Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7868 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2003 08:42:22 -0000 Received: from netmail02.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.221) by mailstore with SMTP; 9 Jul 2003 08:42:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 28551 invoked by uid 10001); 9 Jul 2003 08:42:22 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by netmail02.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 9 Jul 2003 08:42:22 -0000 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 19aAVu-0006Lk-Rj for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:41:22 +0100 Received: from [212.135.6.11] (helo=smarthost1.mail.uk.easynet.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19aAVq-0006Lb-M2 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:41:18 +0100 Received: from tnt-1-112.easynet.co.uk ([195.40.206.112] helo=erica) by smarthost1.mail.uk.easynet.net with smtp (Exim 4.10) id 19aAVl-0007hy-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:41:13 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01c345f7$0034ba00$70ce28c3@erica> From: "g3ldo" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <001b01c345d6$cf184ce0$e3c428c3@captbrian> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:48:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: LF: Re: earth losses Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCESversion=2.55 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Bryan > Of the earth return loss resistance, how much of the resistance is the > actual earth rod(s)-to-soil contact and how much is the earth path ? > With an inverted L antenna , is not a counterpoise of the same length as > the horizontal section and directly underneath but a few feet off the ground > a good way of avoiding the earth rod to soil contact losses ?? Because the radiation resistance of the normally electrically short (suburban) LF antenna is so low earth resistance consumes much of the transmitted power. Appendix 1 'The Earthing Resistance of Antennae' (written in 1922!) of the LF Handbook illustrates the considerable effort and expense that went into trying to reduce earth resistance. Because of the effect of trees and other electromagnetic obstacles we now tend to think of the losses as environmental rather than just earth losses. > > It is said that, at HF, a few radials four feet off the ground are better > by far than an earth rod for a L/4 vertical "ground plane" . Does LF need > far more than four feet?? You need a lot of wire and some wide open spaces for a few quarter wave radials! I did some experiments at Amberley museum with a wire radial because the ground there is made of chalk and is a poor earth. I found that I could get the radial to work provided it was resonated with a separate variable inductor but the loading of such an arrangement proved tricky. In a suburban environment earth rods have proved to be the most reliable. Experiment with any other earth systems you have around the place such as water pipes (not gas). Every QTH seems to be different in this respect. Regards, Peter, G3LDO .