Sorry, have a misconstrued topic sentence below, probably from not finishing
an edit of the sentence from a double negative. You can see that the topic
sentence is at odds with the details. Thanks to KM1H for pointing out the
error.
Should start with:
Particularly for the very minimal radial systems some are forced to live
with, having high angle radiation may actually be a considerable advantage.
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>wrote:
> Particularly for the very minimal radial systems some are forced to live
> with, not having high angle radiation may actually be a considerable
> advantage.
>
> If one does not have "dense" and uniform radials the ground field
> cancellation advantage of radials is lost, and having a low current center
> on the vertical section now is a lossy issue. The max would be right at the
> grass or at the base of elevated radials, basically as low as you can get.
> Since for many this ground cancellation advantage cannot be had on their
> property, the next best thing is to get as much current center as far UP on
> the vertical wire as is possible. My current center is between 70 and 90
> feet up on the wire and the horizontal is 105 feet.
>
> My driveway bisecting the area under the only plausible wire location would
> not have allowed a "T," but reflection on the issues says I'm better off
> with the L.
>
> Given how lossy some grounds can be, and with less than dense and uniform
> radials, for a given installation a "short" T may simply be *throwing away*
> the energy not radiated at horizontal angles. Remember that the
> horizontally polarized radiation is not subject to the horrendous ground
> losses of vertical polarization.
>
> With vertical antennas on 160, the five ton elephant in the room is what
> one is doing about ground losses. Everything else is yippy puppies. Unless
> one has an excellent radial system, reducing ground losses is about the only
> significant question.
>
> 73, Guy.
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 8:55 PM, ZR <zr@jeremy.mv.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "ZR" <zr@jeremy.mv.com>
>> To: "Jim Bennett" <w6jhb@mac.com>; <topband@contesting.com>
>> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:49 AM
>> Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Capacitor for Inverted L
>>
>>
>> I dont understand the sudden urge or desire of some to suppress all high
>> angle radiation
>> from an inverted L. It is well established that even a low horizontal
>> dipole
>> can work amazing amounts of DX on 160 when conditions allow and having
>> both
>> possibilities present in the L is a benefit.
>>
>> Carl
>> KM1H
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|