Return-Path: Received: from rly-me09.mx.aol.com (rly-me09.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.43]) by air-me06.mail.aol.com (v121.4) with ESMTP id MAILINME061-9d8475beae3c4; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:17:45 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-me09.mx.aol.com (v121.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINME094-9d8475beae3c4; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:17:25 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1J1M1J-0004tY-Nt for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 13:16:33 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1J1M1I-0004tP-SX for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 13:16:32 +0000 Received: from smtp810.mail.ird.yahoo.com ([217.146.188.70]) by relay1.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1J1M1E-0002xX-Ub for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 13:16:32 +0000 Received: (qmail 61635 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2007 13:16:19 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btopenworld.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=MdeWq05axidHPV26WBSjY4UbjX1SbPw8dXnedWnTIKWj9e7BDEjLsWIvCx+2IoTZePmXeuOxSH1Y6F+YF/UaJ6lp0gOt6uJTBHjx9JC6DDOYH4fmWJtB0PyZI8Cl9PyeQk+xmgs6ohK6E40UN5VZEuZ4LJg70n4agSsz7VEfmQU= ; Received: from unknown (HELO w4o8m9) (james.moritz@btopenworld.com@213.122.21.127 with login) by smtp810.mail.ird.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2007 13:16:18 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: IdVemdEVM1mXGbMZgw7byW5CuL2xFmItSK_WT2114UXjOLhTvBs_FxA_Tzd6KPu3_OS7QDZAag-- Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.5.503 [269.16.17/1178]); Sun, 09 Dec 2007 13:14:12 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c83a65$6404c040$7f157ad5@w4o8m9> From: "James Moritz" To: Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:14:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Karma: 0: DomainKey-Status: good (testing) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: LF: Antenna tests on 136k and 503k - Results Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_helo : n X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_822_from : n Dear LF Group, I have now finished the antenna experiments that I started earlier this week - this is a summary of the results. The idea of the tests was to measure the effects on LF/MF antenna performance of the environment around the antenna. It is generally expected that when a small amateur-type antenna is surrounded by trees, buildings etc. that loss resistance will be increased. Also, the ERP achieved using such an antenna is usually lower than expected from calculations using the antenna geometry and antenna current. But with measurements on a single antenna it is difficult to know how much of the observed losses are due to these effects, or maybe some sort of error or omission in the calculations and measurements. So the idea of these experiments was to compare two antennas that were as nearly identical as possible, except that one was located at the M0BMU home QTH, surrounded by trees and buildings that are in some cases within metres of the antenna, while the other was located in a relatively ideal flat, open field, with only a few bushes and fences within a 50m radius of the antenna. Both antennas were inverted-L configurations, with a single top wire about 40m long at a height of around 10m max. Actual measurements of the antennas, and using handbook formulas to calculate effective height gave Heff of 8.3m for the home antenna, while the open field antenna was slightly lower at Heff = 7.9m. Both antennas used ground systems of 4 x 1m long ground rods, within a 1m radius of the antenna feed point, and the ground under both antennas was a waterlogged clay soil, which should have quite high conductivity. I measured the antenna loss resistance over the range 10kHz - 600kHz using a RF bridge. The home antenna has a resistance that decreases steadily with frequency, from 395ohm at 9.5kHz to 56ohm at 136kHz, and 25.5ohm at 503kHz. The open field antenna had radically lower resistance; about 50ohms at 10kHz, reducing to 8.5ohms at 136k, showing a broad minimum of around 8 ohms at 200k, and then increasing slightly to 8.5ohms at 503k and 10 ohms at 600k. Multiple field strength measurements were used to determine ERP. The average measured ERP and calculated ERP are calculated below, along with the efficiency calculated as (radiated power)/(power to antenna). The calculated ERP assumes that the antenna has 2.62dB directive gain over a dipole. Home QTH, 503.8k: Iant = 400mA, Calculated ERP = 88mW, Measured ERP = 43mW, difference -3.1dB, Efficiency = 0.58% Open field, 503.8k: Iant = 380mA, Calculated ERP = 74mW, Measured ERP = 82mW, difference +0.5dB, Efficiency =3.7% Home QTH, 136.0k: Iant = 3.9A, Calculated ERP = 0.62W, Measured ERP = 0.18W, difference - 5.4dB, Efficiency = 0.012% Open field, 136.0k: Iant = 3A, Calculated ERP = 0.34W, Measured ERP = 0.40W, difference +0.8dB, Efficiency 0.29% So the open field ERP values are quite close to those calculated using simple text book formulas, while the home QTH figures are substantially lower. This could be interpreted as a reduction in Heff and radiation resistance Rrad of the home QTH antenna, caused by the screening effect of surrounding trees and buildings. The combined effect of increased Rloss and reduced Rrad of the home QTH antenna lead to a surprisingly large reduction in efficiency compared to the open field antenna. At 503k, the open field antenna is about 6 times as efficient, while at 136k it is a massive 24 times more efficient! The big difference in Rloss also has implications for loading coil design. For these antennas, the required inductance is roughly 4mH at 136k. For the home QTH antenna, a modest loading coil with Q of a couple of hundred will cause a negligible reduction in radiated signal, due to the relatively high loss resistance of the antenna. But for the open field antenna, even a coil with a Q of 1000 would dissipate about 1/3 of the TX power, so a much better loading coil is needed to get the full benefits of increased antenna efficiency. The situation at 500k wouild be much easier due to the lower inductance needed. Of course, if you have a big field to put the antenna in, a better approach would be to increase the amount of top loading, which would also reduce the required inductance, and probably the loss resistance too. The fact that Rloss of 8.5ohms was achieved with only a few ground rods shows that, for most amateur antennas with higher Rloss than this, the ground system is not a very critical factor, at least when the soil has reasonably high conductivity. So the results show that the open field antenna behaves quite closely to the text-book expectation, which if nothing else gives a degree of confidence in the calculation and measurement methods. The loss resistance has the characteristic shown in some texts on LF/VLF antennas, where the resistance is a minimum at some frequency, and increases at higher frequencies due to increased skin effect loss, and at lower frequencies due to increased dielectric loss. The home QTH has increased losses and reduced radiation resistance due to its environment. Unfortunately, most of us are stuck with this, unless operating /P. Clearly, in these kinds of circumstances, it is not very meaningful to think of a LF/MF antenna just in terms of lengths of wire and a ground system, but the nature of the surroundings must be considered too. Cheers, Jim Moritz 73 de M0BMU