[PVRCNC] Optimum # radials article

Wed Nov 12 19:58:47 EST 2008

Guy... seriously.. do you have W8JIs lineup??: I know I dont have a four
square on 160!  And enough with the autocratic crap.  Seriously  Can
we have a grown up conversation???  Feel free to ignore everything below if
that makes you feel better.
I did have a nine square on 1130 kHz (which by the way uses a partial
elevated ground system on all nine towers.  Just like WISN, KFAN, WDFN,
KKGN, and so many others.  I guess RCA was wrong in their design.
http://www.fybush.com/Tower%20Site/060324/wisn-twrbase.jpg

Full article: http://www.fybush.com/sites/2006/site-060331.html

Or IEEE
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel1/11/93/00001415.pdf?arnumber=1415

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel1/11/5720/00217997.pdf?arnumber=217997

But it all depends on the take off angle you desire.

Trust me, the guys I am working with in regards to this consult with the
FCC, the military, antenna manufacturers, and have a number of papers on
antennas and design.  I am not just pulling this out of my back side.

I am aware of the models and that there are flaws.  These are not perfect.
 REPEAT: THESE ARE NOT PERFECT!  Never claimed them to be.  But all I can
say is that the elevated grounds I have worked with have performed rather
decently.  And they dont fade is j with moisture either.  In other words
they are much more stable.  But these were in VERY POOR SOIL CONDITIONS.

Here is all I am saying......

This was meant for a discussion, I never claimed that this is the final
word.

Unless you are one of the "professional" stations (that can afford to do a
four square on 160 with 60+ radials), going with MORE but shorter radials is
better than going with longer but fewer radials.

Elevated radials can (that doesnt mean WILL) improve your situation, IF you
are in a low conductive ground area:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/m3/index.html.  If you are in a high conductive
area, you more than likely will do better with buried.  I believe I have
always said that you will need to TRY this.  This is for the smaller station
to try.  REPEAT THIS IS FOR THE SMALLER STATION TO TRY.

I did find this review to be quite interesting:
http://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/files/antenna_ground_system_experiment_3.pdf

This review ALSO says that it depends on the ground at your
location... something I have been stating all along, and is true in any
situation.  Unfortunately he uses mainly 4 elevated radials, whereas the
people I talk to say use 6.

All of the reviews for that sire may be had here:
http://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/2008/08/hf-vertical-gro.html

But since everyone is hell bent on shutting this discussion down.  By all
means.  I will shut up.

I will have no further input into this.

W8JI:Transmitting antennas

Currently have four-square for 160 using 120/240 degree phase shift (more
gain, better pattern)with four 1/4 wl vertical elements. I also have a 220
foot insulated tower, a 318 foot insulated tower that supports various wire
antennas, a 300 foot Rohn 65G, a rotating 200 foot tower with monoband yagis
for 40 through two meters.

Receiving antennas

My receiving arrays are mostly located about 1000-2500 feet from the
transmitting arrays, although a few are closer. I currently have about 35
Beverages that include arrays of Beverages, 12 phased 20 foot tall verticals
(in two arrays, one steerable with eight elements in a 330 foot circle and a
four element array- 330 ft by 70 foot- fixed on Europe or switchable to
South Pacific).

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Guy Olinger <Guy.Olinger at sas.com> wrote:

>  W8JI is one of those who measures.  And he's not some kind of autocrat
> rich celebrity we "common men" of common resources can now dismiss because
> of his dastardly autocratic money-bags celebrity-ness as nothing he's done
> could possibly scale down to our ordinariness.
>
>
>
> Far from it.  He keeps up a large web site where he shares what he has.  He
> has an email address.  Ask him what you want to know.  He's been a great
> resource to a lot of hams.
>
>
>
> He's had the opportunity to try all kinds of stuff on 160, including the
> only ham I know who put up a 160 dipole up at 300 feet to see how well  it
> would compare against a ¼ wave vertical over dense radials for DX. Models
> tell you all day long that broadside the dipole should be better by 3db or
> even more, depending. His description of the dipole (admittedly my
> recollection) was that it was rarely equal and mostly worse than the
> vertical.  Clearly something going on the models don't know about.
>
>
>
> The comparison you quote is from a MODEL run.  The flaw in the model
> comparison is not from what happens in the air, but is in the evaluation of
> what happens from radials ON THE GROUND.
>
>
>
> As to trying a solution, knock yourself out.  But do we want to export that
> to others as the way to go based on absolute specifications from a model
> based on the one thing that the model writers themselves say is imprecise?
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/pvrcnc/attachments/20081112/08940215/attachment.htm