Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mg06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id D0F5D380000DF; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:19:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UW38k-0004xP-Cw for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:18:02 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UW38j-0004xG-FG for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:18:01 +0100 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.100.212]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UW38h-0008Id-4g for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:18:00 +0100 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id r3RBHg4v001094 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:43 +0200 Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.206]) by freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.2) with ESMTP id r3RBHg6a008555 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:42 +0200 Message-ID: <517BB3D0.4060905@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:36 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <20130426.161506.1606.39499@mailpop02.vgs.untd.com> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Warren, OK, that explains it ;-) I didn't actually do any calculations, just thought about what Bob said >hi voltage on verticals .low current >hi current on loops low voltage [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [129.206.100.212 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: d315c81827f71be07030d900195100c1 Subject: Re: LF: Fire in the wire Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030208000907050008090704" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE 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: 3039ac1d60ce517bb4464b47 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030208000907050008090704 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Warren, OK, that explains it ;-) I didn't actually do any calculations, just thought about what Bob said >hi voltage on verticals .low current >hi current on loops low voltage But you're running decent power levels and your signal is strong, so the losses must be low, i.e. the currents must be high. Do you really get 50A @ 1kW, i.e. the loop losses (including the capacitor and environmental losses) are in the range of 0.4 Ohm? When using an isolating transformer, it is possible to ground the loop anyway. But it is not sure that it improves the situation. Laurence's earth mat is a good idea :-) 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 27.04.2013 01:28, schrieb Warren Ziegler: > Hi Bob, > Yes but Bill always worked at the 1W level. > I forget the exact numbers but the loop has an inductive reactance of > 100-200 ohms, when you multiply that by a loop current of 50A you can > get 10kV. > > BTW, my RG-11 loop was put up by Bill and I in 2005 - no complaints! > > 73 Warren > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:14 PM, > wrote: > > Thought the loop info Bill Ashloch developed pointed to high > currents in > the loop > so a large conductor needed ,, but low voltage and I remember ( ? > ) his > idea of pushing > soft plumbing copper through trees and just supporting the CU on the > branches > hi voltage on verticals .low current > hi current on loops low voltage > > Bob K3DJC > > > > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:44:01 +0200 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= > > writes: > > Warren, > > > > What is the voltage between the tree (GND) and loop? I thought that > > the > > voltages are rather small, i.e. below 100V, especially when a large > > loop > > is used. Isn't it possible to ground the loop? > > > > 73, Stefan > > > > Am 26.04.2013 19 :21, schrieb Warren Ziegler: > > > > > > Just a quick report on a failure mode for LF TX antennas. > > > Last Fall my original TX loop made up of approximately 500 feet of > > > > > RG-11 coax suspended from trees went open circuit (both center > > > conductor and shield), some time later part of the wire actually > > came > > > down. I had thought that abrasion from contact with the trees had > > > > > eventually worn through it. > > > > > > What I found was a little more interesting. Looking at the downed > > end, > > > it appeared that the insulation had melted for a considerable > > distance > > > and there were burn marks further up the cable. My hypothesis is > > that > > > the outer insulation was abraded away and the coax shield came > > into > > > contact with the tree limb causing the burning/melting. > > > Will try to get some pictures this weekend and put them up on my > > website. > > > > > > Long term if one wants to operate at the kW level either better > > > insulation or a better way of supporting the antenna than trees > > would > > > be required! > > > > > > -- > > > 73 Warren K2ORS > > > WD2XGJ > > > WD2XSH/23 > > > WE2XEB/2 > > > WE2XGR/1 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > 73 Warren K2ORS > WD2XGJ > WD2XSH/23 > WE2XEB/2 > WE2XGR/1 > --------------030208000907050008090704 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Warren,

OK, that explains it ;-) I didn't actually do any calculations, just thought about what Bob said 
>hi voltage on verticals .low current
>hi current on loops low voltage

But you're running decent power levels and your signal is strong, so the losses must be low, i.e. the currents must be high. Do you really get 50A @ 1kW, i.e. the loop losses (including the capacitor and environmental losses) are in the range of 0.4 Ohm?

When using an isolating transformer, it is possible to ground the loop anyway. But it is not sure that it improves the situation.

Laurence's earth mat is a good idea :-)

73, Stefan/DK7FC
Am 27.04.2013 01:28, schrieb Warren Ziegler:
Hi Bob,
    Yes but Bill always worked at the 1W level. 
I forget the exact numbers but the loop has an inductive reactance of 100-200 ohms, when you multiply that by a loop current of 50A you can get 10kV.

BTW, my RG-11 loop was put up by Bill and I in 2005 - no complaints!

73 Warren



On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:14 PM, <riese-k3djc@juno.com> wrote:
Thought the loop info Bill Ashloch developed pointed to high currents in
the loop
so a large conductor needed ,, but low voltage and I remember ( ? ) his
idea of pushing
soft plumbing copper through trees and just supporting the CU on the
branches
hi voltage on verticals .low current
hi current on loops low voltage

Bob K3DJC



On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:44:01 +0200 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?=
<Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
> Warren,
>
> What is the voltage between the tree (GND) and loop? I thought that
> the
> voltages are rather small, i.e. below 100V, especially when a large
> loop
> is used. Isn't it possible to ground the loop?
>
> 73, Stefan
>
> Am 26.04.2013 19:21, schrieb Warren Ziegler:
> >
> > Just a quick report on a failure mode for LF TX antennas.
> > Last Fall my original TX loop made up of approximately 500 feet of
>
> > RG-11 coax suspended from trees went open circuit (both center
> > conductor and shield), some time later part of the wire actually
> came
> > down. I had thought that abrasion from contact with the trees had
>
> > eventually worn through it.
> >
> > What I found was a little more interesting. Looking at the downed
> end,
> > it appeared that the insulation had melted for a considerable
> distance
> > and there were burn marks further up the cable. My hypothesis is
> that
> > the outer insulation was abraded away and the coax shield came
> into
> > contact with the tree limb causing the burning/melting.
> > Will try to get some pictures this weekend and put them up on my
> website.
> >
> > Long term if one wants to operate at the kW level either better
> > insulation or a better way of supporting the antenna than trees
> would
> > be required!
> >
> > --
> > 73 Warren K2ORS
> >                 WD2XGJ
> >                 WD2XSH/23
> >                 WE2XEB/2
> >                 WE2XGR/1
> >
>
>




--
73 Warren K2ORS
                WD2XGJ
                WD2XSH/23
                WE2XEB/2
                WE2XGR/1

 
--------------030208000907050008090704--