Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:35:06 -0700, Tim Shoppa
wrote:
The choice of 6 AWG, I suppose, was driven (or should have been
driven) by code.

That's true. It also seemed stupid to use 22AWG wire after driving
down a 5/8" diameter ground rod :-). Still, copper is so damn
expensive today!

The alternative to your 10 Ohms would be infinite Ohms. In that
sense, quite an improvement. Driving it down to 1 Ohm will take much
more effort (and grief).

Yet and all, it has nothing to do with RF ground (sorry). What you
have accomplished serves your safety from lighting strokes. On the
plus side (when we get beyond survival techniques) you also gain from
removing a lot of ground currents getting into your gear. This can be
especially painful in the sense of Signal to Noise ratio. Worse, if
untreated, it can lead to component failure or shock hazards (you DID
connect all these grounds together, didn't you?).

While the rods were laid out in a roughly radial pattern from the
entrance panel, the driveways kept me from doing the world's best
radial pattern :-).

Yes, these are all bonded to the existing older ground system at the
entrance panel. I also measured the resistance to the older ground
system and it seems the old system barely met code.

Laying radials would have reduced your ground resistance, faster, and
lower - but this is not conventional code. Radials will help with
near RF ground, but will not otherwise help with obtaining those low
DX launch angles (not, unless you invest in 5 mile radials).

The discussion of the benefits/pay-back for radials drives a lot of
discussion. Simple advice (if you are building a vertical) is to make
them as long as your antenna is high, and plant a dozen or two about
an inch below the soil, or beneath the grass above the soil.

All my antennas are dipoles hung between trees right now, but I used
to have a vertical (4BTV) a few decades ago. I look at pictures of the
AV-18HT in the catalogs with a lot of envy in my eyes!

Tim.