On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:54:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Not necessarily. Above ground, the radials provide only a (very low)
capacitive link to the ground. Below ground, they provide a direct link
to the soil. The effect creates a better ground plane for the antenna(s).
(...)
But an even more important point here is maintenance. It's very hard to
cut the grass when radials are above ground.

Not everyone agrees. See item #4:
http://lists.contesting.com/_topband/2002-04/msg00010.html


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 1/25/2014 8:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:54:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Not necessarily. Above ground, the radials provide only a (very low)
capacitive link to the ground. Below ground, they provide a direct link
to the soil. The effect creates a better ground plane for the antenna(s).
(...)
But an even more important point here is maintenance. It's very hard to
cut the grass when radials are above ground.

Not everyone agrees. See item #4:
http://lists.contesting.com/_topband/2002-04/msg00010.html



I'll go with the experts, instead of some amateur posting on the web.

AM radio stations wouldn't go to all of that expense if it weren't
worthwhile. And they have professionals advising them; ones with EE
degrees and years of experience.

But once again, you show your ignorance. Typical.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:46:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

On 1/25/2014 8:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:54:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Not necessarily. Above ground, the radials provide only a (very low)
capacitive link to the ground. Below ground, they provide a direct link
to the soil. The effect creates a better ground plane for the antenna(s).
(...)
But an even more important point here is maintenance. It's very hard to
cut the grass when radials are above ground.

Not everyone agrees. See item #4:
http://lists.contesting.com/_topband/2002-04/msg00010.html

I'll go with the experts, instead of some amateur posting on the web.

Reminder: This is an amateur radio specific newsgroup.

AM radio stations wouldn't go to all of that expense if it weren't
worthwhile. And they have professionals advising them; ones with EE
degrees and years of experience.

Elevated Radial AM Antenna Grounding System by Nott Ltd
http://www.nottltd.com/amgroundsystems.html

A Closer Look at Vertical Antennas With Elevated Ground Systems
http://rudys.typepad.com/files/eleva...al-version.pdf

Perhaps there's another reason why AM stations bury their radials?
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/ops/xmtr/NewThreat.pdf
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/steel/gnd/FLAP1.pdf

But once again, you show your ignorance. Typical.

Claiming that I'm wrong (or ignorant) does not automatically prove
your point.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 1/25/2014 10:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:46:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

On 1/25/2014 8:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:54:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Not necessarily. Above ground, the radials provide only a (very low)
capacitive link to the ground. Below ground, they provide a direct link
to the soil. The effect creates a better ground plane for the antenna(s).
(...)
But an even more important point here is maintenance. It's very hard to
cut the grass when radials are above ground.

Not everyone agrees. See item #4:
http://lists.contesting.com/_topband/2002-04/msg00010.html

I'll go with the experts, instead of some amateur posting on the web.

Reminder: This is an amateur radio specific newsgroup.


So? Do the physics change for Amateur Radio stations? I don't think so.

AM radio stations wouldn't go to all of that expense if it weren't
worthwhile. And they have professionals advising them; ones with EE
degrees and years of experience.

Elevated Radial AM Antenna Grounding System by Nott Ltd
http://www.nottltd.com/amgroundsystems.html


I see their claims. But anyone can claim anything (you're proof of
that). I have yet to see any figures that prove elevated radiator
systems are significantly "better" than buried ones.

And additionally, there are other factors which you conveniently ignore.
Probably because you can't read - or are just choosing to ignore facts
which conflict with your ideas.

But that's nothing new, either - and just what a troll does.

A Closer Look at Vertical Antennas With Elevated Ground Systems
http://rudys.typepad.com/files/eleva...al-version.pdf


Ah, another non-professional opinion. But at least he admits results of
multiple tests conflict.

Perhaps there's another reason why AM stations bury their radials?
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/ops/xmtr/NewThreat.pdf
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/steel/gnd/FLAP1.pdf


I doubt that was a concern when most AM radio stations were installed.
How many new ones do you know of?

Besides that, there isn't that much of a market for #22 wire - all
that's really needed when you have lots of radials, even with a 5-10KW
station, because there is so little current through any one conductor
(although buried radials are typically larger just so they last longer).

But once again, you show your ignorance. Typical.

Claiming that I'm wrong (or ignorant) does not automatically prove
your point.


Nope, but it once again calls attention to your ignorance. But I also
know trolls hate to be proven wrong. You're a perfect example.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:46:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

On 1/25/2014 8:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:54:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Not necessarily. Above ground, the radials provide only a (very low)
capacitive link to the ground. Below ground, they provide a direct link
to the soil. The effect creates a better ground plane for the antenna(s).
(...)
But an even more important point here is maintenance. It's very hard to
cut the grass when radials are above ground.

Not everyone agrees. See item #4:
http://lists.contesting.com/_topband/2002-04/msg00010.html

I'll go with the experts, instead of some amateur posting on the web.

Reminder: This is an amateur radio specific newsgroup.

AM radio stations wouldn't go to all of that expense if it weren't
worthwhile. And they have professionals advising them; ones with EE
degrees and years of experience.

Elevated Radial AM Antenna Grounding System by Nott Ltd
http://www.nottltd.com/amgroundsystems.html

A Closer Look at Vertical Antennas With Elevated Ground Systems
http://rudys.typepad.com/files/eleva...al-version.pdf

Perhaps there's another reason why AM stations bury their radials?
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/ops/xmtr/NewThreat.pdf
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/steel/gnd/FLAP1.pdf

But once again, you show your ignorance. Typical.

Claiming that I'm wrong (or ignorant) does not automatically prove
your point.

Welcome to the club; he does that with anyone on any group on any subject
when someone has the audacity to disagree with something he has said.




--
Jim Pennino

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:10:28 -0000, wrote:

Welcome to the club; he does that with anyone on any group on any subject
when someone has the audacity to disagree with something he has said.

Now you tell me. I don't read any other ham radio newsgroups, so I
missed the clue. For me, this has became an exercise in diplomacy and
tact, things that I usually do rather badly. While my efforts
produced nothing useful, it was a somewhat interesting exercise which
forced me to do some reading in areas where I know little.

I dunno. There do not seem to be many others jumping in, making
corrections, asking questions, or displaying any interest in this
discussion. It's mostly me and Mr Stuckle. I was tempted to emulate
his methods, but I just don't have the ability. Perhaps it's time
that I do something else.

Thanks much.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 10:43:57 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

When I first started out in ham radio, I used a Hy-Gain 18AVQ vertical -
80-10, with the instructions saying to mount one foot (that's twelve
inches for the trolls) above ground with an SO-239 to connect to the
coax.

Are you sure?
http://www.mediaglobe.it/shop/images/large/HYGAIN18AVQ11--av-18AVQ71_UcLOU9MUvMti_large.gif
I doubt that the dog could come anywhere near that antenna with the
radials poking out, even if they were buried.

http://www.eham.net/data/classifieds/images/244950.jpg
The base of the antenna looks like a 50 ohm point, which would be low
voltage. I don't have an NEC2 model of the 18AVQ, but my guess(tm) is
that the high voltages would be between the loading coils, not near
the base.

Quite within range of a large dog.

Large dog? I would think it would be easier to electrocute a small
dog because of the shorter urine stream. If one increases the height
of the dog by one inch, then the approximate width of the dog also
increases about one inch, thus bringing the urine source 1/2 further
away from the antenna. In addition, large dogs have longer legs. The
dog needs space to lift the leg, which again increases the distance
between the dog and the antenna. I also asked my neighbor, who has a
rather large dog, if the dog empties his bladder when marking his
territory. Nope. Just a small squirt sufficient to provide a scent
marker. If Mythbusters could only keep a 3" simulated stream together
long enough to not break into droplets, I suspect that a large dog,
with a much longer stream, would not be able to do as well.

Myth Busted.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:10:28 -0000, wrote:

Welcome to the club; he does that with anyone on any group on any subject
when someone has the audacity to disagree with something he has said.

Now you tell me. I don't read any other ham radio newsgroups, so I
missed the clue. For me, this has became an exercise in diplomacy and
tact, things that I usually do rather badly. While my efforts
produced nothing useful, it was a somewhat interesting exercise which
forced me to do some reading in areas where I know little.

I dunno. There do not seem to be many others jumping in, making
corrections, asking questions, or displaying any interest in this
discussion. It's mostly me and Mr Stuckle. I was tempted to emulate
his methods, but I just don't have the ability. Perhaps it's time
that I do something else.

Thanks much.

You could continue on and eventually he will killfile you, usually after
posting a link that proves him wrong about something.

And it is not just ham radio groups, he is also an "expert" in various
programming languages and the same goes on in those groups all the time.



--
Jim Pennino

On Saturday, January 25, 2014 7:41:18 PM UTC-6, Jeff Liebermann wrote:


Not everyone agrees. See item #4:

http://lists.contesting.com/_topband/2002-04/msg00010.html

He's not really giving much of a reason though. I think he's
more interested in avoiding digging slots for radials, than
he is the difference in ground loss. :/
The BC stations bury a large number for day in, day out stability.
They are required to do that by the FCC.

But as a general rule, the farther away from the lossy earth,
the lower the ground loss for a given number of equal length
1/4 wave radials. And I've read that in more than one book.
I didn't just make it up, although I have pretty much verified
it in the real world by testing. But if elevated, they should be
resonant and tuned, which is not needed with buried radials.
They are de-tuned by the ground anyway.

But I'm also one that disagrees with people who expect a low
number of elevated radials at a low height above ground in
wavelength, to have some magical property that allows them to
use say 4-8 radials just above the ground and equal a large
number on the ground. It just won't pan out very well. :+

There is no free lunch.

If you want to use four radials with good results, you need to
be at at least 1/4 wave up. Which say on 160m would be about
120 ft up. That should equal about 60 radials on the ground,
which is not bad at all. Four radials at 1/2 wave is about equal
to 120 on the ground.
But some people will run four radials at 5-10-20 feet off the ground
running on 80 or 160m, and then wonder why they are not browning the
food.

I ran a full size 40m GP at 36 ft, which is about 1/4 wave up.
Used four radials. It totally smoked the same 32 ft whip ground
mounted with 32 radials. But lower the mast and radials down to
15 ft, and the performance dropped off greatly.

On 1/25/2014 11:10 PM, wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:46:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

On 1/25/2014 8:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:54:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Not necessarily. Above ground, the radials provide only a (very low)
capacitive link to the ground. Below ground, they provide a direct link
to the soil. The effect creates a better ground plane for the antenna(s).
(...)
But an even more important point here is maintenance. It's very hard to
cut the grass when radials are above ground.

Not everyone agrees. See item #4:
http://lists.contesting.com/_topband/2002-04/msg00010.html

I'll go with the experts, instead of some amateur posting on the web.

Reminder: This is an amateur radio specific newsgroup.

AM radio stations wouldn't go to all of that expense if it weren't
worthwhile. And they have professionals advising them; ones with EE
degrees and years of experience.

Elevated Radial AM Antenna Grounding System by Nott Ltd
http://www.nottltd.com/amgroundsystems.html

A Closer Look at Vertical Antennas With Elevated Ground Systems
http://rudys.typepad.com/files/eleva...al-version.pdf

Perhaps there's another reason why AM stations bury their radials?
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/ops/xmtr/NewThreat.pdf
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/steel/gnd/FLAP1.pdf

But once again, you show your ignorance. Typical.

Claiming that I'm wrong (or ignorant) does not automatically prove
your point.

Welcome to the club; he does that with anyone on any group on any subject
when someone has the audacity to disagree with something he has said.





No, just when someone is ignorant.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================