Hi Charlie.
Naw, it's also the same if you hang it on a long strap or simply set it
down on the sand. The incoming distant signal is simply diminished at that
point. The essential modifying aspect is how much sand between you and the
water's edge. I'm sure it has a ghastly complex explanation.
>Having walked around on the beach with a battery K2 listening to
incoming
signals on a short antenna, walking 50 feet from the water drops signals
multiple S units."
Perhaps the handheld radio has a better ground connection, capacity
coupled
or not, through you and into the salt water + sand at
On 12/20/2022 4:25 AM, n...@comcast.net wrote:
The assumption that "next to the water" is the same as "in the water" , is a
not right. It is not the same !
In this discussion, it's important to realize that the earth, salt
water, and radials, serve two functions. Soil in all its forms is a
Having walked around on the beach with a battery K2 listening to incoming
signals on a short antenna, walking 50 feet from the water drops signals
multiple S units. Over the beach there is an absorption zone starting at
the sand at water’s edge which goes higher and higher the farther from the
perform great :)
Maybe in a few million years it will be possible
73
Frank
W3LPL
- Original Message -
From: "JC"
To: "Frank W3LPL" , "topband"
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 12:25:35 PM
Subject: RE: Topband: Radials, EZNEC and far field
Hi Frank
Hi Frank
You wrote " . A vertical over a salt marsh or within about a wavelength of
salt water will produce
6 dB or more of gain at low angles compared to a vertical with poorly
conducting soil in its reflection zone
"
The assumption that "next to the water" is the same as "in the water" , is
Possibly Bouvet in January...
W4DNR
On 2022-12-19 7:17 pm, Brian D G3VGZ wrote:
One other situation, above large quantities of dry ice, Antarctica or
perhaps Greenland.
Frank W3LPL wrote:
Radials have no useful effect in improving low angle radiation, low
angle
radiation from vertical
One other situation, above large quantities of dry ice, Antarctica or
perhaps Greenland.
Frank W3LPL wrote:
> Radials have no useful effect in improving low angle radiation, low angle
> radiation from vertical antennas is determined almost entirely by highly
> conductive soil or salt water in
Soil conductivity plays a much bigger role than most of us realize and
the "over salt water" is the gold standard`. As noted by a few other
respondents radials are certainly helpful but for those of who live on
quartz plains (sand) far from the ocean the far field losses can not be
totally
ct: Topband: Radials, EZNEC and far field
Do more radials on a 160m vertical bring more improvements than shown
by simulation?
Most simulations, e.g. by EZNEC, show that going above 32 radials on 160m
brings minimal improvement, say 1 db to 2 max. Even for low angle signals.
On the other ha
Do more radials on a 160m vertical bring more improvements than shown
by simulation?
Most simulations, e.g. by EZNEC, show that going above 32 radials on 160m
brings minimal improvement, say 1 db to 2 max. Even for low angle signals.
On the other hand, some really loud stations on 160m, that
11 matches
Mail list logo
