Hi Mike - Yes no doubt that radials, any radials, would at the least not hurt.
My house is literally surrounded by concrete and brick. IE no digging to plant
radials. I did try a couple of full length radials attached at the tower and
snaked around the perimeter of the house for part of a season. I could not note
any difference so I took them up. My ground system at the shack is another 8 ft
copper rod driven into the ground and attached to the gear and the copper water
pipe system for the house.
QRO not doubt serves to help compensate for whatever poor TX efficiency I have.
The thing a quickly discovered was that I could be heard but I couldn't always
hear. That sent me on the search for a decent RX antenna for a small city lot.
But I am fast approaching an asymptote in terms of what's workable from this
QTH on Top Band.
Again my point was that in my case the no radial shunt feed works and is worth
a try. If you can lay down radials, all the better. A description of my shunt
fed appeared in Feb 2013 QST.
The original plan was to confirm 100 on Top Band and having accomplished that
from a small West Coast city lot, declare victory and not concern myself with
160 anymore. Who was I kidding?
73 - Steve WB6RSE
> On Sep 15, 2018, at 2:53 PM, Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> It sounds like you have done *much* better on 160 than I --and a lot of
> other Topbanders-- have, *and from such a small lot*! It sounds like you
> have exceptionally good ground conductivity.
>
> In any case, I believe that you would have done even better (is that
> possible? ;-) if you had laid down as many short radials on your small lot
> as is possible and connected those to your ground rods.
> I recall W8JI once telling me that there was another Topbander not far from
> his first QTH in NW Ohio. The other ham had an inverted-L thrown over a
> tree on his very small city lot, and he laid down many radials --short as
> they were-- anyplace that he could fit them in. I think he even had some of
> them running under or through his house.
> Now, Tom had a 120' tower with 120 λ/4 radials connected to it, and they
> used to compare signals ("RF drag race", I guess) on 160m. As unbelievable
> as it may seem to some, the other ham was doing almost as well as Tom.
>
> I'm just sharing what I believe to be true for the benefit of present and
> future readers of this thread. What is your opinion?
>
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
>
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 3:21 PM Steve Lawrence via Topband <
> topband@contesting.com> wrote:
>
>> My shunt fed tower has no radials. Two 8 ft copper ground rods were driven
>> into the soil when the tower base was installed. Heavy gauge wire was used
>> to attach the rods to the tower base bolts. There is simply no place for
>> any radials on my postage stamp size West Coast city lot.
>>
>> I believe my house plot was part of a golf course which flooded when it
>> rained. Flood control channels were built just before the housing tract was
>> developed.
>>
>> I use the shunt feed on 160 and 80m where I have over 200 DXCC confirmed
>> on Top Band and into the high 200s on 80.
>>
>> Obviously I've been fortunate relative to ground conditions. The laws of
>> physics are still at work. Could the performance improve with radials? It's
>> just not possible at this QTH.
>>
>> My point: Even if you can't install radials you could do worse that not
>> even try a shunt feed to see how it works. It's not a particularly
>> difficult nor expensive proposition.
>>
>> Your mileage will vary.
>>
>> GL - Steve WB6RSE
>>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|