Buck wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
EZNEC agrees. With four radials one foot above ground the gain
is -0.53 dBi. With one radial one foot above ground the gain
is -1.62 dBi in the direction of the one radial and - 6 dBi
in the opposite direction.

How does it rate it with that one radial buried in the ground as in
the OP rather than above the ground?

I don't have NEC-4 so I can't bury radials. Perhaps Roy will
do the honors. Incidentally, the above simulation was done
for a 33 ft vertical with 33 ft radials on 40m.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Buck wrote:



How does it rate it with that one radial buried in the ground as in
the OP rather than above the ground?

Should be slightly worse, I would think. MK

"Cecil Moore" wrote
Ed wrote:
What characteristics would a 1/2 wave dipole have if one side was
near
vertical, and the other side buried along the ground? Would it act like
a
poorly counterpoised groundplane vertical, or something else? Any
redeeming qualities?

When two radials are 180 degrees apart and elevated, they tend
to cancel the radiation from each other. When you bury one
radial, you ensure that ~half your RF energy is lost. If you
bury that one radial vertically, you do indeed lose half your
signal since you have put half of your dipole underground.
Ground mounted verticals give up approximately half their
power to ground losses. Then they give up approximately another
3 dB to a rotatable dipole. Approximately 10 ohms of the feedpoint
impedance for mobile antennas is ground losses. (Please note that
everything I said is approximate. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Hello Cecil,
Is it appropriate to apply the above discussion to two random-wires, end-fed
(coax) from a 4:1 Balun were one half of the Balun output is directly
connected to ground? I would like to experiment using one or more radials
(laid on the surface of ground at first, buried if that helps). for this
antenna. Electrically, the antenna is about 1/8 wavelength for some
frequencies, and as much as 9/5 wavelength for others. The angle of the
wires is about 45 degrees elevation. One wire is about 76' and the other
42'long. I use an ATU for this antenna and it has no trouble loading
anything, however only 5-15 mhz is reliable for DX. Due to the antenna's
location on the property line, I could only apply radials 180 degrees (along
its axis) and of course if permanent, would have their ends bonded to the
station/service ground, etc.

Thanks for suggestions...

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

Jack Painter wrote:
Is it appropriate to apply the above discussion to two random-wires, end-fed
(coax) from a 4:1 Balun were one half of the Balun output is directly
connected to ground?

I'm sorry Jack, I don't understand the question. If the two wires
are equal length and the currents are flowing in opposite physical
directions, the far fields will tend to cancel.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Cecil Moore" wrote
in message ...
Jack Painter wrote:
Is it appropriate to apply the above discussion to two random-wires,
end-fed
(coax) from a 4:1 Balun were one half of the Balun output is directly
connected to ground?

I'm sorry Jack, I don't understand the question. If the two wires
are equal length and the currents are flowing in opposite physical
directions, the far fields will tend to cancel.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Sorry Cecil, I'll be more clear:

I have a random wire antenna, it has one coax-attachment (feedpoint) from
which two different length wires start from a 4:1 Balun on a ground rod, up
to a Pine tree about 60' in the air. The shorter 42' wire terminates via
insulated connector and non-conductive line to the main 76' wire that
continues skyward (about a 45 degree angle) until it terminates at an
insulator before the support line finally connects it to the high tree limb.
Some folks call this a "fan" arrangement.

A Radio Works 4:1 current-type Balun has two output connectors, and both
random wires start at one of those connectors. The other connector (normally
intended for the other half of a dipole) is shorted to the ground rod the
Balun is mounted to. This is a noise-limiting design from an old Fine Tuning
"Proceedings" article.

My question is, if I added a long radial (on the ground) from that ground
rod, all the way under the sloping antenna wires, would there be any benefit
in the transmitting pattern? How about two radials, 180 degrees from each
other (one under the antenna, the other 180 degrees away from it)?

I sounds kind of like creating an 1/2 underground dipole, which you and
others well explained is a non-starter. But the antenna also has
characteristics similar to an inverted-L, and I believe those can benefit
from radials. The antenna has been easy to manually tune via an MFJ-962D,
and an MFJ-994 ATU makes quick work of any thing I have loaded it with.
Could radials improve this "random wire(s)" antenna, or just soak up more
power?

Thanks a lot,

Jack

Jack Painter wrote:
My question is, if I added a long radial (on the ground) from that ground
rod, all the way under the sloping antenna wires, would there be any benefit
in the transmitting pattern? How about two radials, 180 degrees from each
other (one under the antenna, the other 180 degrees away from it)?

If I understand it correctly, I would guess that radials would
help that antenna. Sounds like you are losing half your power
in the ground rod. Two radials are better than one and the more
radials the better.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Cecil Moore" wrote
Jack Painter wrote:
My question is, if I added a long radial (on the ground) from that
ground
rod, all the way under the sloping antenna wires, would there be any
benefit
in the transmitting pattern? How about two radials, 180 degrees from
each
other (one under the antenna, the other 180 degrees away from it)?

If I understand it correctly, I would guess that radials would
help that antenna. Sounds like you are losing half your power
in the ground rod. Two radials are better than one and the more
radials the better.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


Thanks Cecil. It probably is a power-sink when xmit. The antenna was
originally set up as a receive-only antenna, and you should hear the
difference in volume when the grounded side of the Balun is off/on the
ground rod. Audible increase (for DX purposes, where a couple of S-units is
a lot, hi). I'll try the radials, and disconnect the shorting ground, and
see if this improves things a little. I never heard anyone mention making a
"vee" dipole antenna (from the ground-up), is that a NVIS?

Jack

Jack Painter wrote:
I never heard anyone mention making a
"vee" dipole antenna (from the ground-up), is that a NVIS?

A balanced-V would not have very much vertically polarized
radiation and thus would probably be an NVIS.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In message , Cecil Moore
writes
Jack Painter wrote:
I never heard anyone mention making a
"vee" dipole antenna (from the ground-up), is that a NVIS?

A balanced-V would not have very much vertically polarized
radiation and thus would probably be an NVIS.

Vee antennas (inverted or not) tend to produce quite a lot of vertically
polarised radiation off the ends. Horizontal broadside, of course.
Ian.
--

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 01:02:21 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote:


"Cecil Moore" wrote
in message ...
Jack Painter wrote:
Is it appropriate to apply the above discussion to two random-wires,
end-fed
(coax) from a 4:1 Balun were one half of the Balun output is directly
connected to ground?

I'm sorry Jack, I don't understand the question. If the two wires
are equal length and the currents are flowing in opposite physical
directions, the far fields will tend to cancel.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Sorry Cecil, I'll be more clear:

I have a random wire antenna, it has one coax-attachment (feedpoint) from
which two different length wires start from a 4:1 Balun on a ground rod, up
to a Pine tree about 60' in the air. The shorter 42' wire terminates via
insulated connector and non-conductive line to the main 76' wire that
continues skyward (about a 45 degree angle) until it terminates at an
insulator before the support line finally connects it to the high tree limb.
Some folks call this a "fan" arrangement.

A Radio Works 4:1 current-type Balun has two output connectors, and both
random wires start at one of those connectors. The other connector (normally
intended for the other half of a dipole) is shorted to the ground rod the
Balun is mounted to. This is a noise-limiting design from an old Fine Tuning
"Proceedings" article.

My question is, if I added a long radial (on the ground) from that ground
rod, all the way under the sloping antenna wires, would there be any benefit
in the transmitting pattern? How about two radials, 180 degrees from each
other (one under the antenna, the other 180 degrees away from it)?

I sounds kind of like creating an 1/2 underground dipole, which you and
others well explained is a non-starter. But the antenna also has
characteristics similar to an inverted-L, and I believe those can benefit
from radials. The antenna has been easy to manually tune via an MFJ-962D,
and an MFJ-994 ATU makes quick work of any thing I have loaded it with.
Could radials improve this "random wire(s)" antenna, or just soak up more
power?

Thanks a lot,

Jack



Sounds an awful lot like a form of J-Pole antenna.


--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW