On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 15:29:04 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Nope, you didn't. My analysis was for buried, not above ground, radials.
And the loss increases, rather than drops, as the number increases. This
has been well known since at least 1937.


Thanks for the correction. As a Novice I learned that underground
radials were better than above ground radials. I couldn't be sure
which you were using so I re-iterated it to be sure.

How do the gains/losses change when the radials are disproportionate?
i.e., you have been working with essentially a 40 meter vertical with
40 meter radials. What if I were to place a 20 meter vertical (16
foot for example) on that 33 foot radial system vs placing a 20 meter
vertical on the same 8 radials 16 foot long?

you'll find the answers to many of your
questions by using groups.google.com for a search.

Thanks, I'll do that.



You really want to use a lossy piece of coax to load your antenna as the
GAP does instead of a more efficient method? Why? Fanned wires with a
common feed point will be more efficient. If you bury the radials, you
need only one ground system -- 8 or so radials will get you within a
couple of dB of a perfect system.

I didn't clarify myself, but the gap technology (I should have used
lower case) isn't necessarily the same as the GAP brand. I couldn't
find the book I have it in, but it is where a wire resonant on a
particular frequency brought close to another antenna will match the
system and radiate efficiently (I don't know how efficiently.) (this
is an oversimplification of what I am describing.)

I've heard many good comments about the ARRL on-line course in antenna
modeling. You might consider it.
I'll look into it. I understand a lot of what I am doing, but
something isn't working. I think it is one of those things that
someone needs to walk me through one time looking over my shoulder and
I'll get through it. Maybe it will just come to me one day.
Sometimes these things happen.

Thanks again.

Buck
--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW