"Physically", they are elevated.
"Electrically", they could care less.
Anyone who has had elevated radials...the replaced them with
60+ radials will all tell you the same thing.....NO
CONTEST... Number of radials on ground outperforms the
elevated ones hands down.
I had 16 elevated radials on my 160M inverted L...and it was
a pretty good performer...or so I thought...
When I went to on the ground radials and got to 60 it was
incredible! When I got to 100, it was even better......I
stopped at 100! 15,000 feet of wire was enough!
Not that I have moved to MASS from VA....I will again put
out the masses of on ground radials!
Just my .02 worth...but worth every penny!
Jose - N1BAA
The New "1" in town!
towertalk-request@contesting.com wrote:
> Send TowerTalk mailing list submissions to
> towertalk@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> towertalk-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> towertalk-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of TowerTalk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Ground Conductivity - Was:Re: Inverted L for 160 meters
> (jeremy-ca)
> 2. Re: Inverted L for 160 meters (David Gilbert)
> 3. Re: Inverted L for 160 meters (David Gilbert)
> 4. (no subject) (jacobsen_5@msn.com)
> 5. Re: Inverted L for 160 meters (jeremy-ca)
> 6. Re: Inverted L for 160 meters (jeremy-ca)
> 7. Re: Inverted L for 160 meters (Jim McLaughlin)
> 8. Re: (no subject) (Dan Zimmerman N3OX)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:29:14 -0400
> From: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Ground Conductivity - Was:Re: Inverted L for
> 160 meters
> To: "Ken Bessler" <kg0wx@hotmail.com>, <towertalk@contesting.com>,
> "Pete Smith" <n4zr@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <005401c8129f$7ca6b7e0$6500a8c0@KITTYMA123>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Has anybody ever wondered about those sweet spots while driving around and
> listening on the AM band?
>
> Im talking about those spots where the complete band comes alive and not
> just one station. No HV power lines or salt water in sight.
>
> Carl
> KM1H
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pete Smith" <n4zr@contesting.com>
> To: "Ken Bessler" <kg0wx@hotmail.com>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 12:56 PM
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Ground Conductivity - Was:Re: Inverted L for 160 meters
>
>
>> I wonder if anyone knows how much ground conductivity varies within the
>> broad contours shown on the USGS map? For example, my area of West
>> Virginia is listed in the 2 millisiemen countour, probably because much of
>> the area is karst geology with only a narrow skin of soil over
>> limestone. However, the area where my tower is footed is an ancient river
>> bed, with 6-7 feet of usually moist soil. It seems (from experience only)
>> to be rather better than the general expectation of poor ground. I
>> presume
>> that the depth of soil needed depends in some large part on the skin depth
>> at the frequency of interest, but how far from a vertical antenna does
>> soil
>> conductivity continue to affect field strength?
>>
>> 73, Pete N4ZR
>>
>> At 09:11 AM 10/19/2007, Ken Bessler wrote:
>>
>>>> From: km1h@jeremy.mv.com
>>>> To: jim@audiosystemsgroup.com; towertalk@contesting.com
>>>> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:57:45 -0400
>>>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters
>>>>
>>>> A lot depends on the ground conductivity. With 32 radials 12' high I
>>>> never
>>>> waited in pileups very long. My ground conductivity is about that of
>>> granite
>>>> since it is only a foot or so below ground.
>>>>
>>>> Carl
>>>> KM1H
>>>>
>>> Incase any of you are wondering what the ground conductivity
>>> is in your area, I have a map from the USGS showing just that
>>> for the continental US. It is free to download at my website:
>>>
>>> http://members.cox.net/kg0wx/
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
>>> http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:37:11 -0700
> From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters
> To: jeremy-ca <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
> Cc: towertalk@contesting.com, Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Message-ID: <47193197.2080005@cis-broadband.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
> Wrong again, Carl. I've seen it mentioned here several times on this
> reflector that radials such a small a percent of a wavelength above
> ground really don't act as tuned elevated radials since they couple so
> closely to the ground, and that would seem to make intuitive sense. If
> you start with radials laying on the ground and closely coupled to it,
> then raise them a foot or so off the ground, then raise them some more,
> then some more ... the determining factor for when they begin to act
> independently of the ground is going to be some function of a wavelength.
>
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
> jeremy-ca wrote:
>>
>>> There's nothing WRONG with having radials 12 ft off the ground on 160,
>>> but they are not "elevated" radials, they act just like they were laying
>>> on the ground, because AS A FRACTION OF A WAVELENGTH, they are nearly on
>>> the ground.
>>>
>> Yes they are elevated radials, you are the only one Ive heard of that thinks
>> otherwise.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:50:13 -0700
> From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters
> To: jeremy-ca <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
> Cc: TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>, Jim Brown
> <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Message-ID: <471934A5.30400@cis-broadband.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
> I don't get it. That's going to generate several thousand documents to
> wade through, most of which won't address your claim. Why come back
> with such an obtuse and evasive answer if you actually have the
> references? I think you just make this junk up and then try to bully
> your way through the responses.
>
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
> jeremy-ca wrote:
>>>> BC band engineers have proven that an elevated
>>>> system delivers the same field strength OR BETTER than a classic 128
>>>> buried radials at the same site.
>>>>
>>> Perhaps you might cite the specific references in the literature that
>>> say that. The ones I've read don't say that.
>>>
>>
>> I guess you can find them the same way I did; try Google. I'll even give you
>> a couple of key words to assist. Elevated Radials; Unipole; Folded Unipole;
>> Broadcast Antennas to name a few.
>>
>> Carl
>> KM1H
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Jim Brown K9YC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:56:26 -0500
> From: <jacobsen_5@msn.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] (no subject)
> To: <n3ox@n3ox.net>, "Eric Hilding" <b38@hilding.com>, "towertalk"
> <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <BAY111-DAV2B1E8EADF9510F321A0D6B29F0@phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 10/19/07, Eric Hilding <b38@hilding.com<mailto:b38@hilding.com>> wrote:
>> My understanding is that use of the 160m loading coil for the HF-6V limits
>> the power to 500w on 160m.
>
> Dan, N3OX replied:
>
> "I'd believe that. The voltage across the coil will tend to be pretty fierce.
>
> 500W seems to give about 7600V across the coil. Full legal limit would be
> 13kV"
>
> To which I reply: The problem on 160m is not the voltage across the coil so
> much as the current. I read that the doorknob caps can't handle the current
> (which I suppose is also a function of the voltage). AND even at the 500 watt
> level, unless the caps are NPO type, they start to drift, and so does the
> resonant freq.
>
> Of course, as as always, YMMV.
> Oh, and I'm by no means an antenna Garu. I just read a lot.
>
> 73 es GDDX
> K9WN Jake
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:19:06 -0400
> From: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters
> To: "David Gilbert" <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
> Cc: towertalk@contesting.com, Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Message-ID: <00a601c812ae$d5e938a0$6500a8c0@KITTYMA123>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Gilbert" <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
> To: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
> Cc: <towertalk@contesting.com>; "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters
>
>
>> Wrong again, Carl. I've seen it mentioned here several times on this
>> reflector that radials such a small a percent of a wavelength above
>> ground really don't act as tuned elevated radials since they couple so
>> closely to the ground, and that would seem to make intuitive sense.
>
>
> What you really mean is that on this reflector you have read something that
> happens to agree with your view while dismissing all others. What a great
> concept.
>
>
> If
>> you start with radials laying on the ground and closely coupled to it,
>> then raise them a foot or so off the ground, then raise them some more,
>> then some more ... the determining factor for when they begin to act
>> independently of the ground is going to be some function of a wavelength.
>
>
> The ONLY determining factor is the field strength at x wavelengths if doing
> an A-B comparison between on ground and at some elevated distance. However,
> unless you spend all of your time on 160M AM or SSB ragchewing with locals,
> the radiation at 0 to maybe 10 degrees is meaningless. I suggest that you
> study ON4UN's book (The 4th Edition is the latest) as well as other
> writings that detail the angles necessary for DX work and why an obsession
> with installing a perfect ground is a waste of time.
>
> Carl
> KM1H
>
>
>
>> Dave AB7E
>>
>>
>>
>> jeremy-ca wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's nothing WRONG with having radials 12 ft off the ground on 160,
>>>> but they are not "elevated" radials, they act just like they were laying
>>>> on the ground, because AS A FRACTION OF A WAVELENGTH, they are nearly on
>>>> the ground.
>>>>
>>> Yes they are elevated radials, you are the only one Ive heard of that
>>> thinks
>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:19:19 -0400
> From: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters
> To: "David Gilbert" <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
> Cc: TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>, Jim Brown
> <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Message-ID: <00b101c812ae$dd9a8540$6500a8c0@KITTYMA123>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Gilbert" <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
> To: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
> Cc: "TowerTalk" <towertalk@contesting.com>; "Jim Brown"
> <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters
>
>
>> I don't get it. That's going to generate several thousand documents to
>> wade through, most of which won't address your claim.
>
> More guesswork on your part as usual. Did you actually try to find them or
> are you in grandstanding mode again? You seem to favor that mode.
>
>
> Why come back
>> with such an obtuse and evasive answer if you actually have the
>> references?
>
> I dont HAVE the references saved as I can read what I need and commit to
> memory. My Internet searches were done about a year ago for my own interest
> and not to satisfy you or anyone else too lazy to do his own research.
>
>
> I think you just make this junk up and then try to bully
>> your way through the responses.
>
> That is a real juvenile statement.
>
> I have no intention of having you try to goad me into an argument that will
> just aggravate Steve.
>
> Carl
> KM1H
>
>
>
>> Dave AB7E
>>
>>
>>
>> jeremy-ca wrote:
>>>>> BC band engineers have proven that an elevated
>>>>> system delivers the same field strength OR BETTER than a classic 128
>>>>> buried radials at the same site.
>>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you might cite the specific references in the literature that
>>>> say that. The ones I've read don't say that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess you can find them the same way I did; try Google. I'll even give
>>> you
>>> a couple of key words to assist. Elevated Radials; Unipole; Folded
>>> Unipole;
>>> Broadcast Antennas to name a few.
>>>
>>> Carl
>>> KM1H
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>>
>>>> Jim Brown K9YC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:19:08 -0500
> From: "Jim McLaughlin" <dearborn9@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters
> To: "David Gilbert" <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>, "jeremy-ca"
> <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
> Cc: TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>, Jim Brown
> <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Message-ID: <025e01c812ae$d5fe9560$91f0fea9@hamshack>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Dave,
>
> Maybe if possible just forget him. You've seen him do that before and he
> will again. He is just one of those 'self proclaimed' experts who will
> always have either more or better data then anybody else. You will never
> hear him admit that he is wrong and it will be an endless battle and not
> worth your effort.
>
> Jim- WA9FPT
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Gilbert" <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
> To: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
> Cc: "TowerTalk" <towertalk@contesting.com>; "Jim Brown"
> <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 5:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters
>
>
>> I don't get it. That's going to generate several thousand documents to
>> wade through, most of which won't address your claim. Why come back
>> with such an obtuse and evasive answer if you actually have the
>> references? I think you just make this junk up and then try to bully
>> your way through the responses.
>>
>> Dave AB7E
>>
>>
>>
>> jeremy-ca wrote:
>>>>> BC band engineers have proven that an elevated
>>>>> system delivers the same field strength OR BETTER than a classic 128
>>>>> buried radials at the same site.
>>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you might cite the specific references in the literature that
>>>> say that. The ones I've read don't say that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess you can find them the same way I did; try Google. I'll even give
>>> you
>>> a couple of key words to assist. Elevated Radials; Unipole; Folded
>>> Unipole;
>>> Broadcast Antennas to name a few.
>>>
>>> Carl
>>> KM1H
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>>
>>>> Jim Brown K9YC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:25:58 -0400
> From: "Dan Zimmerman N3OX" <n3ox@n3ox.net>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] (no subject)
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Message-ID:
> <141cfb1e0710191725j2ccba2ffsc926abbea4b1d246@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> "I read that the doorknob caps can't handle the current"
>
> That's probably right... I stand corrected.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
> End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 58, Issue 61
> *****************************************
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|