[Ham-Mac] New House Ground

[Chuck Counselman]

At 7:56 PM -0700 12/20/03, Brian Short wrote:
>...I find it hard to accept the above for all paths at all times.
>    It just seems likely to me that there would be some path at
>    some time that would be preferable to the vertical.

I don't know when I got around to saying it, but my comments referred 
to radiation at 10 degrees elevation, which basically means long 
sky-wave paths.

There are so many random factors in HF propagation that general 
statements necessarily refer to statistical averages.  Yes, there are 
times when a vertical is better, e.g., when Faraday rotation produces 
an incident wave that happens, at a particular moment, to be 
vertically polarized.  But, for long sky-wave paths, on average, the 
horizontal antenna wins.  (It happens that the horizontal antenna 
also wins, even more consistently, for near vertical incidence 
skywave.)  For short-distance _ground_ wave, the vertical antenna 
always wins, because a ground wave is predominantly (by about 10 dB) 
vertically polarized.


>If I ever get to it (probably not this year) I plan to erect a 4-square
>of verticals with a phasing controller.  I have aluminum to construct
>roughly 33' long verticals.  Since it will be a very sandy desert QTH,
>my plan is to use elevated radials about 8' above ground.  I do not
>know soil conductivity precisely, other than to say VERY POOR.
>
>I'd greatly appreciate any constructive comments.

1. Elevated radials are better than near-ground or in-ground radials, 
because they do a better job of shielding the ground (which is 
resistive, and lossy) from the near field of your antenna.

2. The more radials, the better.

3. The longer, the better.


73 de Chuck, W1HIS