Topband: Elevated Radials EPILOGUE

[Tom W8JI]

>I can't believe that no one has put this really important question to bed 
>already.

Since the results vary with installation and soil, and since no one 
considers "it depends" a good answer, the debate will never end.


> If I had the land and an existing vertical with a large buried radial 
> system and another tower available.. I would try it out for the sake of 
> Ham Radio :-))
>

I've already done that using field strength readings. I'm sure others have 
also.

>
> P.S. Can someone with a tower also test out a low dipole around 30 ft and 
> then go to 60, 90 and 120 and post the results.   I'm thinking a pulley 
> and rope and some quick 10 minutes adjustments for real world results... 
> that one's easy.
>

I already did that. I made thousands of A-B-C comparisons between high 
dipoles, low dipoles, and a reference vertical. For a period of time I even 
had two dipoles at 250 feet or so phased.

The problem is what works here for what I do can be considerably different 
than other places and what someone else wants.

VK3ZL also compared a shorter vertical with a ~100-foot high dipole for a 
long period of time. All of these tests were "blind" A-B tests.

The problem is results vary not only with the installation and location, but 
also with the distance, time of day, and solar conditions.

Bob and I both pretty much settled on verticals, as did ZL3REX and others.

Anyone who has made extensive A-B comparisons likely gets a chuckle out of 
"I took down an antenna and put up another one and it was XXXX  difference" 
statements. It takes a long time period of many direct A-B comparisons to 
reach dependable conclusions.

73 Tom