The real issue with verticals over bad "ground" of that sort is to couple as little of it as possible. There is good evidence that DENSE elevated radials are effective over really bad earth. Since "dense" and "elevated" coupled together can easily be one of those easy-to-say-and-don't-dare-do situations practically, the possibility may make little difference.
73, Guy. On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 6:07 PM, David Cutter <d.cut...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > It's very patchy: there are areas of huge clay deposits stretching for miles > and very deep; I've forgotten the geological term for it, but I understand > it was pushed into place by the last ice age; good for low loss low angle > radiation I understand. There are also large areas of sand stone which is > pretty hopeless for anything radio they tell me. Looking at the geology > around Stephen I'd say it wasn't too good, however the sea isn't far away so > the take off to the States is quite good if the immediate area around the > antenna could be made efficient. Isn't the internet wonderful? > > David > G3UNA > > > > I don't know > about Stephen's area of the UK, but I will easily accept his experience that > verticals don't work well there. > Willis 'Cookie' Cooke > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
