TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)

To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)
From: d.e.warnick@comcast.net
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 21:37:54 +0000 (UTC)
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>

ARRL Antenna Books have covered this for a long time. The 21st Edition (latest) 
on page 6-16 (index says 6-20, but that's incorrect),  says: 

"Work by Al Christman, K3LC (ex-KB8I) has shown that 4 to 8 elevated radials 
can provide performance comparable to 120 " 1/4 wavelength "long buried wires." 



That pretty much says it all. After all, that's what we do when we solder wires 
to an SO-239 to make a 2-meter ground plane. 



Dave 

WA3F 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Graves" <jh.graves@verizon.net> 
To: tentec@contesting.com 
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2011 4:20:56 PM 
Subject: Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology  (NVIS origins) 

  I have had until recently, an R7 that worked almost anywhere I wanted 
to try, but if you want to talk 1.4 wave verticals, I would thing you 
want to start with Severns article in QST  (In 2000).  Also wasn't there 
an earlier article recarding vertical ground systems by Sommers or 
Somers?  Anyway, The conclusion I drew from them is that traditional 
ground systems are fine but if you are going to compromise, then a lot 
of short radials are better than a few long ones.  I can't remember the 
author but there was another article (maybe by one of the two authors I 
cited)  that claimed the big exception is for elevated radials.  The 
article claimed (as I recall) that 4 elevated radials performed as well 
as 32 ground radials.  In either case, it sounds as though there are 
several options available to us vertical users that make for a better 
than average antenna system 

John -- WA1JG 

WA1JG@nsradio.org 


On 1/5/2011 12:42 PM, Richards wrote: 
> There is a question or two on the Extra Class Exam 
> that makes the same point.   You add ground radials to 
> to a quarter wave vertical antenna to increase low radiation 
> angle.   Gordon West says so on his audio discs....    ;-) 
> 
> =================  JHR  =================== 
> 
> On 1/5/2011 12:09 AM, Ken Brown wrote: 
>> Hi Rick, 
>> 
>> I'll have to review this, maybe I am suffering from a false memory, or 
>> an accurate memory of false information. I thought that a poor 
>> counterpoise under a vertical reduced the overall efficiency AND had a 
>> negative effect on the pattern diminishing the low angle radiation more 
>> than the higher angle radiation. N6LF's studies may help clear it up. 
>>> The number of radials won't really affect the angle of radiation. 
>>> With a poor ground, you will still have a low take-off angle; you'll just 
>>> had a heck of a lot of ground losses. 
>>> 
> ================================================ 
> _______________________________________________ 
> TenTec mailing list 
> TenTec@contesting.com 
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec 
> 
_______________________________________________ 
TenTec mailing list 
TenTec@contesting.com 
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec 
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>