Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials

To: <towertalk@contesting.com>, "Bill Turner" <dezrat@copper.net>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials
From: "Richard M. Gillingham" <rmoodyg@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:24:47 -0400
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
My fascination with them for the low bands is that I haven't the space for a 
wire that long...  Perhaps for 40, but not for 80, and certainly not for 
160..  And the radial field is a compromise too, for the same reason..

We do what we can..

73
Gil, W1RG
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Turner" <dezrat@copper.net>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials


> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> At 06:52 AM 6/16/2006, hasan schiers wrote:
>
>>Over
>>reasonably good soil in the first place, you will get > 70% efficiency.
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> I've never understood the fascination with verticals for the low
> bands. If you put up a dipole or inverted vee, you get 100%
> efficiency, lower receive noise, use a LOT less copper and do a lot
> less work. And the local signals will be much stronger.
>
> Yes, I know verticals have a lower radiation angle, but on 160/80/40
> most signals arrive at high angles anyway. On the higher frequencies
> a vertical would be more practical, but there most folks use beams.
>
> To each his own.
>
> Bill, W6WRT
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk 

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>