Return-Path: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Received: from mtain-df11.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-df11.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.64.223]) by air-de07.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDE071-5eba4c62a6062c2; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:30:47 -0400
Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20])
by mtain-df11.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 17630380001DC;
Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:30:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14)
id 1OjBMn-0001T8-W9
for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:29:13 +0100
Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net)
by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14)
id 1OjBMn-0001Sz-Cv
for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:29:13 +0100
Received: from relay01a.mail.uk1.eechost.net ([217.69.40.75] helo=relay03.mail.uk1.eechost.net)
by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <ei8jk@o2.ie>)
id 1OjBMl-000285-Nw
for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:29:13 +0100
Received: from [88.151.27.235] (helo=[192.168.1.107])
by relay03.mail.uk1.eechost.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.68)
(envelope-from <ei8jk@o2.ie>)
id 1OjBMP-00033H-TA
for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:28:50 +0100
Message-ID: <4C62A593.7030807@o2.ie>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:28:51 +0100
From: Tony <ei8jk@o2.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <4C626E89.5020002@o2.ie> <AANLkTin_rkGJODaYdxyNfrrr7EiGPjYzsuYGT7E737TZ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin_rkGJODaYdxyNfrrr7EiGPjYzsuYGT7E737TZ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Auth-Info: 3810@permanet.ie (plain)
X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+)
X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD=1.426
Subject: Re: LF: Earth antenna
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------040902080501060602060701"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNSAFE,
HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TITLE_EMPTY autolearn=no version=2.63
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40df4c62a5ff2413
X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
--------------040902080501060602060701
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<<quote>> I have no idea what the electrical conductivity is but I
imagine it's probably lower in the winter when my windows get a covering
of salt during storms.
Sorry that should have been HIGHER conductivity or lower resistance,
blame it on the little people ;-)
Tony, EI8JK.
On 11/08/2010 11:32, Roger Lapthorn wrote:
> Thanks for this Tony.
>
> Do you know what sort of soil/rock you have beneath you there? Here I
> am on relatively low conductivity chalk/clunch with clay a few miles
> to the north west under fenland peat.
>
> If the earth electrode antenna is behaving as a loop (a debated
> theory) then it is most effective is the "loop in the ground" is as
> large as possible, which would be the case with low conductivity
> soil/rocks underneath: the return path between electrodes would be
> forced to take a longer route deeper into the ground. If the soil
> between the electrodes has good conductivity then the return current
> would flow directly making the effective loop size small.
>
> In the last few days we've had a lot of rain here and the results on
> 500kHz last night with the earth electrode antenna suggest the rain
> made little difference to performance with reception several times by
> PA0A. This is counter-intuitive to me, as I would have expected levels
> to be weaker if the soil was wet (loop formed being smaller etc.). Of
> course it could have been that the contact resistance of the earth
> probes was lower and overall the two effects cancelled?
>
> Whatever the theory says, the earth electrode "antenna" has some
> mileage especially when, like me, there is little space for large "in
> the air" antennas. Sure, a big vertical or large loop in the air would
> be better (I think), but this is about experimenting and discovering
> the limits of possibilities.
>
> Good luck and keep everyone posted if you do further tests.
>
> 73s
> Roger G3XBM
>
>
>
> On 11 August 2010 10:34, Tony <ei8jk@o2.ie <mailto:ei8jk@o2.ie>> wrote:
>
> I have finally found the time to get some (radio) work done here
> and got my 2nd tower finished and I erected an inverted L, 10m
> vertical and 30m top rising to 15m at the far end. I still have
> the "earth antenna" which is just a length of wire laying on the
> ground 80m long and terminated directly to an earth stake and
> laying roughly in the same direction as the top wire of the L .
> Comparing the two gave some very interesting results.
>
> 10 MHz CW L = S7 earth = S1
> 7 MHz CW L = S9 earth = S3
> R. Bristol 1566 KHz L = 0 earth = S2
> Donebach 153 KHz L = S6 earth = S8
> DCF77 77.5 KHz L = S3 earth = S5
> MSF 60 KHz L = S4 earth = S8
>
> All very non-technical I know, neither antenna was matched or
> tuned in any way and was all done about 13:00z.
> There was no noticeable difference in the noise level but when I
> tried it before the earth antenna was very much quieter after
> dark. I will try and repeat this tonight and see what the
> difference is then.
>
> Tony, EI8JK.
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
> http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
> http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm
> G3XBM GQRP 1678 ISWL G11088
--------------040902080501060602060701
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<<quote>> I have no idea what the <span style="cursor: pointer; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1281533570_0">electrical conductivity</span>
is but I imagine it's probably lower in the winter when my windows
get a covering of salt during storms.<br>
<br>
Sorry that should have been HIGHER conductivity or lower resistance,
blame it on the little people ;-)<br>
<br>
Tony, EI8JK.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/08/2010 11:32, Roger Lapthorn wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:AANLkTin_rkGJODaYdxyNfrrr7EiGPjYzsuYGT7E737TZ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">Thanks for this Tony. <br>
<br>
Do you know what sort of soil/rock you have beneath you there?
Here I am on relatively low conductivity chalk/clunch with clay a
few miles to the north west under fenland peat. <br>
<br>
If the earth electrode antenna is behaving as a loop (a debated
theory) then it is most effective is the "loop in the ground" is
as large as possible, which would be the case with low
conductivity soil/rocks underneath: the return path between
electrodes would be forced to take a longer route deeper into the
ground. If the soil between the electrodes has good conductivity
then the return current would flow directly making the effective
loop size small.<br>
<br>
In the last few days we've had a lot of rain here and the results
on 500kHz last night with the earth electrode antenna suggest the
rain made little difference to performance with reception several
times by PA0A. This is counter-intuitive to me, as I would have
expected levels to be weaker if the soil was wet (loop formed
being smaller etc.). Of course it could have been that the contact
resistance of the earth probes was lower and overall the two
effects cancelled?<br>
<br>
Whatever the theory says, the earth electrode "antenna" has some
mileage especially when, like me, there is little space for large
"in the air" antennas. Sure, a big vertical or large loop in the
air would be better (I think), but this is about experimenting and
discovering the limits of possibilities.<br>
<br>
Good luck and keep everyone posted if you do further tests.<br>
<br>
73s<br>
Roger G3XBM<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 11 August 2010 10:34, Tony <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ei8jk@o2.ie">ei8jk@o2.ie</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> I have finally found the time to get some
(radio) work done here and got my 2nd tower finished and I
erected an inverted L, 10m vertical and 30m top rising to 15m
at the far end. I still have the "earth antenna" which is just
a length of wire laying on the ground 80m long and terminated
directly to an earth stake and laying roughly in the same
direction as the top wire of the L .<br>
Comparing the two gave some very interesting results.<br>
<br>
10 MHz CW L = S7 earth = S1<br>
7 MHz CW L = S9 earth = S3<br>
R. Bristol 1566 KHz L = 0 earth = S2<br>
Donebach 153 KHz L = S6 earth = S8<br>
DCF77 77.5 KHz L = S3 earth = S5<br>
MSF 60 KHz L = S4 earth = S8<br>
<br>
All very non-technical I know, neither antenna was matched or
tuned in any way and was all done about 13:00z.<br>
There was no noticeable difference in the noise level but when
I tried it before the earth antenna was very much quieter
after dark. I will try and repeat this tonight and see what
the difference is then.<br>
<font color="#888888">
<br>
Tony, EI8JK.<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.g3xbm.co.uk" target="_blank">http://www.g3xbm.co.uk</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm</a><br>
G3XBM GQRP 1678 ISWL G11088<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------040902080501060602060701--