The reason new threads start about subjects that have been discussed before is that the internet can’t find the original thread where we remember reading something. The average person will go back a month or two scrolling around until patience runs out and we just start over.
That’s why I’m asking about ground radial length vs. 3-meter vertical, which I know has been discussed very distinctly.
Point is, with a 3-meter AM antenna, beyond what length is a radial installation pointless or even counter productive?
I’ll even add another observation. If we didn’t repeat and repeat, this website would stop because it’s all been said.
Life could easily be considered superfluous for a similar reason, but that belongs on a philosophy website.
I’ll even add another
I’ll even add another observation. If we didn’t repeat and repeat, this website would stop because it’s all been said.
If it didn’t repeat and repeat for me, then the information would just fall back out of my head the next time I sneezed.
For those of you who know the ins and outs like the back of your hand, I suppose it all sounds boring and perhaps a little irritating.. But for people like me (whatever me may be) the repetition is essential.
Oh yeah, Carl, you ask something?
Well, the way I understand it, for best results with a 3 meter AM vertical, to extend from the base 10 feet out for the higher bands, or 20 feet for the lower bands
I based the above on advice given at:
http://sstran.com/pages/CarlVanOrdenAntennaPage.htm
and from:
http://www.theradiosource.com/articles-techtalk-powerplane.htm
>>Hmmm.. now that I re-read your question, I guess that wasn’t really an answer.
If It Weren’t For
Rich Powers, if it weren’t for your humor I don’t know what I’d do.
Searching Part15.us
Hey Carl,
The Google search box at the upper left of this page searches part15.us only. I just typed in radial length and got 83 hits.
My belief is that a lot of information gets buried in posts having a different or totally unrelated Subject line. So if you browse back in Recent Posts looking for a pertinent subject line, you will likely be frustrated. The Google search includes the text in each message.
Part15.us is unique among forums in that there is an empty Subject box that allows you to title your reply post, or leave it blank, which results in the Subject being the first few words of your text. Most forums don’t do that. They allow a Subject only for the original post, and all replies are categorized under the original Subject. I think the more rigid format of the other forums helps to enforce more subject related organization by making people think carefully about the subject of a new thread.
Near field
There is a lot of theory floating about (full wave, 1/4 wave, near field, antenna length, number of radials, etc.), but I tend to think in terms of near field. For my frequency, i.e., 1650 kHz, the near field is approx. 60 ft. If there were space (relatively few homeowners have it) around the base, I’d think 32 radials at 60′ each would do quite well.
If you must come inside the near field, I’d think you could develop an area of strongest signal (inverse square) and use a copper ground screen for that, i.e., say 10′ r, then a bonding ring to which you attach 32 radials @ 10′ or 20′ each. If you have space I’d opt for 20′. You could even use maybe 16 @ 300 ohm TV antenna twin lead. Lots of that out there dirt (heh-heh) cheap. I found a whole bunch of it at the local re-cycle lot, where I get my PVC pipe.
The outside of the radial ends would be good to bond together. 4 ground rods inside the base ring, and 4 more, every 8 radials, on the outside.
Thinking about time and expense? You bet … me too. So attack the project one step at a time from the base outward, and watch your signal get better. If you get to where doing more doesn’t seem to improve it, just stop there.