Hi Jim, thank you for reporting these very interesting experiments. I wonder if you could optimize the shielding effectiveness of the counterpoise by connecting it via a variable inductor to ground,
Hi James and Group. It seems to me that in this case, where most of the antenna field (and therefore the displacement current) is going to the ground rather than the counterpoise, most of the return
The resistance values quoted are those due to the antenna alone - I have already subtracted the coil resistance which is about 5 ohms. It seems to be much better if You will not use ground, conterpoi
Someone more... With no counterpoise, the antenna loss resistance at 136kHz was 37ohms. With the counterpoise as above, Rloss dropped to 32ohms, a reduction of about 14%. With antenna current of 5A,
Hi James and Group. With no counterpoise, the antenna loss resistance at 136kHz was 37ohms. With the counterpoise as above, Rloss dropped to 32ohms, a reduction of about 14%. What coil resistance You
To All from PA0SE Jim, M0BMU wrote: Over the weekend I put a temporary counterpoise under my antenna, to see how much effect it would have and make some rough measurements. The counterpoise consisted
I also recently tried a counterpoise, consisting of two wires 18m long (the length of my top section) under the antenna and about 1m high. The difference was that I resonated it. It gave me slightly
keep in mind that an elevated counterpoise will reduce the effective height of the antenna (by "pulling up'' the RF ground level. So a part of the improvement could be lost again due to the lower rad
Hello Jim, keep in mind that an elevated counterpoise will reduce the effective height of the antenna (by "pulling up'' the RF ground level. So a part of the improvement could be lost again due to th
Dear LF Group, Over the weekend I put a temporary counterpoise under my antenna, to see how much effect it would have and make some rough measurements. The counterpoise consisted of 11 parallel insul
