Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Radials\s+vs\s+vertical\s+height\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Radials vs vertical height (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 18:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
The importance of radials all depends on vertical height. If you can't put out much in the way of radials, you can still get excellent results by making your vertical longer than 1/4 wavelength and/o
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-04/msg00045.html (8,027 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Radials vs vertical height (score: 1)
Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:43:51 -0400
Good points Rick, That's why many people have good success with the inverted L. If it is made longer than a quarter wave length the radiation resistance rises and a good ground becomes less importan
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-04/msg00046.html (8,826 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Radials vs vertical height (score: 1)
Author: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:02:39 -0700
If you model an inverted L, you will find that add the horizontal portion does nothing for low angle vertically polarized radiation. It only produces useless high angle horizontally polarized radiat
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-04/msg00047.html (7,782 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Radials vs vertical height (score: 1)
Author: "Dan Zimmerman N3OX" <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:14:03 -0400
Yep, my 60 footer kicks butt on 40m. Probably would with just a ground rod, too, You buy an HF2V and you put it over a ground rod and you're going to have a miserable signal. You put up a resonant i
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-04/msg00048.html (9,353 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Radials vs vertical height (score: 1)
Author: k3bu@optonline.net
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 03:22:33 +0000 (GMT)
If installed over salty marsh. Ever tried to model or compare any vertical over average and "perfect" sea ground and see the gain at LOW angles? The higher and larger the current carrying portion of
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-04/msg00049.html (8,772 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Radials vs vertical height (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:42:17 -0700
A more accurate statement would be that the performance starts to be determined more by the far field ground properties, which, with a vertically polarized antenna, are pretty important to overall pe
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-04/msg00050.html (9,538 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Radials vs vertical height (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:45:23 -0700
kind of depends on where the feedline exterior choke is... if you put the choke at the transmitter, you'd have at least one radial... the outside of the coax. Holy cow.. is he living in a perptually
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-04/msg00051.html (9,439 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Radials vs vertical height (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:09:49 -0700
Yes. It is VERY well known (that is, long ago proven science) that radials affect the EFFICIENCY of a vertical, while the ground in the far field determines the vertical radiation pattern, especially
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-04/msg00053.html (8,684 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] Radials vs vertical height (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:53:51 -0700
That they are (frustratingly so, if you're trying to get good performance from small vertically polarized antenns). Having gone back and looked at them, what's kind of missing from the discussion is
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-04/msg00054.html (10,014 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] Radials vs vertical height (score: 1)
Author: "David Thompson" <thompson@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 01:59:23 -0400
Go to the W4RNL web page on antennas and read about half wave vertical dipoles elevated above ground and see his studies with and without radials. The half wave inverted L is another good elevated pe
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-04/msg00055.html (8,690 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] Radials vs vertical height (score: 1)
Author: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <kn4lf@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:43:07 -0400
The half wave inverted L is another good elevated performer sans radials. Just bring the feedline at right angles to the L. (as close as possible) I am wondering why hams like AA4NN get good results
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-04/msg00071.html (9,250 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] Radials vs vertical height (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 16:32:57 -0400
While that may help somewhat, it is not a cure-all. WWVH had to put radial fields under their VERTICAL DIPOLES (bottom ends a foot or two above ground) because of the ground losses from coupling hig
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-04/msg00078.html (10,064 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu