Gee, guys. I laid all this out in a what I think is a really logical way
in my tutorial about 160M. It is mostly about antennas and
counterpoise/radial systems. None of this work is original, but rather a
digest of the excellent work of others, especially N6LF.
http://k9yc.com/160MPacificon.pdf
Soil affects vertical antennas in TWO ways. BOTH matter.
First -- the soil under the antenna burns transmitter power. Radials
reduce THIS loss, by providing a low loss return path for antenna
currents and fields. The worse the soil, the greater the effect
(benefit) of a better radial system.
Second -- the soil in the FAR field (farther than we can place radials)
determines the strength the first reflection of the field from the
antenna. WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THIS EFFECT OTHER THAN MOVING TO A
REGION WITH BETTER SOIL.
If you live where the soil is very good, verticals will perform at least
8 dB better than where the soil is lousy. I have lousy soil, so
verticals don't work well for me. Soil quality doesn't affect
horizontally polarized antennas, except to modify their impedance a
bit. The ONLY reason I must use verticals on 160M is that the
alternative, a low dipole (at 135 ft) , is much worse.
Study my tutorial. It is an eye-opener! It's the basis of understanding
what matters, what doesn't, what is under our control, and what isn't.
73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|