Mike and others. All you have to do is model it to see the result. The more
horizontal component of an L, the lower the max gain of the low angle vertical
portion. If you counter that with worse and worse ground losses, absorbing the
low angle vertical radiation, you can make the numbers do whatever you want.
That’s the only way I can see to get to the described data that K2AV is
describing. The fact that it is all sitting on a tiny FCP ground system on his
link speaks volumes as to why his data looks like it does. But it is not
comparable certainly to my system nor many others.
73
Ed N1UR
From: Mike Waters [mailto:mikewate@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 29, 2020 3:10 PM
To: Ed Sawyer
Cc: Guy Olinger K2AV; topband
Subject: Re: Topband: T Top Verticals and yagis
Hi Ed,
I can appreciate your line of thinking. However, I am 99% certain that he --and
others-- published what he said here well before he came up with his FCP
design. Also, other technical gurus here have long stated the same thing.
Also, his original site crashed, and I don't believe the FCP stuff was there
until later. But that's a moot point.
I don't use an FCP, since I have room for elevated resonant radials here. But
it's a great compromise for those on postage-stamp size city lots. :-)
I just saw your other message as I was typing this reply. You have a higher
degree than I have. Perhaps others will comment on this. I hope so.
73, Mike
W0BTU
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020, 1:58 PM Ed Sawyer <sawyered@earthlink.net> wrote:
No attack intended. But his website is titled Folded Counter Poise. And that
compromise ground system has a lot to do with his data. I don’t have a folded
counterpoise under my 160M Ts. ON4UN’s book is far more instructive
generically about a T vs an inverted L under efficient ground systems. You
might look to read it.
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
|