Stupid antenna question

[NQ6U]

a few radials are better than none, and after about 30 -40 radials (evenly scattered around the vertical section) are usually more tha sufficient... beyond that, you're achieving minimal gain for a lot of effort. After about 60, the gain is virtually negligible.

You're right. There was an article in QST about that last year some time; the authors erected a quarter-wave vertical and played with various numbers and positions of radials. 32 flat on the ground was indeed the sweet spot but they found that 16 was probably adequate in most cases. Interestingly, they found that if you elevate the radials to about five feet (1.5m) off the ground, you could get by with a lot fewer of them. I can't remember the exact numbers but it was a significant difference.

[W1GUH]

"...but they found that 16 was probably adequate in most cases. "

Sounds about right. But in those situations where that number is not possible, fewer will work OK. If ya can't to what's optimum....do what you can do to get on the air. I once had a Hustler 4BTV & the only possible number for me to use was 1. Count it. 1. Worked OK...had lots of good contacts.

Another time on a field-day setup I had the vertical mounted on a dock in a lake. Again, 1 radial, but made lots of contacts. I'm going to have to go through my QST's. I may have that issue and would really like to read it. Did it quantify the differences between different numbers of radials?

[NQ6U]

Did it quantify the differences between different numbers of radials?

Yes, they had it all laid out nicely with tables and charts. I just checked the ARRL Web site (their search function really, really sucks, BTW) and the article is in the March 2010 issue: An Experimental Look at Ground Systems for HF Verticals, by Rudy Severns.

[W1GUH]

Thanks...I probably have it around here somewhere.

Yes...the ARRL site does leave a lot to be desired.