On 6 Feb 2005 22:38:33 -0800, wrote:

And the loss increases, rather than drops, as the number increases.
This
has been well known since at least 1937.


I didn't catch this either. I misunderstood it to be that the number
of radials decrease loss. However, I do well remember that the
preferred radial of the day when I was first licensed was below ground
radials. Today I see a lot of antennas preferring above ground
radials.


This has me confused...I must be missing something...I checked the
previous
posts, but still doesn't make sense to me...Seems the ground losses
would
decrease as the number of radials increase....Thats what your model
showed.

--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

Buck wrote:
Today I see a lot of antennas preferring above ground radials.

Maybe decoupling the radials from ground lowers ground
losses? :-)
--
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 =---

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:40:51 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Buck wrote:
Today I see a lot of antennas preferring above ground radials.

Maybe decoupling the radials from ground lowers ground
losses? :-)


There have been a number of changes in technology theory in the last
30 or so years. When I was a Novice, the vertical antenna
manufacturers provided information about how to use above-ground
radials, but that was typically for a raised antenna such as roof
mounting it. IIRC, the above ground Hustler 4BTV and the Taylor
antennas both had to be lengthened a little to be resonant in the same
place as the ground mount and radials had to be tuned. Reports at
that time were that antenna efficiency was best when the antenna was
ground mounted and had 8-16 radials buried. However, while not
optimum, the minimum ground was to be an 8-foot ground rod at the base
of the antenna. Baluns seemed to be a new technology, I don't recall
the term "ferrite beads", and RF in the shack wasn't a big issue. One
common practice was having a ground rod as close to your rig as
possible and making sure the rig, PS, antenna and everything
electrical near the rig was grounded to the ground rod. Today the
electrical code for homes forbids that due to ground-loops.

Some of these changes take some getting used to. It's a strange
feeling to realize that what you knew for so long is no longer true.




--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

Buck wrote:
Some of these changes take some getting used to. It's a strange
feeling to realize that what you knew for so long is no longer true.

Think about what will be accepted as being
true after someone figures out how to demodulate
entangled particle beams.
--
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 =---

I don't know what I was thinking -- I obviously wasn't. Of course you're
right. The loss decreases as the number of radials increases. I apolgize
for the mistake.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Buck wrote:
On 6 Feb 2005 22:38:33 -0800, wrote:


And the loss increases, rather than drops, as the number increases.

This

has been well known since at least 1937.


I didn't catch this either. I misunderstood it to be that the number
of radials decrease loss. However, I do well remember that the
preferred radial of the day when I was first licensed was below ground
radials. Today I see a lot of antennas preferring above ground
radials.



This has me confused...I must be missing something...I checked the
previous
posts, but still doesn't make sense to me...Seems the ground losses
would
decrease as the number of radials increase....Thats what your model
showed.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:17:19 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

I don't know what I was thinking -- I obviously wasn't. Of course you're
right. The loss decreases as the number of radials increases. I apolgize
for the mistake.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


I chalk it up to dislexic fingers, just a type of typo!

Strangely enough, I didn't read it that way till someone else reported
it.
--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW