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/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
