wrote:
There is a large skew with a 1/4 wl vertical over two 1/4 wl radials,
and it gets worse at higher elevation numbers.

Who said anything about two radials? I am reporting
the standard model with four radials. I was away
from my computer for four days over the holidays
and may have missed the two radial discussion, if
there was one.

The radial radiation cancellation that I earlier
described was based on four radials, certainly
not on two.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
There is a large skew with a 1/4 wl vertical over two 1/4 wl radials,
and it gets worse at higher elevation numbers.

Who said anything about two radials?

Actually YOU did. Several times as a matter of fact.

I am reporting
the standard model with four radials. I was away
from my computer for four days over the holidays
and may have missed the two radial discussion, if
there was one.

The radial radiation cancellation that I earlier
described was based on four radials, certainly
not on two.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Here is what you said on this very thread:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
If you can bring yourself to think in terms of
current directions and far field superposition of waves, this
behavior shouldn't be that hard to understand.

It's pretty easy to understand. Any two radials,
180 degrees apart and high enough, should theoretically
cancel each other's radiation in the far field.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Maybe reading one of your own posts will jog your memory a bit. In it
we see you VERY CLEARLY stated two radials would cancel each other's
radiation.

73 Tom

wrote:

Maybe reading one of your own posts will jog your memory a bit. In it
we see you VERY CLEARLY stated two radials would cancel each other's
radiation.

73 Tom


Won't matter, he'll have an explanation for it, and it will be anyone's
fault but his.

tom
K0TAR

Tom Ring wrote:
wrote:

Maybe reading one of your own posts will jog your memory a bit. In it
we see you VERY CLEARLY stated two radials would cancel each other's
radiation.

73 Tom


Won't matter, he'll have an explanation for it, and it will be anyone's
fault but his.

tom
K0TAR

You were right Tom.

He came up with one and it wasn't his fault.

wrote:
Tom Ring wrote:
Won't matter, he'll have an explanation for it, and it will be anyone's
fault but his.

You were right Tom.
He came up with one and it wasn't his fault.

On the contrary, I confessed it was my fault for missing
four days of postings and thus missing the "two and only
two radial" context.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

wrote:
Maybe reading one of your own posts will jog your memory a bit. In it
we see you VERY CLEARLY stated two radials would cancel each other's
radiation.

Two radials do indeed cancel each other's radiation to a large
extent. But I certainly didn't say there were two and only two
radials in the entire system. I missed four days of postings.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp