[TowerTalk] w7ekb & ground rods

[Brian Carling]

I did mention, it's a 5BTV that breaks all the rules. I love it. It outperforms most other antennas I've ever used. Must be the wonderfully wet Florida soil or something!

Best regards - Brian Carling
AF4K Crystals Co.
117 Sterling Pine St.
Sanford, FL 32773

Tel: +USA 321-262-5471




> On Jan 19, 2015, at 5:28 PM, <ve4xt at mymts.net> <ve4xt at mymts.net> wrote:
> 
> 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 at cfl.rr.com
>> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:54:04 -0500
>> To: jimlux at earthlink.net
>> CC: towertalk at 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 at 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 at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>                         
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk