[Elecraft] Small QRP antenna

[David Gilbert]

You aren't being overly pedantic ... you're simply being wrong. Velocity 
factor for electromagnetic emmissions is the ratio of any signal in any 
environment compared to its value in free space.  The velocity factor of 
a signal in a transmission line is a function of geometry and 
surrounding materials, and the same is true of a signal in a single wire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_factor  if you aren't convinced.

Dave   AB7E



On 12/29/2016 4:33 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
> This is quite likely overly pedantic, but “velocity factor” is a characteristic of transmission lines. Interestingly, it is independent of frequency (up to the limit of the dielectric). It depends on the geometry of the line and the dielectric material.
>
> Antennas don’t have a velocity factor. The shortened elements are caused by capacitive loading against (RF) ground. There is a percentage of the free-space electrical length due to capacitive loading, but it is not a velocity factor. I don’t think this has a snappy shorthand other than “electrical lengthening due to capacitive loading”.
>
> For example, dipoles with capacity caps on the ends, like the N6BT designs, don’t change the velocity of propagation along the elements. They use massive capacity loading on the ends (the high-voltage part of the dipole) to shorten the elements.
>
> http://www.force12inc.com/products/sigma-20-hd-20-meter-heavy-duty-vertical-dipole.html <http://www.force12inc.com/products/sigma-20-hd-20-meter-heavy-duty-vertical-dipole.html>
>
> OK, overly pedantic mode off, plus I’ve nearly hit the limit of what I remember from my fields and waves class decades ago. I was pretty happy to get a B- in that class.
>
> wunder
> K6WRU
> Walter Underwood
> CM87wj
> http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
>
>> On Dec 29, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu,12/29/2016 1:53 PM, Bill Frantz wrote:
>>> If this is really what is going on, then a bit longer than 1/8 wave should be about right for radials on/under the ground.
>> I did an NEC study several years ago placing a half wave dipole at heights above ground from several feet down to an inch, and varied the length of the dipole so that it remained resonant at each height. From that I plotted VF. As close to the earth as I could model it, VF was about 0.7. At heights of 3 ft or more, VF on 160M was close to 1.
>>
>> N6LF published a detailed study of radial lengths and recommended an optimum length for elevated radials slightly less than a quarter wave. His basis was that making them slightly shorter caused current distribution between them to be more equal, which reduces ground losses. Rudy's website is a wealth of great info about radials.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to wunder at wunderwood.org
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to xdavid at cis-broadband.com