Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: Ground Radials & Multi-Element Antennas

To: "shristov" <shristov@ptt.rs>, <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Ground Radials & Multi-Element Antennas
From: "Dan Kovatch" <w8car@buckeye-express.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:54:23 -0500
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>
If the purpose of ground radials is to reduce ground loss then it stands to 
reason that more is better. I have always tied ground radial systems 
together and there IS evidence to support this in lessing loss. How much 
more is the question-in most cases not much is gained. If you are talking 
elevated radials that is a whole other can of worms.

FWIW

Dan W8CAR
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "shristov" <shristov@ptt.rs>
To: <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: Topband: Ground Radials & Multi-Element Antennas


> Edward Swynar <gswynar@durham.net> wrote:
>
>> I've seen ground radial lay-out patterns beneath multi-element
>> verticalarrays illustrated in ON4UN's book that have the ground systems 
>> all
>> inter-connected, thus "commonizing" the radial system for all of the
>> elements in the array...
>
>
> I've seen such an advice, but no explanation was given.
>
> In absence of some good reason
> to pass an electric current from wire A to wire B,
> I'd rather keep those wires unconnected.
>
>
> 73,
>
> Sinisa  YT1NT, VE3EA
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> 160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M 

_______________________________________________
160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M

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