N4UM had explained here to "Tom" that instead of using a longer
radiator for a 160m inverted-L (then tuning out the inductive
reactance with a series cap) he increases the length of the radials
I had asked "Presumably this is with elevated radials?", to which
>I don't see where what you've quoted has anything to do with whether
>the radials are elevated or not. And it is VERY tough to get radials
>high enough to have the advantage of elevated radials on 160M -- the
>literature says at least 1/8 wavelength above earth, which is 20M.
>Maybe at your QTH, but not at mine. :^)
N4UM did not say whether the radials were elevated or not, which
is why I asked, stating my ignorance for all to see by saying I
thought radial length on the ground had more to do with providing
a return than establishing resonance.
Hence the hope that N4UM might clarify his post, as what he
is saying, I suspect, one will find to contradict pretty much
all existing literature on the subject.
As for how well verticals "play" - which is not what was being
discussed - our experience here is that 160m verticals with
elevated radials in the area of 1/20-wave up (in my case,
starting at 1/20-wave & descending to about 1/100-wave) do
quite well - the often repeated "ground-mounted verticals are
superior to elevated verticals" claim appears to completely
disregard ground clutter... which simply driving around
listening to MW tends to support. Perhaps if like those who
have more open space & buildings not made of reinforced
concrete & other far-from-RF-transparent objects are not so
prevalent, then those of us here who are active on the low bands
would not think that ground-mounted verticals are the worst
possible thing someone could use.
Especially when you apparently have to trim all those bloody
radial wires in order to tune one. ;^)
TowerTalk mailing list