On 2011-05-24, at 9:34 AM, Jim Lux wrote:
> The former does things "because we've done it that way in the past and it
> worked".
Hi Jim,
I fear that that very same mantra seems to prevail now re. radials, only in
reverse...
Specifically, "...Put in as many radials as you can. PERIOD." Well, to a
newcomer, just how many is "as many"...? And what's the best length for what
you put in...?
So many EZNEC-armed experts to-day have come to embrace the very thing they
espouse to deplore, i.e. they've come to "...Doing things (LAYING RADIAL
FIELDS) because we've done it that way in the past (AS MANY AS POSSIBLE.
PERIOD) and it worked (I'M #1 IN THE ARRL DXCC STANDINGS FOR 160)."
All I'm saying---rather poorly, too, obviously!--is that there are actual
quantitative measurements to be seen/had as a guide to newbies...simply stating
that "...put in as many radials as you can!" just doesn't cut it anymore, and
is short-changing guys who are just beginning to explore this facet of the
antenna world.
There ARE viable alternatives, and if one is willing to accept the consequent
compromises, good results can still be had, and a lot of fun experienced. This
stuff isn't black magic---and a lot of guys have taken the trouble to document
incremental improvements to radial fields to assist us, IF we are willing to
take the trouble to dig such gems out of the noise being generated by the
nay-sayers...
~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|