Re: Inverted L for 160 meters
Posted by
David Gilbert-2 on
Aug 26, 2020; 6:11pm
URL: http://elecraft.85.s1.nabble.com/Inverted-L-for-160-meters-tp7664325p7664366.html
Yes, certainly current balance would minimize ground losses. I hadn't
thought much about it before, but I guess it's kind of intuitive in that
it's analogous to lower return resistance losses due to better use of
parallel ground paths.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 8/26/2020 10:42 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
> On 8/26/2020 10:07 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
>> Radiation angle for a vertical antenna is much more a function of the
>> ground conductivity out several wavelengths than it has to do with
>> the current balance in the radials.
>
> Right, but N6LF has shown that current balance in radials, especially
> elevated ones, minimizes ground losses. Yes, elevated radials can be
> modeled in less capable versions of NEC. All of this is addressed in
> my slides.
>
> In all cases, the model must use soil conductivity representative of
> the QTH. This is selected from a menu. Soil conductivity affects us
> two ways. First, losses underneath the antenna. Better
> radial/counterpoise systems can reduce this a lot. Second, loss in the
> far field, over which we have no control, and those losses can vary a
> lot if soil varies a lot in different directions. For example, a
> vertical on a beach has much less far field loss, and much more energy
> at low angles, in the direction of the water and much more far field
> loss and higher angle energy than in directions over land.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraftHelp:
http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htmPost: mailto:
[hidden email]
This list hosted by:
http://www.qsl.netPlease help support this email list:
http://www.qsl.net/donate.htmlMessage delivered to
[hidden email]