wrote in message ...

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
Spike recently commented upon his success with DX by implementing at
the base of his vertical antenna a fan
of 300 ground wires pointing in the direction that he wished to work.

I've not seen my suggestion before, but why could one not just have
a 1/4 wave vertical, with the other 1/4 wave making up the dipole
being rotatable for the desired direction of working?

Out of curiousity, I modeled the following:

freq: 14.2 MHz

radial height: 3 inches

Material: #12 copper

ground: average

I optimized the radiator and radial lengths for minimum reactance and got:

radiator: 196 inches

radial: 190.6 inches

R: 75 Ohms

X: -0.4 Ohms

SWR: 1.5

Maximum gain: -1.8 dBi in the direction of the radial and an elevation
angle of 30 degrees

Reverse gain: -6.8 dBi

Polarization: primarily vertical with horizontal lobes 90 degrees to the
radial a -15 dB down from the max vertical gain.

Cool. Any idea what the numbers would be for the 300 radial configuration?

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Wayne wrote:


wrote in message ...

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
Spike recently commented upon his success with DX by implementing at
the base of his vertical antenna a fan
of 300 ground wires pointing in the direction that he wished to work.

I've not seen my suggestion before, but why could one not just have
a 1/4 wave vertical, with the other 1/4 wave making up the dipole
being rotatable for the desired direction of working?

Out of curiousity, I modeled the following:

freq: 14.2 MHz

radial height: 3 inches

Material: #12 copper

ground: average

I optimized the radiator and radial lengths for minimum reactance and got:

radiator: 196 inches

radial: 190.6 inches

R: 75 Ohms

X: -0.4 Ohms

SWR: 1.5

Maximum gain: -1.8 dBi in the direction of the radial and an elevation
angle of 30 degrees

Reverse gain: -6.8 dBi

Polarization: primarily vertical with horizontal lobes 90 degrees to the
radial a -15 dB down from the max vertical gain.

Cool. Any idea what the numbers would be for the 300 radial configuration?

Likely not a lot of difference.

I could add a few, but not going to spend the time to add 300.

--
Jim Pennino

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Wayne wrote:


wrote in message ...

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
Spike recently commented upon his success with DX by implementing at
the base of his vertical antenna a fan
of 300 ground wires pointing in the direction that he wished to work.

I've not seen my suggestion before, but why could one not just have
a 1/4 wave vertical, with the other 1/4 wave making up the dipole
being rotatable for the desired direction of working?

Out of curiousity, I modeled the following:

freq: 14.2 MHz

radial height: 3 inches

Material: #12 copper

ground: average

I optimized the radiator and radial lengths for minimum reactance and got:

radiator: 196 inches

radial: 190.6 inches

R: 75 Ohms

X: -0.4 Ohms

SWR: 1.5

Maximum gain: -1.8 dBi in the direction of the radial and an elevation
angle of 30 degrees

Reverse gain: -6.8 dBi

Polarization: primarily vertical with horizontal lobes 90 degrees to the
radial a -15 dB down from the max vertical gain.

Cool. Any idea what the numbers would be for the 300 radial configuration?

Likely not a lot of difference.

I could add a few, but not going to spend the time to add 300.


OK, I added radials for a total of 5 in a 45 degree spread and optimized
for minimum reactance.

radiator: 203 inches

radial: 186 inches

R: 52.4 Ohms

X: 0.4 Ohms

SWR: 1.1

Maximum gain: -.18 dBi in the direction of the radial and an elevation
angle of 30 degrees

Reverse gain: -3.7 dBi

Note with one radial the F/B ratio is about 5 dB and with five radials
it is about 3dB.

About the only thing I can see worth noting about this antenna is that
it shows more radials are better, but everyone already knows that.


--
Jim Pennino

wrote in message ...

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Wayne wrote:


wrote in message ...

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
Spike recently commented upon his success with DX by implementing at
the base of his vertical antenna a fan
of 300 ground wires pointing in the direction that he wished to work.

I've not seen my suggestion before, but why could one not just have
a 1/4 wave vertical, with the other 1/4 wave making up the dipole
being rotatable for the desired direction of working?

Out of curiousity, I modeled the following:

freq: 14.2 MHz

radial height: 3 inches

Material: #12 copper

ground: average

I optimized the radiator and radial lengths for minimum reactance and
got:

radiator: 196 inches

radial: 190.6 inches

R: 75 Ohms

X: -0.4 Ohms

SWR: 1.5

Maximum gain: -1.8 dBi in the direction of the radial and an elevation
angle of 30 degrees

Reverse gain: -6.8 dBi

Polarization: primarily vertical with horizontal lobes 90 degrees to the
radial a -15 dB down from the max vertical gain.

Cool. Any idea what the numbers would be for the 300 radial
configuration?

Likely not a lot of difference.

I could add a few, but not going to spend the time to add 300.


# OK, I added radials for a total of 5 in a 45 degree spread and optimized
# for minimum reactance.

# radiator: 203 inches

# radial: 186 inches

# R: 52.4 Ohms

# X: 0.4 Ohms

# SWR: 1.1

# Maximum gain: -.18 dBi in the direction of the radial and an elevation
# angle of 30 degrees

# Reverse gain: -3.7 dBi

# Note with one radial the F/B ratio is about 5 dB and with five radials
# it is about 3dB.

# About the only thing I can see worth noting about this antenna is that
# it shows more radials are better, but everyone already knows that.

Interesting. Doesn't seem like it would be worth the effort to add radials
in this case.

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Wayne wrote:


wrote in message ...

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Wayne wrote:


wrote in message ...

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
Spike recently commented upon his success with DX by implementing at
the base of his vertical antenna a fan
of 300 ground wires pointing in the direction that he wished to work.

I've not seen my suggestion before, but why could one not just have
a 1/4 wave vertical, with the other 1/4 wave making up the dipole
being rotatable for the desired direction of working?

Out of curiousity, I modeled the following:

freq: 14.2 MHz

radial height: 3 inches

Material: #12 copper

ground: average

I optimized the radiator and radial lengths for minimum reactance and
got:

radiator: 196 inches

radial: 190.6 inches

R: 75 Ohms

X: -0.4 Ohms

SWR: 1.5

Maximum gain: -1.8 dBi in the direction of the radial and an elevation
angle of 30 degrees

Reverse gain: -6.8 dBi

Polarization: primarily vertical with horizontal lobes 90 degrees to the
radial a -15 dB down from the max vertical gain.

Cool. Any idea what the numbers would be for the 300 radial
configuration?

Likely not a lot of difference.

I could add a few, but not going to spend the time to add 300.


# OK, I added radials for a total of 5 in a 45 degree spread and optimized
# for minimum reactance.

# radiator: 203 inches

# radial: 186 inches

# R: 52.4 Ohms

# X: 0.4 Ohms

# SWR: 1.1

# Maximum gain: -.18 dBi in the direction of the radial and an elevation
# angle of 30 degrees

# Reverse gain: -3.7 dBi

# Note with one radial the F/B ratio is about 5 dB and with five radials
# it is about 3dB.

# About the only thing I can see worth noting about this antenna is that
# it shows more radials are better, but everyone already knows that.

Interesting. Doesn't seem like it would be worth the effort to add radials
in this case.

More radials in the fan, no, but more radials around the antenna, yes.


--
Jim Pennino

On 29/11/2015 23:24, wrote:

OK, I added radials for a total of 5 in a 45 degree spread and optimized
for minimum reactance.

radiator: 203 inches, radial: 186 inches, R: 52.4 Ohms, X: 0.4 Ohms

SWR: 1.1, Maximum gain: -.18 dBi in the direction of the radial and an elevation
angle of 30 degrees, Reverse gain: -3.7 dBi

Note with one radial the F/B ratio is about 5 dB and with five radials
it is about 3dB.

About the only thing I can see worth noting about this antenna is that
it shows more radials are better, but everyone already knows that.

Imagine a case whereby someone digs up the soil around the base of a
vertical antenna, a couple of feet deep and as far out as the antenna is
tall. Into this they mix 2 percent of high-aspect-ratio thin conducting
fibres, say about a foot long, and then replace the soil. 2 percent of
conducting fibres in an essentially non-conducting medium is about the
minimum proportion necessary to reach the percolation threshold..

What results from your modelling exercise do you get in this case?


--
Spike

"Crime butchers innocence to secure a throne, and innocence struggles
with all its might against the attempts of crime"

- Maximilien Robespierre

On 11/30/2015 11:35 AM, Spike wrote:
On 29/11/2015 23:24, wrote:

OK, I added radials for a total of 5 in a 45 degree spread and optimized
for minimum reactance.

radiator: 203 inches, radial: 186 inches, R: 52.4 Ohms, X: 0.4 Ohms

SWR: 1.1, Maximum gain: -.18 dBi in the direction of the radial and
an elevation
angle of 30 degrees, Reverse gain: -3.7 dBi

Note with one radial the F/B ratio is about 5 dB and with five radials
it is about 3dB.

About the only thing I can see worth noting about this antenna is that
it shows more radials are better, but everyone already knows that.

Imagine a case whereby someone digs up the soil around the base of a
vertical antenna, a couple of feet deep and as far out as the antenna is
tall. Into this they mix 2 percent of high-aspect-ratio thin conducting
fibres, say about a foot long, and then replace the soil. 2 percent of
conducting fibres in an essentially non-conducting medium is about the
minimum proportion necessary to reach the percolation threshold..

What results from your modelling exercise do you get in this case?

Are you unable to model this yourself or are you just trolling?

John S wrote:
On 11/30/2015 11:35 AM, Spike wrote:
On 29/11/2015 23:24, wrote:

OK, I added radials for a total of 5 in a 45 degree spread and optimized
for minimum reactance.

radiator: 203 inches, radial: 186 inches, R: 52.4 Ohms, X: 0.4 Ohms

SWR: 1.1, Maximum gain: -.18 dBi in the direction of the radial and
an elevation
angle of 30 degrees, Reverse gain: -3.7 dBi

Note with one radial the F/B ratio is about 5 dB and with five radials
it is about 3dB.

About the only thing I can see worth noting about this antenna is that
it shows more radials are better, but everyone already knows that.

Imagine a case whereby someone digs up the soil around the base of a
vertical antenna, a couple of feet deep and as far out as the antenna is
tall. Into this they mix 2 percent of high-aspect-ratio thin conducting
fibres, say about a foot long, and then replace the soil. 2 percent of
conducting fibres in an essentially non-conducting medium is about the
minimum proportion necessary to reach the percolation threshold..

What results from your modelling exercise do you get in this case?

Are you unable to model this yourself or are you just trolling?

Spike's a long time and well known troll, yes.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 29/11/2015 23:24, wrote:

OK, I added radials for a total of 5 in a 45 degree spread and optimized
for minimum reactance.

radiator: 203 inches, radial: 186 inches, R: 52.4 Ohms, X: 0.4 Ohms

SWR: 1.1, Maximum gain: -.18 dBi in the direction of the radial and an elevation
angle of 30 degrees, Reverse gain: -3.7 dBi

Note with one radial the F/B ratio is about 5 dB and with five radials
it is about 3dB.

About the only thing I can see worth noting about this antenna is that
it shows more radials are better, but everyone already knows that.

Imagine a case whereby someone digs up the soil around the base of a
vertical antenna, a couple of feet deep and as far out as the antenna is
tall. Into this they mix 2 percent of high-aspect-ratio thin conducting
fibres, say about a foot long, and then replace the soil. 2 percent of
conducting fibres in an essentially non-conducting medium is about the
minimum proportion necessary to reach the percolation threshold..

What results from your modelling exercise do you get in this case?

Modeling thing buried in the soil requires professional software that
costs on the order of $1,000.

To do this with reasonably priced (for a hobby) software requires that
effective soil conductivity be determined.

Send me either $1,000.00 or the effective soil conductivity and I'll
be glad to do it.


--
Jim Pennino

On 30/11/2015 18:34, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:

Imagine a case whereby someone digs up the soil around the base of a
vertical antenna, a couple of feet deep and as far out as the antenna is
tall. Into this they mix 2 percent of high-aspect-ratio thin conducting
fibres, say about a foot long, and then replace the soil. 2 percent of
conducting fibres in an essentially non-conducting medium is about the
minimum proportion necessary to reach the percolation threshold..

What results from your modelling exercise do you get in this case?

Modeling thing buried in the soil requires professional software that
costs on the order of $1,000.

To do this with reasonably priced (for a hobby) software requires that
effective soil conductivity be determined.

Send me either $1,000.00 or the effective soil conductivity and I'll
be glad to do it.

The effective soil conductivity will be close to the fully conductive
value of the fibres - that's what percolation does. The high aspect
ratio fibres are a method of achieving that in a poorly conductive
medium such as soil.


--
Spike

"Crime butchers innocence to secure a throne, and innocence struggles
with all its might against the attempts of crime"

- Maximilien Robespierre