[TowerTalk] 133' Vertical on 160?

[Rick Karlquist]

K4SAV wrote:
> I often see the quote that making a vertical (or inverted L) longer than
> a quarter wave reduces ground loss because the radiation resistance goes
> up.  I would like to believe that, because that is what I am using for
> an antenna, but I don't want to kid myself.  I'll admit that the

About 10 years ago, I built a 1/4 wave 20 meter vertical with
32 1/4 wave radials and compared it to a 1/2 wave 20 meter vertical
with 4 4 foot radials.  No difference at all.  So the 1/2 wave
vertical not only didn't require more radials, it basically didn't
need any radials at all.  (Yes I know WWVH says they needed
radials on their halfwave vertical.  Not my experience.)

> I was going to let the "useless horizontal waves" comment pass, but
> while I'm at it I may as well take a swipe at that too.  Most people
> that use dipoles, inverted vees, and Yagi's don't think they are useless.
>
> Jerry, K4SAV

The comment was specific to 160 meters and was in reference to
adding horizontally polarized radiation to a vertical.  Maybe that
wasn't clear.  If the only antenna you have on 160 is a dipole,
it is better than nothing.  Compared to a vertical, it is generally
ineffective.  As with everything, there are "corner cases".  I
use only Yagi's above 4 MHz.  Propagation is different up there.

Rick N6RK