Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] radial lengths ...

To: "StellarCAT" <rxdesign@ssvecnet.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] radial lengths ...
From: "John Santillo N2HMM" <n2hmm@warwick.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:41:49 -0500 (EST)
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Depending on the conductivity of the earth the VF will change the length
of the radials.  Poor soil has a VF of ~72%.  My soil is very poor!

What I did with my Inverted-L is I put down 32 x 1/4 wavelength (~130
feet) long radials in close to circular pattern around the feed point. 
Then I put down an additional 8 radials ~40 feet long to help with the
near-field currents in an attempt to increase the radiated energy.  As I
was putting down the radials i could see the impedance of the antenna go
from ~75 ohms to ~32 ohms which is what I was hoping for.

I'm pleased with the performance and it's the best I can do with the
topography of the yard and the height of the trees.


73,

John
N2HMM



> For the â??expertsâ?? out there ...
>
> So question.... in ON4UNâ??s book it is stated in abundance that one
> should use typically 0.25 wl radials... the length of course varies with
> the properties of the earth and the desired end results but somewhere
> around 32 1/4 wave radials seems to be within about 1 db of 100+ of the
> same length ...
>
> but he also states, kind of â??on the sideâ?? in one sections only (it
> seems) due to the velocity factor attributed to the earth that 1/4 wave is
> actually physically only 0.14 waves in length!
>
> So which is it â?? when it is stated 32 1/4 wave is that physically 1/4
> wave or is it physically say 1/7th wave (and still electrically 1/4
> wave)?!
>
> so for example on a 160 meter vertical are we looking at 32 ~130â??
> radials or more like 75â?? radials (with the end of each of those not
> having enough current in them to contribute appreciatively to the current
> distribution)... ?
>
> I know most will respond with 1/4 wave.... but Iâ??d bet most would be
> going by the generic statements of â??1/4 wave radials for verticalsâ??...
> if indeed the VF makes going beyond about 1/6th wave of very little value
> (again talking about 32 radials here â?? not 120) ... then why go through
> the effort?
>
> if this is (more) clearly stated in Johnâ??s book please let me know
> where.
>
> Gary
> K9RX
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [TowerTalk] radial lengths ..., John Santillo N2HMM <=