On 1/21/22 2:14 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
On 2022-01-21 3:56 PM, Jeff Blaine wrote:> The argument in support of
using high elevated radials is not
supported by the N6LF data. In fact the data Rudy has says even a
slight elevation from ground gets you most of the way there with
respect to loss.
I don't believe N6LF has done any work with elevated radials at 0.05
wavelength or greater above ground. 20 years (or more) ago N7CL
reported on work done by the US military which spoke to "elevated
ground planes". That work started from even greater heights but
showed that the losses started to increase dramatically at 0.05
wavelengths.
I'd suggest that the spacing in wavelengths isn't the critical thing,
moreso the spacing in meters/feet.
Assuming the radial isn't "radiating" like a dipole (which it
shouldn't.. the typical radial field is symmetric, so the radiated field
from one radial is cancelled by the opposite one).
So it's really more of "what is the loss in the radial, due to its
interaction with the soil's lossy dielectric?" and that's more of a
physical spacing thing - how much of the stored energy in the field is
"in the soil"
I suspect that there is a nice analytical answer to this, since the
electric and magnetic fields from a "long wire" is a well understood,
simple equation, and the solution is probably in 2d.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|