[Antennas] Butternut Vertical

2002年8月18日 10:09:32 -0400

Well put.
Jim, WB2HBZ
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Nelson Moyer
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 10:09 AM
To: [email protected]; George, W5YR
Cc: Jim Boyd; Antenna Net
Subject: RE: [Antennas] Butternut Vertical
While I grant you that ground mounted verticals operate most efficiently
with radials, I think it's a stretch to state to a new HF operator that they
MUST have radials to work. I worked 305 countries on the DXCC list and
5BDXCC in 10 years using the Butternut HF6V, mostly ground mounted, with
nothing but one 8 foot ground rod driven all the way into Iowa clay. I would
love to have 120 radials attached to my vertical, but the reality of living
on a 60'x120' town lot preclude the luxury. I didn't let that stop me from
working DX. I mounted my HF6V on a roof tripod with a counterpoise for two
low band seasons, and it didn't work any better elevated than when it was
ground mounted. Because ground mounting makes maintenance easier, I moved it
back off the roof. Most of the time I operated running 100 watts, with up to
500 watts for major pileups. Most antennas are compromised by tradeoffs,
e.g. gain vs. front to back, etc. The same applies to verticals; efficiency
is improved, and bandwidth is narrowed, using radials, but you can work a
lot of DX with nothing but a ground rod. Let's not discourage new HF ops by
telling them they need to start at the top, i.e fully optimized radial
system, no surrounding metal objects or trees, etc. Could I have worked
5BDXCC faster using radials on my vertical? Maybe. Could I have worked it
faster with a yagi at 70 feet? You bet!. It's OK to use suboptimal antennas,
the point is to get on the air.
Nelson, KU0A
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 10:45 PM
To: George, W5YR
Cc: Jim Boyd; Antenna Net
Subject: Re: [Antennas] Butternut Vertical
All ground mounted verticals must have radials....BUT a vertical
mounted at or >.07wl above ground will work 99% as well with only
FOUR radials that are AT LEAST 1/4wl long at lowest freq...
This was stated on a web site by W4RNL and I have confirmed it at home
with a vertical mounted 20ft off the ground and it only has 4 60ft
radials...works great on 80-10 and bandwidth/resonance is EXACTLY as it
was on the ground with 32 radials...
Also BC stations with AM sticks on top of bldgs have reported the
same thing...though the antenna has few radials there, being above
earth ground allows it to work well with only a min compliment of
radials...(one AM station here in Houston had that with its antenna
atop the old Rice Hotel!)
Chris
WB5ITT
Houston
"George, W5YR" wrote:
>> Jim, look elsewhere - the Butternut verticals MUST have radials. And think
> about how you would adjust an antenna on a 30 ft pole . . .
>> I am presently using a ground-mounted HF9-V with 60 radials. I ahve used
> the HF06V in the past, all ground mounted with lots of radials. The
> Butternut antennas require quite a bit of adjustment, especially the
HF-9V,
> so they need to be mounted where you can easily get to them: on the ground
> or a roof that is accessible, etc.
>> I think that you may have to be looking at some of the Cushcraft, GAP,
> Hy-Gain or other so-called half-wave verticals that are claimed not to
> require radials.
>> 73/72/oo, George W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas
> Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13qe
- - -
Your moderator for this list is:
Larry Wilson KE1HZ [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Antennas mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/antennas
- - -
Your moderator for this list is:
Larry Wilson KE1HZ [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Antennas mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/antennas