Topband: Elevated Radial Efficiency - an inordinately long post

[PaulKB8N at aol.com]

Gents:
 
I've read this who thread and have to say that I think there are two points  
of view that both deserve due consideration.  The first is the viewpoint  of   
 intense scientific measurement, the second is "gut feeling'  that is backed 
up by results.
 
I don't think there is anyone who gives both points of view more deserving  
consideration than Randy, K5ZD.  He obviously is a great operator, but he  gets 
results that are disproportionate to his relatively modest antenna  farm.
 
Randy has a simple creed, "...try stuff, if it works, keep it up, if it  
doesn't take it down and try something else."  I think any experienced  operator 
knows instinctively when something works, regardless of whether it is  
condemned or supported by scientific.
 
Let me give you a personal example.  I was in Iowa on an Air Force  
assignment years ago.  I wanted to participate in the ARRL 160M  contest, and wasn't 
particularly concerned how well I did.  A local  farmer had a nice antenna 
array, but no 160M antenna.  He told me that when  he wanted to work 160M, he used 
an old longwire that had been at the family farm  since the 1940s for AM 
broadcast reception.  He said, "It works pretty  good"!  That proved to be an 
understatement!  
 
The antenna was strung between the house and a 50' high grain silo, average  
height of about 45' and a length of about 150'.  It sagged like an old  mare, 
and much of the vertical portion was inside the house!  And dare I  mention, 
(heresy alert!) THERE WAS NO GROUND SYSTEM WHATSOEVER!
 
Just a few miles away on a flat surface of moist, black Iowa farm field,  was 
a full-sized vertical with an extensive array of radials.  The operator  was 
a 160M fanatic, revered in the local area for his skill and his antenna  
expertise.
 
When I started the contest and worked everyone on the first call, I  thought, 
"this feels good".  It wasn't long before I started crossing paths  with my 
neighbor with the big vertical.  It felt like I was doing better  than he was, 
because when we both called a station, I invariably got him first,  whether 
close-in or DX.
 
When the dust had settled and the scores reported, I won the section.   I was 
not a better operator, I did not have a better radio (we both were LP), I  
can only conclude that I had a better antenna.  Along with my unlikely win  came 
accusations of running high power, yet I didn't even have an amp  available.
 
So, go ahead, model that!  Be sure to throw in the farmhouse, the pig  
troughs, the silo and anything else you want.  From every perspective, I  should not 
have won.  Yet within the first half-hour in the chair,  I "felt" I had a 
winner!  Measure field strength, measure ground  currents, have a ball!  But for 
me, the real measure was an  actual winning score!
 
I've heard many big guns say that they've put up antennas that should give  
them a theoretical edge, only to 
be disappointed.  Software is getting better and better, but somehow,  there 
must be many other variables in play.   We don't live in an  Anechoic Chamber, 
we live in an imperfect and compromised world.
 
In summary, I respect and believe the theoretical and its practitioners,  but 
I also give credence to the experience and judgement of those who  measure 
their results by qsos, zones, multipliers and final scores.  
 
Paul, K5AF
 
 
 
 
 



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)