Hi all. my gud Antenna book "Radio Antenna Engneerng" by EDMOUND LAPORT say's a system off 120 radial wires spaced 3 degrees "AND HAVNG A LENGTH OF ABOUT ONE-HALF WAVELENGTH",approaches the conditon
You don't need 120 radials. The optimum radial length is shown on the chart at http://www.w0btu.com/Optimum_number_of_ground_radials_vs_radial_length.html 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _____________________
And whats the data for 120 radiales 1/4 wavelenght each one? I thought best length is 1/4 wl but seems not always. Thanks, Jorge CX6VM/CW5W Enviado desde mi iPad _____________________________________
Perhaps a case of "need" vs. "want." If you want zero db power loss vs. perfect ground, then the far-right column in that chart applies -- which is pretty close to LaPort's finding (.4 vs. .5 wavelen
The link below leads to two graphics showing the __accurately measured__ fields using various numbers of buried radials of 0.274 and 0.412 wavelengths (radial lengths as measured in free space). Thes
Before jumping to the conclusion that miles and miles of copper are needed under a grounded monopole, here's what I think should be inferred from these two graphs: 1. Very, very short verticals (as a
I'm fine with that notion (less is 'ok') but notice that is for radials at ground level or slightly below. Through the efforts of a fellow ham I now have the model for my newest vertical antenna vers
That chart is about as obsolete as a 6V automotive electrical system. The problem with Sevick and others is they do a test in their own back yard with a minimum of test equipment and then rush to see
can never pay too much attention to the ground system.....If you dont want to waste time get an antenna analyzer which will quickly tell you when you have reached the optimum point. And I'll keep re
Just to note that the graphics I linked to were part of the 1937 benchmark experiments and I.R.E. paper of Brown, Lewis & Epstein of RCA Laboratories, and is the basis for the FCC requirements for th
The real problem it seems people can't read the several straightforward factual literature which is out there. If their own situation doesn't exact fit the examples in text it seems to create "angst"
Buds text here is what I mean - these are all the facts anyone needs and this information has been out there for a long while. Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ UR R
Those tending toward such beliefs should be interested in the clip at the link below, as well as the BL&E study linked earlier in this thread. Note the logical conclusions therefrom that the radiatio
What about radials above the ground? Like what I'm planning to install -- base of the vertical at around 5' to 6' above ground and slope all of the radials from that 5' or 6' point down to the ground
N6LF has published extensive work that he did on 40M showing that radials elevated only a feet or so were quite effective, and that a foot higher was better, but close to many radials on the ground.
Gull Winged raised radials cut to resonance seem to be excellent above ground radials- But I am in a small yard, and have my MA160V hooked up to radials going all over the yard, buried, of various le
At my old QTH in ILL, I used a fed tower with 4 elevated radials, they were about 12 foot off the ground, it worked fairly well, but I started adding radials on the ground, as I added radials the fee
I think you missed the parenthetical portion of my sentence: "of REASONABLE electrical length". No argument there. The ground losses and the radiation resistance of the vertical monopole form a volta
Purely on a logical basis there are two factors working against the (sparse) elevated radials on 160 meters vs. 40 meters. First the 160 meter radial system is 1/4 as high in terms of wavelength than