James Rodenkirch wrote:
What about radials above the ground?
This link http://www.commtechrf.com/documents/nab1995.pdf leads to a paper
by Clarence Beverage with some real-world results for monopoles with
elevated wires used as a counterpoise. Here is a quote from it:
\ \The antenna system
These elevated systems are readily modeled using NEC-2. However the
radiation patterns shown by a typical NEC far-field analysis do not
accurately show the fields actually launched by them, or by any vertical
radiator with its base near the earth, because they do not include the
surface
Keep in mind this Sole purpose of a BC station is to get coverage of about 60
miles running 5KW day time and 1 KW night time with no fad and quality signal
not to work DX.
I read in some posts or on some web site that it does not matter if the ends
are tied to a ground rod or not. Note then
to be reduced to the original level.
Carl
KM1H
- Original Message -
From: Richard Fry r...@adams.net
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2012 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: radals fer 160m vertcal
James Rodenkirch wrote:
What about radials above the ground?
This link http
Thank you, Richard, fore passing the paper onlooks like I won't suffer by
having elevated radials in the least. Jim R. K9JWV
From: r...@adams.net
To: topband@contesting.com
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 07:07:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: radals fer 160m vertcal
James Rodenkirch
Thanks for the wisdom, Rich. :-)
However, I've always wondered about the following statement. My question
is, on what amateur bands is this common? And on what amateur bands is this
possible?
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Richard Fry r...@adams.net wrote:
Those fields from very low elevation
RE:
Those fields from very low elevation angles (say, less then 5 degrees)
can reach the ionosphere, and under the right conditions return to the
earth as a useful skywave.
Mike Waters asks:
My question is, on what amateur bands is this common? And on what
amateur bands is this possible?
It
superior.
Carl
KM1H
Carl
KM1H
- Original Message -
From: Richard Fry r...@adams.net
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2012 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: radals fer 160m vertcal
RE:
Those fields from very low elevation angles (say, less then 5 degrees)
can reach
Carl KM1H wrote [sic]:
Ive copied US BCB stations as far inland as Chicago in the far eastern
Meditaranean. Id be curious what the propagation mode was and if sky wave
how many hops?
It certainly wasn't by their ground/surface wave, but their skywave.
As to how many hops that took, please
- Original Message -
From: Richard Fry r...@adams.net
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2012 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: radals fer 160m vertcal
Carl KM1H wrote [sic]:
Ive copied US BCB stations as far inland as Chicago in the far eastern
Meditaranean. Id
Perhaps a case of need vs. want. If you want zero db power loss vs.
perfect ground, then the far-right column in that chart applies -- which
is pretty close to LaPort's finding (.4 vs. .5 wavelength).
73/Jon AA1K
On 5/3/2012 10:30 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
You don't need 120 radials. The optimum
On 2012-05-04, at 8:05 AM, W2RU - Bud Hippisley wrote:
Bottom line: From my two decades of experience DXing on 160, there's far too
much angst about the number and precise length of radials for amateur
installations.
Hi Bud,
AMEN to that statement---well said!
~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI -
Carl KM1H wrote:
That chart is about as obsolete as a 6V automotive electrical system. etc
Just to note that the graphics I linked to were part of the 1937 benchmark
experiments and I.R.E. paper of Brown, Lewis Epstein of RCA Laboratories,
and is the basis for the FCC requirements for the
Bud, W2RU wrote:
3. Using radials that are longer than a vertical (of reasonable
electrical length) is tall simply wastes a lot of money (and real estate).
Those tending toward such beliefs should be interested in the clip at the
link below, as well as the BLE study linked earlier in this
On 5/4/2012 5:52 PM, James Rodenkirch wrote:
What about radials above the ground? Like what I'm planning to install ---
base of the vertical at around 5' to 6' above ground and slope all of the
radials from that 5' or 6' point down to the ground?
N6LF has published extensive work that he
/HamRadioPropagation/
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 18:34:31 -0700
From: j...@audiosystemsgroup.com
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: radals fer 160m vertcal
On 5/4/2012 5:52 PM, James Rodenkirch wrote:
What about radials above the ground? Like what I'm planning to install
At my old QTH in ILL, I used a fed tower with 4 elevated radials, they
were about
12 foot off the ground, it worked fairly well, but I started adding
radials on the ground,
as I added radials the feed point impedance changed, I hit diminishing
returns at about
60 radials, the difference
On May 4, 2012, at 8:10 PM, Richard Fry wrote:
Bud, W2RU wrote:
3. Using radials that are longer than a vertical (of reasonable
electrical length) is tall simply wastes a lot of money (and real estate).
Those tending toward such beliefs should be interested in the clip at the
link
On 5/4/2012 10:01 PM, Merv Schweigert wrote:
I find a big difference in 160 compared to a 4 radial GP type system
on 40 meters, maybe if the radials were much higher and less coupling
to the ground they would work better.
Purely on a logical basis there are two factors working against the
- Forwarded message from vk...@vk3pa.com -
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 22:12:34 -0400
From: vk...@vk3pa.com
Reply-To: vk...@vk3pa.com
Subject: radals fer 60 vertcal
To: topband-requ...@contesting.com
Hi all.
my gud Antenna book Radio Antenna Engneerng by EDMOUND LAPORT
And whats the data for 120 radiales 1/4 wavelenght each one?
I thought best length is 1/4 wl but seems not always.
Thanks,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W
Enviado desde mi iPad
El 03/05/2012, a las 23:30, Mike Waters mikew...@gmail.com escribió:
You don't need 120 radials. The optimum radial length is
21 matches
Mail list logo
