>Unless the masses can produce a signal that is 95% (one standard deviation)
>of optimal , they should stay off the air.
Why is this thread so binary? No one is telling anyone to stay off
the air if they can't put down excellent radial systems, and of
course, the handful of dB you get from going from 32 0.2 wavelength
radials to 120 halfwave radials is probably not worth it to many
folks.
I don't think that's what people are objecting to.
Some real, important questions:
What is the difference in field strength between a THREE radial
installation of 0.25wl apiece vs. sixteen 0.1wl radials vs. 32 0.25wl
radials?
What about the difference between ZERO radials (ground system = coax
shield + the case of the radio + the ground rod at the house entry)
and 16 0.1wl radials?
How hard does your radio bite you when you run 1500W into an inverted
L with ZERO radials?
How many DX contacts are you going to miss because someone told you
that the whole radial thing was just a bunch of bunk?
How many other impressionable hams will you infect with this
misconception, making it oh so easy to sell them $400 verticals that
"work just mounted on a post driven into the ground"? when $50 of
wire, $10 of rope, $10 of lawn staples, an afternoon of work, and that
50 foot tree in the backyard will give them a 10dB advantage over that
fancy commercial half-antenna?
We don't need to (and certainly shouldn't) advise people that they
need to copper-coat a 1 wavelength circle to make a vertical work. At
the same time, suggesting two or three or four or zero radials is,
frankly, stupid.
The statement "a vertical works with three radials" is basically a lie.
The statement "a vertical needs 120 half-wave radials to work" is
basically a lie.
Don't lie.
73,
Dan
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|