Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 7th 04, 07:33 AM
Reg Edwards
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Frank wrote -
I have also used your software for modeling verticals, and it is
in very close to the results produced by NEC. The one problem with NEC 2
(Though not with NEC 4) is that it cannot model buried radials, but can

get
very close to the ground.


================================

The only program I am reasonably familiar with is the several years old free
EZNEC. I don't know whether it has been updated or not and I make very
little use of it. Come to think of it, I don't make much use of my own
programs either.

Regarding shallow buried radials in conjunction with a vertical, have you
tried my recent program RADIALS2 ?

It is intended to demonstrate performance of the radials themselves in a
given ground rather than antenna performance. Which I suspect is the reverse
of NEC-4.

As you probably know, the effects of above-ground radials change very
rapidly as they get within a few inches of the ground surface. But once in
the ground they tend to remain static.

RADIALS2 uses an entirely different, unconventional form of performance
analysis. If other programs don't take soil permittivity into account at HF,
predictions must lose accuracy. Are the inputs and outputs of NEC-4 in a
form suitable for a direct comparison with my simple program?

But in view of the large uncertainties involving ground conditions, accuracy
is not worth making much of a song and dance about.
----
Reg, G4FGQ


  #2   Report Post  
Old November 7th 04, 10:26 PM
Frank
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Unfortunate I have only a NEC 2 based program (Nittany Scientific's NEC-Win
Pro), but with the Sommerfeld/Norton ground model you can approach the
ground to within 1/1000 of a wavelength closely approximating the results of
buried wires, and in very close agreement with your "RADIALS2" program. NEC
programs do require a value for ground permittivity. NEC 4 based software
is more expensive, being in the $800.00 range, plus a $500.00 license from
the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. In any case the data are easily compared
with your program results.

I have measured my ground conductivity, but not yet attempted to measure the
permittivity.

If anybody wants to get serious with antenna modeling I recommend Ansoft's
HFSS (Often known as "Highly Frustrating Structure Simulator"). It costs a
mere $30,000, with a $10,000 per year support payment.

Regards,

Frank


"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
Frank wrote -
I have also used your software for modeling verticals, and it is
in very close to the results produced by NEC. The one problem with NEC 2
(Though not with NEC 4) is that it cannot model buried radials, but can

get
very close to the ground.


================================

The only program I am reasonably familiar with is the several years old
free
EZNEC. I don't know whether it has been updated or not and I make very
little use of it. Come to think of it, I don't make much use of my own
programs either.

Regarding shallow buried radials in conjunction with a vertical, have you
tried my recent program RADIALS2 ?

It is intended to demonstrate performance of the radials themselves in a
given ground rather than antenna performance. Which I suspect is the
reverse
of NEC-4.

As you probably know, the effects of above-ground radials change very
rapidly as they get within a few inches of the ground surface. But once in
the ground they tend to remain static.

RADIALS2 uses an entirely different, unconventional form of performance
analysis. If other programs don't take soil permittivity into account at
HF,
predictions must lose accuracy. Are the inputs and outputs of NEC-4 in a
form suitable for a direct comparison with my simple program?

But in view of the large uncertainties involving ground conditions,
accuracy
is not worth making much of a song and dance about.
----
Reg, G4FGQ




  #3   Report Post  
Old November 9th 04, 12:34 PM
Roy Lewallen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Reg Edwards wrote:

The only program I am reasonably familiar with is the several years old free
EZNEC. I don't know whether it has been updated or not and I make very
little use of it. Come to think of it, I don't make much use of my own
programs either.

Regarding shallow buried radials in conjunction with a vertical, have you
tried my recent program RADIALS2 ?

It is intended to demonstrate performance of the radials themselves in a
given ground rather than antenna performance. Which I suspect is the reverse
of NEC-4.

As you probably know, the effects of above-ground radials change very
rapidly as they get within a few inches of the ground surface. But once in
the ground they tend to remain static.

RADIALS2 uses an entirely different, unconventional form of performance
analysis. If other programs don't take soil permittivity into account at HF,
predictions must lose accuracy. Are the inputs and outputs of NEC-4 in a
form suitable for a direct comparison with my simple program?


Yes. I made a few comparisons long ago, shortly after you introduced
your program, and found major disagreement. NEC-4 approximately agrees
with the measurements made long ago by Brown, Lewis, and Epstein (whom I
know you've never heard of), once you make reasonable assumptions of
ground conductivity and dielectric constant. Your program gives very
different answers. At the time, I concluded that there's considerable
coupling between radials, which your program doesn't seem to account
for. Interested readers should look in the google archives for postings
in this group on the thread "Ground Radials" in July 1998 and
"Evaluation of G4FGQ Freeware Antenna Software" in September 1998.


But in view of the large uncertainties involving ground conditions, accuracy
is not worth making much of a song and dance about.


True, but in the past, you've used the results from your program to
reach conclusions about radial systems that I didn't, and don't, believe
to be valid. (See the threads mentioned above.) I don't think it's wise
to draw conclusions from a program that gives results which are
demonstrably very different from the only measurements regarded to be
reasonably well made.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

  #4   Report Post  
Old November 9th 04, 04:41 PM
Reg Edwards
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Reg Edwards wrote:

The only program I am reasonably familiar with is the several years old

free
EZNEC. I don't know whether it has been updated or not and I make very
little use of it. Come to think of it, I don't make much use of my own
programs either.

Regarding shallow buried radials in conjunction with a vertical, have

you
tried my recent program RADIALS2 ?

It is intended to demonstrate performance of the radials themselves in a
given ground rather than antenna performance. Which I suspect is the

reverse
of NEC-4.

As you probably know, the effects of above-ground radials change very
rapidly as they get within a few inches of the ground surface. But once

in
the ground they tend to remain static.

RADIALS2 uses an entirely different, unconventional form of performance
analysis. If other programs don't take soil permittivity into account at

HF,
predictions must lose accuracy. Are the inputs and outputs of NEC-4 in

a
form suitable for a direct comparison with my simple program?


Yes. I made a few comparisons long ago, shortly after you introduced
your program, and found major disagreement. NEC-4 approximately agrees
with the measurements made long ago by Brown, Lewis, and Epstein (whom I
know you've never heard of), once you make reasonable assumptions of
ground conductivity and dielectric constant. Your program gives very
different answers. At the time, I concluded that there's considerable
coupling between radials, which your program doesn't seem to account
for. Interested readers should look in the google archives for postings
in this group on the thread "Ground Radials" in July 1998 and
"Evaluation of G4FGQ Freeware Antenna Software" in September 1998.


But in view of the large uncertainties involving ground conditions,

accuracy
is not worth making much of a song and dance about.


True, but in the past, you've used the results from your program to
reach conclusions about radial systems that I didn't, and don't, believe
to be valid. (See the threads mentioned above.) I don't think it's wise
to draw conclusions from a program that gives results which are
demonstrably very different from the only measurements regarded to be
reasonably well made.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

==============================

Roy, it's gratifying to see, once again, you take notice of my sayings.

Such as, I repeat -

"Fact 4. Computer programs do not tell gospel truths. They are at least as
unreliable as their human programmers."
----
Reg.





  #5   Report Post  
Old November 10th 04, 04:48 AM
Frank
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Modeled #14 AWG, copper conductor, 32ft monopole, 29 radials of 25ft, and
base 6" above (nominal lambda/1000) Sommerfeld/Norton ground of Er = 13,
sigma = 0.013 S/m at 1.8 MHz. All segments 6".

NEC2 computes:
Zin = 2.87 - j1358 Efficiency 92%

RADIALS2 computes (with radials 1mm below ground):
Zin = 1.55 - j1310 Efficiency 23.5%

Not a large amount of difference, but thought I had gotten closer results
with a different monopole, but seem to have deleted the code (Not sure why
such a large difference in efficiency). NEC2 is supposed to provide a
reasonable approximation of a buried radial monopole when at about
lambda/1000 above ground. Be interested in any comments, and what NEC4
provides if anybody has it.

73,

Frank

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Reg Edwards wrote:

The only program I am reasonably familiar with is the several years old
free
EZNEC. I don't know whether it has been updated or not and I make very
little use of it. Come to think of it, I don't make much use of my own
programs either.

Regarding shallow buried radials in conjunction with a vertical, have you
tried my recent program RADIALS2 ?

It is intended to demonstrate performance of the radials themselves in a
given ground rather than antenna performance. Which I suspect is the
reverse
of NEC-4.

As you probably know, the effects of above-ground radials change very
rapidly as they get within a few inches of the ground surface. But once
in
the ground they tend to remain static.

RADIALS2 uses an entirely different, unconventional form of performance
analysis. If other programs don't take soil permittivity into account at
HF,
predictions must lose accuracy. Are the inputs and outputs of NEC-4 in a
form suitable for a direct comparison with my simple program?


Yes. I made a few comparisons long ago, shortly after you introduced your
program, and found major disagreement. NEC-4 approximately agrees with the
measurements made long ago by Brown, Lewis, and Epstein (whom I know
you've never heard of), once you make reasonable assumptions of ground
conductivity and dielectric constant. Your program gives very different
answers. At the time, I concluded that there's considerable coupling
between radials, which your program doesn't seem to account for.
Interested readers should look in the google archives for postings in this
group on the thread "Ground Radials" in July 1998 and "Evaluation of G4FGQ
Freeware Antenna Software" in September 1998.


But in view of the large uncertainties involving ground conditions,
accuracy
is not worth making much of a song and dance about.


True, but in the past, you've used the results from your program to reach
conclusions about radial systems that I didn't, and don't, believe to be
valid. (See the threads mentioned above.) I don't think it's wise to draw
conclusions from a program that gives results which are demonstrably very
different from the only measurements regarded to be reasonably well made.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL





  #6   Report Post  
Old November 10th 04, 12:46 PM
Frank
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Frank" wrote in message
news:H4hkd.141267$9b.112169@edtnps84...
Modeled #14 AWG, copper conductor, 32ft monopole, 29 radials of 25ft, and
base 6" above (nominal lambda/1000) Sommerfeld/Norton ground of Er = 13,
sigma = 0.013 S/m at 1.8 MHz. All segments 6".

NEC2 computes:
Zin = 2.87 - j1358 Efficiency 92%

RADIALS2 computes (with radials 1mm below ground):
Zin = 1.55 - j1310 Efficiency 23.5%

Not a large amount of difference, but thought I had gotten closer results
with a different monopole, but seem to have deleted the code (Not sure why
such a large difference in efficiency). NEC2 is supposed to provide a
reasonable approximation of a buried radial monopole when at about
lambda/1000 above ground. Be interested in any comments, and what NEC4
provides if anybody has it.

73,


Of course the higher efficiency is due to NEC calculating only the I^2R
losses, and not the TRP. TRP should be fairly easy to calculate since the
pattern is "phi" independent. Have not checked to see if there is a TRP
card.
Note that a 32 ft monopole mounted on a perfect ground has an input
impedance of 1.58 - j1311 Ohms. The efficiency is reduced to 86% due to
increased I^2R losses.

Frank


  #7   Report Post  
Old November 12th 04, 11:38 PM
Frank
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Frank" wrote in message
news:t4okd.90482$VA5.33610@clgrps13...

"Frank" wrote in message
news:H4hkd.141267$9b.112169@edtnps84...
Modeled #14 AWG, copper conductor, 32ft monopole, 29 radials of 25ft, and
base 6" above (nominal lambda/1000) Sommerfeld/Norton ground of Er = 13,
sigma = 0.013 S/m at 1.8 MHz. All segments 6".

NEC2 computes:
Zin = 2.87 - j1358 Efficiency 92%

RADIALS2 computes (with radials 1mm below ground):
Zin = 1.55 - j1310 Efficiency 23.5%

Not a large amount of difference, but thought I had gotten closer results
with a different monopole, but seem to have deleted the code (Not sure
why such a large difference in efficiency). NEC2 is supposed to provide
a reasonable approximation of a buried radial monopole when at about
lambda/1000 above ground. Be interested in any comments, and what NEC4
provides if anybody has it.

73,


Of course the higher efficiency is due to NEC calculating only the I^2R
losses, and not the TRP. TRP should be fairly easy to calculate since the
pattern is "phi" independent. Have not checked to see if there is a TRP
card.
Note that a 32 ft monopole mounted on a perfect ground has an input
impedance of 1.58 - j1311 Ohms. The efficiency is reduced to 86% due to
increased I^2R losses.

Frank


From the calculated field strength (as a function of Theta) the TRP for 100
W input, which includes copper and ground losses, shows 27.4 W, or 27.4%
efficient. In very close agreement with the RADIALS2 program. The only
noticeable discrepancy appears to be in the real part of Zin.

Frank


  #8   Report Post  
Old November 13th 04, 04:28 AM
Reg Edwards
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Frank, as you say, the height of the radials in the NEC2 model is only 6
inches above ground.

The radials are shallow-buried in the RADIALS2 model. It can't do elevated
radials.

The ground loss resistance as height decreases, as seen by the antenna,
increases very fast percentage-wise as the radials get within a few inches
of the ground. It is due to very close magnetic and electric coupling to
ground. Radials are transmission lines, insulated from but running very
close to a resistive slab of soil.

This would account for the computed higher input resistance of the radials
( 3.5 - j*3.3 ohms ) ( for 29, 25-feet long radials. Rg=77, K=13 ) in
program RADIALS2.

The calculated antenna input impedance in RADIALS2 is that of the antenna
alone. For feedpoint impedance add the input impedance of the radial system.
Presumably, NEC2 does not compute the input reactance of radials.

Efficiency is calculated in the usual way from the sum of antenna input
resistance and radials' input resistance.

If you contrive to change the radials input reactance without changing
frequency or the antenna, you will notice the loading coil tunes it out
along with antenna reactance.

Incidentally, when elevated radials are near the ground their velocity
factor decreases fast which makes a mess of the usual recommendation to
prune them to 1/4-wave free-space length.

When radials are actually lying on the ground surface the velocity factor
decreases to roughly 0.5 of the velocity of light. When buried the
underground VF can fall to as small as 0.15 depending on soil permittivity.
(or moisture content.)
----
Reg, G4FGQ




  #9   Report Post  
Old November 13th 04, 05:49 AM
Frank
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Reg, thanks for the info. I see I was making an error with RADIALS2. Did
not realize that you had to add the radial impedance to the antenna
impedance; I thought it was computed in the final result. I figured
something was weird since the input impedance was similar to the antenna
modeled over a perfect ground. NEC2 does compute the input impedance of the
complete structure, but as mentioned before it is limited, in that all wires
must be = lambda/1000 above the ground (at 1.8 MHz about 6"). I am just
starting to delve into computational electromagnetics, so do not know that
much about NEC. It uses the "Method of moments" in its computations. The
theory of operation manual is available for download at several web sites.

Anyway, with RADIALS2, I now get an input impedance of 5.1 - j1303, and with
NEC2 2.9 - j1358. I did try entering a negative number for the depth of
the radials, but RADIALS2 did not like it.

Your comments about the effect on the radials of being buried are also very
interesting, and obviously indicate the reason for our slightly different
results. The very low VF of buried radials indicates that the length is
less important.

As for efficiency, NEC2 computes a normalized far E-field at 1 meter. For
phi independent structures it becomes trivial to integrate the power density
over a hemispherical region to arrive at the true total radiated power. 100
Watts into the antenna radiates 27 Watts, again, very close to RADIALS2'
computed efficiency of 23.5%. Come to think of it, I guess I could have
estimated the losses -- as you do -- by comparing the input impedance of an
antenna over a perfect ground with the same antenna over a lossy ground.
Still I think it was more fun playing with Excel spread sheets and coming up
with a similar answer.

Regard,

Frank

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
Frank, as you say, the height of the radials in the NEC2 model is only 6
inches above ground.

The radials are shallow-buried in the RADIALS2 model. It can't do elevated
radials.

The ground loss resistance as height decreases, as seen by the antenna,
increases very fast percentage-wise as the radials get within a few inches
of the ground. It is due to very close magnetic and electric coupling to
ground. Radials are transmission lines, insulated from but running very
close to a resistive slab of soil.

This would account for the computed higher input resistance of the radials
( 3.5 - j*3.3 ohms ) ( for 29, 25-feet long radials. Rg=77, K=13 ) in
program RADIALS2.

The calculated antenna input impedance in RADIALS2 is that of the antenna
alone. For feedpoint impedance add the input impedance of the radial
system.
Presumably, NEC2 does not compute the input reactance of radials.

Efficiency is calculated in the usual way from the sum of antenna input
resistance and radials' input resistance.

If you contrive to change the radials input reactance without changing
frequency or the antenna, you will notice the loading coil tunes it out
along with antenna reactance.

Incidentally, when elevated radials are near the ground their velocity
factor decreases fast which makes a mess of the usual recommendation to
prune them to 1/4-wave free-space length.

When radials are actually lying on the ground surface the velocity factor
decreases to roughly 0.5 of the velocity of light. When buried the
underground VF can fall to as small as 0.15 depending on soil
permittivity.
(or moisture content.)
----
Reg, G4FGQ






Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
An easy experiment with a coil Cecil Moore Antenna 57 October 29th 04 04:18 AM
NEWS - Researchers invent antenna for light Antennas for Light Antenna 79 October 12th 04 10:51 PM
Lumped Load Models v. Distributed Coils Wes Stewart Antenna 480 February 22nd 04 02:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017