"Steve Nosko" wrote in message
...
Sorry if this is a double post. It looks like the first got eaten by
goblins.

Does everybody agree with Joe Street's 50-j425?

http://www.arsqrp.com/ars/pages/back..._text/5_8.html

--
Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's.



My EZNEC showed about 62-j114 when the radials are horizontal. BTW, Mr.
Street says in his article that he got the values from a table compiled by
Hallen which gives an impedance of 75-j425. Not that it matters much; it's
about the same work to match either impedance.

Here is a really interesting thing I discovered while trying to verify the
numbers. Make a 5/8 wave vertical with 4 horizontal 1/4 wave radials. Look
at the impedance and pattern. Nice pattern, especially with an elevation at
about 2 wavelengths. Now take the radials away one at a time. The resistance
gets a little greater and the reactance gets a little less. With only one
radial the impedance is not that bad and the azimuth pattern has become sort
of elliptical. The elevation angle of maximum radiation doesn't change much,
either. If the last radial is pointing to the North, the azimuth pattern is
squashed slightly so that East/West is best. So the E-W gain is a bit
better.

Moving down to an elevation of about 1/2 wave elevates the maximum radiation
and the elevation pattern is broadened. I think, though, that it almost
doesn't matter much using any of 1 to 4 radials. But the 2,3, or 4 radial
patterns and impedances look very similar.

Ain't that a lick?

John