Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
starman wrote in message ...
Alan J Giddings wrote: Hello, Can anyone offer me a little advice on the grouding of my SW receivers? I have a couple old Soviet SW radios, a Sony SW77, Sangean ATS909 and a new Degen 1102. I want to make a ground that will work well with any of these receivers. What material is best? Copper, Iron, Steel etc? A rod or plate? What is the best type of cable to use as a lead-in to the receiver? Is there an ideal length? Depending on where the radio will be the lenght could be anything from 5ft to 30ft. Any advice is much appreciated. Thanks, Alan Myself, I hardly think it's worth the trouble with most portables. If you see an improvement, it will probably be in the LW/MW spectrum. On the higher HF bands, there is little help in adding a ground unless you have some kind of wierd antenna issue, or little antenna at all. I bet you will notice little difference in most cases, unless your antenna is small and lame. A ground is not required for quiet radio reception. In fact, ground is a noise source. I use no outside grounding at all to my shack. I have outside grounds, but they are a lightning return. Most of my antennas are complete, and require no rf ground to properly function. The only one I have that does, is a 160m inverted L. It requires an rf ground at the base of the antenna to provide the "lower half". All my others are dipoles, yagi's, etc, that are complete antennas in themselves and require no extra rf ground. This is the preferred route to go if possible. The second kind of ground is called an RF ground. This helps to reduce noise on the antenna system from sources in your house like televisions, computers and other applicances. This is harder to do well. I suggest you look at the following website for more information on building a low noise antenna system. Good luck. Maybe semi-misleading...It's the improved decoupling of the feedline from the antenna that reduces the noise level. "noise ingress" Not the grounding itself, although the grounding helps in the decoupling of the line. Ground is a noise source. An RF ground should be under an antenna to provide it's "lower half" if it requires it. IE: 1/4 wave vertical, etc.. So if you use a balanced antenna that requires no "lower half", IE: 1/2 wave dipole, 1 wave loop, etc, you need no rf ground at all. MK http://www.anarc.org/naswa/badx/ante...e_antenna.html |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mark Keith wrote:
It's the improved decoupling of the feedline from the antenna that reduces the noise level. "noise ingress" Not the grounding itself, although the grounding helps in the decoupling of the line. I think we're talking semantics here, but how else could you decouple the feedline of an inverted-L antenna other than using an effective (short) earth ground connection? -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Counterpoise.
"starman" wrote in message ... I think we're talking semantics here, but how else could you decouple the feedline of an inverted-L antenna other than using an effective (short) earth ground connection? |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
How would you build a counterpoise for an inverted-L?
CW wrote: Counterpoise. "starman" wrote in message ... I think we're talking semantics here, but how else could you decouple the feedline of an inverted-L antenna other than using an effective (short) earth ground connection? -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Same way you would for a verticle. Radials.
"starman" wrote in message ... How would you build a counterpoise for an inverted-L? CW wrote: Counterpoise. "starman" wrote in message ... I think we're talking semantics here, but how else could you decouple the feedline of an inverted-L antenna other than using an effective (short) earth ground connection? -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
starman wrote in message ...
Mark Keith wrote: It's the improved decoupling of the feedline from the antenna that reduces the noise level. "noise ingress" Not the grounding itself, although the grounding helps in the decoupling of the line. I think we're talking semantics here, but how else could you decouple the feedline of an inverted-L antenna other than using an effective (short) earth ground connection? As one mentioned, radials. Or you could use a choke,beads, etc. Lets say you had a 1/4 wave ground plane that was elevated with a set of radials. The radials will decouple the feedline pretty well. There is no need to ground the radials, or the supporting mast, except as a lightning concern. A choke will decouple the line fairly well. Noise ingress has nothing to do with being grounded or not. It's an issue of decoupling the feedline from the antenna. Using a ground connection under an "L" will decouple it fairly well, but it's just one method that can be used, and the "ground" is not a required element. It's not just semantics, because an "rf ground" is not a requirement of good decoupling. But saying that, I usually do ground the low end of inv L's. MK |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mark Keith wrote:
starman wrote in message ... Mark Keith wrote: It's the improved decoupling of the feedline from the antenna that reduces the noise level. "noise ingress" Not the grounding itself, although the grounding helps in the decoupling of the line. I think we're talking semantics here, but how else could you decouple the feedline of an inverted-L antenna other than using an effective (short) earth ground connection? As one mentioned, radials. Or you could use a choke,beads, etc. Lets say you had a 1/4 wave ground plane that was elevated with a set of radials. The radials will decouple the feedline pretty well. There is no need to ground the radials, or the supporting mast, except as a lightning concern. A choke will decouple the line fairly well. Noise ingress has nothing to do with being grounded or not. It's an issue of decoupling the feedline from the antenna. Using a ground connection under an "L" will decouple it fairly well, but it's just one method that can be used, and the "ground" is not a required element. It's not just semantics, because an "rf ground" is not a requirement of good decoupling. But saying that, I usually do ground the low end of inv L's. MK I agree that the feedline of an elevated ground plane can be effectively decoupled using radials but it's not clear to me how you would use radials with the typical inverted-L. Where would you locate the radials in that case? -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
STARMAN,
At the Base Feed Point of the Inverted "L" Antenna two Radials opposite each other set at 90 Degrees to the Horizontal Arm as viewed from the Top. The Radials should be as long as the Vertical Leg of the Inverted "L" Antenna. * Inverted "L' Antenna Reading List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWL-AM...na/message/374 * Inverted "L" Antenna for Transmitting by Dr. Ace http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWL-AM...na/message/309 Typically: Quarter (1/4) Wave Length Long and 1/8th WL High * Inverted "L" Antenna as an 'available space' SWL Antenna http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWL-AM...nna/message/54 Typically: For a SWL Receive ONLY Antenna of any Random Length With the Horizontal Arm 'twice' (2X) as long as the Vertical Leg. iane ~ RHF .. .. = = = starman = = = wrote in message ... Mark Keith wrote: starman wrote in message ... Mark Keith wrote: It's the improved decoupling of the feedline from the antenna that reduces the noise level. "noise ingress" Not the grounding itself, although the grounding helps in the decoupling of the line. I think we're talking semantics here, but how else could you decouple the feedline of an inverted-L antenna other than using an effective (short) earth ground connection? As one mentioned, radials. Or you could use a choke,beads, etc. Lets say you had a 1/4 wave ground plane that was elevated with a set of radials. The radials will decouple the feedline pretty well. There is no need to ground the radials, or the supporting mast, except as a lightning concern. A choke will decouple the line fairly well. Noise ingress has nothing to do with being grounded or not. It's an issue of decoupling the feedline from the antenna. Using a ground connection under an "L" will decouple it fairly well, but it's just one method that can be used, and the "ground" is not a required element. It's not just semantics, because an "rf ground" is not a requirement of good decoupling. But saying that, I usually do ground the low end of inv L's. MK I agree that the feedline of an elevated ground plane can be effectively decoupled using radials but it's not clear to me how you would use radials with the typical inverted-L. Where would you locate the radials in that case? |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
starman wrote in message ...
I agree that the feedline of an elevated ground plane can be effectively decoupled using radials but it's not clear to me how you would use radials with the typical inverted-L. Where would you locate the radials in that case? On the ground. And in that case, I almost always do ground the radials to earth at the feedpoint. Radials on the ground are detuned, and are not required to be cut to any certain length. So they are not really resonant at any given freq like elevated radials, or if they are, it's likely not where you would expect. They normally need to be resonant to decouple the feedline, so it's best to also ground them if they are on the ground and detuned. If you had an elevated GP with 1/4 wave radials for a certain freq, they will not work at say twice that freq. "1/2 waves" They would show a high impedance, and the radial system would not function properly, and the decoupling would be poor. But 3/4 wave radials can work ok, as they show a low Z. The best ground planes, verticals , etc use twin decoupling sections. IE: a 1/4 wave ground plane with a set of 1/4 wave radials, would have a second set of 1/4 wave radials, 1/4 wave below the main set. Or if a sleeve vertical, two sets of cones, tubes, etc. You can also use chokes, ferrite beads as extra decoupling with any coax system. I'm not against grounding in some cases. I just wanted to clarify that it's really the improved decoupling, rather than the addition of ground per say, that reduces the noise ingress. Grounding is just one method used to improve decoupling of the line in some cases. Usually with radials on the ground, or when using no radials at all. If the antenna is already balanced and properly decoupled, adding an "rf ground" will not do a thing as far as noise ingress. Might even make things worse being ground is usually a noise source. MK |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mark Keith wrote:
starman wrote in message ... I agree that the feedline of an elevated ground plane can be effectively decoupled using radials but it's not clear to me how you would use radials with the typical inverted-L. Where would you locate the radials in that case? On the ground. And in that case, I almost always do ground the radials to earth at the feedpoint. Radials on the ground are detuned, and are not required to be cut to any certain length. So they are not really resonant at any given freq like elevated radials, or if they are, it's likely not where you would expect. They normally need to be resonant to decouple the feedline, so it's best to also ground them if they are on the ground and detuned. If you had an elevated GP with 1/4 wave radials for a certain freq, they will not work at say twice that freq. "1/2 waves" They would show a high impedance, and the radial system would not function properly, and the decoupling would be poor. But 3/4 wave radials can work ok, as they show a low Z. The best ground planes, verticals , etc use twin decoupling sections. IE: a 1/4 wave ground plane with a set of 1/4 wave radials, would have a second set of 1/4 wave radials, 1/4 wave below the main set. Or if a sleeve vertical, two sets of cones, tubes, etc. You can also use chokes, ferrite beads as extra decoupling with any coax system. I'm not against grounding in some cases. I just wanted to clarify that it's really the improved decoupling, rather than the addition of ground per say, that reduces the noise ingress. Grounding is just one method used to improve decoupling of the line in some cases. Usually with radials on the ground, or when using no radials at all. If the antenna is already balanced and properly decoupled, adding an "rf ground" will not do a thing as far as noise ingress. Might even make things worse being ground is usually a noise source. MK Why would someone build such a radial system for an inverted-L when the 'Doty-L' achieves the same or better results with a simple earth ground? -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Station Grounding | Antenna | |||
Antenna mast grounding question | Antenna | |||
Antenna grounding. | Scanner | |||
Grounding | Shortwave | |||
Grounding question - this is wierd..... | Antenna |