I recall reading from Ralph Holland that 0.015 wavelength was a good height.
David
G3UNA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Waters" <mikewate@gmail.com>
To: "Rob Atkinson" <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; "topband"
<topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L
Fifty feet?! That means the feedpoint --the bottom of the antenna-- would
be 50 feet up! Do you know how high the top would have to be? I don't
agree
with that at all. And I've never heard of anyone who ever did that.
The four elevated radials in these tests were just 16 feet high! And what
is more, the frequencies were 1490, 1450, 1240, and (maybe) 625 KHz.
Almost
as effective as 120 buried radials.
lists.contesting.com/_topband/2007-11/msg00248.html
I forget the radial height in Rudy Severns' (N6LF) tests, but IIRC they
weren't anywhere near 50' high.
My two elevated radials were 10' high. I know that a little higher (and a
few more of them) would have been better, but I can tell you that that
160m
inverted-L WORKED! And I'm by no means the only one. :-)
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 6:10 AM, Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>
wrote:
The rule of thumb for effective elevated radial height is 1/10
wavelength,
so on 160, around 50 feet up.
73
Rob
K5UJ
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|