CORRECTION - I mean to write 90 radials rather than 90 verticals!!!

"John, N9JG" wrote in message
news:r8TBf.756002$xm3.570205@attbi_s21...
Well you always wonder if the guy was trolling me, but I wasn't about to
plan on spending the spring putting in an additional 90 verticals unless
there was the prospect of a reasonable payoff.
-- John

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:25:50 GMT, "John, N9JG"
wrote:

If I am interpreting this graphic correctly, the gain increase
from 32 radials to 128 radials is about 0.5 dB.

Hi John,

Well, if you read the site closely, there are far more variables
involved than one graph offers a final answer to.

On the other hand, if this graph accurately represents all those
variables converging on your conditions; then, yes, it is a huge
increase as reported. You can, on your next QSO offer to that
operator that it probably will boost your signal one half of an
S-meter needle's width.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"John, N9JG" wrote in
newsdTBf.513451$084.293169@attbi_s22:

CORRECTION - I mean to write 90 radials rather than 90 verticals!!!

Heh heh. There does come a point, though, where more verticals will
achieve the same result at less expense than more radials. I've found that
8 radials of about the same length as antenna height works well, even with
multiband antennas. And a second antenna will recover the gain to the same
level as 120 radials (standard broadcast design), plus providing a
steerable pattern. Coils eat up as much and can be eliminated, or made
smaller with top-loading capacity hats.

Or, for radial-free performance, design it as an end-fed half-wave!

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667