[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Radials

To: "mryan001" <>,
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Radials
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:35:14 -0400
List-post: <>
I have seen many 'posts' about the size of the radials.

But, I stand behind my results at 3 different QTHs (two in NY, one in Iowa).  I 
count results as being able 
to consistently work DX!  

The only successful verticals that I ever tried was the coaxial inverted Ls.  
(My only other attempt at a 
vertical was with a Gotham gutless wonder back in the later 1970s and that was 
a miserable failure.)

I now have 93 countries confirmed on 160M (about 45 have been since last 
September).  Already have 
DXCC on 80 amd 40 from using these antennnas in the past.

These antennas work consistently and each has started to work with only 3 or 
radials (if the radials are of 
a larger diameter).  They even 'hear' decently.  At my previous QTHs I only 
went to a max of about 15-20 
radials on each.  I went with 60 at this QTH since I was using the COMTEK 
phasing system and there 
recommendation was to go with 60 or more.  (My previous QTHs, I used delay 
lines for the phasing).

My experience with number 30 wire for radials was a disaster.  I did my usual 
bit of installing 3 or 4 and 
then checked both the SWR and reception (this was on 40M).  10 to 1 SWR and a 
very quiet receiver.  As 
I added more radials I could see the SWR very slowly dropping and after about 
30 the SWR was less than 
2 to 1 and the receiver 'woke' up.  I quit at 40 with the results being 
satisfactory and I was getting tired 
since the antenna was in the middle of a raspberry patch and the thorns were 
getting to me!

I never went back to the number 30 after that.  In fact, I found a decent sized 
piece of copper window 
screening and made a 20M inverted L with the antenna in the center of the 
screen (about 30 inches by 
maybe 40 feet).  Antenna worked very well!

   -- Bruce

On 30 Mar 2007 at 9:51, mryan001 wrote:

> Bruce, I have seen others write about using various sizes (gauges) of
> wire for radials. From what I have read and seen larger conductors
> appear to be a waste.  Very small gauge wire is as good within reason,
> if longevity is a concern. A good radial system is considered to be
> one that raises the efficiency of the antenna.  More info on the
> subject is clearly written on the Butternut site.  For those
> interested : //     At the bottom of
> the page click on "Why Radials?".  Comments on the 'size' of wire
> found here. Also look at "Dirty Little Secrets 1". Very
> enlightening...    - Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:00 AM To: Steve and Judy;
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Radials
> I have used old coax for radials.  at the connection point to the
> vertical, I short the inner conductor to the shield.  Works great.
> I have experiemented with using different types of wire for radials
> and found that the larger the diameter of the radial wire, the better
> the antenna performed, especially when the number of radials was less
> than 10 or so.  (When I put up my first 75M coaxial inverted L at this
> QTH I had 4 radials, all of which were either RG8x or RG6.  My first
> QSO was with a VK6 about an hour before sunset (I am in eastern New
> York state!)
> My worst radials were number 28 or 30 wire.  Took about 40 radials
> before the antenna started to 'play'. That was many years ago and I
> will never again use any wire smaller than #18 for radials.
> Good luck.  The RG213 will work great.
>    -- Bruce
> On 30 Mar 2007 at 10:23, Steve and Judy wrote:
> > Hello All, has anyone ever used old RG213 coax as radials.
> > If so what were the results ?
> >
> > Thanks for any replies.
> >
> > 73  Steve, ZC4Li    etc.
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list


TowerTalk mailing list

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