On 12/2/22 11:32 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
On 12/2/2022 6:25 AM, Ignacy Misztal wrote:
On the other hand, some really loud stations n 160m, say 5-10 db
above the
crowd, use a massive amount of radials. This is for inland stations, far
away from salt water.
I think this describes my station. I do have a massive amount of
radials, and I am constantly told how strong my signal is.
As to cause and effect: I think not. The real secret sauce at
N6RK is the high conductivity ground, although the radials obviously
don't hurt. I am on the Sacramento river delta. We have 100% clay
going down 40 feet.
It's probably deeper than that. The entire Central Valley is alluvium
that's thousands of feet deep. In the delta, there's fresh loads of
sediment every year (sort of.. there are levees), and there was an
enormous amount in the late 1800s from hydraulic mining (as in hundreds
of feet thick).
Rick N6RK
Is there any discrepancy between modeling and real life performance with
the number of radials? Does adding radials beyond 32 help much? Any real
stories?
The precise number of radials that is optimum depends on ground
conductivity. N6LF's excellent work only strictly applies to HIS
ground. As for my ground, I suspect I could get away with only
8 or 16 radials. YMMV.
And, it depends a bit on takeoff angle. Broadcast AM is surface wave.
But 160 is probably looking for skywave, so the soil properties quite a
ways out have an effect on that. If you've got a 1 degree take off angle
and a 40 meter tall antenna, the "reflection" of the top of the antenna
is something like 2.2 km away
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|