Topband: Ground mounted 1/2 wave

[Carl]

Subject: Re: Topband: Ground mounted 1/2 wave


<<But doesn't this merely confirm the notion that the half-wave vertical
needs some kind of ground system to work against, and in addition to
minimise ground loss when the base of the radiator is in the vicinity of the
lossy earth? A 2m or CB ground plane, with 3 or 4 radials, 20 ft or more in
the air, has very little ground loss. At the opposite extreme, a
ground-mounted broadcast tower with buried radials or radials lying on the
surface, needs a large number of radial wires to divert the rf return paths
away from the soil and thus keep ground loss to a minimum. In the case of
elevated radials, you are moving between those two extremes; it logically
follows that as the ground plane is raised above the earth from the surface
to a significant fraction of a wavelength, proportionally fewer radials are
needed to maintain ground losses at an acceptable value.>>>


Think about this, Don. I think this is one of the things Carl is missing.

The reason we have losses is charge movement in a lossy media. Anything that
moves charges in the lossy media creates heat.

** Far from missing it I totally agree.

Charge movement is related to field intensity in that media per unit volume
of lossy material.

When we make a resistor have larger cross sectional area of the same
resistive material exposed to the same terminal potential, the loss
decreases.

When we have a half wave vertical near the earth, field distribution in the
earth around that antenna comes from two things:

1.) The "push-against" force we have to use to push and pull charges into
and out of the antenna end.

** Maybe Im missing the analogy but the charges and currents in the 
subsections of a 1/2 wave vertical are the same at any given time. There is 
no reversal of the applied RF.


2.) Fields (charge forces) that surround the element and extend out for some
distance.


OFF SUBJECT SNIPS

What about losses some distance out? Most of the charge difference is at the
base to earth, and base to antenna tip. Not much is a concern out some
distance. The magnetic field is more important some distance out, but it is
spread over a large volume of space and a large area of lossy media. Because
of that, there isn't much loss at all.

**  That is rather confusing since the near field consists of a non 
radiating reactive component close to the antenna, a magnetic component H 
along with an electric component E which surrounds and creates the EM wave 
that forms and is radiative. This all takes place in the first wavelength 
from the base of the 1/2 wave base fed vertical under discussion. We next 
enter the transition zone to the far field which is also called the Fresnel 
region which can be confusing since its like calling cycles Hertz and not at 
all descriptive. The transition zone is a jumble of EM in the next 
wavelength until they get sorted out and enter the Far Field which is 
usually described as starting 2 wavelengths from the antenna. However 
accurate measurements need to be taken several wavelengths away.


We can expect a half wave vertical with just a small screen at the base to
be well up in the high double digits of efficiency, and going from zero
radials to 100 radials only be a fraction of dB difference.  A model over 5
mS/M soil e=13 shows adding 100 radials 200 feet long, on 2 MHz, increases
groundwave field strength just 0.38 dB, or about 10%, over no radials at
all.


**  All that means is that the elevation peak of the wave as seen in the 
typical 2D plot increases by .38dB and as expected. It does not say what 
happens from that peak down to zero elevation which is what 160M DXers care 
about.
What is the FS at 5, 10 degrees when going from a ground rod to a full bore 
radial field over a wide range of ground conductivity?


<<<The old WWV site on the east coast used vertical centre-fed dipoles
mounted on wooden utility poles. I never read whether or not they deployed
radial systems at the bases of the poles, but I suspect not. However, the
lower ends of those vertical radiators were some distance above the ground
surface.>>>

** Don, they still do in CO at least on some frequencies and for propagation 
studies


The fellow who installed that, or designed it, was a friend of mine. They
just used vertical halfwaves. He said they did that to avoid radials.

<<<Every engineering text I ever read on the topic of broadcast antennas
always emphasised the point that a substantial ground plane was essential,
regardless of the height of the tower, and I don't recall ever seeing
anywhere that this was done merely to satisfy the FCC.>>>


** Agree


When the FCC sets a standard requirement, few people say "this is only to
satisfy the FCC".  They just usually say "this is the minimum".

If you read the FCC rules, the rules say:

"
(4) At the present development of the art, it is considered that where a
vertical radiator is employed with its base on the ground, the ground system
should consist of buried radial wires at least one-fourth wave length long.
There should be as many of these radials evenly spaced as practicable and in
no event less than 90. (120 radials of 0.35 to 0.4 of a wave length in
length and spaced 3° is considered an excellent ground system and in case of
high base voltage, a base screen of suitable dimensions should be employed.)


** Sounds like a 1/2 wave to me


(5) In case it is contended that the required antenna efficiency can be
obtained with an antenna of height or ground system less than the minimum
specified, a complete field strength survey must be supplied to the
Commission showing that the field strength at a mile without absorption
fulfills the minimum requirements. (See §73.186.) This field survey must be
made by a qualified engineer using equipment of acceptable accuracy.
"

The choice is:

#4.) do the minimum they say at a cost of several thousand dollars and be
done.

#5.) measure and prove you need less at a cost of a few months delay and a
few ten's of thousands of dollars. This does not mean you run out to a mile
and measure. It means you plot FS on radials out for a long distance and
find the soil conductivity. Then, knowing conductivity, you estimate the FS
at a mile and compare FS of the multiple radial measurements to the expected
value normalized for that soil, and send them the paperwork.

Which one would you choose?

** With an elevated field replacing an in ground system that no longer meets 
the initial PoP or a new site the latter is the only choice unless the FCC 
has changed the rules to reflect the data collected since they gave the OK 
to experiment over a decade ago.
>From what Ive read the elevated field was superior to the 120 in ground with 
far less radials and the base screen for any height antenna.



Also, BC stations are (for some reason) concerned  with even 0.1 dB.  Only
an illogical Ham would worry about 0.2 dB when QSB is 20 dB. The BC station
also wants excellent lightning protection, which involves more than rods.

73 Tom

** The average ham without an antenna farm and lots of QRO will starve his 
family for a 1/2 dB since there may be that one time his signal raises 
enough above the pileup or noise to be heard. A 1.5dB change can be heard 
and if the signal is already 1 dB above then that little bit more makes all 
the difference.
On VHF and up I count every .1dB.

QSB may be 20 dB but if the person involved is not at the peak of it already 
he still has a chance that the tiny bit more will get thru.

Carl
KM1H