Radials Continued.

Perhaps some kind person who has been able to afford the latest issue
of NEC4 could calculate the radiating efficiency of a typical vertical
antenna of height 9 metres (29.5 feet) and diameter 50mm (2 inches) -

- when fed against a ground system of 50 uniformly distributed radial
wires, each 1.64mm in diameter (14 AWG) buried to a depth of 25mm (1
inch), of length 10 metres -

- in soil of typical resistivity = 150 ohm-metres and permittivity =
16.

But first I should like to ask, can NEC4 complete such a calculation
without human intervention or assistance? If yes then please
continue, perhaps keeping a record of the time involved.

Using program RADIAL_3 the answer is - Radiating Efficiency = 86.0
percent.

If several of you participate, perhaps using different tools, it would
be interesting to compare results. By all means, join in!

Thank you for your assistance.
----
Reg, G4FGQ.

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
Radials Continued.

Perhaps some kind person who has been able to afford the latest issue
of NEC4 could calculate the radiating efficiency of a typical vertical
antenna of height 9 metres (29.5 feet) and diameter 50mm (2 inches) -

- when fed against a ground system of 50 uniformly distributed radial
wires, each 1.64mm in diameter (14 AWG) buried to a depth of 25mm (1
inch), of length 10 metres -

- in soil of typical resistivity = 150 ohm-metres and permittivity =
16.

But first I should like to ask, can NEC4 complete such a calculation
without human intervention or assistance? If yes then please
continue, perhaps keeping a record of the time involved.

Using program RADIAL_3 the answer is - Radiating Efficiency = 86.0
percent.

If several of you participate, perhaps using different tools, it would
be interesting to compare results. By all means, join in!

Thank you for your assistance.
----
Reg, G4FGQ.

Reg, I made some changes to the antenna, but should not effect
the result too much. The maximum number of junctions without
a workaround is 36, so I reduced the number of radials to 36.
Ok, I know that give 37 junctions, but doubt it will effect the
result. I changed the vertical diameter to #14, since I
had a warning with the 25 mm diameter. Again there are
workarounds, but I did not want to spend all day figuring
out segmentation and length tapering.

You did not specify the frequency, but assume from the
dimensions it is 7 MHz. I used 7.000 MHz. The input impedance is
27.33 - j 109 ohms. Since I am only learning how to use the program
I don't know if NEC can provide the total radiated power. I
computed the total radiated power by summing power density over a
hemispherical region. For 100 W input I get a total radiated power
of 30.5 W. It took me 90 minutes.

Regards,

Frank

Reg Edwards wrote:
Perhaps some kind person who has been able to afford the latest issue
of NEC4 could calculate the radiating efficiency of a typical vertical
antenna of height 9 metres (29.5 feet) and diameter 50mm (2 inches) -
- when fed against a ground system of 50 uniformly distributed radial
wires, each 1.64mm in diameter (14 AWG) buried to a depth of 25mm (1
inch), of length 10 metres -

Would it help to model this in EZNEC with the radials 1/1000
of a wavelength above ground?

Just heard a funny line on Stargate SG-1 on TV:
"This planet is as dead as a Texas salad bar."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
y.net...
Reg Edwards wrote:
Perhaps some kind person who has been able to afford the latest issue
of NEC4 could calculate the radiating efficiency of a typical vertical
antenna of height 9 metres (29.5 feet) and diameter 50mm (2 inches) -
- when fed against a ground system of 50 uniformly distributed radial
wires, each 1.64mm in diameter (14 AWG) buried to a depth of 25mm (1
inch), of length 10 metres -

Would it help to model this in EZNEC with the radials 1/1000
of a wavelength above ground?

Just heard a funny line on Stargate SG-1 on TV:
"This planet is as dead as a Texas salad bar."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Ground planes above ground can approximate the results
from buried radials. The wires should be several wire diameters
above the ground, and not 10^(-6) wavelengths -- providing
that a finite ground, Sommerfeld/Norton method, is used.
The reflection coefficient approximation will produce large errors.

73,

Frank

Frank,

Just to confirm we are both working on the same system, I have -

Number of radials = 36
Length of radials = 10 m
Diameter of radials = 2 mm
Frequency = 7 MHz
Antenna height = 9 m
Antenna diameter = 1.64 mm = 14 AWG
Ground resistivity = 150 ohm-metres
Ground permittivity = 16

IMPORTANT:

If NEC4 gives you the input impedance of the radial system I should be
very pleased to know what it is.

Otherwise we shall have no idea where the discrepancy arises - in the
radial system or in the antenna efficiency calculation.

Radiating efficiency is estimated by my program by the well-known
formula -

Efficiency = Rrad / ( Rrad + Rradials )

provided antenna and radials reactance are tuned out.

Whereas NEC4 calculates efficiency by integrating power flow over a
hemisphere WITHOUT tuning out antenna and radials reactance.
Altogether different.
----
Reg, G4FGQ

Just to confirm we are both working on the same system, I have -

Number of radials = 36
Length of radials = 10 m
Diameter of radials = 2 mm
Frequency = 7 MHz
Antenna height = 9 m
Antenna diameter = 1.64 mm = 14 AWG
Ground resistivity = 150 ohm-metres
Ground permittivity = 16

IMPORTANT:

If NEC4 gives you the input impedance of the radial system I should be
very pleased to know what it is.

Otherwise we shall have no idea where the discrepancy arises - in the
radial system or in the antenna efficiency calculation.

Radiating efficiency is estimated by my program by the well-known
formula -

Efficiency = Rrad / ( Rrad + Rradials )

provided antenna and radials reactance are tuned out.

Whereas NEC4 calculates efficiency by integrating power flow over a
hemisphere WITHOUT tuning out antenna and radials reactance.
Altogether different.

Correct Reg, Those are the parameters I used, with the
exception that the radials were also # 14 AWG (1.64 mm).

You raise some interesting points -- How do I measure
the radial impedance? I have to think; given a vector
network analyzer, how would I measure a radial system
under laboratory conditions? this is what I need
to replicate with NEC. Since I have never made
such a measurement, I am not sure where to begin.
Would it be valid to consider one radial wire as
an "End fed zepp", and feed one end with an
ideal transmission line? As long as I know the current,
and voltage at the measurement point, I can determine
the input impedance -- problem is; voltage input
with reference to what?

As for the reactive input; this is of little concern to
NEC since it drives the load from a complex
conjugate source.

So far as I have been able to determine NEC does
not provide the total radiated power, only the
normalized far field in peak "Volts" -- i.e. V/m at
1 meter, at every angular increment. Usually
every degree. I take these data to determine the
power density at each increment, and sum
over a hemispherical region; where I take the
elemental area to be:
(r^2)*sin(theta)*d(theta)*d(phi). Since the
pattern is symmetrical I only need 91 points.

Frank

Frank,

So NEC4 cannot calculate input impedance of the radial system and we
have almost reached a dead end.

Would it be possible to insert a loading coil ( 2.48 uH ) at the
bottom of the antenna to tune out its input reactance ( which is what
my program does.)

Then repeat the efficiency calculation and tell me what you get.
----
Reg.

Preliminary numbers from Frank's NEC-4 run on Reg's model below:

Caveat: I have not been able to ask Frank if the segments are all the same
length along the radial wire. The info below is based on that assumption.

The radial is 10 meters long, buried about 1 inch. I'm reading the numbers
from the graph that Frank sent me. The radial wire is 40 segments long or
..25 meters per segment. The antenna is 9 feet long and modeled at 8.07 mhz.

If I'm reading it right, at 30 segments along the radial wire, the current
has dropped from a peak of 0.6 amps to 0.2 amps. 30 segments seems to be 7.5
meters out. If the current is still 0.2 amps at 7.5 meters out on a 10 meter
radial, then Reg's approach fails. He indicated 20 dB down at a short
distance out. 75% of the way out on the 10 meter radial, the current is down
0.2/0.6 = .33. 10log * 0.33 = 4.8 dB (if I did that right).

So...it seems that the current along the radial is down only 4.8 dB at 75%
of it's length. Reg indicated that it should be down 20 dB at about 1/3 of
its length.

At the 35th segment of the radial, the current is 1/6th or 7.8 dB down. This
is at 90% of the radial's length.

At the 39th segment of the radio the current is .025 amps. 0.025/6 = .0146.
10log * .0146 = 14 dB down. That is only 14 dB down at 100% of the radial
length.

I'm using 10 log * (I1/I2) for for the dB calcs...I think current ratios and
power ratios are 10log, and voltage is 20log.

It is possible I'm interpreting Frank's graph incorrectly or applying the
attenuation that Reg refers to incorrectly. I'm just so glad to see some
numbers for current distribution along a radial wire from NEC-4, that I had
to post what I see.

Eyeballing it looks like thisthe radial wire starts at segment 39 and runs
to segment 79)

Segment 39 0.60 amps, distance from source = 0, dB = 0
Segment 49 0.54 amps, distance from source = 2.5 meters, dB = 0.46 dB
Segment 59 0.42 amps, distance from source = 5.0 meters, dB = 1.5 dB
Segment 69 0.22 amps, distance from source = 7.5 meters, dB = 4.3 dB
Segment 79 0.025 amps, distance from source = 10 meters, dB = 14.8 dB

What does Reg's program predict for dB down on this sample antenna?

Using 25 and 25 for soil and the info Frank gave me:

Reg's program shows radial attenuation of 20 dB at 2.3 meters from the
source.

Side by side with the NEC-4 data

Distance Reg NEC-4 (dB down)

2.5 m 21.2 0.46

5.0 m 42.4 1.5

7.5 m 63.9 4.3

10 m 83.3 14.8


These numbers are so far apart, it looks like I did something terribly
wrong. Someone please correct me.
Keep in mind these are preliminary attempts to analyze the NEC-4 based graph
that Frank sent me. I really do hope I did something wrong.

....hasan, N0AN

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
Frank,

Just to confirm we are both working on the same system, I have -

Number of radials = 36
Length of radials = 10 m
Diameter of radials = 2 mm
Frequency = 7 MHz
Antenna height = 9 m
Antenna diameter = 1.64 mm = 14 AWG
Ground resistivity = 150 ohm-metres
Ground permittivity = 16

IMPORTANT:

If NEC4 gives you the input impedance of the radial system I should be
very pleased to know what it is.

Otherwise we shall have no idea where the discrepancy arises - in the
radial system or in the antenna efficiency calculation.

Radiating efficiency is estimated by my program by the well-known
formula -

Efficiency = Rrad / ( Rrad + Rradials )

provided antenna and radials reactance are tuned out.

Whereas NEC4 calculates efficiency by integrating power flow over a
hemisphere WITHOUT tuning out antenna and radials reactance.
Altogether different.
----
Reg, G4FGQ

CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION:

The wire segments are NOT equal in this model. Frank is sending me a new one
with linear segments. I'll correct the errors below as soon as I get the new
values.

....hasan, N0AN

"hasan schiers" wrote in message
...
Preliminary numbers from Frank's NEC-4 run on Reg's model below:

Caveat: I have not been able to ask Frank if the segments are all the same
length along the radial wire. The info below is based on that assumption.

The radial is 10 meters long, buried about 1 inch. I'm reading the numbers
from the graph that Frank sent me. The radial wire is 40 segments long or
.25 meters per segment. The antenna is 9 feet long and modeled at 8.07
mhz.

If I'm reading it right, at 30 segments along the radial wire, the current
has dropped from a peak of 0.6 amps to 0.2 amps. 30 segments seems to be
7.5 meters out. If the current is still 0.2 amps at 7.5 meters out on a 10
meter radial, then Reg's approach fails. He indicated 20 dB down at a
short distance out. 75% of the way out on the 10 meter radial, the current
is down 0.2/0.6 = .33. 10log * 0.33 = 4.8 dB (if I did that right).

So...it seems that the current along the radial is down only 4.8 dB at 75%
of it's length. Reg indicated that it should be down 20 dB at about 1/3 of
its length.

At the 35th segment of the radial, the current is 1/6th or 7.8 dB down.
This is at 90% of the radial's length.

At the 39th segment of the radio the current is .025 amps. 0.025/6 =
.0146. 10log * .0146 = 14 dB down. That is only 14 dB down at 100% of the
radial length.

I'm using 10 log * (I1/I2) for for the dB calcs...I think current ratios
and power ratios are 10log, and voltage is 20log.

It is possible I'm interpreting Frank's graph incorrectly or applying the
attenuation that Reg refers to incorrectly. I'm just so glad to see some
numbers for current distribution along a radial wire from NEC-4, that I
had to post what I see.

Eyeballing it looks like thisthe radial wire starts at segment 39 and
runs to segment 79)

Segment 39 0.60 amps, distance from source = 0, dB = 0
Segment 49 0.54 amps, distance from source = 2.5 meters, dB = 0.46 dB
Segment 59 0.42 amps, distance from source = 5.0 meters, dB = 1.5 dB
Segment 69 0.22 amps, distance from source = 7.5 meters, dB = 4.3 dB
Segment 79 0.025 amps, distance from source = 10 meters, dB = 14.8 dB

What does Reg's program predict for dB down on this sample antenna?

Using 25 and 25 for soil and the info Frank gave me:

Reg's program shows radial attenuation of 20 dB at 2.3 meters from the
source.

Side by side with the NEC-4 data

Distance Reg NEC-4 (dB down)

2.5 m 21.2 0.46

5.0 m 42.4 1.5

7.5 m 63.9 4.3

10 m 83.3 14.8


These numbers are so far apart, it looks like I did something terribly
wrong. Someone please correct me.
Keep in mind these are preliminary attempts to analyze the NEC-4 based
graph that Frank sent me. I really do hope I did something wrong.

...hasan, N0AN

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
Frank,

Just to confirm we are both working on the same system, I have -

Number of radials = 36
Length of radials = 10 m
Diameter of radials = 2 mm
Frequency = 7 MHz
Antenna height = 9 m
Antenna diameter = 1.64 mm = 14 AWG
Ground resistivity = 150 ohm-metres
Ground permittivity = 16

IMPORTANT:

If NEC4 gives you the input impedance of the radial system I should be
very pleased to know what it is.

Otherwise we shall have no idea where the discrepancy arises - in the
radial system or in the antenna efficiency calculation.

Radiating efficiency is estimated by my program by the well-known
formula -

Efficiency = Rrad / ( Rrad + Rradials )

provided antenna and radials reactance are tuned out.

Whereas NEC4 calculates efficiency by integrating power flow over a
hemisphere WITHOUT tuning out antenna and radials reactance.
Altogether different.
----
Reg, G4FGQ

Corrected numbers for linearly segemented radials from Frank's latest NEC-4
model of one buried radial wire, compared to Reg's program.

Side by side with the NEC-4 data


This is how many dB down the current is as you move outward from the origin
of the radial.

Distance Reg NEC-4 (dB down)

1.0 m 2.5 1.3

3.5 m 8.7 4.4

5.9 m 14.9 8.7

8.5 m 21.4 10.0

9.7 m 24.4 23.8

Conclusion: the current drop along the radial is no where near as fast as
Radials3 predicts, therefore shortening the radials as much as the program
shows will increase losses significantly.

I find it VERY interesting, that at the full length of 10m, there is good
agreement between Reg's program and NEC-4.

If I were going to base my conclusions on this preliminary small sample, I
would say that Reg's program does not hold up for short radials. BL&E, W8JI
and now NEC-4 all indicate that there is no where near 20 dB of attenuation
in short radials. To confirm this isn't an odd case, a lot more runs would
need to be done with varying lengths and radial numbers...but I have to say,
it ain't lookin' good for Radials3 in terms of fairly representing the
rapidity with which currents diminish on a radial wire over its length.

Bottom Line:

For the present, the articles in QST, ARRL Handbook, Low-Band DX'ing and
W8JI's findings are the ones I would follow. The first three are all the
same study and that formula is based on BL&E. The following data are from a
spreadsheet I used to calculate the optimum length and number of radials
based on the above sources. I put the BL&E data in the spreadsheet as a
reference. The numbers are how many dB down the field strength was for a
given number and length of radials.

Brn/Lw/Ep



# Rad 0.137 wl 0.274 wl 0.411 wl
2 -4.36 -4.36 -4.05
15 -2.40 -1.93 -1.65
30 -2.40 -1.44 -0.97
60 -2.00 -0.66 -0.42
113 -2.00 -0.51 0 (Ref)


Here are a few runs for 80 meters of various numbers and lengths of radials
that should be within a dB or so of optimum (BL&E).(Based on the references
noted above) 3.7 mhz, 1/4 wave vertical. The formula is based on tip
separation at the perimeter. Too much separation increases loss, too little
wastes wire. All based on wavelenthgs, of course. I believe the maximum tip
separation recommended was .015 wavelength.

Available Wire # of Radials Length of Radials
500' 25 19.7' (not within a dB, not
enough wire)
1000' 36 27.8' (not within a dB, not
enough wire)
1500' 44 34.0'
2000' 51 39.3'
3116' 63 49.0 (should be within 0.5 dB
of BL&E Optimum)

My final setup will be 46 radials 50' long. I have 26 right now. It looks
like for 50' long radials, I should really have 63 of them, otherwise, I
could have stayed at 51 radials only 39.3' long. All this says is that I'm
not making the "most" out of the available wire I had. (which makes sense,
given I've added radials over time, and didn't have a final plan).

At this point, it looks like when copper prices drop, I need to get another
850' of wire and put in 17 more radials and I will have met the criteria for
the formula. (Be within 0.5 dB of maximum field strength according to BL*E).

If anyone wants a copy of the Excel spreadsheet, just email me and I'll send
it to you as an attachment.
Only two variables should be entered: Total length of available wire and
Frequency in Mhz. Everything else is calcuated.( I did not protect any of
the fields, so if you enter data into a calculated field, you'll have to
reload your spreadsheet from a non-messed-up one...so save a virgin copy
somewhere until you protect the appropriate cells.)

73,

....hasan, N0AN