ad: MyersEng-1

Hf vertical without radials

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KG5PNI, Jun 19, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
ad: QSOToday-1
  1. K8XG

    K8XG Ham Member QRZ Page

    ^ Chose Wisely ...
    NL7W and W4IOA like this.
  2. W4IOA

    W4IOA Ham Member QRZ Page

    WZ7U, NL7W and KA4DPO like this.
  3. WR2E

    WR2E Ham Member QRZ Page

    You need to feed that with grape vines.
    NL7W likes this.
  4. WM4RW

    WM4RW Ham Member QRZ Page

    I use a 43 ft zero five vertical antenna at my qth with, no ground radials. Have talked all over the world with it. I do have a 6ft ground rod drove into the ground next to the antenna. People will tell you that it’s not possible to use a vertical without ground radials but I’m here to tell you it can be done. My tuner can get the antenna to 1.0 SWR on 20,40 and 75 meters. Look up zero five antennas, you will not be disappointed.
  5. WR2E

    WR2E Ham Member QRZ Page

    I've never heard anyone say it's not possible. Just that it won't work as well as it could.

    Of course it will radiate, and if you've never tried a better antenna, you won't know how good is good. No frame of reference to compare it to.
    K4KYV likes this.
  6. KF9BD

    KF9BD Ham Member QRZ Page

    I have an OCF 20 ft vertical from Greyline Performance. It works well compared to my attic dipole or my endfed. I have a detailed review of it on eham forum. Good antenna for small space.

    Danny - KF9BD
  7. K3EY

    K3EY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Over the years, 36 and counting, I have had many antennas and several were verticals. I heard it said, “I put down more radials and it really made a difference”.

    I tried using verticals with and without radials. I couldn't hear one iota difference with radials.

    Yes I know what good antennas are, belonged to big radio club in Pittsburgh for many years where monster beams are installed on towers.

    I always used radials because "they say you must" but again I couldn't tell the difference at all, nada! Just saying. . . . . . . .

    All I have left today is one vertical I-Beam that supported my verticals. That’s as much of a vertical I will ever have here again.
  8. KA4DPO

    KA4DPO Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Here is the URL:

    They recommend a minimum of 16 radials, and frankly, I would put down twice that many. I would also ditch the Un-Un in favor of a Balun and feed the thing with balanced line. That would reduce feedline losses, but transformers, Baluns or Un-Un's on end fed vertical antennas introduce a lot of loss because they try to force the current to be equal in both legs of the circuit. Since the ground impedance is almost always much higher than the radiating element, the transformer core will heat up, wasting power.

    Possibly a better solution, if you were only going to run a hundred watts would be to forget about Baluns or Un-Un's and put an AH4 right at the base and that would significantly improve the efficiency. You still need plenty of radials though.
  9. K3EY

    K3EY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    It would behoove you to build you're own since you know best and it's way cheaper that way.

    Why even buy anything a vendor sells since they all have it all wrong:p:rolleyes::confused:
  10. KA4DPO

    KA4DPO Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Here is a ground conductivity map prepared by the FCC in 1954. This was done as a service for broadcast engineers and commercial antenna designers.

    The higher the number, the better the ground conductivity is in that area. It is easy to see that parts of Texas and Oklahoma have very high conductivity so just a few radials will go a very long way. Here along the eastern seaboard conductivity is poor so many radials are needed to achieve an efficient counterpoise.

    Here is a website that has more detail but you have to find your state and locality on the tiles.


Share This Page