The short answer is no, it won't make a hill of beans worth of difference.
What does make a difference is the number. Turns out the denser the
radial field near the antenna, the lower the losses. Ground radials are
there to shield the antenna from the ground underneath.
If I was doing it I'd install 32, 65' radials and 32, 32' radials.
On 2/27/2016 9:49 AM, Vincent Weal wrote:
I'm installing a 40/80 meter vertical (DX Engineering 8040VA-1) which calls
for 65 foot radials. However, I recently saw a video of an antenna
presentation by W3LPL in which Frank suggests 70 foot radials for an 80
meter antenna. I'll be burying the radials about an inch in the ground.
Will it really make a dime's worth of difference whether I cut the radials
at 65 ft or 70 ft? My understanding of radials has always been that
elevated radials should be cut at a quarter wave plus 5%, but ground radial
length isn't critical. I just wanted to get a consensus before I start
chopping up thousands of feet of wire.
(Yes, I am burying the radials because the guy who cuts my lawn will
annihilate anything in his path. He even once managed to destroy an
inverted vee that was 40 ft in the air!)
73, Vince K4JC
--
R. Kevin Stover
AC0H
ARRL
FISTS #11993
SKCC #215
NAQCC #3441
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|