductivity - Was:Re: Inverted L for 160 meters, (continued) [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