[TowerTalk] modeling compare: 80M, 2EL vs 4SQ

[Ed Sawyer]

I thought for sure that I had seen elevated radials and a groundscreen pictures from K3LR but clearly they are not.  They are a 120 ground radial pattern.  Sorry for my mistake on that.

Ed  N1UR

-----Original Message-----
From: David Gilbert [mailto:xdavid at cis-broadband.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 12:48 AM
To: sawyered at earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] modeling compare: 80M, 2EL vs 4SQ


I'm confused.  I've searched all over K3LR's web page and can't find any description of his elevated radials.  Can you provide a link or something?

Dave   AB7E



On 3/17/2015 6:34 PM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
> My point is that the K3LR belief must be that it was worth the effort to improve the ground losses and overall transmit efficiency or they wouldn't have done it.
>
> Lets hear what K3LR has to say.
>
> Ed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve London [mailto:n2icarrl at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:38 PM
> To: sawyered at earthlink.net
> Cc: ab7e >> Dave - AB7E
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] modeling compare: 80M, 2EL vs 4SQ
>
> Ed says:
>
>
> Try listening to K3LR running EU on 80M and think again.  Ohio/Penn soil is not salt water and a 4 sq is a 4 sq.  So if the extensive ground screen over elevated radials is so useless - what is your explanation of the performance.
>
> ---------------
>
> What is your point ? K3LR has a pair of phased 4-squares on 80. All with ground radials. His soil is pretty wet - downright swampy in the 80 meter radial field during the fall contest season when I have been there.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
>
>