Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: [Topband] Inverted "L" vs." T"

To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: [Topband] Inverted "L" vs." T"
From: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:58:55 -0500
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>
N7RT wrote:

> Hi All,
> I have been following this thread for a while and have a question 
> about how accurate the results are for a ground plane antenna are 
> using EZNEC 5. Modeling a 160 mtr ground plane with 4 radials over a 
> high accuracy ground (height 10 feet), ground conductivity 0.005 
> mS/mtr, dielectric constant 13 only yields ground losses ~2 ohms as 
> compared to free space. This does not fit well with my experience. 
> It's more like 10 to 15 ohms of ground loss. I have never solved this 
> problem.


If you just modeled a vertical with low elevated radials and did not add 
any additional loss to the model, the answer is likely to be 
significantly in error.  This is another case where NEC significantly 
underestimates ground loss.

Here is another example.  Read this message from out of the archives:
http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00118.html
W8JI claims to have measured a difference of 4 dB between 4 and 64 
radials, 6 ft above ground, on an 80 meter vertical.  Try to explain 
that with NEC.  EZNEC says (without fudging the model) the difference 
should be 0.09 dB over average ground.  When you see an answer like 
that, that should raise an eyebrow even if you didn't have W8JI's data.

The EZNEC help file claims that the data for a horizontal wire over a 
real ground should be good down to about 0.005 wavelengths (1.35 ft in 
this case).  I don't think so.

This is the reason that I always include extra loss resistors in my 
models of verticals.  The value of those I determine from measured data 
(not mine).  That way I get answers that agree more closely with 
measured data.  As a matter of fact, for the verticals and Ls I have 
built and measured, the feedpoint impedance agrees almost exactly with 
the measured data when modeled like this.  I'm not sure if the gain is 
correct or not, but it is closer to some of the measured data I have 
seen (but it is still not exact).  The same problem happens with a very 
low dipole, but since most people don't care about a very low dipole, 
that isn't much of a limitation.

In the case of the measurements W8JI made, there is something else going 
on that I can't explain.  To get 4 dB difference, you have to add 65 
ohms of loss to the antenna.  That is not a reasonable number.  The 
feedpoint impedance would not be close to the measured number.  Near 
field calculations also show only about 0.1 dB difference, not much 
difference from the far field number, so that isn't the answer.  I still 
don't have any explanation for this data.  Maybe you really can't model 
ground loss by inserting a resistor at the base of the antenna(?).  
Suggestions appreciated.

Jerry, K4SAV
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>