Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: Trees and RF

To: topband List <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Trees and RF
From: Gary and Kathleen Pearse <pearse@gci.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:33:39 -0900
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>
Earlier in this thread:
>>
>> Folks with a better understanding of the reasons for the frequency
>> excursion might offer an explanation. I just vary the vertical wire
>> length to fix and live with the required adjustment.
>>
>> 73, Gary NL7Y
>
> I may not have a better understanding but I lived about 20 miles
> from Gary's qth with a full size quarter wave vertical for 160
> that did the same thing. Adding more radials stopped it and the
> antenna was stable summer and winter. I believe it has nothing
> to do with the trees but ground soil conductivity or lack of
> same.
>
> 73 Rich KL7RA

Thanks for the reply Rich. I agree with the changing ground  
conductivity on a seasonal basis, such as ground conductivity is in  
Interior Alaska = poor at best I believe. But that doesn't explain  
the short-lived phenomenon of resonance shift down and back I saw  
during last January's brief above-ground thaw. The ground never  
warmed sufficiently to the change conductivity in a few of days, but  
the supporting tree apparently did.

It's simply not worth erecting a permanent fix here like you had  
nearby. The resonance shift happens with my tree-hugging wire and I  
compensate. It took me 5 minutes tonight to go from 1.840 to 1.825  
via a longer vertical. If sufficient radials were ground mounted  
under a steel tower it may never change for the reasons you noted.

73, Gary NL7Y
>
> _______________________________________________
> 160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. -  
> TF4M

_______________________________________________
160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>