| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:04:54 +0100, "Reg Edwards"
wrote: "Walter Maxwell" wrote The graphs reporting BLE's measurements are pretty conclusive. In addition, the BLE paper is the basis on which the FCC set the requirements for the ground systems on all AM BC stations since 1939 ========================================== Walt, where've you been lately? I have no doubt that BLE measurements are good and valid at LF and below. But to extrapolate conclusions up to HF, where amateurs reside, and where funny things happen to radials, is somewhat dangerous. I understand BLE forgot to measure ground resistivity and permittivity of the site. Perhaps because they thought it didn't matter very much. But such things certainly matter above about 3.5 MHz. At HF radials behave very differently from behaviour at LF if only because the ground 'constants' have changed from their DC and LF values (which are the values usually inserted in HF computer programs.) ---- Reg. Hi Reg, I'll admit to being away from rraa for quite a while. A good bit of the time away was while finishing the writings for Reflections 3, which includes several new chapters, some of which archive a portion of my escapades in designing antennas for various spacecraft, including those that flew on the World's first weather satellite, TIROS 1. I was fortunate in being at the right place at the right time when the space age began. Those were the years I spent with Jess Epstein, the 'E' of the BLE team. Some of the additional material that went into Reflections 3 is available on my web page at www.w2du.com. I think you might find Chapters 19A and 21A of interest. From eavesdropping on the banter between you and Richard C it's easy to see that your winery has kept your mental physique it top shape. I hope that your physical physique continues at least in its present condition. Getting now to BLE, I agree with you concerning the changes in ground characteristics at HF compared with MF and LF. I don't know if you have a copy of BLE, but you should know that the BLE experiments were performed at 3 MHz. Please let me know if you have BLE, because I'd like to email you a copy if you don't. It will demonstrate the hundreds of measurements taken meticulously to arrive at the conclusions reported in their paper of 1937. Of the many results of various combinations of radial lengths and numbers of radials, the one that that stands out in my mind is the combination of the longest radial, 0.412 lambda, with the maximum number or radials, 113. This combination achieved near-perfect ground, yielding a field strength of 192 mv/m, as compared to the theoretical maximum of 196 mv/m, achieved with perfect ground. The reference for these numbers is 1000 watts delivered to the antenna and measured at 1 mile. Notice that the difference between the ideal and actual field strengths is only 2 percent. Reg, concerning the difference in ground characteristics with frequencies above 3.5 MHz, please consider this. When the radials are long enough, and enough of them spaced sufficiently close, the effect is that of nearly perfect ground, regardless of the actual ground characteristics beneath the radials. Let's consider a comparison. First, few radials widely spaced. Displacement currents reach the ground everywhere surrounding the vertical radiator. Currents entering the ground between the radials diffract toward the nearest radial of higher conductivity. During its travel toward the radial it naturally encounters the resistance of the ground. However, with many radials more closely spaced, currents now entering the ground have a shorter resistance path in reaching the nearest radial, approaching a negligible value. My point is that when there is a sufficient number of radials of sufficient length to approach a nearly-perfect ground, the ground characteristics beneath the radials are irrelevant within the area they cover in determining the terminal impedance and efficiency of the radiator. Therefore, the different gr ound characteristics that prevail as the frequency increases above 3.5 MHz are also irrelevant. This is not to say that the ground characteristics away from the immediate area are not important. You might get a chuckle concerning the number of radials being 113. The original plan was to plow in 100 radials. When the grunts Jess Epstein and Bob Lewis had plowed in the intended 100 there was wire left over on the spool. They asked Brown what they should do with the remaining wire, he said, "Plow it in." The remainder of the wire allowed just 13 more radials to be plowed in. On a personal note, I engineered and built WCEN in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, 500 w on 1150 Kc (it was 'Kc' then), with a 300' Blau-Knox tower. I plowed in 120 radials. My Dad manufactured the plow, which I rode, while he drove the tractor. Hope this keeps ya busy fer a while, Walt, W2DU |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
| Radials | Antenna | |||
| Question on antenna symantics | Antenna | |||