Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21338 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2002 17:12:40 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from murphys.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.225) by mailstore with SMTP; 6 Jun 2002 17:12:40 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: (qmail 5695 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2002 17:12:11 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by murphys.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 6 Jun 2002 17:12:11 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 17G0kf-0002Gp-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:08:45 +0100 Received: from hestia.herts.ac.uk ([147.197.200.9]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 17G0ke-0002Gk-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:08:44 +0100 Received: from gemini ([147.197.200.44] helo=gemini.herts.ac.uk) by hestia.herts.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 17G0kd-0006vg-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:08:43 +0100 Received: from [147.197.232.252] (helo=rsch-15.herts.ac.uk) by gemini.herts.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17G0kY-0006IM-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:08:38 +0100 Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020606170356.00b0cba8@gemini.herts.ac.uk> X-Sender: mj9ar@gemini.herts.ac.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:08:31 +0100 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org From: "James Moritz" Subject: Re: LF: Counterpoise Experiment In-reply-to: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020605115057.00aa4808@gemini.herts.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: At 23:09 06/06/2002 +0000, you wrote: >What coil resistance You have? Or 37 ohm it is whithout coil resistance? The resistance values quoted are those due to the antenna alone - I have already subtracted the coil resistance which is about 5 ohms. >It seems to be much better if You will not use ground, conterpoise only. >To reduce loss all the currend should return through conterpoise. >In this case it is good to use ferrite transformer betwin TX and >antenna to avoid HF voltage on TX box. > It seems to me that in this case, where most of the antenna field (and therefore the displacement current) is going to the ground rather than the counterpoise, most of the return current will still be flowing in the ground, even if the counterpoise is insulated from ground. Rather than returning directly to the grounded terminal of the TX output, this current would have to flow through the capacitance between the counterpoise and ground. This means there must be a voltage between the counterpoise and ground - if the ground-counterpoise capacitance is roughly 20 times that of the antenna-ground capacitance (7nF and 340pF respectively - which is what I estimate in this case), the counterpoise voltage would be roughly 1/20 of the antenna voltage. In my antenna system, this would put an RF voltage of about 1kV on the counterpoise when running at full power - so the counterpoise, antenna tuner and isolating transformer between TX output and tuner would all have to be insulated to withstand this voltage, making things quite complicated again... The advantage would be that the resistance of the ground path should be reduced, since the ground "connection" is effectively the whole area of the counterpoise, decreasing the loss due to this source. However, many experiments have shown that the resistance of the ground connection is only a minor factor in the overall losses in a small antenna like this one (3ohms is probably not that unrealistic), so I would expect little improvement overall. Cheers, Jim Moritz 73 de M0BMU