Sorry, have a misconstrued topic sentence below, probably from not finishing an edit of the sentence from a double negative. You can see that the topic sentence is at odds with the details. Thanks to KM1H for pointing out the error.
Should start with: Particularly for the very minimal radial systems some are forced to live with, having high angle radiation may actually be a considerable advantage. On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Guy Olinger K2AV <[email protected]>wrote: > Particularly for the very minimal radial systems some are forced to live > with, not having high angle radiation may actually be a considerable > advantage. > > If one does not have "dense" and uniform radials the ground field > cancellation advantage of radials is lost, and having a low current center > on the vertical section now is a lossy issue. The max would be right at the > grass or at the base of elevated radials, basically as low as you can get. > Since for many this ground cancellation advantage cannot be had on their > property, the next best thing is to get as much current center as far UP on > the vertical wire as is possible. My current center is between 70 and 90 > feet up on the wire and the horizontal is 105 feet. > > My driveway bisecting the area under the only plausible wire location would > not have allowed a "T," but reflection on the issues says I'm better off > with the L. > > Given how lossy some grounds can be, and with less than dense and uniform > radials, for a given installation a "short" T may simply be *throwing away* > the energy not radiated at horizontal angles. Remember that the > horizontally polarized radiation is not subject to the horrendous ground > losses of vertical polarization. > > With vertical antennas on 160, the five ton elephant in the room is what > one is doing about ground losses. Everything else is yippy puppies. Unless > one has an excellent radial system, reducing ground losses is about the only > significant question. > > 73, Guy. > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 8:55 PM, ZR <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "ZR" <[email protected]> >> To: "Jim Bennett" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:49 AM >> Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Capacitor for Inverted L >> >> >> I dont understand the sudden urge or desire of some to suppress all high >> angle radiation >> from an inverted L. It is well established that even a low horizontal >> dipole >> can work amazing amounts of DX on 160 when conditions allow and having >> both >> possibilities present in the L is a benefit. >> >> Carl >> KM1H >> >> _______________________________________________ >> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK >> > > _______________________________________________ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
