Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi,
Good answers to the question ! Always walk away a little smarter after reading this group ! 73 luke Roy wrote: There are two quite distinct sources of ground loss involved with vertical antennas. You're talking about one, and Yuri is talking about the other. Makes for a lively discussion, but it's a lot like the blind men describing the elephant. One type of loss is caused when it's necessary to connect one conductor of the feedline to the Earth. Current returning to this feedline conductor is equal in magnitude to the current flowing into the antenna from the other conductor, and it creates a simple I^2 * R loss flowing through the ground. This loss can be minimized by using a system of ground radials to decrease the loss resistance R near the base of the antenna, where the current density is highest. Another solution is to use a vertical antenna with a high feedpoint resistance. Examples are the half square, bobtail curtain, and half wavelength vertical. These antennas require very little feedpoint current, and consequently very little ground current. They can be very efficient with only a very simple ground system. But there's another source of loss, encountered after the signal is radiated. When a vertically polarized signal strikes the ground, a lot of its energy is lost to heating of the ground. This is particularly true at low angles of incidence. The end result is severe attenuation of low angle radiation. Particularly for low angles, this occurs farther away from the antenna than a reasonable radial system extends. So you're stuck with this loss, unless you can physically move your antenna to a swamp or similar high-conductivity environment. Horizontally polarized waves react differently. The demo version of EZNEC will show this quite dramatically. If you choose the MININEC type ground model, it acts like you have a perfect radial system. That is, the first source of loss I mentioned is zero. But the second is still there. You can simulate the effect of ground system loss simply by adding a resistive "load" at the antenna base. Compare the patterns of a vertical and horizontal, *to the same scale*, by superimposing them on a 2D plot, using different qualities of ground. You'll find it quite educational. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Yuri Blanarovich wrote: But aren't there ground independant verticals, like the Half Square or a Bob-Tail-Curtain? U of M GO BLUE!!! God, Guns, and Guts Protect America!!! Every vertical "needs" the ground for its efficient performance especially at the low angles. Vertical dipoles and their elevated cousins are still "looking" out at the ground, farther waway and with a bit less of participation. Wanna see dramatic display of salt water "ground" performance/contribution? Take your any verticaly polarized antenna and compare its performace between ground ground and salt water ground. You would see somewhere between 10 - 15 dB difference. Yuri |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
lining up microwave antenna's | Antenna | |||
Flagpole antennas | Antenna | |||
Best vertical 20m design? | Antenna |