I said:
That just isn't factual at all. Radials under the vertical antenna have
virtually no effect on wave angle unless they are sparse and grossly
unbalanced, allowing them to radiate like a low horizontal antenna.
Radials change the efficiency, not the pattern, unless the radials
radiate like a dipole.
73 Tom
Note that I didnt say anything about changing the pattern, just the
energy included at low angles and where the efficiency starts at the base
and at the often poorly understood Fresnel Zone if you really want more
power in those low angles and not heating worms or sand granules.
That, by definition, is a pattern change.
You said it improves groundwave. What you think happen just does not
happen.
It improves efficiency. It does not change elevation pattern, it does not
change Fresnel zone losses significantly. It does not improve groundwave
any significant amount more than it changes sky wave.
This is because the "often poorly understood" Fresnel zone extends far
beyond practical radial field area, and virtually all of the ground wave
attenuation from soil losses is miles from the antenna over the entire
long length of a path. It is not localized loss.
73 Tom
All of which is well known and well published.
You might ask Frank, W3LPL, or Richard Fry to explain it to you better than
I seem to do since you appear to get hung up on the semantics.
Looking at the coastal AM BCB patterns I mentioned a week (WGBB 1240) ago or
others recently will show you the effects of salt water and land.
Carl
KM1H
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
