Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] w7ekb & ground rods

To: Brian Carling <bcarling@cfl.rr.com>, Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] w7ekb & ground rods
From: <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:28:45 -0600
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
There are any number of reasons why an antenna system might trick you into 
thinking it's defying 100 years of antenna engineering.
Common-mode currents, unintended interactions, etc. Plus, you didn't mention 
what vertical it was: if it's a vertical dipole or a end-fed half-wave design 
(F12, Cushcraft R-series of verticals, etc.), it's very likely you'd see little 
benefit from the addition of two — I assume you meant — radials. 
If it's a traditional 1/4-wave monopole (5BTV, DX-88, HF-9V, etc.), then likely 
what's happening is stuff in your home and yard is behaving like radials behind 
your back.
Which is not to say you can't or shouldn't accept a very well-working system 
when you happen upon one. Lots of people have great success with half-slopers, 
even though it's not the greatest of antenna designs.
Finally, it's very likely that even with no interactions or common-mode 
currents, two radials will have very little impact.
73, kellyve4xt
> From: bcarling@cfl.rr.com
> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:54:04 -0500
> To: jimlux@earthlink.net
> CC: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] w7ekb & ground rods
> 
> 910 micro Henry sounds like a very useful loading coil to me!! I have had no 
> difficulty using a ground rod as a counterpoise to my vertical. In fact it's 
> done extremely well. I added two radios because the experts said it would 
> make it work better. It didn't.
> 
> Best regards - Brian Carling
> AF4K Crystals Co.
> 117 Sterling Pine St.
> Sanford, FL 32773
> 
> Tel: +USA 321-262-5471
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On Jan 19, 2015, at 12:15 PM, Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 1/19/15 8:45 AM, Ken wrote:
> >> It seems to me that the ground above my rock layer (@ 36-40”)  gets really 
> >> dry during the summer.  Does that dry dirt have enough conductivity to be 
> >> useful?  I do not know the answer to that question.
> >> 
> >> Are there different answers depending on why we have the ground rod?  (RF 
> >> ground, power line ground, or lightning protection)
> > 
> > Yes..
> > 
> > ground rods make terrible RF grounds, in general (where RF is HF and up): 
> > skin effect means that wires and rods have high ac resistance. (skin depth 
> > in copper at 10 MHz is about 0.8 mils/0.02 mm.)
> > 
> > They also have significant series L (1 microhenry/meter for a wire.. so a 
> > 30 foot run to the rod is a 10 uH inductor, that's 600 ohms reactive 
> > impedance.
> > 
> > Rods are really for electrical safety ground and/or lightning ground. And 
> > they don't work all that well for that, unless deployed in large numbers.  
> > The advantage of a rod is that it's easy to install by driving, but as an 
> > electrical connection to the earth, it's just not that wonderful: the 
> > surface area is quite small (8 foot rod, 1" in diameter is only 300 square 
> > inches.  You could probably do better, electrically, by burying a 1 foot 
> > square plate (288 square inches).
> > 
> > 
> > Rods are also used in phone and power line applications.. you drive a rod 
> > at every pole (or wrap the ground wire around the foot of the pole when 
> > planting it).  Even if any one rod has crummy characteristics, there's lots 
> > of other rods in the circuit to help establish the common voltage reference 
> > and provide a fault current return.  I've had telco installers drive a new 
> > rod next to the existing rods on the general principle that at least they 
> > knew the new rod was in good condition: faster to just do a new rod than to 
> > test the existing one.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
                                          
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>