Return-Path: Received: from mtain-mh10.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-mh10.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.96.222]) by air-md07.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINMD074-8b8f4bff73a4ca; Fri, 28 May 2010 03:41:24 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-mh10.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 886163800029E; Fri, 28 May 2010 03:41:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1OHuAP-0004P9-OD for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 08:39:41 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1OHuAP-0004P0-3O for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 08:39:41 +0100 Received: from fmmailgate04.web.de ([217.72.192.242]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OHuAK-0002py-E0 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 08:39:41 +0100 Received: from mwmweb035 ( [172.20.18.44]) by fmmailgate04.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26A3675E4FE for ; Fri, 28 May 2010 09:39:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [88.76.62.189] by mwmweb035 with HTTP; Fri May 28 09:39:29 CEST 2010 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Horst_St=F6cker?= In-Reply-To: <2153A39D-8114-42E9-89CF-45325F8684A2@numeo.fr> Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 09:39:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <1516760146.3927086.1275032369789.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb035> References: <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1C00@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de> , <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1C0A@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de> <1016715129.3429947.1274945594131.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb033> <90CFBF56-FB16-42F3-B830-E7D695D2B184@hurontel.on.ca>, <2153A39D-8114-42E9-89CF-45325F8684A2@numeo.fr> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-UI-Message-Type: mail X-UI-ATTACHMENT-ID-POSTFIX: 59b7ebb3-e87e-4eb0-a23a-0597a746a40b X-Priority: 3 Importance: normal Sensitivity: Normal X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/D/MN2sVcB90WVf0IIXO9OLQRJoVXedJHo1s6e9NnThT50FrQBWfnA KUeTwwSkEzgCAIHFifol4+f4oG4zIOVtQTz8GWmhE2C2PEcBMFjQyg== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: Earth electrodes - depth or surface area? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=PRIORITY_NO_NAME 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-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60de4bff73a130c2 X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Hello all, not only the ground parameters and the over ground environment have their= influence but as simple as logical: The contact of the earth rods to the= ground. Here is an interesting article about that: http://www.academypublisher.com/ojs/index.php/jcm/article/download/0404284= 294/47 vy73 Horst DO1KHS/DI2AN =C2=A0-----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Nachricht----- Von: John Rabson Gesendet: 27.05.2010 19:00:11 An: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Betreff: Re: LF: Earth electrodes - depth or surface area? >JB, Roger, LF, > >It isn't quite that simple. The standard analysis of a long thin ground= rod (as per David Gibson's article) is to estimate the radius of the= buried hemisphere which would give the same capacitance. Knowing the res= istivity of the ground and the estimated capacitance you can work out the= equivalent resistance. I don't have the analysis to hand but I seem to re= call it models the rod as an oblate spheroid (as long as the length/diamet= er ratio is not too great which it isn't in the caving situation). =20 > >I seem to recall that the effective radius of a thin rod is about one fif= th of its length. To get the benefits of multiple ground rods you need to= space them by at least twice their length. > >73 >John F5VLF > >On 27 May 2010, at 15:13CEST, John Bruce McCreath wrote: > >>=20 >> Hello LFers, >>=20 >> While laying in bed this morning pondering the inside of my eyelids I= got to thinking about the electrodes used >> for "through the earth" communications. What is more important, the de= pth of the electrode or its surface area? >> A typical 3/4 inch diameter by 4 foot long ground rod has a surface are= a of 113 square inches, while a metal >> plate 1 foot square has a surface area of 288 square inches. If depth= is the key, then obviously the rods have >> the advantage, but if it's surface area, the plates win hands down. Ev= en in stoney soil, it's relatively easy to >> make a slit-like hole into which could be slipped a sheet of galvanized= metal with a lead attached. To make >> a good connection to the surrounding soil, pour some "kitty litter" int= o the slit and moisten it with water so as >> to improve the contact between the plate and the surrounding soil. Am= I onto something here or have I >> overlooked some important detail? =20 >>=20 >> 73, J.B., VE3EAR >>=20 >> LowFER Beacon "EAR" >> 188.830 kHz. QRSS30 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 > > ___________________________________________________________ NEU: WEB.DE DSL f=C3=BCr 19,99 EUR/mtl. und ohne Mindest-Laufzeit! http://produkte.web.de/go/02/