[TowerTalk] re Radials

[Richard M. Gillingham]

My fascination with them for the low bands is that I haven't the space for a 
wire that long...  Perhaps for 40, but not for 80, and certainly not for 
160..  And the radial field is a compromise too, for the same reason..

We do what we can..

73
Gil, W1RG
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Turner" <dezrat at copper.net>
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials


> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> At 06:52 AM 6/16/2006, hasan schiers wrote:
>
>>Over
>>reasonably good soil in the first place, you will get > 70% efficiency.
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> I've never understood the fascination with verticals for the low
> bands. If you put up a dipole or inverted vee, you get 100%
> efficiency, lower receive noise, use a LOT less copper and do a lot
> less work. And the local signals will be much stronger.
>
> Yes, I know verticals have a lower radiation angle, but on 160/80/40
> most signals arrive at high angles anyway. On the higher frequencies
> a vertical would be more practical, but there most folks use beams.
>
> To each his own.
>
> Bill, W6WRT
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk