[TenTec] Vertical radial question

[Lee A Crocker]

I did get the point of the original question, and that
why I published the table I published.  The point from
that table is that for very short radials (in terms of
lambda} it's a total waste of time and resources to
keep burying radials.  I have yet to see this point
violated in any of the information you have presented.
 Except for the ON4UN quote, none of the stuff you
have referred to says anything about short radials.  A
50X30 lot implies at most 4 x 29 ft radials and
everything else shorter.  This doesn't make a 1/4 wave
even on 40 which means it doesn't make a 1/8 wave on
80 or a 1/16 wave on 160.  

Rudy's data shows the 0.025 rule for 1/4 wave radials.
 So where is the data that actually shows a radial
field of lets say .1 lambda radials or smaller spaced
at .025 lambda is any better than .1 lambda radials
spaced .05 or .1 lambda?  As far as I can see your
argument is we have an absolute rule of thumb that is
based on.... something written in ON4UN's book?  What
I published came out of the same book.  So why is your
analysis superior to mine?  Clearly field strength is
a function of radial length, and radial number. 
Rudy's data precisely shows this.  His quote: another
mile and a half of wire might buy him another 0.3dB. 
For a given radial length the number at some point
becomes near asymptotic to both field strenght and
impedence.  At that point it is useless to add more
wire.  So what is the near asymptotic number for 0.1
lambda radials?  You claim the number that are 0.025
wavelength apart at the perimeter.  I have seen
published 0.05 lambda by a well known expert, so who
is right?  0.05 lambda means half the work and half
the wire.  Who is right?  Your ch 9 recommendation or
my ch 9 table?   

73  W9OY

Zero DXCC countries on 160, and Zero DXCC countries on
80 or any other band.  



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com 
(http://www.yahoo.com/preview)