Topband: Radial Question
KB8NTY
kb8nty at wowway.com
Tue Jan 7 13:32:41 EST 2014
AA6VB-Bob,
Based on some good replies to "test" some under the home, a thought would be
to go for it-however then install a switching arraignment for those radials
under the home.
Could yield in some interesting A-B results.
My only experience with the ground radials was that; with the increased
number of radials yielded improvement in both transmit & receive, and with
certain select rigs/amplifiers it seemed to help loading up on bands such as
30-40-80-etc.
Regardless just lay down as many and as long as you can, it's all good!
-73-
Ross
U.S. Amateur Radio: KB8NTY
RossRadio
Antenna Ground Radial Website: http://www.rossradio.net/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message -----
From: <topband-request at contesting.com>
To: <topband at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 8:04 AM
Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 133, Issue 9
> Send Topband mailing list submissions to
> topband at contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> topband-request at contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> topband-owner at contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Radial Question (Chortek, Robert L)
> 2. Re: Radial Question (Jim Brown)
> 3. Re: Radial Question (bruce whitney)
> 4. Re: Radial Question (Charlie Cunningham)
> 5. Re: Radial Question (Gary and Kathleen Pearse)
> 6. Re: Radial Question (Bill Stewart)
> 7. Re: Radial Question (Charlie Cunningham)
> 8. Re: Radial Question (Charlie Cunningham)
> 9. Re: Radial Question (Charlie Cunningham)
> 10. Re: Radial Question (Bill Stewart)
> 11. Re: Radial Question (Bill Stewart)
> 12. Re: Radial Question (Charlie Cunningham)
> 13. Preliminary Stew Results (Tree)
> 14. 160m L or Shunt? (Carl Braun)
> 15. Re: Radial Question (David Aslin)
> 16. Feeding 160M Vertical on 80M (Bob K6ZZ)
> 17. Re: Preliminary Stew Results (Jim Brown)
> 18. Re: Feeding 160M Vertical on 80M (Charlie Cunningham)
> 19. Re: Feeding 160M Vertical on 80M (Jim Brown)
> 20. Re: Feeding 160M Vertical on 80M (Charlie Cunningham)
> 21. Re: Feeding 160M Vertical on 80M (Tom W8JI)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 19:51:50 +0000
> From: "Chortek, Robert L" <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> To: "topband at contesting.com" <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: Radial Question
> Message-ID:
> <65020b68ca774ac2a7383a78662c9f5b at BLUPR04MB465.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hello Fellow Topbanders -
>
> We are about to embark on a front yard landscaping project at our home on
> a tiny 12, 500 sq. ft. lot.
>
> It occurred to me this would be an excellent opportunity to put down a
> large number of buried ground radials BUT, they would only cover about 90
> degrees of the compass. Then it also occurred to me I could put down a
> large number of radials in our crawl space under the house.
>
> So, my question is, what is the likely negative impact, if any, from the
> house being between the 160 meter vertical and the radials placed under
> the house? I assume the house material, most of which is wood, tile,
> sheetrock, etc. (with the usual house wiring) would be invisible to RF and
> have minimal impact.
>
> If I could put down say 60 radials ranging in length from 40 to 120 feet
> long, would it outperform my current system with 8 resonant elevated
> radials 10 -15 feet high (which cover only about 120 degrees of the
> compass)? I'm incline to proceed IF it would provide a meaningful
> improvement in my transmitted signal strength.
>
> Thanks for any help!
>
> 73,
>
> Bob/AA6VB
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 13:23:41 -0800
> From: Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
> Message-ID: <52CB1EDD.8020804 at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 1/6/2014 11:51 AM, Chortek, Robert L wrote:
>> We are about to embark on a front yard landscaping project at our home on
>> a tiny 12, 500 sq. ft. lot.
>
> Two things to study. N6LF has studied radial systems extensively, and
> written about his work in at least 8 or 10 applications notes on his
> website. Google to find it.
>
> For "the executive summary" of his work, and a LOT of other work by
> others, see the pdf of the 160M power point on my website.
> http://k9yc.com/publish.htm
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:45:55 -0800 (PST)
> From: bruce whitney <zuceman at yahoo.com>
> To: "Chortek, Robert L" <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>,
> "topband at contesting.com" <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
> Message-ID:
> <1389044755.70500.YahooMailNeo at web185303.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Bob, do it... It can't?hurt the 'transmit' performance of your vertical at
> all and might help.
> I have done that, as well as connect my radial system to the electrical
> grounding of the house wiring - at the ground electrode as well.
> My only concern would be if you intend to use the vertical for receive it
> could exacerbate any noise problems you may have from the house.
> You will also find out in a hurry if anything in the house is sensitve to
> RF....
> Bruce W8RA
> ?
> ?
> ?
> ?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Chortek, Robert L" <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> To: "topband at contesting.com" <topband at contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2014 2:51 PM
> Subject: Topband: Radial Question
>
>
> Hello Fellow Topbanders -
>
> We are about to embark on a front yard landscaping project at our home on
> a tiny 12, 500 sq. ft. lot.
>
> It occurred to me this would be an excellent opportunity to put down a
> large number of buried ground radials BUT, they? would only cover about 90
> degrees of the compass. Then it also occurred to me I could put down a
> large number of radials in our crawl space under the house.
>
> So, my question is, what is the likely negative impact, if any, from the
> house being between the 160 meter vertical and the radials placed under
> the house?? I assume the house material, most of which is wood, tile,
> sheetrock, etc. (with the usual house wiring) would be invisible to RF and
> have minimal impact.
>
> If I could put down say 60 radials ranging in length from 40? to 120 feet
> long, would it outperform my current system with 8 resonant elevated
> radials 10 -15 feet high (which cover only about 120 degrees of the
> compass)?? I'm incline to proceed IF it would provide a meaningful
> improvement in my transmitted signal strength.
>
> Thanks for any help!
>
> 73,
>
> Bob/AA6VB
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 17:00:06 -0500
> From: "Charlie Cunningham" <charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com>
> To: "'Chortek, Robert L'" <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>,
> <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
> Message-ID:
> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAF0xXac1rOhFkn7GlcEWNIjCgAAAEAAAAGkXDkpy9q5MkASqrymv7XsBAAAAAA==@nc.rr.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I'd stay with the elevated radials,Bob! They're hard to beat! For some
> years I had an 70 ft tall inverted L at a back corner of my lot. I had
> only
> two elevated resonant radials 90 degrees apart on the back and side lot
> lines . I worked lots of stuff in Eu, middle east, The Pacific, Indian
> and
> Atlantic oceans with 500W. 3B8, S7, KH6, KH5K, FO0, KH2, KH0, JA, VK, ZL,
> ZD9 etc.. Generally if I could hear them on my KAZ antenna, I could work
> 'em. BTW, if you run radials in your crawl space, you risk coupling
> energy
> into your house wiring from the close proximity radial currents.
>
> Good luck
>
> 73,
> Charlie, K4OTV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Chortek,
> Robert L
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 2:52 PM
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: Radial Question
>
> Hello Fellow Topbanders -
>
> We are about to embark on a front yard landscaping project at our home on
> a
> tiny 12, 500 sq. ft. lot.
>
> It occurred to me this would be an excellent opportunity to put down a
> large
> number of buried ground radials BUT, they would only cover about 90
> degrees
> of the compass. Then it also occurred to me I could put down a large
> number
> of radials in our crawl space under the house.
>
> So, my question is, what is the likely negative impact, if any, from the
> house being between the 160 meter vertical and the radials placed under
> the
> house? I assume the house material, most of which is wood, tile,
> sheetrock,
> etc. (with the usual house wiring) would be invisible to RF and have
> minimal
> impact.
>
> If I could put down say 60 radials ranging in length from 40 to 120 feet
> long, would it outperform my current system with 8 resonant elevated
> radials
> 10 -15 feet high (which cover only about 120 degrees of the compass)?
> I'm
> incline to proceed IF it would provide a meaningful improvement in my
> transmitted signal strength.
>
> Thanks for any help!
>
> 73,
>
> Bob/AA6VB
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 13:13:57 -0900
> From: Gary and Kathleen Pearse <pearse at gci.net>
> To: topband List <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
> Message-ID: <A060A6BE-AEF4-48BE-BE95-64473478E335 at gci.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> I?d run a test wire under the house and connect it to the rig. Listen for
> noise. Then connect to house ground and see if noisy. Compare that with
> each existing elevated radial for QRN.
>
> Here in Fairbanks anything through the home or grounded to the house or
> tower on 160 is worse than my ungrounded elevated radials. One elevated
> radial (of 8) near the power line is the noisiest. I disconnect it when it
> gets bad.
>
> 73, Gary NL7Y
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 17:25:27 -0500 (EST)
> From: Bill Stewart <cwopr at embarqmail.com>
> To: Robert L Chortek <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> Cc: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
> Message-ID:
> <1251636998.27141590.1389047127045.JavaMail.root at embarqmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi Bob,
> I can't add much in the way of technical reasons for adding
> the radials vs a c-poise. However, I can say that my Inv. L, with
> a four wire quarter wave c-poise has worked quite well...and
> with much less work than all the radials you are considering.
> I use only 100 watts and have worked into the Carib. and the
> recent K9W operation. I also have been using a HB QRP xmtr from
> 1924 and have worked from C6 up into VE2/VE3.
>
> I would wonder about the possibility of 'under-the-house' radials
> putting rf into your house wiring, and if using your xmit antenna
> for rcving, picking up trash from your in-house gadgets...tv, computer
> etc, esp if you are running power. You may be able to get someone
> to model the two systems and the results might help you make up
> your mind.
>
> Good luck with what ever method you end up with...73 de Bill K4JYS (NC)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L Chortek" <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2014 2:51:50 PM
> Subject: Topband: Radial Question
>
> Hello Fellow Topbanders -
>
> We are about to embark on a front yard landscaping project at our home on
> a tiny 12, 500 sq. ft. lot.
>
> It occurred to me this would be an excellent opportunity to put down a
> large number of buried ground radials BUT, they would only cover about 90
> degrees of the compass. Then it also occurred to me I could put down a
> large number of radials in our crawl space under the house.
>
> So, my question is, what is the likely negative impact, if any, from the
> house being between the 160 meter vertical and the radials placed under
> the house? I assume the house material, most of which is wood, tile,
> sheetrock, etc. (with the usual house wiring) would be invisible to RF and
> have minimal impact.
>
> If I could put down say 60 radials ranging in length from 40 to 120 feet
> long, would it outperform my current system with 8 resonant elevated
> radials 10 -15 feet high (which cover only about 120 degrees of the
> compass)? I'm incline to proceed IF it would provide a meaningful
> improvement in my transmitted signal strength.
>
> Thanks for any help!
>
> 73,
>
> Bob/AA6VB
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 17:39:11 -0500
> From: "Charlie Cunningham" <charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com>
> To: "'Gary and Kathleen Pearse'" <pearse at gci.net>, "'topband List'"
> <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
> Message-ID:
> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAF0xXac1rOhFkn7GlcEWNIjCgAAAEAAAAPEpvt5RE+hKqU8EvaiCxIkBAAAAAA==@nc.rr.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Makes sense and agrees with my experience, Gary! BTW, I have worked
> Alaska
> from here in Raleigh with my 2-elevated radial Inverted L. Don't recall
> off-hand if it was you, I worked.
>
> 73,
> Charlie, K4OTV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gary
> and
> Kathleen Pearse
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 5:14 PM
> To: topband List
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
>
> I'd run a test wire under the house and connect it to the rig. Listen for
> noise. Then connect to house ground and see if noisy. Compare that with
> each
> existing elevated radial for QRN.
>
> Here in Fairbanks anything through the home or grounded to the house or
> tower on 160 is worse than my ungrounded elevated radials. One elevated
> radial (of 8) near the power line is the noisiest. I disconnect it when it
> gets bad.
>
> 73, Gary NL7Y
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 17:52:50 -0500
> From: "Charlie Cunningham" <charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com>
> To: "'Bill Stewart'" <cwopr at embarqmail.com>, "'Robert L Chortek'"
> <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> Cc: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
> Message-ID:
> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAF0xXac1rOhFkn7GlcEWNIjCgAAAEAAAABL6+AkAiZRAhiSlBmZ2yt8BAAAAAA==@nc.rr.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi, Bill
>
> Well, I have modeled a 160 inverted L with 4 elevated resonant radials,
> with
> EXNEC, and that's about as good as it gets! Guys with grounded towers have
> to dig and bury radials or run 'em on the ground but the broadcasters'
> experience with elevated radials indicates the 4 is about as good as it
> gets
> - adding more doesn't add much. Having the resonant radials fanned over
> less than 360 degrees can produce sone asymmetry in the azimuth pattern,
> but
> mine with two at 90 degrees worked quite well in all directions!
> Generally,
> if I could hear 'em I could work 'em. The KAZ receiving loops helped a LOT
> on receive!
>
> 73,
> Charlie, K4OTV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Stewart
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 5:25 PM
> To: Robert L Chortek
> Cc: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
>
> Hi Bob,
> I can't add much in the way of technical reasons for adding
> the radials vs a c-poise. However, I can say that my Inv. L, with
> a four wire quarter wave c-poise has worked quite well...and
> with much less work than all the radials you are considering.
> I use only 100 watts and have worked into the Carib. and the
> recent K9W operation. I also have been using a HB QRP xmtr from
> 1924 and have worked from C6 up into VE2/VE3.
>
> I would wonder about the possibility of 'under-the-house' radials
> putting rf into your house wiring, and if using your xmit antenna
> for rcving, picking up trash from your in-house gadgets...tv, computer
> etc, esp if you are running power. You may be able to get someone
> to model the two systems and the results might help you make up
> your mind.
>
> Good luck with what ever method you end up with...73 de Bill K4JYS (NC)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L Chortek" <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2014 2:51:50 PM
> Subject: Topband: Radial Question
>
> Hello Fellow Topbanders -
>
> We are about to embark on a front yard landscaping project at our home on
> a
> tiny 12, 500 sq. ft. lot.
>
> It occurred to me this would be an excellent opportunity to put down a
> large
> number of buried ground radials BUT, they would only cover about 90
> degrees
> of the compass. Then it also occurred to me I could put down a large
> number
> of radials in our crawl space under the house.
>
> So, my question is, what is the likely negative impact, if any, from the
> house being between the 160 meter vertical and the radials placed under
> the
> house? I assume the house material, most of which is wood, tile,
> sheetrock,
> etc. (with the usual house wiring) would be invisible to RF and have
> minimal
> impact.
>
> If I could put down say 60 radials ranging in length from 40 to 120 feet
> long, would it outperform my current system with 8 resonant elevated
> radials
> 10 -15 feet high (which cover only about 120 degrees of the compass)?
> I'm
> incline to proceed IF it would provide a meaningful improvement in my
> transmitted signal strength.
>
> Thanks for any help!
>
> 73,
>
> Bob/AA6VB
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:02:12 -0500
> From: "Charlie Cunningham" <charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com>
> To: "'Bill Stewart'" <cwopr at embarqmail.com>, "'Robert L Chortek'"
> <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> Cc: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
> Message-ID:
> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAF0xXac1rOhFkn7GlcEWNIjCgAAAEAAAAFph7W4nM8FPq08GS7PjWbUBAAAAAA==@nc.rr.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> BTW, Biil, where U in NC? I'm in Raleigh waitin' for it to go down to 9
> degrees tonight!
>
> 73,
> Charlie, K4OTV
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Stewart
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 5:25 PM
> To: Robert L Chortek
> Cc: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
>
> Hi Bob,
> I can't add much in the way of technical reasons for adding
> the radials vs a c-poise. However, I can say that my Inv. L, with
> a four wire quarter wave c-poise has worked quite well...and
> with much less work than all the radials you are considering.
> I use only 100 watts and have worked into the Carib. and the
> recent K9W operation. I also have been using a HB QRP xmtr from
> 1924 and have worked from C6 up into VE2/VE3.
>
> I would wonder about the possibility of 'under-the-house' radials
> putting rf into your house wiring, and if using your xmit antenna
> for rcving, picking up trash from your in-house gadgets...tv, computer
> etc, esp if you are running power. You may be able to get someone
> to model the two systems and the results might help you make up
> your mind.
>
> Good luck with what ever method you end up with...73 de Bill K4JYS (NC)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L Chortek" <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2014 2:51:50 PM
> Subject: Topband: Radial Question
>
> Hello Fellow Topbanders -
>
> We are about to embark on a front yard landscaping project at our home on
> a
> tiny 12, 500 sq. ft. lot.
>
> It occurred to me this would be an excellent opportunity to put down a
> large
> number of buried ground radials BUT, they would only cover about 90
> degrees
> of the compass. Then it also occurred to me I could put down a large
> number
> of radials in our crawl space under the house.
>
> So, my question is, what is the likely negative impact, if any, from the
> house being between the 160 meter vertical and the radials placed under
> the
> house? I assume the house material, most of which is wood, tile,
> sheetrock,
> etc. (with the usual house wiring) would be invisible to RF and have
> minimal
> impact.
>
> If I could put down say 60 radials ranging in length from 40 to 120 feet
> long, would it outperform my current system with 8 resonant elevated
> radials
> 10 -15 feet high (which cover only about 120 degrees of the compass)?
> I'm
> incline to proceed IF it would provide a meaningful improvement in my
> transmitted signal strength.
>
> Thanks for any help!
>
> 73,
>
> Bob/AA6VB
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:49:19 -0500 (EST)
> From: Bill Stewart <cwopr at embarqmail.com>
> To: Charlie Cunningham <charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com>
> Cc: topband at contesting.com, Robert L Chortek
> <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
> Message-ID:
> <225193440.27169766.1389052159339.JavaMail.root at embarqmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hey Charlie,
> I'm just down the road, 'tween Smfd and Newton Grove.
> Waiting for the same blast of cold air...brrrrr.
> 73, Bill K4JYS
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charlie Cunningham" <charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com>
> To: "Bill Stewart" <cwopr at embarqmail.com>, "Robert L Chortek"
> <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> Cc: topband at contesting.com
> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2014 6:02:12 PM
> Subject: RE: Topband: Radial Question
>
> BTW, Biil, where U in NC? I'm in Raleigh waitin' for it to go down to 9
> degrees tonight!
>
> 73,
> Charlie, K4OTV
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Stewart
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 5:25 PM
> To: Robert L Chortek
> Cc: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
>
> Hi Bob,
> I can't add much in the way of technical reasons for adding
> the radials vs a c-poise. However, I can say that my Inv. L, with
> a four wire quarter wave c-poise has worked quite well...and
> with much less work than all the radials you are considering.
> I use only 100 watts and have worked into the Carib. and the
> recent K9W operation. I also have been using a HB QRP xmtr from
> 1924 and have worked from C6 up into VE2/VE3.
>
> I would wonder about the possibility of 'under-the-house' radials
> putting rf into your house wiring, and if using your xmit antenna
> for rcving, picking up trash from your in-house gadgets...tv, computer
> etc, esp if you are running power. You may be able to get someone
> to model the two systems and the results might help you make up
> your mind.
>
> Good luck with what ever method you end up with...73 de Bill K4JYS (NC)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L Chortek" <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2014 2:51:50 PM
> Subject: Topband: Radial Question
>
> Hello Fellow Topbanders -
>
> We are about to embark on a front yard landscaping project at our home on
> a
> tiny 12, 500 sq. ft. lot.
>
> It occurred to me this would be an excellent opportunity to put down a
> large
> number of buried ground radials BUT, they would only cover about 90
> degrees
> of the compass. Then it also occurred to me I could put down a large
> number
> of radials in our crawl space under the house.
>
> So, my question is, what is the likely negative impact, if any, from the
> house being between the 160 meter vertical and the radials placed under
> the
> house? I assume the house material, most of which is wood, tile,
> sheetrock,
> etc. (with the usual house wiring) would be invisible to RF and have
> minimal
> impact.
>
> If I could put down say 60 radials ranging in length from 40 to 120 feet
> long, would it outperform my current system with 8 resonant elevated
> radials
> 10 -15 feet high (which cover only about 120 degrees of the compass)?
> I'm
> incline to proceed IF it would provide a meaningful improvement in my
> transmitted signal strength.
>
> Thanks for any help!
>
> 73,
>
> Bob/AA6VB
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 19:00:15 -0500 (EST)
> From: Bill Stewart <cwopr at embarqmail.com>
> To: Charlie Cunningham <charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com>
> Cc: topband at contesting.com, Robert L Chortek
> <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
> Message-ID:
> <1614280165.27172860.1389052815964.JavaMail.root at embarqmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Charlie, I was surprised at how well my Inv L/c-poise works. It
> is far from an ideal situation...amongst many tall pines, but
> results have been very much worth the effort. I got some good info
> off this list and got it tuned up to where the TS-440S did not
> need a tuner to get a low SWR...and it receives ok too. I read about
> how much work/$$ guys put into the radial systems and it seems that
> after a point, the work just ain't worth the fraction of a db ya
> get. But if it makes one feel better, then keep on digging...hi.
>
> 73 de Bill K4JYS
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charlie Cunningham" <charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com>
> To: "Bill Stewart" <cwopr at embarqmail.com>, "Robert L Chortek"
> <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> Cc: topband at contesting.com
> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2014 5:52:50 PM
> Subject: RE: Topband: Radial Question
>
> Hi, Bill
>
> Well, I have modeled a 160 inverted L with 4 elevated resonant radials,
> with
> EXNEC, and that's about as good as it gets! Guys with grounded towers have
> to dig and bury radials or run 'em on the ground but the broadcasters'
> experience with elevated radials indicates the 4 is about as good as it
> gets
> - adding more doesn't add much. Having the resonant radials fanned over
> less than 360 degrees can produce sone asymmetry in the azimuth pattern,
> but
> mine with two at 90 degrees worked quite well in all directions!
> Generally,
> if I could hear 'em I could work 'em. The KAZ receiving loops helped a LOT
> on receive!
>
> 73,
> Charlie, K4OTV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Stewart
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 5:25 PM
> To: Robert L Chortek
> Cc: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
>
> Hi Bob,
> I can't add much in the way of technical reasons for adding
> the radials vs a c-poise. However, I can say that my Inv. L, with
> a four wire quarter wave c-poise has worked quite well...and
> with much less work than all the radials you are considering.
> I use only 100 watts and have worked into the Carib. and the
> recent K9W operation. I also have been using a HB QRP xmtr from
> 1924 and have worked from C6 up into VE2/VE3.
>
> I would wonder about the possibility of 'under-the-house' radials
> putting rf into your house wiring, and if using your xmit antenna
> for rcving, picking up trash from your in-house gadgets...tv, computer
> etc, esp if you are running power. You may be able to get someone
> to model the two systems and the results might help you make up
> your mind.
>
> Good luck with what ever method you end up with...73 de Bill K4JYS (NC)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L Chortek" <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2014 2:51:50 PM
> Subject: Topband: Radial Question
>
> Hello Fellow Topbanders -
>
> We are about to embark on a front yard landscaping project at our home on
> a
> tiny 12, 500 sq. ft. lot.
>
> It occurred to me this would be an excellent opportunity to put down a
> large
> number of buried ground radials BUT, they would only cover about 90
> degrees
> of the compass. Then it also occurred to me I could put down a large
> number
> of radials in our crawl space under the house.
>
> So, my question is, what is the likely negative impact, if any, from the
> house being between the 160 meter vertical and the radials placed under
> the
> house? I assume the house material, most of which is wood, tile,
> sheetrock,
> etc. (with the usual house wiring) would be invisible to RF and have
> minimal
> impact.
>
> If I could put down say 60 radials ranging in length from 40 to 120 feet
> long, would it outperform my current system with 8 resonant elevated
> radials
> 10 -15 feet high (which cover only about 120 degrees of the compass)?
> I'm
> incline to proceed IF it would provide a meaningful improvement in my
> transmitted signal strength.
>
> Thanks for any help!
>
> 73,
>
> Bob/AA6VB
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 21:40:46 -0500
> From: "Charlie Cunningham" <charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com>
> To: "'Bill Stewart'" <cwopr at embarqmail.com>
> Cc: topband at contesting.com, 'Robert L Chortek'
> <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
> Message-ID:
> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAF0xXac1rOhFkn7GlcEWNIjCgAAAEAAAAHzGgr+WShtPi3HlVcit1boBAAAAAA==@nc.rr.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Well, I'm not surprised at all, Bill! Some years back some broadcast
> engineers did a lot of work replacing deteriorated buried radial fields
> under broadcast towers with elevated resonant radials. They concluded that
> 4
> elevated radials would do the job quite well. Their work was published in
> some IEEE transactions, and was based on real engineering measurements!
>
> Your inverted L with 4 elevated resonant radial should do quite well!
>
> 73,
> Charlie, K4OTV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Stewart
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 7:00 PM
> To: Charlie Cunningham
> Cc: topband at contesting.com; Robert L Chortek
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
>
> Charlie, I was surprised at how well my Inv L/c-poise works. It is far
> from
> an ideal situation...amongst many tall pines, but results have been very
> much worth the effort. I got some good info off this list and got it tuned
> up to where the TS-440S did not need a tuner to get a low SWR...and it
> receives ok too. I read about how much work/$$ guys put into the radial
> systems and it seems that after a point, the work just ain't worth the
> fraction of a db ya get. But if it makes one feel better, then keep on
> digging...hi.
>
> 73 de Bill K4JYS
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charlie Cunningham" <charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com>
> To: "Bill Stewart" <cwopr at embarqmail.com>, "Robert L Chortek"
> <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> Cc: topband at contesting.com
> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2014 5:52:50 PM
> Subject: RE: Topband: Radial Question
>
> Hi, Bill
>
> Well, I have modeled a 160 inverted L with 4 elevated resonant radials,
> with
> EXNEC, and that's about as good as it gets! Guys with grounded towers have
> to dig and bury radials or run 'em on the ground but the broadcasters'
> experience with elevated radials indicates the 4 is about as good as it
> gets
> - adding more doesn't add much. Having the resonant radials fanned over
> less than 360 degrees can produce sone asymmetry in the azimuth pattern,
> but
> mine with two at 90 degrees worked quite well in all directions!
> Generally,
> if I could hear 'em I could work 'em. The KAZ receiving loops helped a LOT
> on receive!
>
> 73,
> Charlie, K4OTV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Stewart
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 5:25 PM
> To: Robert L Chortek
> Cc: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
>
> Hi Bob,
> I can't add much in the way of technical reasons for adding the radials vs
> a
> c-poise. However, I can say that my Inv. L, with a four wire quarter wave
> c-poise has worked quite well...and with much less work than all the
> radials
> you are considering.
> I use only 100 watts and have worked into the Carib. and the recent K9W
> operation. I also have been using a HB QRP xmtr from
> 1924 and have worked from C6 up into VE2/VE3.
>
> I would wonder about the possibility of 'under-the-house' radials putting
> rf
> into your house wiring, and if using your xmit antenna for rcving, picking
> up trash from your in-house gadgets...tv, computer etc, esp if you are
> running power. You may be able to get someone to model the two systems and
> the results might help you make up your mind.
>
> Good luck with what ever method you end up with...73 de Bill K4JYS (NC)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L Chortek" <Robert.Chortek at berliner.com>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2014 2:51:50 PM
> Subject: Topband: Radial Question
>
> Hello Fellow Topbanders -
>
> We are about to embark on a front yard landscaping project at our home on
> a
> tiny 12, 500 sq. ft. lot.
>
> It occurred to me this would be an excellent opportunity to put down a
> large
> number of buried ground radials BUT, they would only cover about 90
> degrees
> of the compass. Then it also occurred to me I could put down a large
> number
> of radials in our crawl space under the house.
>
> So, my question is, what is the likely negative impact, if any, from the
> house being between the 160 meter vertical and the radials placed under
> the
> house? I assume the house material, most of which is wood, tile,
> sheetrock,
> etc. (with the usual house wiring) would be invisible to RF and have
> minimal
> impact.
>
> If I could put down say 60 radials ranging in length from 40 to 120 feet
> long, would it outperform my current system with 8 resonant elevated
> radials
> 10 -15 feet high (which cover only about 120 degrees of the compass)?
> I'm
> incline to proceed IF it would provide a meaningful improvement in my
> transmitted signal strength.
>
> Thanks for any help!
>
> 73,
>
> Bob/AA6VB
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 20:57:48 -0800
> From: Tree <tree at kkn.net>
> To: 160 <topband at contesting.com>, "cq-contest at contesting.com"
> <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: Preliminary Stew Results
> Message-ID:
> <CAKF9Hha36PvmxO1ZV+NFcFSaGfED-=-eHUkQwYtY1NR-Xd7dwA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Back by popular demand - the current log checking results for the December
> Stew Perry contest are now available. You can find them at
> http://www.kkn.net/stew
>
> Please note the deadline for submitting your log is 15 days after the
> contest - or January 15th. Send your Cabrillo log to tbdc at contesting.com
>
> 73 Tree N6TR
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 15:25:59 +0000
> From: Carl Braun <Carl.Braun at lairdtech.com>
> To: "topband at contesting.com" <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: 160m L or Shunt?
> Message-ID:
> <F69DC02DDFCD7A4E84A9C7BE874B77400107E83E72 at USDC01MBX01.corp.lairdtech.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> All
>
> I'm working on installing an 80/160 inverted L that will be approximately
> 165' in total length with the vertical portion being 88' tall and the rest
> of the wire (77') running out to a 80' tall palm tree. This will give me
> approximately 5/8w on 80 and 5/16w on 160 and will allow me to use a
> single antenna wire into my matching networks at the base.
>
> I've thought about shunt feeding the tower and have researched the
> archives here to get some ideas but I have two concerns:
>
> 1) I'm using a Tri Ex TM 490 (90') Skyneedle and am concerned about
> good grounding between the tubular sections if I was to shunt feed the
> thing. I'm not crazy about running a "continuity wire" down the length of
> the needle. Thus my interest with an inverted L off of the tower. I've
> constructed a 1 ?" copper pipe around the base of the needle and the
> control panel that measures 6' x 4' that will act as my radial "plate". I
> plan on having 50 1/8 wl radials and 10 ? wl ground radials when finished
> 2) I was unable to get a real feel for where the tower resonates. I
> have a 5 element Telrex monster on top of the Needle that uses grounded
> elements and I'm fairly sure the antenna resonates below the 160M band.
> I'm assuming this as I disconnected the coax where the Telrex feeds into
> my control panel at the base of the Needle and placed an MFJ analyzer
> between the braid of the yagi coax and GND. The MFJ was beginning to dip
> when I ran out of real estate on the meter...the MFJ bottoms out at
> @1750KHz. I'm assuming the tower and antenna resonate at @1700KHz
> 3) I have concerns that I could not resonate the tower on 80m if I
> shunted it
>
> Considering these items I wanted to keep things tidy so I'm installing the
> inverted L off of the tower (36") and starting from there.
>
> Here are my questions:
>
> 1) Will I have to de-tune the tower in order to get the L to
> resonate on 80 and 160?
> 2) Am I better off continuing to try and find a resonant sweet spot
> on the tower and shunt instead of an inverted L?
> 3) I would expect 10-20 ohms at 160 and approx 40-60 ohms on 80 with
> the full sized 165' vertical. Am I close?
>
> Comments from the gurus?
>
> Tnx de AG6X
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 21:25:52 +0000
> From: David Aslin <david at aslinvc.com>
> To: "topband at contesting.com" <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Radial Question
> Message-ID:
> <01E14C903617BF4A9E39FD8E91A23E761D85A7 at AUSP01DAG0307.collaborationhost.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I could not resist a comment - 12,500 sq. ft is tiny ??!
> Spare a thought for the topband community in G-land: the *average* garden
> (i.e the lot size less the house area) is 970 sq. ft. Many new homes have
> no garden.
> While I search for a contest/DX location, we are renting a beautiful new
> home - on a 'huge' 5000 sq. ft lot. So if my 160m signals are weak,
> listen harder - I only have room for 0.05 wavelength radials...
> Bob, good luck with the radials project. You will be loud...
> 73
> Dave G3WGN M6O WJ6O
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chortek, Robert L - Monday, January 06, 2014 6:44:03 PM
> Hello Fellow Topbanders -
>
> We are about to embark on a front yard landscaping project at our home on
> a tiny 12, 500 sq. ft. lot.
>
> It occurred to me this would be an excellent opportunity to put down a
> large number of buried ground radials BUT, they would only cover about 90
> degrees of the compass. Then it also occurred to me I could put down a
> large number of radials in our crawl space under the house.
>
> So, my question is, what is the likely negative impact, if any, from the
> house being between the 160 meter vertical and the radials placed under
> the house? I assume the house material, most of which is wood, tile,
> sheetrock, etc. (with the usual house wiring) would be invisible to RF and
> have minimal impact.
>
> If I could put down say 60 radials ranging in length from 40 to 120 feet
> long, would it outperform my current system with 8 resonant elevated
> radials 10 -15 feet high (which cover only about 120 degrees of the
> compass)? I'm incline to proceed IF it would provide a meaningful
> improvement in my transmitted signal strength.
>
> Thanks for any help!
>
> 73,
>
> Bob/AA6VB
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 19:18:47 -0800
> From: Bob K6ZZ <bob.selbrede at gmail.com>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: Feeding 160M Vertical on 80M
> Message-ID:
> <CAOu9doxm8xXo-=zAzdrm=nWP+MHeg1JFAVjc_ssTqH4BgHiraw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Folks,
>
> I have a 60' tall top loaded vertical for 160M and would like to know how
> best to feed it to use it on 80M as well. On 80M there will be some
> pretty
> high voltages at the feedpoint.
>
> Other than dealing with high voltages, is doing this a bad idea (or good
> idea) for any partcular reason(s)? The high current point would be higher
> above ground which seems beneficial at the very least.
>
> What would be the best method for matching it on 80M?
>
> Do 1/2 wavelength ground mounted verticals require the same quality ground
> radial system that 1/4 wavelength verticals require?
>
> Thanks and HNY to all!
>
> 73, Bob K6ZZ
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 21:31:46 -0800
> From: Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Preliminary Stew Results
> Message-ID: <52CB9142.2030009 at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 1/6/2014 8:57 PM, Tree wrote:
>> Back by popular demand - the current log checking results for the
>> December
>> Stew Perry contest are now available.
>
> This looks like a lot of logs. Is participation up?
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 01:14:19 -0500
> From: "Charlie Cunningham" <charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com>
> To: "'Bob K6ZZ'" <bob.selbrede at gmail.com>, <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Feeding 160M Vertical on 80M
> Message-ID:
> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAF0xXac1rOhFkn7GlcEWNIjCgAAAEAAAANXFLAjqyLFIo+D98/RpCpQBAAAAAA==@nc.rr.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi, Bob
>
> End feeding that 160m 1/4 wave as an 80m 1/2 wave should work great! For
> several years I ran a vertical 40m 1/2 wave that I fed at the bottom
> through
> a 1/4 wave of 450 ohm ladder line. Perfect match (almost 1:1) on the CW
> end
> of 40m with NO TUNER! I could run it to full power with a FT-757 GX that I
> had at the time with nop antenna tuner. It had good BW and runnng it all
> across 40m was no problem, although I've always been mostly a CW DXer. I
> workd everywhere on the planet with that antenna! I later added a
> reflector
> and director for Bouvet and worked 'e first call in a BIG east coast pile
> when they came up. (Jacky, F2CW at the key). Late It was a reall killer on
> the evening 150 degree LP into SE Asia, and when ZS8MI came up, I almost
> missed him because he was S9+20db on the FT-757!
>
> No, you don't need any radial field under a vertical 1/2 wave. You'll be
> driving a few thousand ohms, so a a few ohms or even 50-100 ohms of ground
> resistance won't add any significant loss. A simple ground rod will do
> fine.
> You can start and drive it with "slam-pipe" if you know what that is.
> (You
> ight be able to borrow one from an electrical utility guy. And, as you
> say,
> the high-current maximum will be up 1/4 wavelength so you'll have an
> excellent low take-off angle! Enjoy!
>
> BTW, when I did the 1/4 wave matching section, I did take care to feed the
> antenna with the side of the 450 ohm line that was connected to the center
> conductor of the coax, Of course, you could also feed it with an 80m
> parallel-tuned circuit, that you would tap down to find the 50 ohm point.
>
> Have fun!! I Think you'll be pleased!
>
> 73,
> Charlie, K4OTV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> K6ZZ
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 10:19 PM
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: Feeding 160M Vertical on 80M
>
> Folks,
>
> I have a 60' tall top loaded vertical for 160M and would like to know how
> best to feed it to use it on 80M as well. On 80M there will be some
> pretty
> high voltages at the feedpoint.
>
> Other than dealing with high voltages, is doing this a bad idea (or good
> idea) for any partcular reason(s)? The high current point would be higher
> above ground which seems beneficial at the very least.
>
> What would be the best method for matching it on 80M?
>
> Do 1/2 wavelength ground mounted verticals require the same quality ground
> radial system that 1/4 wavelength verticals require?
>
> Thanks and HNY to all!
>
> 73, Bob K6ZZ
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 22:27:01 -0800
> From: Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Feeding 160M Vertical on 80M
> Message-ID: <52CB9E35.3090702 at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 1/6/2014 10:14 PM, Charlie Cunningham wrote:
>> No, you don't need any radial field under a vertical 1/2 wave. You'll be
>> driving a few thousand ohms, so a a few ohms or even 50-100 ohms of
>> ground
>> resistance won't add any significant loss. A simple ground rod will do
>> fine.
>
> Yes, but radials DO help -- a bit. See the ON4UN book. Modeling shows
> that adding a lot of half-wave radials under a half wave antenna
> increases signal strength by 0.5 - 1.5 dB at low angles, roughly twice
> as much at higher angles, the greater improvement for lousy ground. To
> understand this, we must remember that radials serve TWO functions -- to
> return the antenna current, and to SHIELD the fields produced by the
> antenna from lossy earth. That is, of course, a lot of copper for 1 dB.
>
> Another common way of feeding a half wave vertical is an autotransformer
> resonated by parallel capacitance. I've done that, and it worked.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 01:58:10 -0500
> From: "Charlie Cunningham" <charlie-cunningham at nc.rr.com>
> To: <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>, <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Feeding 160M Vertical on 80M
> Message-ID:
> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAF0xXac1rOhFkn7GlcEWNIjCgAAAEAAAAGU+QLtW0rZCtkyTD88waAEBAAAAAA==@nc.rr.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Well, sometimes, life is the art of the possible. At the time I was living
> in q small duplex on a corner lot and running a bunch of on-ground radials
> wasn't an option. Still I was working YBs and DUs etc. on the evening LP
> on
> 40m that others weren't even hearing! They'd come up on frequency and send
> ??? -during and after my qsos. In my experience a vertical 1/2 wave is a
> very potent antenna because its high current portion is up 1/4 wavelength
> and it's take-off angle is so low for DX work even without that last 1
> dB!!
> Just like some guy s like to dig in the dirt and bury thousands of feet
> of
> radials under their inverted Ls when they could do just as well, or
> better,
> with 4 elevated resonant radials. But in the end - "if you believe, no
> proof
> is necessary - if you don't believe, no proof is possible". Some people
> are
> more taken in by popular opinions than by measurements or modeling!
>
> 73,
> Charlie, K4OTV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim
> Brown
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 1:27 AM
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Feeding 160M Vertical on 80M
>
> On 1/6/2014 10:14 PM, Charlie Cunningham wrote:
>> No, you don't need any radial field under a vertical 1/2 wave. You'll be
>> driving a few thousand ohms, so a a few ohms or even 50-100 ohms of
>> ground
>> resistance won't add any significant loss. A simple ground rod will do
> fine.
>
> Yes, but radials DO help -- a bit. See the ON4UN book. Modeling shows
> that adding a lot of half-wave radials under a half wave antenna
> increases signal strength by 0.5 - 1.5 dB at low angles, roughly twice
> as much at higher angles, the greater improvement for lousy ground. To
> understand this, we must remember that radials serve TWO functions -- to
> return the antenna current, and to SHIELD the fields produced by the
> antenna from lossy earth. That is, of course, a lot of copper for 1 dB.
>
> Another common way of feeding a half wave vertical is an autotransformer
> resonated by parallel capacitance. I've done that, and it worked.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:05:29 -0500
> From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji at w8ji.com>
> To: "Bob K6ZZ" <bob.selbrede at gmail.com>, <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Feeding 160M Vertical on 80M
> Message-ID: <6CC8AA70D75948AD96382AA18BA3FC69 at MAIN>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
>> I have a 60' tall top loaded vertical for 160M and would like to know how
>> best to feed it to use it on 80M as well. On 80M there will be some
>> pretty
>> high voltages at the feedpoint.
>>
>
> What is the top loading? Because something resonates on 160 m with
> something
> on the top doesn't mean it will act like a half wave on 80.
>
> Without knowing what the loading system is, nothing can really be
> answered.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Topband mailing list
> Topband at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Topband Digest, Vol 133, Issue 9
> ***************************************
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6980 - Release Date: 01/06/14
>
More information about the Topband
mailing list