Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
bob wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote: I put this aside until I could do a little modeling. A lot of postings have been made in the interim, but I don't see too much in the way of answers. I'll try to answer some of your questions. I think we all would be interested in how a small piece of metal buried in sea water can provide an efficient ground versus one or 2 elevated radials. I also dont see how its efficient concentrating all your current in such a small area. Since the salinity of salt water is not constant using one or 2 radials on yacht would be more efficient. Imagine for a moment that instead of salt water that the ocean was covered by a thick metal plate. How would you effectively use that as a ground? Salt water isn't as good a conductor as metal, but it acts more like that than dirt. I don't know how much the salinity or conductivity of sea water varies, but suspect that even at its worst it's quite a good conductor. How can salt water which would have some resistance even though its conductivity is high compared to earth behave better than copper wire when returning antenna currents to the feedpoint. Cross sectional area. Replacing all the sea water with copper would improve it, but scattering a bunch of copper radials out and replacing only tiny parts of it wouldn't make much difference. And the loss is so low to begin with that even replacing it with copper wouldn't make any difference. The small amount of current flowing in a 100 watt signal i would not want to waste sending it into salt water. It won't go in very far. It'll stay very close to the top. And the waste is negligble. Salt makes good resistors, why would you introduce a loss into the equation which radials seem to eliminate even though we dont have ground loss over sea water? We also have the issue of the skin depth of sea water to consider. Solid salt is actually a decent dielectric, I believe. Again, the trick is cross sectional area. The current is spread over a large area of water, so the overall loss is negligible. The analysis I did took skin effect into consideration. The skin depth is even less in metal, yet metal has low RF loss. Yes. A foot-long wire "ground rod" below the antenna provides a nearly lossless ground connection at HF. This is not how most yachts connect their ground connections. They connect to the sea cocks well below the top of the water anywhere for 3ft to 5 ft down. Some even use slim flat ground shoes again well below the water line. Its impractical for a any sail vessel to maintain a connection to sea water close to the surface because loading and the yacht heeling when sailing. I'm sorry to hear that, because any connection below a few inches is ineffective at HF. How can a piece of copper metal about 1 ft square equal several radials laying on the boats deck? Radial wires are used for land based systems because of the poor conductivity of soil. Radial wires reduce the resistance of the path current takes going to and from the antenna base. Salt water is a good conductor and doesn't need -- and won't benefit from -- radial wires. Indeed radials do perform this way. I would still want to use radials wires even 1 or radials wires even on a yacht since the length of the radials will have a greater capacity to sea water ground. It also would be more efficient in providing a current return. More efficient than a deep plate, for sure. Not any more efficient than a foot long uninsulated wire extending downward from the surface. But by all means use whatever makes you feel well grounded. Why do i have to use copper foil when most other people suggest using ordinary copper wire? You don't. And won't copper corrode rapidly in salt water? Over seawater what would be the best number of radials to use considering that maximum length i can run is 40 ft. I am planning to use a backstay antenna with a SGC 230 Tuner. None. A simple wire down into the water is adequate. Or use a small plate very near the surface if you prefer. Again yachts bury their ground connection well below the skin depth. Some even run the ground wire from the tuner down to the keel which is well submersed in salt water. If the wire is uninsulated, the first few inches of the wire will provide the ground connection. If it's insulated, they'll have no HF ground connection at all except what's provided by capacitive coupling through the first few inches of insulation. All they are using is one short piece of foil that is behaving like a small radial. We will see what the models say. By all means, do some modeling. The only program I know of which will allow modeling submerged conductors is NEC-4 and derivatives. 2 elevated radials over seawater versus a 1 ft square piece of metal buried below the skin depth. My money would be on the radials. Certainly elevated radials would be better than metal more than a skin depth or two deep. Better yet is a wire extending from the surface to a few skin depths. Why isn't that possible? Incidentally, I'm not proposing replacing the standard grounding system, which I'm sure is important for other uses including, probably, lightning protection. It will just need to be supplemented if you want an effective HF ground. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
Radials | Antenna | |||
Grounds | Shortwave | |||
Base Antenna Mounting | CB | |||
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna | Antenna |