I have hesitated to jump in here to relate my own personal experience since it
flies in the face of accepted theory. Further, I have no objective
measurements to support my observations. The only thing I can offer is my own
observations based on 52 years of operating. Pete's last sentence," if you
have good ground conductivity, a relatively sparse radial field can work better
than a really extensive radial field on lousy ground" is what prompted me to
stick my head on the block.At one time I had as many as 30 full size radials
attached to my 160 meter shunted tower but over the years attrition eg.,mowers,
animals and nature have reduced this to a motley mess of 2 or 3 radials and
various pieces of copper wire strewn randomly around the area under the tower.
My results have been far better than I would ever expect based on physics but
the fact remains on a comparative basis it gets out very well. If it didn't do
that well I would probably get off my butt and lay some radia
ls but don't see the need right now. My reason for mentioning this to
encourage others that may not have the possibility of a having a good
theoretical radial field to jump in and give it a shot. You may be surprised.
73,Howard..K2HK
> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 07:11:01 -0500
> From: n4zr@contesting.com
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Elevated Radials
>
> The other rule that seems to apply, based on a number of pretty serious
> articles, including K3LC's NCJ series in the mid-2000s,is "they that
> has, gets." By which I mean, if you have good ground conductivity, a
> relatively sparse radial field can work better than a really extensive
> radial field on lousy ground.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
_________________
Topband Reflector
|