>To that end, their goal would not
> be well served by article that insisted that nothing is worth doing
> unless you can implant 120 radials a full wavelength long of the
> finest oxygen free copper, carefully implanted into precision sliced
> turf, which is watered by an automated system.
While this is true, I think we should be supplying new hams with a
more useful rule of thumb for a minimal radial system than "try
anything, even NONE." Suggesting the laying of zero, one, or two
radials just means that builders will have much weaker signals and
common mode current problems so they can save three hours of work.
Something like "Sixteen radials out to the edges of your yard" would
be a better minimum for an article on low band antennas in a city lot.
There is something to be said for starting simple and small with your
radial system. I agree that the idea of perfection is daunting.
Heck, I built everything in the antenna book except a ground mounted
vertical when I was starting out... I didn't feel like spending all
that time laying radials;
I've finally come around because of physical constraints and I put up
a vertical, and I've installed all the radials I can. They're spaced
about 6' at the tips all over my 100' x 40' lot.
It's a "miserable" ground system compared to a nice symmetric layout
of half wavelength radials on the lowest band, but it's a lot better
than three.
Sure, you can make up for the lack of radials with power, but if I
beat you in a pileup on a it's a little sad to have spent $4000 on
your 1.5kW and inverted L with two radials and I spent $30 and a day
laying wire so I can just run barefoot and win ;0)
73,
Dan
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|