Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13673 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2001 20:12:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO murphys-inbound.servers.plus.net) (212.159.14.225) by extortion.plus.net with SMTP; 26 Feb 2001 20:12:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 20420 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2001 20:12:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by murphys with SMTP; 26 Feb 2001 20:12:35 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14XTum-0006G3-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:06:36 +0000 Received: from mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.13]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14XTuh-0006Fm-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:06:32 +0000 Received: from xtr743187 ([202.27.178.119]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010226200545.ETOH13669018.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@xtr743187> for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:05:45 +1300 Message-ID: <007501c0a030$6c0adee0$b5b21bca@xtr743187> From: "Vernall" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <3187.200102261523@gemini> Subject: LF: Re: Antenna measurements/losses/insulators Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:11:06 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: James MB0BMU and others I agree with your comments that impedance bridges are up against it for directly measuring electrically short antennas, and that prior resonating with a loading coil (and correcting for coil loss) is a better way. > I don't know why rain has so much effect, but my favorite theory for > the major cause of loss resistance at the moment is that it is > caused mainly by dielectric losses in the ground, where the electric > field of the antenna penetrates to some depth at LF. This is > contrary to the conventional view that the major losses are due to > the resistance of the ground system. I don't think there is really a > contradiction, just that amateur antennas have relatively high > dielectric losses because they are smaller than conventional LF > antennas. A bit of thought shows that a predominance of dielectric > loss would explain lower loss resistance at higher frequency, and > G3AQC's "footprint" effects, among other things. My view on "moisture loss" is that water is a very lossy material at RF. The dielectric constant of water or ice is about 80, so rain drops or any surface moisture on an antenna significantly influence electric flux terminating on the wire. Natural wavelength in a media varies as the square root of dielectric constant, so at first it would seem a good idea to make a vertical in a plastic pipe filled with water, but that does not account for what additional loss arises from the water jacket. I do not have dissipation figures for water at LF so I can not attempt a back of the envelope loss estimate, but I intuitively know it is quite high. As an aside, water entering the braid of coaxial cable plays merry hell with loss and SWR, and that is caused by a combination of dielectric loading and loss from water molecules. Does any reader have some loss data for water, and how it varies with frequency? I believe there is merit in the "environment dielectric loss" idea for amateur LF antennas. Some time back I carried out an experiment by measuring the base impedance (R and jX) for all combinations of a top loaded vertical, by having vertical part alone, one side top loading only, then the other, then combined, also for short and long top loading. I have a number of bare copper buried ground radials. The resulting impedance figures made little sense at all until I converted them to parallel components. The parallel (admittance) data showed a clear trend that connecting top loading was like connecting parallel lossy capacitors. What was even more striking was that the power factor of each added part was very similar, irrespective of wire length (a normalised parallel RC figure per metre wire length could be assigned for a given environment?). It follows from this that the bigger the top loading, the lower should be the net resistive component of base impedance. > Re: Insulators - Although better insulators, ie big glass or ceramic > ones would help prevent the antenna catching fire or falling down, > they would not actually stop corona discharge from taking place. > This is a function of the field gradient around the antenna wires, > and so needs attention to the conductors more than the insulators, > hence the usefulness of corona rings. Prevention of corona is also > a good idea from the QRM point of view. Agreed. Always use good insulators. Avoid "sharp corners" on wires and be aware of deploying corona rings for higher powers. The ZL LF band 165 - 190 kHz is less demanding than the EU 136 kHz band for "loose caloric" in the antenna department. I can confess to melting some fairly thick monofilament nylon when I moved to a higher power transmitter. Braided nylon rope can act like fusewire when it is damp (another indication of dielectric loss in water?) 73, Bob ZL2CA