At P40W I use a vertical dipole. The big advantage - no ground system required. An 80/160 version of the antenna is described at http://www.yccc.org/Articles/double_l.htm I have just installed a stan
It is often said that no radials are required for vertical dipoles. If the criterion is simply the ability to make QSOs, then the statement is correct. However, it is also true that vertical dipoles
I've seen this warning many times, but when I actually compared a half wave vertical with no radials to a quarter wave vertical with 32 radials, the difference was too close to measure (ie less than
On the other hand, NBS had to install radials under the half wave verticals (center fed) at WWVH. There was too much ground loss without the radials. 73, ... Joe, K4IK ______________________________
Thanks for that info, Rick. Measurements are hard to argue with. And your results make sense. small points the current induced by the E field diminishes as the square of the distance between the cha
compared a half with less we can't Still, it "Less than 3dB" can't be considered high loss? 1 dB is huge when signals are near noise floor. series of heights and Why would we use NEC-2 to predict a
This comparison is dependent on the quality of the ground under and around the antennas. Up to half of the far field signal strength is derived from the ground reflected wave. If no ground radials a
Larry Higgins said: However, it is also true that vertical dipoles do induce current in the ground, and the energy transferred to ground comes from the transmitter. I've seen this warning many times,
Up to half of the far field signal strength is derived from the ground reflected wave.>> It seems to me if you are talking only about reflection gain it's roughly 6dB, not 3dB. That's a 4:1 power rat