Owen wrote:

So, my original question is no so much suggesting everyone else got it
wrong, but why don't I seem more people doing it this way. Could I be
forgive in thinking that the popular, nearly universal, way is to uplift
the BL&E research at MF and apply it to 80m?

There are lots of reasons that people don't use elevated radials versus
buried ones. But before that, keep in mind that comparing elevated to
buried is not really comparing 4 elevated to 120 buried. 120 is
overkill, and not many of us who have verticals have that many. I found
that 32 was getting into diminishing returns for me, so stopped.

Also buried radials are more forgiving of length variations. My case was
that the antenna had to be located a good bit closer to one end of the
yard than the other. So the radials on one side were from 10 to 25 feet
shorter.

Also, many of us are married, and the spouse doesn't like all that many
wires running around. My wife also mows the yard, something that would
be relegated to me if I had a lot of wires running around the yard.

And I've used and been around an elevated radial system. It was a royal
pain. You have to declare a rather large area off limits, we added
little ties to it to warn people, and it didn't really help at night.
That experience told me that elevated HF radials was not the way I
wanted to go - ever.

Even if you are way out in the middle of nowhere, an elevated radial
vertical is a liability unless you put a wire link fence around it -
check with your insurance company.

Just my opinion of course, but it seems to be shared by many.

So with the buried radials not being all that much more work,(unless you
insist on 120 of them) the greater flexibility of buried radials when
dealing with real estate limitations, the appearance and liability
issues, just makes a buried radial system a more attractive and
practical option to many of us.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -