The problem with all of K3LC's articles is that he only uses NEC-4
modeling with no empirical measurement data. N6LF's article below
compares his measurements to the same NEC-4 model (see Figure 5 and
last paragraph on page 5). Modeling programs are notorious for poorly
handling radials on ground. Although NEC-4 is supposedly the best for
this, the results N6LF reported (i.e. NEC-4 saying no improvement for
more than 16 radials) are inconsistent with all measurement data going
back to the 30's (including that used by the FCC for broadcast station
commissioning).

http://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/files/...asurements.pdf
(see Fig. 5 & bottom paragraph, p. 5)

73, Bill W4ZV
I appreciate your patience and guidance.

The current 28 foot radiator is poorly located to invest too much
labor and materials for a permanent radial field. This location will
only permit 270 degrees of radials.

It seems prudent to locate the permanent field where I can get at
least 0.125 wave length radials at 160m with a minimum of 16.

Although it will complicate things by requiring additional coax and a
longer run of #6 ground wire to include it in the lightning protection
system I think it will be worth it.

That plan will also allow additional longer radials in the future.

John Ferrell W8CCW