Topband: Elevated Radials Questions

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> I also found the 2005 thread "tuning elevated radials" on this
> reflector quite informative.
>
> One thing that stands out is that I may be better off with more than
> 7 shorter than 130' radials.

Note - if the radials are not "tuned", that is do not supply the
"missing half" of the resonant antenna, the vertical and "T" will
need to be adjusted to make up the difference.  There may be some
advantages to using shorter radials and a longer/taller vertical/T
in that the current node will move up the vertical (getting it
farther away from the lossy "dirt") and the E/I ratio at the feed
point will change raising the feed (not radiation) resistance which
may make the antenna easier to feed.

N7LF's work also shows that more elevated radials are better than
fewer.  Since the losses are a function of the square of the field
intensity, spreading the E field more evenly over a larger area
reduces losses by decreasing the peak field intensity.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 12/13/2012 5:27 PM, Grant Saviers wrote:
> Thanks for the comments and pointers.  The land around the antenna is
> mixed grass and forested islands so on the ground radials would be
> partially buried and partially on the surface.  Digging through the
> trees and clearing the brush is not something I want to do. Also, based
> on prior experience with verticals on metal roofs, I'm a real fan of
> elevated radials.
>
> I am relying on the credibility of the N6LF QEX series for how well/not
> well elevated radials will work (Mar - June 2012).  I realize this work
> was all analysis with EZNEC PRO, but it seems to be the similar to
> results of others I've read.  Googling "K5IU elevated radials" I did
> find the 2008 N6LF article which has the experimental data as well.  His
> analysis shows there isn't much difference in losses with more than 4
> radials between 0.15 and 0.27 wavelengths long.  I've heard conventional
> wisdom is to tune radials for resonance, but the analysis for 4 or more
> radials elevated > than a couple of feet seems to indicate it is a lot
> of work for little benefit.
>
> I also found the 2005 thread "tuning elevated radials" on this reflector
> quite informative.
>
> One thing that stands out is that I may be better off with more than 7
> shorter than 130' radials.
>
> Grant KZ1W
>
>
> On 12/13/2012 12:06 PM, Dennis W0JX wrote:
>> Grant, you should consider putting in an additional 23 radials and put
>> the radial system on or in the ground. This will eliminate any
>> possible detuning by the big metal building and interaction with the
>> RX 4 square. You said that your vertical T will go up to 85 feet.
>> However, by elevating the radials 10 feet, your effective vertical
>> distance is 75 feet which will allow you to shorten the top hat wires
>> a bit. As an alternate, you could put down 1/8 wavelength radials on
>> the ground but more of them and have a good system too.
>>
>> If you must go with an elevated radial system, I recommend that you
>> read the articles by Dick Weber, K5IU, who strongly advocated elevated
>> radials shorter or longer than 1/4 wavelength. If shorter, then the
>> radials are loaded with a small coil. If longer, then they are tuned
>> out with a capacitor. W5UN uses shortened elevated radials on his 160
>> meter 4 square with great results. They are about 70% of a
>> quarter-wave in length.
>>
>> 73, Dennis W0JX/8
>> Milan OH
>> _______________________________________________
>> Topband reflector - topband at contesting.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Topband reflector - topband at contesting.com
>