On Sep 30, 3:13*pm, Owen wrote:

Could I be forgive(n) in thinking that the popular, nearly universal, way
is to uplift the BL&E research at MF and apply it to 80m?

The BL&E experiments were conducted using 3 MHz signals, so their
applicability to the 80m band is not a large uplift.

On 01/10/10 06:39, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 30, 3:13 pm, wrote:

Could I be forgive(n) in thinking that the popular, nearly universal, way
is to uplift the BL&E research at MF and apply it to 80m?

The BL&E experiments were conducted using 3 MHz signals, so their
applicability to the 80m band is not a large uplift.

I stand corrected. I have read the paper many times, and my recollection
was that it was below 2MHz. Must be time to read it again!

Owen

Owen wrote:
On 01/10/10 03:51, Jim Lux wrote:

Thanks Jim.


I would think that the buried radials are more convenient (broad band,
etc.)

Yes, I understand that there are advantages to buried radials, but I
don't understand the preponderance of cases where I see 120 radials
pinned on the top of infertile dirt. They still present a trip hazard,
and less money spent on just a few elevated radials may perform just as
well.

never underestimate the power of tradition. It was written by BL&E that
120 radials work, and the FCC accepts that for broadcast, so by golly,
that's what we do. Why 120? it was at the point of diminishing returns
or practicality back when the study was done (e.g. there was no
detectable change from going to more)

As for laying on ground.. I think that's more the laying on grass, and
eventually, the wire sinks into the grass/turf.

There's also the whole "the radials must be resonant" misconception..



Look at the performance of your ankle biting radials when the dimensions
are changed slightly.. For instance, if you shorten them by 5%, does it
make a big difference? For the buried radials, the length is very, very
non critical.

Yes, of course the feedpoint impedance is more sensitive to change in
length or conversely change in frequency.

While for a buried radial system (probably because of the losses) it's
going to be less frequency sensitive.




Something else to look at is the sensitivity of "efficiency" (and your
definition of radiated power in the hemisphere/power into antenna is
fine) to soil properties.. if the soil conductivity or epsilon changes
(as it will with changing water content) does the efficiency change
rapidly?

Yes, efficiency is sensitive to soil parameters... for both types, but
not very sensitive.

Maybe less sensitive for the buried radials? Or, it was "good enough"
for BL&E, so being so written, so shall it be done.


Because of the impedance change mentioned above, the impedance
transformation needs adjustment for wide range frequency operation. Not
such an issue in the intended application, the DX window on 80m here is
just 50kHz.




If I haven't got something quite wrong in the modelling, it would seem
worthwhile to prototype the shortened version with a view to extending
the system to a four-square if suitable.

The shortened version will, of course, aggravate the tuning sensitivity.





I have still to read Rudy's papers... I am away from home (less
bandwidth) and I will download them later today when I get home. I
suppose that the proposed design challenges the norm of a very large
number of buried radials. In our case, part of the property is quite
rocky, and a configuration with just a few elevated radials offers
deployment opportunities that aren't suited to buried radials.

So, my original question is no so much suggesting everyone else got it
wrong, but why don't I seem more people doing it this way. Could I be
forgive in thinking that the popular, nearly universal, way is to uplift
the BL&E research at MF and apply it to 80m?

Tradition is a powerful force. Look how many years it took for someone
(e.g. Rudy) to put the substantial work into doing a real quantitative
experiment. For most hams, they're only going to do something once, and
if works ok, that's how it stays. Almost none are going to do a well
controlled A/B study, especially if there's a (not necessarily valid)
tradition that says A works better (where better is ill defined and
probably a combination of radiation efficiency and installation convenience)

Until recently, modeling tools available to most amateurs were not
suitable for making the call, although there have been some people who
did models and published it, but, in the face of decades of "lay down
120 radials" it was a tough sell.

The other thing is whether the difference is big enough to "make a
difference" in observed system performance. For a lot of operators, a 1
dB change in performance might not be noticeable. If you're in a
"either propagation is there, or it isn't" situation the difference
between good and bad is 10s of dB. There are relatively few people who
work at 0dB SNR (where tenths count) on a regular and continuing basis,
and they're not necessarily the ones who are interested in doing
experiments on antennas on the scale needed.






Owen

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:44:53 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

It was written by BL&E that
120 radials work,

2, 15, 30, 60, and 113.

No discussion whatever of 120.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:44:53 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

It was written by BL&E that
120 radials work,

2, 15, 30, 60, and 113.

No discussion whatever of 120.


I stand corrected.. thanks..
So they extrapolated to 120 as a "nice round number" for the future
purposes of the FCC.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:44:53 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

For a lot of operators, a 1
dB change in performance might not be noticeable.

That 1dB is at the periphery of a radius where surface area
(customers) mounts up by the square.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:44:53 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

For a lot of operators, a 1
dB change in performance might not be noticeable.

That 1dB is at the periphery of a radius where surface area
(customers) mounts up by the square.


For broadcasters, sure. But the discussion is in reference to the
potential performance difference for ham use, and I would think that
there is more than 1 dB variation in the "other end" of the link. The
hard core DXer or QRPer digging the signal out of the noise will care,
but that's a small fraction of the overall ham population.

On 01/10/10 07:44, Jim Lux wrote:
Owen wrote:
On 01/10/10 03:51, Jim Lux wrote:

Thanks Jim.


I would think that the buried radials are more convenient (broad band,
etc.)

Yes, I understand that there are advantages to buried radials, but I
don't understand the preponderance of cases where I see 120 radials
pinned on the top of infertile dirt. They still present a trip hazard,
and less money spent on just a few elevated radials may perform just
as well.

never underestimate the power of tradition. It was written by BL&E that
120 radials work, and the FCC accepts that for broadcast, so by golly,
that's what we do. Why 120? it was at the point of diminishing returns
or practicality back when the study was done (e.g. there was no
detectable change from going to more)

As for laying on ground.. I think that's more the laying on grass, and
eventually, the wire sinks into the grass/turf.

There's also the whole "the radials must be resonant" misconception..



Look at the performance of your ankle biting radials when the dimensions
are changed slightly.. For instance, if you shorten them by 5%, does it
make a big difference? For the buried radials, the length is very, very
non critical.

Yes, of course the feedpoint impedance is more sensitive to change in
length or conversely change in frequency.

While for a buried radial system (probably because of the losses) it's
going to be less frequency sensitive.

I expect so.




Something else to look at is the sensitivity of "efficiency" (and your
definition of radiated power in the hemisphere/power into antenna is
fine) to soil properties.. if the soil conductivity or epsilon changes
(as it will with changing water content) does the efficiency change
rapidly?

Yes, efficiency is sensitive to soil parameters... for both types, but
not very sensitive.

Maybe less sensitive for the buried radials? Or, it was "good enough"
for BL&E, so being so written, so shall it be done.

BL&E were measuring ground wave, I think solely. My efficiency measure
is the hemisphere, so ground losses play a different role.



Because of the impedance change mentioned above, the impedance
transformation needs adjustment for wide range frequency operation.
Not such an issue in the intended application, the DX window on 80m
here is just 50kHz.




If I haven't got something quite wrong in the modelling, it would seem
worthwhile to prototype the shortened version with a view to extending
the system to a four-square if suitable.

The shortened version will, of course, aggravate the tuning sensitivity.

Yes, but the model suggests that the variation in R is very small, and
variation in VSWR (with shunt coil match) is small... in that band segment.





I have still to read Rudy's papers... I am away from home (less
bandwidth) and I will download them later today when I get home. I
suppose that the proposed design challenges the norm of a very large
number of buried radials. In our case, part of the property is quite
rocky, and a configuration with just a few elevated radials offers
deployment opportunities that aren't suited to buried radials.

So, my original question is no so much suggesting everyone else got it
wrong, but why don't I seem more people doing it this way. Could I be
forgive in thinking that the popular, nearly universal, way is to
uplift the BL&E research at MF and apply it to 80m?

Tradition is a powerful force. Look how many years it took for someone
(e.g. Rudy) to put the substantial work into doing a real quantitative
experiment. For most hams, they're only going to do something once, and
if works ok, that's how it stays. Almost none are going to do a well
controlled A/B study, especially if there's a (not necessarily valid)
tradition that says A works better (where better is ill defined and
probably a combination of radiation efficiency and installation
convenience)

Until recently, modeling tools available to most amateurs were not
suitable for making the call, although there have been some people who
did models and published it, but, in the face of decades of "lay down
120 radials" it was a tough sell.

The other thing is whether the difference is big enough to "make a
difference" in observed system performance. For a lot of operators, a 1
dB change in performance might not be noticeable. If you're in a "either
propagation is there, or it isn't" situation the difference between good
and bad is 10s of dB. There are relatively few people who work at 0dB
SNR (where tenths count) on a regular and continuing basis, and they're
not necessarily the ones who are interested in doing experiments on
antennas on the scale needed.

Yes, there will be differing view on what is significant difference. I
am not in the school of declaring less than one or two S points is
insignificant in general.

In the case of a four square in the DX segment, users are looking for
performance... and it seems to me that the elevated three radials, eight
wave vertical with capacity had is very close to quarter wave over
buried radials... depending of course on the soil type.

You mention the modelling tools, I am not so much concerned as to
whether the elevated radials model is good, but whether the NEC4 buried
radials model is good, and likewise for radials on and just above the
ground because those models are setting the benchmark for the
performance of the alternative.

Owen






Owen

Owen wrote:
On 01/10/10 07:44, Jim Lux wrote:

The other thing is whether the difference is big enough to "make a
difference" in observed system performance. For a lot of operators, a 1
dB change in performance might not be noticeable. If you're in a "either
propagation is there, or it isn't" situation the difference between good
and bad is 10s of dB. There are relatively few people who work at 0dB
SNR (where tenths count) on a regular and continuing basis, and they're
not necessarily the ones who are interested in doing experiments on
antennas on the scale needed.

Yes, there will be differing view on what is significant difference. I
am not in the school of declaring less than one or two S points is
insignificant in general.

yeah, but there's a big difference between 6-12 dB and 1dB.. I think
most users would care about 6 dB. Many fewer about 1 dB. And even
fewer care about 1 dB AND have the desire and means to perform the
experiment in a controlled way. (well, this latter category probably has
less than 10 people in it, and only 1 has published in the last 50 years)



In the case of a four square in the DX segment, users are looking for
performance... and it seems to me that the elevated three radials, eight
wave vertical with capacity had is very close to quarter wave over
buried radials... depending of course on the soil type.

Hmm.. and there the real question is what kind of performance are we
talking about: the power radiated in a desired direction (Tx) or the
ability to null unwanted signals (Rx). Given the generally high noise
levels on low bands for Rx, a 1 dB change in efficiency of the antenna
might not make any difference for the latter.

A bigger effect on a phased array is the relative phasing. For a 4
element array, you can have pretty big errors in phase on transmit
without changing the forward gain much (30 degree phase error on one
element might give you a 1dB change). But a 30 degree phase error on
receive could turn a -30dB null into a -7dB one..

And for that, the lower loss of your elevated radials might make things
"pickier".. that is, as frequency or surroundings change, the reactive
term for each element changes, which could change the power distribution
and phasing among the elements (depending on the feed system used).
(obviously, one of the "current forcing" drive schemes would be less
sensitive to this)



You mention the modelling tools, I am not so much concerned as to
whether the elevated radials model is good, but whether the NEC4 buried
radials model is good, and likewise for radials on and just above the
ground because those models are setting the benchmark for the
performance of the alternative.

The modeling performance of NEC4 for buried wires and wires just above
the surface is quite good. Where I would be suspicious is for a wire ON
the surface or partly embedded in the surface.

Look for that paper by Burke and Poggio on validating NEC3 and NEC4 (it
was published at some conference in Ankara Turkey)

On Sep 30, 4:44*pm, Jim Lux wrote:

never underestimate the power of tradition. *It was written by BL&E that
120 radials work, and the FCC accepts that for broadcast, so by golly,
that's what we do.

A minor point, but in the interest of accuracy - the greatest number
of buried radials used in the BL&E experimental work was 113.

There's also the whole "the radials must be resonant" misconception..

While the physical lengths of the buried radials in the BL&E
experiments were stated in free space wavelengths, that does not mean
that those physical lengths will behave the same when buried as they
will when not buried.

As shown in the link I posted earlier in this thread (and by NEC), a
few elevated wires used as a counterpoise in place of the BL&E buried
wires need to have an electrical wavelength of 1/4-lambda for best
antenna system radiation efficiency, even with "short" vertical
monopoles. And even when those elevated counterpoise wires are close
to the earth in terms of a free space wavelength, their electrical
length is not much different than their physical dimension in terms of
a free space wavelength -- as is the case when they are buried.

Theory and practice both show that such wires perform differently when
they are buried than when they are elevated above the surface of the
earth.

RF