"Quarter wave ground mounted radials are a waste of wire."
 

I just read the following on one of the mailing lists I subscribe to:

"Quarter wave ground mounted radials are a waste of wire and a hold over
from the olden days. Check the antenna handbook, the new philosophy is
more and shorter. The thing is that the bulk of the energy from the
vertical antenna is near the base of the antenna and this is what you are
trying to capture. A quarter wave radial sounds logical but the planet
will detune it so a quarter wave means nothing to the current."

What say you all?

"Quarter wave ground mounted radials are a waste of wire."
 

we all agree of course!

"Rick (W-A-one-R-K-T)" wrote in message
.. .

I just read the following on one of the mailing lists I subscribe to:

"Quarter wave ground mounted radials are a waste of wire and a hold over
from the olden days. Check the antenna handbook, the new philosophy is
more and shorter. The thing is that the bulk of the energy from the
vertical antenna is near the base of the antenna and this is what you are
trying to capture. A quarter wave radial sounds logical but the planet
will detune it so a quarter wave means nothing to the current."

What say you all?

"Quarter wave ground mounted radials are a waste of wire."
 

Rick (W-A-one-R-K-T) wrote:
"Quarter wave ground mounted radials are a waste of wire and a hold over
from the olden days. Check the antenna handbook, the new philosophy is
more and shorter. The thing is that the bulk of the energy from the
vertical antenna is near the base of the antenna and this is what you are
trying to capture. A quarter wave radial sounds logical but the planet
will detune it so a quarter wave means nothing to the current."

What say you all?

The ground does detune ground
mounted radials because the fields are attenuated by the
ground. Twice as many 1/8WL buried radials may work as well
or better than half as many 1/4WL buried radials.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Quarter wave ground mounted radials are a waste of wire."
 

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:46:30 -0400, "Rick (W-A-one-R-K-T)"
wrote:
What say you all?

Hi Rick,

Sounds like the ghost of Reggie.

So, in honor to his aphorisms and homilies, it should be noted that
adding more wire to that which is conducting nearly nothing - is a
waste of wire.

If we are to reduce this to sound-bites, then the taller the radiator,
the longer the radial(s). If I recall Reggie's other homilies
correctly, there should be a one-to-one correlation (length=height).
As far as efficiency goes, the difference between 20 radials and 120
is hardly noticeable on the S-Meter. Real engineers can measure
differences, but they are far and few between (and don't QSO).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Quarter wave ground mounted radials are a waste of wire."
 

"Rick wrote

... What say you all?

Read "Ground Systems as a Factor in Antenna Efficiency" by Brown, Lewis &
Epstein of RCA Labs, published in the June, 1937 issue of The Proceedings of
the I.R.E.

It proves otherwise.

RF

"Quarter wave ground mounted radials are a waste of wire."
 

"Rick (W-A-one-R-K-T)" wrote in message
.. .

I just read the following on one of the mailing lists I subscribe to:

"Quarter wave ground mounted radials are a waste of wire and a hold over
from the olden days. Check the antenna handbook, the new philosophy is
more and shorter. The thing is that the bulk of the energy from the
vertical antenna is near the base of the antenna and this is what you are
trying to capture. A quarter wave radial sounds logical but the planet
will detune it so a quarter wave means nothing to the current."

What say you all?

Hi Rick

I have just tried an HF 80 metre ground mounted quarter wave vertical in
exactly the conditions you describe. The screen of the coax feedline is
grounded at the base of the antenna with a copper earth rod into very
conductive ground (effectively wet sand). The antenna impedence and
performance appeared identical whether or not quarter wave radials were
attached or not.

At a previous location with less conductive soil the radials did make a
difference.

A couple of quarter wave radials can certainly be effective and easier to
run out than a multitude of shorter wires circling the antenna. As usual it
all depends on the local conditions at your location and what you have
available to work with.

Mike G0ULI

"Quarter wave ground mounted radials are a waste of wire."
 

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:59:49 -0500, Richard Fry wrote:

"Rick wrote

... What say you all?

Read "Ground Systems as a Factor in Antenna Efficiency" by Brown, Lewis
& Epstein of RCA Labs, published in the June, 1937 issue of The
Proceedings of the I.R.E.

It proves otherwise.

Honest question, does it matter whether the objective is a strong ground
wave as in AM broadcast or skywave as in amateur operation?

I am installing a Hustler 4BTV this fall and have put down (so far) 16
radials that range from about 18 to 35 feet in length due to my servere
space restrictions. I may add 16 more later this fall as an experiment.

73, de Nate

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds,
the pessimist fears this is true."

"Quarter wave ground mounted radials are a waste of wire."
 

On Sep 25, 4:53 pm, Nate Bargmann
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:59:49 -0500, Richard Fry wrote:
"Rick wrote

... What say you all?

Read "Ground Systems as a Factor in Antenna Efficiency" by Brown, Lewis
& Epstein of RCA Labs, published in the June, 1937 issue of The
Proceedings of the I.R.E.

It proves otherwise.

Honest question, does it matter whether the objective is a strong ground
wave as in AM broadcast or skywave as in amateur operation?

No, the local ground losses effect the efficiency the same no matter
what skip type,
angles used , etc..
It will be equally weaker in all directions and angles if you add more
ground loss.
The pattern will still be the same in all directions, as all angles
suffer equally.
Same pattern, just less field strength if you add more ground loss.
MK

"Quarter wave ground mounted radials are a waste of wire."
 

"Nate Bargmann" wrote
Honest question, does it matter whether the objective is a
strong ground wave as in AM broadcast or skywave as in
amateur operation?
______

Hi, Nate -

The skywave is important not only to amateur operators, but even more so to
the nighttime coverage of stations designated by the FCC as Class A AM
broadcast stations (the former "clear channel" stations).

However a poor r-f ground system for a vertical monopole radiator will
reduce the radiated field at ALL elevation angles including those producing
a useful skywave-- not just in the horizontal plane producing the ground
wave.

RF http://rfry.org

"Quarter wave ground mounted radials are a waste of wire."
 

"Nate Bargmann" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:59:49 -0500, Richard Fry wrote:

"Rick wrote

... What say you all?

Read "Ground Systems as a Factor in Antenna Efficiency" by Brown, Lewis
& Epstein of RCA Labs, published in the June, 1937 issue of The
Proceedings of the I.R.E.

It proves otherwise.

Honest question, does it matter whether the objective is a strong ground
wave as in AM broadcast or skywave as in amateur operation?

I am installing a Hustler 4BTV this fall and have put down (so far) 16
radials that range from about 18 to 35 feet in length due to my servere
space restrictions. I may add 16 more later this fall as an experiment.

73, de Nate

It would be interesting to follow the change in VSWR as you add individual
radials. Some years ago, there was a discussion of adding radials until the
VSWR stopped increasing. This was based on an expected feedpoint resistance
of 36 ohms, and an assumption that the ground losses were 15 ohms or less.
So at the worst case, the VSWR was near 1:1. The best case, with a ground
loss approaching 0 ohms, would have a VSWR of 50/36= 1.39:1.

I want to attribute the original discussion to W2DU, but I stop short of
that, in case I don't remember correctly.