Topband: Ground rods vs radials
Donald Chester
k4kyv at hotmail.com
Sat Aug 21 11:21:54 EDT 2004
>...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?
Don K4KYV
_________________________________________________________________
Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to
School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
More information about the Topband
mailing list