Radials for vertical antenna

[KC6SLA]

I know radials make a difference when transmitting but how much is the recieve performance enhanced when radials are added?

[W1NK]

While I am unable to give you specifics, let me refer you to Steve, WB2WIK/6's magnum opus on verticals and radials.  It's interesting what he found when monitoring CHU and then adding or subtracting radials.

http://www.eham.net/articles/4148

Frank, W1NK

[K0OD]

"how much is the receive performance enhanced when radials are added?"  

I presume you're referring to HF. With modern receivers adding radials, at best, will be like turning up the gain a bit or sitting nearer to the speaker. No Big Deal.

Read this article. Note that even on transmit, going from a simple radial system to a very extensive one does very little unless you're using a shortened vertical.  

http://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/

[WW5AA]

My inverted "L" for 160 meters gained approx 18 DBI when going from 6 radials to 60 radials, 60-75' in length. In my case I would say it made a big difference.

73 de Lindy

[K0OD]

"My inverted "L" for 160 meters gained approx 18 DBI when going from 6 radials to 60 radials, 60-75' in length. In my case I would say it made a big difference."

---
Assuming you had a 1/10th decent 160 antenna to begin with (and not a mobile whip), then you should generate a huge pile of Europeans every time you transmit.

You do understand that on some radios an s-unit can be as little as one or two dBs.

My own long experience with radials/inverted L's tracks the published studies: lots more copper equals no discernible improvement on transmit (<3dB). And CERTAINLY no improvement in my ability to copy weak signals.

Low band contesters/DXers would kill for even 3 dB. If huge radial fields were the answer, then my 1 acre yard would be solid copper.

----------
By the way, did you read what N6LF discovered about using 4 radial? PERHAPS using 6 is also very bad practice?

http://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/