-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I have seen what appear to be AM broadcast towers in or on the edges
of salt marshes, and it seems pretty obvious to me why that's a good
place to go. However, the environmentalists being a little more
noticeable than they were once upon a time, this particular method of
siting is probably a little more challenging than it used to be.

I recognize that salt water is far more conductive than fresh water,
but fresh water's still superior to sand and the like. That being
said, I am wondering about using a pond as a ground screen and
mounting the antenna itself on an island (or a raft) in the middle of
the pond.

What I don't know is just how large a pond do I need in order for
something like this to work? Obviously it depends on type of antenna
and band and a bunch of other things, but even a wild-ass guess (with
some math or physics behind it) will help make the difference between
whether I bother trying or not.

For those who absolutely require less variables in their equations,
imagine a standard dipole tuned for 20m strung roughly 45 feet above
ground level between two trees, one on either side of a fresh water
pond. How wide does the pond have to be at that point (and others)
for it to work right? Even answers like "the pond will have to be
wider than the dipole is long" or "there will be no noticeable impact
on performance" are fine if they're based in reality, and ideally in
math and physics I can understand.

Oh, and another question: what difference, if any, would frozen
versus liquid water make in this situation?

Jack.
(exploring new antenna options.)
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAl/MBGPFSfAB/ezgRAo5pAKD35cRH0XFUz7p/uqBwbj3SNRP69QCfaz5C
6he5FgG+/q767KjX9g9T75A=
=j1k0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Jack Twilley" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I have seen what appear to be AM broadcast towers in or on the edges
of salt marshes, and it seems pretty obvious to me why that's a good
place to go. However, the environmentalists being a little more
noticeable than they were once upon a time, this particular method of
siting is probably a little more challenging than it used to be.

[snip]

Environmentalists must be realists if they want to be effective: AM
broadcast is one of the lightest footprints in any salt marsh, and AM
stations have very little trouble getting EPA clearance for such places.

FWIW. YMMV.

Bill

You'd still need a ground radial system, lest the varying water
table constantly detune the array. Also, fresh water is generally
a good insulator compared to copper wire.

Pete

"Jack Twilley" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I have seen what appear to be AM broadcast towers in or on the edges
of salt marshes, and it seems pretty obvious to me why that's a good
place to go. However, the environmentalists being a little more
noticeable than they were once upon a time, this particular method of
siting is probably a little more challenging than it used to be.

I recognize that salt water is far more conductive than fresh water,
but fresh water's still superior to sand and the like. That being
said, I am wondering about using a pond as a ground screen and
mounting the antenna itself on an island (or a raft) in the middle of
the pond.

What I don't know is just how large a pond do I need in order for
something like this to work? Obviously it depends on type of antenna
and band and a bunch of other things, but even a wild-ass guess (with
some math or physics behind it) will help make the difference between
whether I bother trying or not.

For those who absolutely require less variables in their equations,
imagine a standard dipole tuned for 20m strung roughly 45 feet above
ground level between two trees, one on either side of a fresh water
pond. How wide does the pond have to be at that point (and others)
for it to work right? Even answers like "the pond will have to be
wider than the dipole is long" or "there will be no noticeable impact
on performance" are fine if they're based in reality, and ideally in
math and physics I can understand.

Oh, and another question: what difference, if any, would frozen
versus liquid water make in this situation?

Jack.
(exploring new antenna options.)
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAl/MBGPFSfAB/ezgRAo5pAKD35cRH0XFUz7p/uqBwbj3SNRP69QCfaz5C
6he5FgG+/q767KjX9g9T75A=
=j1k0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

" Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news:3cVlc.8415$%o1.2784@lakeread03...
You'd still need a ground radial system, lest the varying water
table constantly detune the array. Also, fresh water is generally
a good insulator compared to copper wire.

How much is 75 tons of salt, delivered?

On Tue, 04 May 2004 12:46:02 -0700, Jack Twilley
I recognize that salt water is far more conductive than fresh water,

Hi Jack,

Unfortunately, this is a persistent illusion that begs real comparison
to real conductors. Salt water is miserable as a conductor, and its
special place in the pantheon of noble applications has little to do
with "conductivity."

but fresh water's still superior to sand and the like.

Even this is arguable, sand has less loss (as sand is one of the most
common precursors to making glass, it is hard to suggest it presents
issues of conduction or loss).

That being
said, I am wondering about using a pond as a ground screen and
mounting the antenna itself on an island (or a raft) in the middle of
the pond.

No doubt you will get a raft of anecdotal support, but not much data.

What I don't know is just how large a pond do I need in order for
something like this to work?

I will do something dangerous and make a presumption. To work, as you
suggest it through the example of the AM stations, you need to be
operating in the 160M band. OK, so that was a caprice of guesswork,
the remainder of your post offers other opportunity to suggest you are
building your house on sand.

For those who absolutely require less variables in their equations,
imagine a standard dipole tuned for 20m strung roughly 45 feet above
ground level between two trees, one on either side of a fresh water
pond.

Well, this is where you are in over your head (water metaphors are
abundant in this topic). This, again, requires presumptions insofar
as the original observation was driven by the AM example. However, at
this point we will depart from the low frequency mandate to examine
another mandate: polarization and your presumption of conductivity.

A horizontally polarized antenna seeing a horizontally conducting
surface is a scenario that describes a self-short-circuit.
Horizontally polarized waves meeting the earth (a conductive one)
immediately snuff themselves (how long would your car battery last
with a screwdriver held across its poles?).

On the other hand, vertical antennas do not suffer this fate - and for
the same reason: it is a current wave (or at least the magnetic
component inducing such a current, in a conductive earth) that spans
earth making a perfectly reasonable relationship to continued
propagation.

How wide does the pond have to be at that point (and others)
for it to work right? Even answers like "the pond will have to be
wider than the dipole is long" or "there will be no noticeable impact
on performance" are fine if they're based in reality, and ideally in
math and physics I can understand.

Well, once you divorce yourself of the notion of using a horizontal
antenna, it becomes a matter of "ray tracing" from the vertical
polarized source, out to the reflecting surface. If you want a
radiation lobe to bounce away at an angle of 45°; then this surface
has to be as far away as the origin of the ray's source is above
ground. If you want a radiation lobe to bounce away at an angle of
5°; then this surface has to be 10 or 20 wavelengths away (which is
why large bodies of water are so attractive).

OK now to drop the other shoe.

The reason why this all works can be described through conduction, but
that is messy and far from intuitive (why is a poor conductor better
than a poorer conductor that is sometimes better than the poor
conductor?).

The whole matter of near earth conductivity (through the application
of trig) hardly matters a whit in regard to DX angles. DX angles are
a property of the earth in the far region (at least 5 wavelengths
away, which describes the almost certain frustration of planting long
enough radials that will make any difference in that regard).

The trick is to simply abandon the thought of the antenna except as a
point representing the source of the ray to be traced to ground.
Think of the wave propagating along that ray. It has left the antenna
far behind and is in its native media of 377 Ohms. It then happens to
intersect another media - salt water. Salt water's characteristic Z
presents that wave with a 10:1 SWR mismatch, and as we all know
exceedingly little power passes through that interface, and nearly all
of it is reflected (again, in the same angle of reflection already
described by the ray we started with).

THIS is the power of salt water, marsh water, and other so-called
conductive surfaces. The conductivity is for s**t and matters just as
much - it is mismatch that does our work. Even average earth presents
a mismatch, but not nearly so effective; thus power passes through the
interface at its critical angle (another optics concept that is
intimately tied into this ray-tracing). We call this (as does the
optics community) the Brewster Angle. Optics has a simple method of
forecasting the angle, and it is the same math that gives us SWR. a
ratio.

Well, there is more that could be said, but this is enough to part the
waves.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thank you for the very detailed explanation. So much for that
idea. :-)

Jack.
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAmHAvGPFSfAB/ezgRAoBlAKC04X44ElnDqbiN024oNciJ6pSItwCeNuXX
B8NCVjYJ3vYQZ9LcQbITBRM=
=S6Tn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jack Twilley wrote:


Thank you for the very detailed explanation. So much for that
idea. :-)

Jack.
- --
Jack Twilley


You aren't the first to think of that idea, and if you stick around
the newsgroup long enough, you will find you are not the last! It's not
a dumb question -- the only dumb question is the one that isn't asked.

Irv VE6BP

--
--------------------------------------
Diagnosed Type II Diabetes March 5 2001
Beating it with diet and exercise!
297/215/210 (to be revised lower)
58"/43"(!)/44" (already lower too!)
--------------------------------------
Visit my HomePage at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv/
Visit my Baby Sofia website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv4/
Visit my OLDTIMERS website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv5/
--------------------
Irv Finkleman,
Grampa/Ex-Navy/Old Fart/Ham Radio VE6BP
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Irv" == Irv Finkleman writes:

[... I post an idea, Richard explains why it wouldn't work ...]

Jack Thank you for the very detailed explanation. So much for that
Jack idea. :-)

Irv You aren't the first to think of that idea, and if you stick
Irv around the newsgroup long enough, you will find you are not the
Irv last! It's not a dumb question -- the only dumb question is the
Irv one that isn't asked.

When I think of something I haven't heard anyone else discuss, and I
haven't seen mentioned here or in other online fora, I try to research
it a little online and see if I can learn more about it. With this
one, it was too tempting (because of the AM example) and the stuff I
had read about Sommerfeld grounds in the NEC2 source and also comments
seen on Mr. Cebik's site (usually associated with graphs of antenna
patterns made with different types of ground) led me to believe that a
quasi-infinite plane of salt water goodness would be a huge boost. It
sure beats placing a layer of aluminum foil or steel plate over the
backyard. ;-)

Irv Irv VE6BP

Jack.
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAmQ0IGPFSfAB/ezgRAvr5AKDlREO+WmtdX+Fv5I/g0FF9+cz29ACgkiYX
MDO46gVXAQlDPzswMaRPVAI=
=emQp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jack,
Depending on how difficult errecting the thing would be,
why not give it a try anyway? The water may not 'help' a
signal, but the antenna being away from nearby 'stuff' might.
If you have the wire, a pond, a boat(?), etc...?
'Doc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Doc" == w5lz writes:

Doc Jack, Depending on how difficult errecting the thing would be,
Doc why not give it a try anyway? The water may not 'help' a signal,
Doc but the antenna being away from nearby 'stuff' might. If you
Doc have the wire, a pond, a boat(?), etc...? 'Doc

I plan on bringing along the bits just in case I feel extra
motivated. Should anything be learned from the experience, rest
assured that I will post. :-)

Jack.
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAmRH3GPFSfAB/ezgRAlfEAKDK02z2wO6uhR/pahhoiPEAiENb+wCgzGpb
Bw8oMh6xIi2PWdjjp2OxwjY=
=0nRC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----