http://elecraft.85.s1.nabble.com/Off-Topic-Your-advice-suggestion-about-antenna-tp7658892p7658936.html
> OK, well one can study theory for several years before deciding what
> antenna to use ... or just put up something and try it.
> My guess a quarter-wave vertical with some radials will work. How
> well? You will only find out by trying it.
>
> My favorite HF antenna has been the simple half-wave dipole -cheap,
> easy, quick. I did eventually obtain a triband trap yagi for
> 20-15-10m and works much better. Currently I have a 80/40m inverted-V
> ...and it works well for my needs. Worked a station on 80m SSB with
> S9 signals on Saturday at 11am! Sure he was only a hundred+ miles
> (short range is often harder). K3/10+KXPA100
>
> On 630m (475-KHz) I have a 43-foot high inverted-L (that is 8% of a
> quarter-wave). And my radials are limited to 100-foot by my property
> lines. Obviously a very poor antenna. My CW signals was heard 4,000
> miles away in Buffalo, NY. Not an everyday occurrence, but a surprise
> to me.
>
> 73, Ed
>
> -----------------------
>
> There is some erroneous information here, as well as in Don W3FPR's post.
>
> Radials, whether buried or raised, only affect near field ground return
> currents.? You cannot improve ground conductivity beyond the radials,
> and the strength of the low angle lobe is directly affected by the
> ground conductivity several wavelengths distant from the vertical.? This
> is well established science and you can clearly see the effect in simple
> models.
>
> Dave?? AB7E
>
>
> 73, Ed - KL7UW
>
http://www.kl7uw.com> Dubus-NA Business mail:
>
[hidden email]
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft> Help:
http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm> Post: mailto:
[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by:
http://www.qsl.net> Please help support this email list:
http://www.qsl.net/donate.html> Message delivered to
[hidden email]