Richard Clark wrote:

The path through the earth is shortened between adjacent ground wires.
Less path, less loss. The earth current travels not IN toward the
center as the radials do. The earth current travels ACROSS or
circumferentially towards the radial wires. This is due to the phase
lag between the induced earth current and the radial current. The
greater the distance between radials, the more path loss from the
average distance between the radials, to the radials.

As this is very difficult to treat in words alone, it is undoubtedly
confusing in the description above.

Indeed it is. Can you point me to a reference where I can get a more
detailed explanation of this circumferential current and its cause?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Well, I can't explain why lagging or leading current and voltage would
change the physical direction of propagation of the EM wave front
through the ground... But I do know that Dan does not have enough
radials.. He needs at least another 16 and better yet would be in the
range of 50 total...

denny / k8do

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:56:37 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Indeed it is. Can you point me to a reference where I can get a more
detailed explanation of this circumferential current and its cause?

Hi Roy,

Brown, Lewis and Epstein.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:56:37 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Indeed it is. Can you point me to a reference where I can get a more
detailed explanation of this circumferential current and its cause?

Hi Roy,

Brown, Lewis and Epstein.

Which page?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:08:09 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:56:37 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Indeed it is. Can you point me to a reference where I can get a more
detailed explanation of this circumferential current and its cause?

Hi Roy,

Brown, Lewis and Epstein.

Which page?

Hi Roy,

It is distributed through the discussion.

Pg. 757 (at the top of the page introduces):
"These losses are due to conduction of earth
currents through a high resistance earth..."

"Where there are radial ground wires present,
the earth current consists of two components,
part of which flows in the earth itself and
the remainder of which flows in the buried wires."

"...all the various components differ in phase."

This establishes the relationship and distinction in the various
currents. It is the current in the earth that is the topic of
discussion here. That current is out of phase with respect to the
currents (at the same radial distance) found in the buried wires. No
wires, no phase issue. No phase issue, and earth currents would be
radial. Now, to distinguish this from circumferential is not to say
this is absolute (it does not follow an arc of constant radius).

This is extended to coverage at the bottom of page 758:
"The actual earth current and the current flowing in the
radial wires are given...." [formula shown in the original]

"From (8) [that formula] we see that the earth
current proper leads the current in the wires
by 90 electrical degrees."

At a radius, the earth phase and the wire phase exhibit a potential
difference which results in conduction that is not strictly radial
(the term circumferential through the combination of vectors might be
replaced with spiral, or diagonal). The earth's resistance comes into
play at page 760:
"When the earth is of good conductivity [a paradox ensues],
the current leaves the wires and enters the earth closer to
the antenna than it does when the earth is a poor conductor."
and hence the advice for replacing dirt with sand OR providing more
closely spaced radials, closer in.

"Thus the regions of high current density are subjected
to still more current with higher losses in these regions."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard,

I disagree with your conclusion that currents flow circumferentially. It
does not say so in the paper, and I don't believe it can be inferred
from what is said in the paper. If you were to draw a diagram showing
the currents produced by the phase shift between earth and radial
currents, you'd find that the net current resulting from this phase
shift is purely radial, not circumferential.

If the currents flow circumferentially, do they flow clockwise or
counterclockwise, and at what magnitude relative to the radial currents?
Surely there's some reference which shows this calculation which you
could direct me to or, if not, you could show how the calculation is
done and what the result is.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:08:09 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:56:37 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Indeed it is. Can you point me to a reference where I can get a more
detailed explanation of this circumferential current and its cause?
Hi Roy,

Brown, Lewis and Epstein.

Which page?

Hi Roy,

It is distributed through the discussion.

Pg. 757 (at the top of the page introduces):
"These losses are due to conduction of earth
currents through a high resistance earth..."

"Where there are radial ground wires present,
the earth current consists of two components,
part of which flows in the earth itself and
the remainder of which flows in the buried wires."

"...all the various components differ in phase."

This establishes the relationship and distinction in the various
currents. It is the current in the earth that is the topic of
discussion here. That current is out of phase with respect to the
currents (at the same radial distance) found in the buried wires. No
wires, no phase issue. No phase issue, and earth currents would be
radial. Now, to distinguish this from circumferential is not to say
this is absolute (it does not follow an arc of constant radius).

This is extended to coverage at the bottom of page 758:
"The actual earth current and the current flowing in the
radial wires are given...." [formula shown in the original]

"From (8) [that formula] we see that the earth
current proper leads the current in the wires
by 90 electrical degrees."

At a radius, the earth phase and the wire phase exhibit a potential
difference which results in conduction that is not strictly radial
(the term circumferential through the combination of vectors might be
replaced with spiral, or diagonal). The earth's resistance comes into
play at page 760:
"When the earth is of good conductivity [a paradox ensues],
the current leaves the wires and enters the earth closer to
the antenna than it does when the earth is a poor conductor."
and hence the advice for replacing dirt with sand OR providing more
closely spaced radials, closer in.

"Thus the regions of high current density are subjected
to still more current with higher losses in these regions."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:12:32 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

I disagree with your conclusion that currents flow circumferentially. It
does not say so in the paper, and I don't believe it can be inferred
from what is said in the paper.

Hi Roy,

To insist that the paper be complete where the reader has the
competence to understand what is implied; well, that goes beyond
standard practice. Further, the implication is hardly momentous when
the force of the writing is in demonstrating (not finding) a solution
to loss. Their style is clearly descriptive, not pedantic.

One very simple observation drawn directly from the text
at page 760:
"When the earth is of good conductivity,
the current leaves the wires and enters the earth closer to
the antenna than it does when the earth is a poor conductor."

How is it THIS current is traveling radially, the same direction as
the wires, both leaving the wire (an orthogonal aspect) and yet moving
in the same direction. This is a contradiction to the geometry of the
description if we are to abide by your rejection of my
"interpretation."

Their (not my) statement, supported by their other text, hardly makes
sense otherwise. Current only flows along a potential gradient and
the phase shift between (by their own distinctions) wire and ground
constitutes such a gradient.

It is a vastly more speculative "interpretation" to suggest the
current leaves the wire to travel in the same direction and the
authors definitely don't say that, do they? Common sense would
dictate a fairer interpretation that conforms to phases and the
distinctions (separation of currents) they drew from them.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

So, does the current go clockwise or counterclockwise? How much goes
that way compared to the radial component? Where can I find a
quantitative or explicit statement of your interpretation?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:12:32 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

I disagree with your conclusion that currents flow circumferentially. It
does not say so in the paper, and I don't believe it can be inferred
from what is said in the paper.

Hi Roy,

To insist that the paper be complete where the reader has the
competence to understand what is implied; well, that goes beyond
standard practice. Further, the implication is hardly momentous when
the force of the writing is in demonstrating (not finding) a solution
to loss. Their style is clearly descriptive, not pedantic.

One very simple observation drawn directly from the text
at page 760:
"When the earth is of good conductivity,
the current leaves the wires and enters the earth closer to
the antenna than it does when the earth is a poor conductor."

How is it THIS current is traveling radially, the same direction as
the wires, both leaving the wire (an orthogonal aspect) and yet moving
in the same direction. This is a contradiction to the geometry of the
description if we are to abide by your rejection of my
"interpretation."

Their (not my) statement, supported by their other text, hardly makes
sense otherwise. Current only flows along a potential gradient and
the phase shift between (by their own distinctions) wire and ground
constitutes such a gradient.

It is a vastly more speculative "interpretation" to suggest the
current leaves the wire to travel in the same direction and the
authors definitely don't say that, do they? Common sense would
dictate a fairer interpretation that conforms to phases and the
distinctions (separation of currents) they drew from them.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Severns' article "Verticals, Ground Systems and Some History",
July 2000, p. 39, quotes the following: "As indicated in Figure 1,
the tangential component of the H field (H(phi)) induces
horizontal currents (Ih) flowing radially and the normal
component of the E field (Ez) induces vertically flowing
currents (Iv). The paper is available for download
from www.arrl.org.

Frank

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Richard,

I disagree with your conclusion that currents flow circumferentially. It
does not say so in the paper, and I don't believe it can be inferred from
what is said in the paper. If you were to draw a diagram showing the
currents produced by the phase shift between earth and radial currents,
you'd find that the net current resulting from this phase shift is purely
radial, not circumferential.

If the currents flow circumferentially, do they flow clockwise or
counterclockwise, and at what magnitude relative to the radial currents?
Surely there's some reference which shows this calculation which you could
direct me to or, if not, you could show how the calculation is done and
what the result is.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:08:09 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:56:37 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Indeed it is. Can you point me to a reference where I can get a more
detailed explanation of this circumferential current and its cause?
Hi Roy,

Brown, Lewis and Epstein.

Which page?

Hi Roy,

It is distributed through the discussion.

Pg. 757 (at the top of the page introduces):
"These losses are due to conduction of earth
currents through a high resistance earth..."

"Where there are radial ground wires present,
the earth current consists of two components,
part of which flows in the earth itself and
the remainder of which flows in the buried wires."

"...all the various components differ in phase."

This establishes the relationship and distinction in the various
currents. It is the current in the earth that is the topic of
discussion here. That current is out of phase with respect to the
currents (at the same radial distance) found in the buried wires. No
wires, no phase issue. No phase issue, and earth currents would be
radial. Now, to distinguish this from circumferential is not to say
this is absolute (it does not follow an arc of constant radius). This is
extended to coverage at the bottom of page 758:
"The actual earth current and the current flowing in the
radial wires are given...." [formula shown in the original]

"From (8) [that formula] we see that the earth
current proper leads the current in the wires
by 90 electrical degrees."

At a radius, the earth phase and the wire phase exhibit a potential
difference which results in conduction that is not strictly radial
(the term circumferential through the combination of vectors might be
replaced with spiral, or diagonal). The earth's resistance comes into
play at page 760:
"When the earth is of good conductivity [a paradox ensues],
the current leaves the wires and enters the earth closer to
the antenna than it does when the earth is a poor conductor."
and hence the advice for replacing dirt with sand OR providing more
closely spaced radials, closer in.

"Thus the regions of high current density are subjected
to still more current with higher losses in these regions."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The article is in QST.

"Frank's" wrote in message
news:6qxSh.56971$__3.40608@edtnps90...
Severns' article "Verticals, Ground Systems and Some History",
July 2000, p. 39, quotes the following: "As indicated in Figure 1,
the tangential component of the H field (H(phi)) induces
horizontal currents (Ih) flowing radially and the normal
component of the E field (Ez) induces vertically flowing
currents (Iv). The paper is available for download
from www.arrl.org.

Frank

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Richard,

I disagree with your conclusion that currents flow circumferentially. It
does not say so in the paper, and I don't believe it can be inferred from
what is said in the paper. If you were to draw a diagram showing the
currents produced by the phase shift between earth and radial currents,
you'd find that the net current resulting from this phase shift is purely
radial, not circumferential.

If the currents flow circumferentially, do they flow clockwise or
counterclockwise, and at what magnitude relative to the radial currents?
Surely there's some reference which shows this calculation which you
could direct me to or, if not, you could show how the calculation is done
and what the result is.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:08:09 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:56:37 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Indeed it is. Can you point me to a reference where I can get a more
detailed explanation of this circumferential current and its cause?
Hi Roy,

Brown, Lewis and Epstein.

Which page?

Hi Roy,

It is distributed through the discussion.

Pg. 757 (at the top of the page introduces):
"These losses are due to conduction of earth
currents through a high resistance earth..."

"Where there are radial ground wires present,
the earth current consists of two components,
part of which flows in the earth itself and
the remainder of which flows in the buried wires."

"...all the various components differ in phase."

This establishes the relationship and distinction in the various
currents. It is the current in the earth that is the topic of
discussion here. That current is out of phase with respect to the
currents (at the same radial distance) found in the buried wires. No
wires, no phase issue. No phase issue, and earth currents would be
radial. Now, to distinguish this from circumferential is not to say
this is absolute (it does not follow an arc of constant radius). This
is extended to coverage at the bottom of page 758:
"The actual earth current and the current flowing in the
radial wires are given...." [formula shown in the original]

"From (8) [that formula] we see that the earth
current proper leads the current in the wires
by 90 electrical degrees."

At a radius, the earth phase and the wire phase exhibit a potential
difference which results in conduction that is not strictly radial
(the term circumferential through the combination of vectors might be
replaced with spiral, or diagonal). The earth's resistance comes into
play at page 760:
"When the earth is of good conductivity [a paradox ensues],
the current leaves the wires and enters the earth closer to
the antenna than it does when the earth is a poor conductor."
and hence the advice for replacing dirt with sand OR providing more
closely spaced radials, closer in.

"Thus the regions of high current density are subjected
to still more current with higher losses in these regions."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC