HF-Ground
 

Reg Edwards wrote:

"Roy Lewallen" wrote -
I disagree. Transmission lines have two conductors. Radials don't.

Roy, try using your imagination!

My "Electronics Equations Handbook" gives the specifications
for a "SINCLE-WIRE ABOVE-GROUND TRANSMISSION LINE" including
Z0, C, L, and resistivity adjusted for frequency.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

HF-Ground
 

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:59:18 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:


"Roy Lewallen" wrote -
I disagree. Transmission lines have two conductors. Radials don't.
=======================================

Roy, try using your imagination!
----

Yes, by all means Roy. I suggest you start out with a about ¼ LB of
Mendocino Home Growen or Humbolt Gold. (That's wacky-tabacky for those
of you who are not familiar with the termalogy). Then you'll find all
things can be imagined. G

Danny



email: k6mheatarrldotnet
http://www.k6mhe.com/

HF-Ground
 

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 07:29:11 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:

I created a graph to add to an existing web page from the functions
for 3mm (bare) wires buried 0.1m

Hi Owen,

Does this discount the proximity of the radials nearest the center?
That is, the graph is not simply a summation of the individual
lengths, is it?

What would nominal be (in other words, actual) for this specific
description above?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

HF-Ground
 

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:55:52 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:


"Owen Duffy" wrote
One good pickup was the functions for predicting the low frequency
resistance of shallow buried radials (which is relevant when radial
wires are required to provide a level of power / lightning
protection.
I created a graph to add to an existing web page from the functions
for 3mm (bare) wires buried 0.1m, the graph is at
http://www.vk1od.net/post/earth02a.gif . (For avoidance of doubt,
this
graph does not predict the RF characteristics of the radials.)
=========================================

Owen, I assume the curves in your graphs have been obtained by
treating the conductors as transmission lines. As far as I am aware
there's no other way of doing it. Except perhaps EZNEC
number-crunching mathematical modelling methods.

Let me quote again:
(For avoidance of doubt, this
graph does not predict the RF characteristics of the radials.)

The graph uses the functions in the paper identified by Richard (
http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/publ...s/1751f802.pdf
). Looking at the functions, I think they just calculates the DC /
low frequency resistance of the electrodes immersed in the soil which
is a high resistivity medium, by modelling the geometry of the
equipotential "layers" around the electrode as is done with a single
straight earth electrode. The functions for 6+ radials (or all of
them) may just be a fit to experimental data.


At VLF the inductance of the conductors and the capacitance due to
relatively high permittivity of the dielectic material (soil) can be
neglected.

I think these functions are for the resistance at power frequencies
(ELF?) and are not applicable to RF. Nevertheless, most lightning
protection texts seem to deal with the earth system as a DC resistance
with some lumped series inductance to model the above ground
connection, though clearly, lightning spikes are a double exponential
with components up to VHF depending on the way in which the network
modifies the waveshape.


This leaves only conductor resistance and conductance (or resistivity)
of the soil. It is then quite simple for single wires.

To predict performance at RF it is necessary to take inductance and
capacitance into account. What is unknown is the way in which soil
permittivity and resistivity change with frequency. But this hardly
matters as the uncertainty at 60 Hz is sufficient to swamp it.

I won't ask you what you did about calculating the effects of multiple
radial wires, and the interaction between individual wires, which
causes "The Law of Diminishing Returns" to be followed.

See above.


There is sufficient information in your graph to demonstrate that
Magician Marzipan's magic high number of 120 is never necessary for
amateur purposes.

I am guessing that the magic 120 was from BLE's paper, and it was
talking about performance at 1MHz or so, so it is RF performance that
is being considered.

The graphs I produced certainly suggest that at DC / 50Hz / 60Hz, that
there is insignificant benefit in installing more than 6 or 8 radial
wires. The reasons will be the same as why installing two vertical
electrodes close together achieves almost no improvement.

Owen
--

HF-Ground
 

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:25:26 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 07:29:11 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:

I created a graph to add to an existing web page from the functions
for 3mm (bare) wires buried 0.1m

Hi Owen,

Does this discount the proximity of the radials nearest the center?
That is, the graph is not simply a summation of the individual
lengths, is it?

Richard,

See my response to Reg.

The functions are from the reference paper you identified. I don't
recall that they explained the derivation of the functions, and they
may even be fits to experimental data. They do not appear to do
something as crude as summing the individual lengths.


What would nominal be (in other words, actual) for this specific
description above?

Did you mean "normalised"? You need to multiply the %/m value from the
Y axis by the actual soil resistivity in ohm-metres to get the
resistance of the electrode. For example, if you look the chart up for
3 radials of 5m length, you get 15%, which is multiplied by soil
resistivity (say 50 ohm-metres at a location) to get expected
electrode system "DC/AC" resistance of 7.5 ohms. (The graph is part of
a larger article which explains my "normalisation".)

Interestingly, I note the ref doc recommends galvanised electrodes. I
have been conducting an experiment here where I have recorded the
resistance of several driven earth electrodes over some years, and a
galvanised electrode of 25mm OD performs much worse than a copper clad
electrode of 13mm OD driven just 300mm away from it (both 2.4m long).
(The galvanised electrode is not electrically bonded to the earth
system for reasons of galvanic corrosion).

Owen
--

HF-Ground
 

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:54:19 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:

Interestingly, I note the ref doc recommends galvanised electrodes. I
have been conducting an experiment here where I have recorded the
resistance of several driven earth electrodes over some years, and a
galvanised electrode of 25mm OD performs much worse than a copper clad
electrode of 13mm OD driven just 300mm away from it (both 2.4m long).
(The galvanised electrode is not electrically bonded to the earth
system for reasons of galvanic corrosion).


Hi Owen,

What method did you use to measure the resistance?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

HF-Ground
 

I disagree. Transmission lines have two conductors. Radials don't.
Roy, try using your imagination!
My "Electronics Equations Handbook" gives the specifications
for a "SINCLE-WIRE ABOVE-GROUND TRANSMISSION LINE" including
Z0, C, L, and resistivity adjusted for frequency.

Don't forget the single-conductor transmission line invented by Goubau
and named "G-Line" in his honor. Quoting from page 164 of my 1972 copy
of "The Radio Amateur's VHF Manual":

"The basic idea is that a single conductor can be an almost loseless
transmisison line at untra-high frequencies, if a suitable launching
device is used. A similar launcher is placed at the other end.
Basically the launcher is a cone-shaped device which is a flared
extension of the coaxial feedline...."

--
--Myron A. Calhoun.
Five boxes preserve our freedoms: soap, ballot, witness, jury, and cartridge
PhD EE (retired). "Barbershop" tenor. CDL(PTXS). W0PBV. (785) 539-4448
NRA Life Member and Certified Instructor (Home Firearm Safety, Rifle, Pistol)

HF-Ground
 

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:42:41 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:54:19 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:

Interestingly, I note the ref doc recommends galvanised electrodes. I
have been conducting an experiment here where I have recorded the
resistance of several driven earth electrodes over some years, and a
galvanised electrode of 25mm OD performs much worse than a copper clad
electrode of 13mm OD driven just 300mm away from it (both 2.4m long).
(The galvanised electrode is not electrically bonded to the earth
system for reasons of galvanic corrosion).


Hi Owen,

What method did you use to measure the resistance?

I used a Kyoritsu instrument designed for the purpose. It uses the
three wire fall of potential method, and makes its measurements using
an AC waveform of about 800Hz.

Owen
--

HF-Ground
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
My "Electronics Equations Handbook" gives the specifications
for a "SINCLE-WIRE ABOVE-GROUND TRANSMISSION LINE" including
Z0, C, L, and resistivity adjusted for frequency.
=======================================
Single-wire lines -

Primary Constants :
The single conductor has resistance and inductance.
Resistance includes radiation resistance.
Space and its contents has permittivity, permeability and conductance.
The 'return path' is space and whatever it contains.

Secondary Constants :
Phase shift and propagation velocity.
Attenuation (loss).

All parameters obey the classical mathematical rules of Maxwell and
Heaviside.

There are also, very common, 2 and 3-wire (3-phase) transmission lines
which have smaller radiation resistances, but radiation resistances
they DO have depending on conductor spacing.
----
Reg.

HF-Ground
 

Reg Edwards wrote:
There are also, very common, 2 and 3-wire (3-phase) transmission lines
which have smaller radiation resistances, but radiation resistances
they DO have depending on conductor spacing.

One of the ARRL Antenna Compendiums describes a 4-wire transmission
line whose Z0 is selectable depending on how the wires are connected.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

HF-Ground
 

HF-Ground
 

"Reg Edwards"
There are also, very common, 2 and 3-wire (3-phase) transmission lines
which have smaller radiation resistances, but radiation resistances
they DO have depending on conductor spacing.
__________

Doesn't the term "radiation resistance" normally apply to a characteristic
of antennas -- not transmission lines?

RF

HF-Ground
 

I have 26 runs of 60' insulated (#14 THHN), radials on the surface, pinned
down with lawn staples beneath an 80m inverted L. The measured efficiency of
this particular arrangement is showing approximately 83%. How much more or
less efficient bare wire might be (and no one I trust has ever maintained
that there is any advantage whatsoever to bare copper vs. insulated radials
on or in the shallow ground), is a question I have not had any interest in
looking at.

I'm not about to rip them all out and put down bare copper to see if the
efficiency changes, and can think of no other way to answer the question. Of
course the absolute value of efficiency is a function not only of the number
of radials, but the quality of the earth they are laying on, so YMMV.

....hasan, N0AN
"Owen Duffy" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:22:25 -0600, "David G. Nagel"
wrote:


Owen;

Given the expertise that Bill has accumulated over the years and the
good advise he has given to anyone who asks I think that your attitude
needs modification. When you were in school did you challenge your
teachers this way? I think not. If you diagreed you kept it to your self
or checked it out on your own.

Dave,

I don't agree, I have never had a teacher worth his salt who responded
to polite questions as Bill did.

No, I don't believe something just because I read it on the 'net, I
would like to know why.

For what it's worth everything that I have read tends towards placing
the radials on the open ground, usually staked down so as to prevent
tripping or getting caught in a lawn mower.

Yes, I see lots of web articles describing that in ham stations, but
it is not the only approach that I see documented and talked about.

In my limited experience, I have not seen commercial HF installations
with radial / ground wires laid above ground in preference to being
buried. The only cases I can recall were because of rock.

Whilst there are articles around about the performance of shallow
buried radials, I have not seen any that deal quantitatively with
radials laid on the ground, or pinned to the ground as you describe,
and the effects of those different installations on antenna
efficiency. That is what I was asking about.

Equally, there a plenty of articles where the author insists that
radials cannot work near the ground and they need to be some distance
above, some stating a quarter wave above.

They can't all have "better" efficiency, the only way to know is to
seek reasons why a configuration is better.

Bill proposed a "better" configuration and declined to explain why /
how it is better.

Owen
--