HAHA,
Yesterday I received an email from a "new" general class that just upgraded
from tech. He has been trying to work stations using a slinky antenna in
his attack but didn't have any luck at all. I gave him a Hustler 4BTV
vertical. He put it up in his back yard on a post with no radials. Turned
on his FT897 and proceeded to work Germany on 40 SSB. The fella is very
excited and thrilled about his DX performance on his first attempt at HF.
He doesn't know anything about near field or far field radials systems and
he is haveing a blast on HF with the vertical that radiates equally poorly
in all directions.
Have Fun,
dave
wa3gin
Performance is in the eye of the beholder.
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Duffey" <JamesDuffey@comcast.net>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Cc: <k5uj@hotmail.com>; "James Duffey" <JamesDuffey@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 10:14 AM
Subject: [TowerTalk] Radials - What is the big deal?
> Rob - I share your concern with QST's cavalier attitude toward
> radials. The real problem with statements such as those in the
> February QST:
>
> "For verticlal radiators (including slopers), lay out radials if you
> can --
> one or more of any length and configuration. Don't be discouraged if
> you
> hear that anything less than (take your pick: 25, 50, 120 and such)
> will be
> useless. Baloney,! Try whatever you can --- even none!"
>
> is that they encourage hams, particularly new ones, to put up
> antennas without thinking about how they work or about their overall
> performance.
>
> And this is particularly bad with verticals, where enough silicon oil
> has already been spread.
>
> I can't imagine giving advice to try a vertical without some thought
> to radials. There is a noticeable improvement in even adding a single
> radial to a groiund rod only sustem. The ham that uses 4 quarter wave
> radials would be much better off putting that 1 wavelength of wire
> down as 10 one tenth wave radials.
>
> To encourage this cavalier attitude as to the role of radials in a
> vertical antenna essentially says that we should ignore half of the
> antenna system. I don't suppose that QST would publish an article on
> how to build a dipole where only one side of the dipole needed to be
> measured accurately. Yet they accept that kind of thinking for
> vertical antennas.
>
> The role that radials play in vertical antennas is not a difficult
> concept to grasp and it could be relayed in a paragraph or two. Once
> one understands that the ground and hence the radials are actually
> part of the antenna and contribute to teh overall antenna efficiency,
> one has a much better idea of the importance of the ground and what
> to use for radials. If the author did not want to address these
> issues he could point to several useful references that have been
> published in QST over the years. - Dr. Megacycle KK6MC/5
> --
> James Duffey KK6MC/5
> Cedar Crest NM 87008
> DM65
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|