Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Richard,
On 8 jun, 13:41, "Richard Fry" wrote: One exception being the typical MW broadcast monopole vertical used with 120 buried radials, each 1/4-wave or more in length. This configuration produces its maximum radiation in the horizontal plane (ie, zero degrees elevation). If this was not true, then AM broadcast stations would have very few daytime listeners. Day-time listening does not require maximum radiation at 0 deg. elevation, but does require radiation at 0 deg elevation. So at that point I thing you should reconsider your statement. The ground wave fields 0.3 mile from such antenna systems have been accurately measured as far back as 1937 by Brown, Lewis and Epstein of RCA Labs, and for a vertical radiator of 60 to 90 degrees in height shown to be within a few percent of the peak, free-space field produced by a 1/2-wave dipole, at the same tx power. The frequency used in this set of tests was 3 MHz. I especially mentioned "short wave communication" and "average soil" to exclude the AM an LW broadcast propagation. In that case the pseudo Brewster angle can be that low, that (near) fields form the ground current do not cancel the direct field from the vertical radiator. Ground wave propagation loss including earth curvature will cause the h-plane field from these verticals to go to zero beyond some distance* from the transmit antenna site, but that does not mean that zero h-plane field was "launched" by this vertical radiator in the first place. *and that distance can be over 200 miles for a high power AM station on a low frequency I agree that vary close to the transmitter (you are in the transition field zone), the field strength will behave as over a perfect conducting ground plane. There is another sign that even an AM broadcast station does not have maximum radiation at 0 deg. elevation. When you check your field strength (E or H) graphs up to 60 miles (where earth curvature can be neglected) you will notice that the field strength falls of faster then with 1/distance. That would not be the case when max radiation is at 0 deg. elevation. My information shows 20 dB below 1/r (1 MHz, 100km, "good ground"), 41dB below 1/r (1 MHz, 100km, "good ground"), source: "The services textbook of radio, 1958, volume 5 page 442. For average soil, and especially rocky like ground, the field strength will be significantly lower. Probably your material does also treat "height gain factors" Then you will see that above a certain height, field strength increases with increasing height (indication of more gain under that elevation). Best regards, Wim PA3DJS |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Wimpie" wrote
There is another sign that even an AM broadcast station does not have maximum radiation at 0 deg. elevation. When you check your field strength (E or H) graphs up to 60 miles (where earth curvature can be neglected) you will notice that the field strength falls of faster then with 1/distance. That would not be the case when max radiation is at 0 deg. elevation. _____________ No matter the relative value of its h-plane radiation, the resulting ground wave field from an AM broadcast station is subject to losses not only by 1/distance, but also as a function of earth conductivity and the frequency. Only for free space paths does the field decay by 1/distance, alone. If the h-plane ERP of an AM monopole did not match the peak ERP of a 1/2-wave dipole when driven with the same tx power, then the monopole could not generate the same field as the peak, free-space field of that dipole, when the monopole is measured in its far field, but close enough to it for groundwave propagation loss due to the conductivity of the path to be small. This was proven in the Brown, Lewis and Epstein study in 1937, where at 0.3 miles for 60-90 degree verticals they measured an equivalent field strength of better than 190 mV/m at 1 mile for 1 kW of radiated power. The peak, free-space field from a 1/2-wave dipole for those conditions is about 195 mV/m. RF |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Richard,
My previous posting didn't reach the group, so I made a new one. On 8 jun, 16:25, "Richard Fry" wrote: [deleted} No matter the relative value of its h-plane radiation, the resulting ground wave field from an AM broadcast station is subject to losses not only by 1/distance, but also as a function of earth conductivity and the frequency. Only for free space paths does the field decay by 1/distance, alone. I fully agree with this. It is the reason that an AM broadcast transmitter has its main lobe (Take of Angle) at non zero elevation. When you would measure the field strength at, for example, 30 degr elevation, you would find the 1/distance decay. When you would measure the field strength of an AM broadcast transmitter over seawater, the 1/distance decay holds to about 100km. Above that you have to correct for earth curvature. If the h-plane ERP of an AM monopole did not match the peak ERP of a 1/2-wave dipole when driven with the same tx power, then the monopole could not generate the same field as the peak, free-space field of that dipole, when the monopole is measured in its far field, but close enough to it for groundwave propagation loss due to the conductivity of the path to be small. You should distinguish between transition region and far field (Fraunhofer) region. Close to the transmitter the field generated by the ground current coincide with the field from the vertical radiator therefore 3 dB gain increase in field strength occurs. Further away from the antenna, both amplitude and phase of ground current will change with respect to the field from the radiator, partly destructive interference occurs. Only a surface with infinite conductivity will support the surface wave up to infinity, hence giving main lobe at zero elevation (for vertical radiators up to 5/8 lambda). Even a vertical radiator (for example 1/2 wave dipole) not touching ground will show max radiation at zero elevation for perfect conducting ground plane (there is no (pseudo)Brewster angle for surface with infinite conductivity). This was proven in the Brown, Lewis and Epstein study in 1937, where at 0.3 miles for 60-90 degree verticals they measured an equivalent field strength of better than 190 mV/m at 1 mile for 1 kW of radiated power. The peak, free-space field from a 1/2-wave dipole for those conditions is about 195 mV/m. The objective of the Brown, Lewis and Epstein study was to get as much as power radiated instead of dissipated in the ground, especially with relative small antennas (financial aspect). They did not investigate Take of Angle. BTW, they did a good job as the field strength from a 1/2-wave dipole, free space, 1kW input is about 138mV/m (rms) at 1 mile. Their measurements show 190mV/m (almost 3 dB gain). If you have access to a full wave EM simulator that supports dielectric layers, you could run a simulation of the far field pattern for a vertical radiator. Best regards, Wim PA3DJS |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Wimpie" wrote
When you would measure the field strength of an AM broadcast transmitter over seawater, the 1/distance decay holds to about 100km. Above that you have to correct for earth curvature. This is approximately, but not precisely true, as the conductivity of sea water is not perfect. Divergence from the inverse distance field is present at distances up to 100 km, as well. You should distinguish between transition region and far field (Fraunhofer) region. Close to the transmitter the field generated by the ground current coincide with the field from the vertical radiator therefore 3 dB gain increase in field strength occurs. Further away from the antenna, both amplitude and phase of ground current will change with respect to the field from the radiator, partly destructive interference occurs. I did state that BL&E's measurements were made in the far field. The longest radiator length in their study was 90 feet, and the test frequency was 3 MHz. Using the equation commonly accepted for the transition to the far field zone (D = 2*L^2/lambda), D = 49.4 feet for these conditions. BL&E took their measurements at 0.3 miles (1,584 feet). Only a surface with infinite conductivity will support the surface wave up to infinity, hence giving main lobe at zero elevation (for vertical radiators up to 5/8 lambda). This is a common belief based on a mathematical analysis for an infinite distance from the radiator. But the main lobe _as launched_ from a vertical monopole up to 5/8-wave in height, and with its base on the earth _always_ is directed in the horizontal plane, regardless of the r-f loss in the ground system used with the vertical, or earth conductivity in the near vicinity of the site. The BL&E study was done in the sandy soil of New Jersey (about 4 mS/m), yet for a 1/4-wave radiator with 113 0.41-wave radials they measured fields at 0.3 miles that were within a few percent of their theoretical maximum for a perfect 1/4-wave monopole radiator over a perfect ground plane. A calculation of the elevation field at an infinite distance over other than a perfect, infinite ground plane shows zero field in the horizontal plane, and a peak in relative field at some positive elevation angle. That is the field that survives to infinity, but does not mean that this is the shape of the field that is radiated by the monopole in the first place, and that exists at far-field distances closer to the radiator. Closer to the radiator, the h-plane field is not zero -- which in fact is the basis for the daytime coverage of all MW broadcast stations. BTW, they did a good job as the field strength from a 1/2-wave dipole, free space, 1kW input is about 138mV/m (rms) at 1 mile. Their measurements show 190mV/m (almost 3 dB gain). That is due to the fact that radiation from a 1/4-wave monopole with its base on the earth is restricted to one hemisphere, which for a perfect ground plane produces 3 dB gain over a 1/2-wave dipole in free space. To account for this, multiply your 138 mV/m by SQRT(2). This produces the same 195 mV/m value that I posted earlier as the theoretical, h-plane maximum for a 1/4-wave monopole for these conditions. RF |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Safety ground versus RF ground for a 2nd Floor shack | Antenna | |||
Reflection Loss | Antenna | |||
Transforming your simple Ground Rod into a Ground Anchor : Is It Worth The Work ? - You Decide ! | Shortwave | |||
Ground Or Not To Ground Receiving Antenna In Storm ? | Antenna | |||
Reflection Coefficient | Antenna |