Further to Grant's comment, the N6LF info is available, free, at the
N6LF web site.
That series of QEX articles really should be the first stop for guys
wondering about their ground system effectiveness.
73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com
On 3/15/21 4:34 PM, Grant Saviers wrote:
N6LF has several plots of the change in gain for elevated radials
shorter than 1/4wl. For elevated, about 15% shorter then 1/4wl is the
peak IIRC. WA3FET did calculations of best # & length for a given
total length of radial wire on the ground. YMMV.
Grant KZ1W
On 3/15/2021 12:52, N4ZR wrote:
This is the second allusion to 1/8 wave elevated radials that I've
read, but I've been unable to find anything further, in the usual
sources. Any leads? I have an inverted L, but really don't have room
for 1/4 wave elevated radials and am told that my 8 x 70 foot radials
on the ground really aren't worth much.
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the new Reverse Beacon Network
web server at <http://beta.reversebeacon.net>.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.
On 3/15/2021 3:00 PM, Ignacy Misztal wrote:
My feeling is that modeling with verticals is less than perfect or
perhaps
the interpretation of results from modeling is imperfect.
In 160m contests we hear signals that are poor, OK and spectacular. In
cases I know, those OK have 30 radials and those spectacular have 100
radials. While the maximum angle radiation may be affected by < 1 db,
perhaps low angle radiation may be affected by 10db or more.
I had an inverted L with up 80 feet with 4 elevated and tuned
radials. Then
a shunt fed a 100ft tower with 16 upgraded later to 36 radials.
Modeling
indicated little difference. When tested by RBN, the tower was 6 db
better
with 16 radials and 8 db better with 36. Well worth the effort.
I used to have an inv L with a few 70 ft elevated radials used for both
160m and 80m. The performance was OK on 160m and pathetic on 80m.
There are
papers showing that 4 1/8 wave radials on the ground are better than
4 1/4
wave radials. Perhaps this applies to low elevated radials.
Verticals with
short radials need a transformer, not a balun.
Ignacy NO9E
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:58 AM Patrick Greenlee
<patrick_g@windstream.net>
wrote:
What comes to mind is how true to reality is the model's results? If
the model is relatively true to reality then most of us would
likely not
bother with additional radials.
You said, "It is working great." Is that a reasonable motivation
to add
4 more radials to maybe get 0.01 more dBi? The term diminishing
returns
comes to mind.
I would suggest leaving it alone and enjoy using it.
Have fun.
Patrick NJ5G
.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Dave Sublette" <k4to.dave@gmail.com>
To: "kj6y--- via TowerTalk" <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: 3/15/2021 10:26:00 AM
Subject: [TowerTalk] Vertical question
Good morning,
I recently changed my elevated 160 meter quarter wave vertical
with 8 full
sized radials to having only 1/8th wave length radials and only
four of
them. It is working great. So I thought adding four more radials
might
improve things.
But before I went to all the trouble I decided to model it and see if
there
was a difference in performance of the 8 radial version compared
to the 4
radial system.
I use a modelling program called Antenna Model. The result of the
comparison is this:
The 4 radial system showed a gain of 0.92 dBi with the main lobe
at an
elevation of 20 degrees.
The 8 radial system showed a gain of 0.93 dBi and an identical
elevation
pattern.
My question is: Why is the gain figure so low? A dipole exhibits
2.14
dBi
gain. Why doesn't the vertical show gain?
And lastly, I think these results tell me it isn't worth the
effort to add
four more radials.
Your thoughts?
Thanks & 73,
Dave, K4TO
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
|