|Subject:||Topband: Ground rods vs radials|
|From:||"Donald Chester" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Sat, 21 Aug 2004 15:21:54 +0000|
...And I'm not sure I buy into the 'penetrate the soil very far' either. "Very Far" is clearly not a technical term, but the suggestion is that a few inches is all you get. I'm not buying it. ...>Basically, unless you can prove this 'thickness' issue in some way, I'm banking on 3' - 4' apparent ground depths being relevant in my wet pasture soils of central Minnesota. A 4' rod would just poke into it... >
It would depend on the soil conductivity. By "very far" I was thinking in terms of feet, not inches. Except for soil of the lowest conductivity I don't think you get much rf down at 8ft, though. To me, the 8' ground rod always seemed a waste of effort. Maybe it would be more effective to cut it in two, and run two 4' rods in parallel.
The capacitance, or counterpoise effect of even a small radial field should connect to the (virtual) ground plane better than one single rod driven into the soil.
I'm not even sure that a deep rod is particularly useful for lightning protection, since the pulse duration of a lightning surge is so short that it behaves essentially like rf. I added some 20' radials to the ground rod at my service entrance for better protection.
Any other thoughts or opinions on this issue?
Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
_______________________________________________ Topband mailing list Topband@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: Topband: Two Wire Beverage Query..., Hardy Landskov|
|Next by Date:||Re: Topband: Q: Measuring Height?, Bob Tellefsen|
|Previous by Thread:||Topband: Q: Measuring Height?, Eric Rosenberg|
|Next by Thread:||Re: Topband: Ground rods vs radials, Tom Rauch|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|