[Antennas] Vertical

Thu Dec 1 22:50:45 EST 2005

<<My conclusion was at least in this location,>>

Add to the above statement:

1.  Soil conductivity (*most important*)
2.  Frequency
3.  Radial wire characteristics (length, less important: size, insulation, 
composition)
4.  Vertical configuration (electrical equivalent length, etc.).
5.  Radial configuration and placement...

And your formula works for your situation.  It may or may not work for the 
guy 100 miles away.  The easiest way I've found to tell is via the impedance 
test/ experiment.

I'm curious about your test method.  How did you identify an "S" unit 
increase for adding 40 radials in a controlled situation?  How did you take 
generalized band conditions out of the picture? or did you build an antenna 
test range?

Sincerely,

Dr. William J. Schmidt, II  K9HZ
Trustee of the North American QRO - Central Division Club - K9ZC

Email: bill at wjschmidt.com
WebPage: www.wjschmidt.com

"It's not what you take with you... but what you leave behind that counts. 
Live each day as if it were your last."

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <rbbtslyr at comporium.net>
To: "Dr William J Schmidt II" <bill at wjschmidt.com>; "antennas" 
<antennas at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Antennas] Vertical

I did an expirement before the destruction of my vertical last year, by a
hurricane, coming up here, a wind gust ripped it apart.  I started on 20 and
40 with 8 radials and added them until I had 40, at 40 per band I was
getting good reports and signals on receive were good.  I then added another
40 to the tie point and they went up by 1 S unit and the swr remained flat
over a much larger area, this was a homebrew 2 bander and used a full size
1/4 on each band. My conculsion was at least in this location, the more
ground radials the better, but there would be a point of diminising returns
on the number somewhere between 80 and 120. I plan to rebuild the antenna
one day and add 15 and 10 and I will most likely use around 120.

Kirk   KA4PXK

Meddle not in the Affairs of Dragons for Thou Art Crunchy and taste good
with Catsup or BBQ Sauce !!!

KA4PXK location
Liberty Hill, SC (Kershaw)
Longitude: 80° 48' 7" W (-80.8019°)
Latitude: 34° 28' 41" N (34.4781°)
Grid: EM94ql

Location is 32.1 mi (51.7 km) from SOUTH edge of grid square, 36.0 mi (57.9
km) from EAST edge of grid square.

See I do to know where I am coming from !!! <G>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr William J Schmidt II" <bill at wjschmidt.com>
To: <antennas at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Antennas] Vertical

> <<For ground mounted verticals, 50 or more radials seems optimum with 130
or
> more near perfection but 4 or so does work.>>
>
> Don't  "drink the cool-aid" on this advice... do the impedance test... its
> the only way that I know of short of a full soil conductivity test and
NEC4
> modeling to tell for sure!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dr. William J. Schmidt, II  K9HZ
> Trustee of the North American QRO - Central Division Club - K9ZC
>
> Email: bill at wjschmidt.com
> WebPage: www.wjschmidt.com
>
> "It's not what you take with you... but what you leave behind that counts.
> Live each day as if it were your last."
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Hendrid at aol.com>
> To: <antennas at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 11:44 AM
> Subject: [Antennas] Vertical
>
>
> > Hi Sean,
> >
> > Not sure how this adding a reply works, but Cebik has done a lot of
> > analysis
> > and antenna testing and is a well accepted authority on hf dipoles and
> > verticals.  His conclusion is that gain wise, a well made dipole in the
> > clear and
> > up about 1/2 wavelength is about as good as you can do for a wire
antenna
> > or
> > a vertical.  This includes versus low take off angle which  the vertical
> > favors.
> >
> > For those of us that do not have a clear area and the capability to get
a
> > dipole up 1/2 wavelength, and for dx or long range communication
(farther
> > than
> > 1000 miles or so), the vertical or some similar antenna such as a half
> > square
> > would probably be favored.  I have built and used a number of low
dipoles
> > and some verticals (not very successful on verticals) over the years and
> > studied what others have said and done.  An elevated vertical (base
> > elevated) seems
> > to get out significantly better than a ground mounted one if 4  or more
> > also
> > elevated radials are used.
> >
> > For ground mounted verticals, 50 or more radials seems optimum with 130
or
> > more near perfection but 4 or so does work.  Also, what many vertical
> > theorists and builders and users seem to neglect is the "ground plane"
> > characteristics of the soil at 2 to 4 wavelengths from the base of the
> > ground  mounted
> > vertical in addition to the radials at the base of the vertical.   That
is
> > the
> > reason that verticals are not normally recommended in the desert or
where
> > the
> > soil is dry.  Verticals next to an ocean shore or a body of water  or
> > moist soil
> > normally work great.
> >
> > Hope this helps,  Don NT7N  Grants Pass,  Oregon
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Antennas mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/antennas
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> > Post: mailto:Antennas at mailman.qth.net
> >
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Antennas mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/antennas
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:Antennas at mailman.qth.net