Message-ID: <20090227214807.2402inbklslc0w8o@webmail4.kuleuven.be>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:48:07 +0100
From: Rik Strobbe <Rik.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <003e01c99907$73421060$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
In-Reply-To: <003e01c99907$73421060$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.2)
Subject: Re: LF: Ground system
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	DelSp="Yes";
	format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Mal,

I have to disagree with that (at least at my location).
In 1998 (on 137kHz) I started with about 20 radials (15 to 50m long) =20
on the ground. After replacing this by 5 radials (15 to 35m long) =20
about 10cm in the ground and with a 2m earth stake at each end ground =20
loss was reduced by 30%.
At my location the antenna is surrounded by many (100's) trees.
Maybe the situation is different in the open.

73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T

Quoting mal hamilton <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>:

> MF
> A couple of elevated insulated radials will out perform dozens of  =20
> buried radials, in fact 1 radial is vy effective, even insulated  =20
> radials lying above ground are also efficient.
> I use 2 insulated 1/4 wave elevated radials on 500 khz and several  =20
> lying on the ground for 137 khz.
> Using a loading coil in an elevated position on a vertical helps but =20
>  remember twice as many turns are required as opposed to base =20
> loading  hence more resistance, you might not be gaining as much =20
> advantage as  you think.
> de mal/g3kev
>



Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm