On 7/9/20 9:48 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
On 7/9/2020 9:07 AM, jimlux wrote:
Then, there's the "power absorbed in the soil" issue - an elevated
vertical dipole, or a limited number of above ground horizontal
radials both have the potential problem that the near field of the
antenna is "in the soil" and absorbing power. Highly conductive or
highly wet soil both have a good (high) reflection coefficient, so
less of the field winds up being absorbed.
I have heard this kind of theory before. But I did A/B testing of a 1/4
wave ground mounted vertical with 32 1/4 wave radials vs a 1/2
wave ground mounted vertical (driven from the bottom) with no
radials or counterpoise (except the coax shield running away.
This was on 20 meters. As far as I could determine from listening
to signals on the air, the antennas were equal, over my high
conductivity ground. The drive impedance of the 1/2 wave
was around 900 ohms; a base mounting matching network
was employed.
Yeah, I think that the "soil loss" aspect is probably over estimated in
most cases. Of course, you did have 32 radials, as opposed to say, 4.
was the base mounted matching network "grounded" in any sense (other
than from the coax shield capacitively coupling).
So in this case, the monopole was at ground level, and the dipole's
center was 5 meters up - so the "radiation center" was slighly higher.
That might have an effect on the null at zero elevation.
For a horizontal dipole, laying on the ground (or very close to it), the
power that goes into the ground vs the air is larger by a factor of
epsilon^1.5 (see the paper from Rutledge and Muha)
So for epsilon=13, it's a factor of 46 (that is, the power radiated into
the air is 17 dB *less* than the power into the ground)
I would think that this is similar to the case with the radials - that
is, they're not contributing as much to the radiation as the currents in
the dirt.
*D. Rutledge and M. Muha, "Imaging antenna arrays," in IEEE Transactions
on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 535-540, July 1982,
doi: 10.1109/TAP.1982.1142856.
Rutledge's results were analytical, but they match NEC4.2 models for
wires of various lengths and heights over soil with epsilon=3.
73
Rick N6RK
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|