Hi Terry well you certainly put lots of effort into that study thanks! As I
recall I got the idea from a mid 70's Ham Radio or 73 mag article. But that was
long before modeling software was around! Anyway I gather from your study that
this approach is of somewhat dubious merit...
I read all of N6LF's work and so I think I'll try 2 opposed shortened loaded
radials about 1 m above the muck. I was planning on fine tuning the elements
with a base inductor anyway since the DXE-TFS controller requires a TBD
frequency offset and our band here is quite narrow. I was going to
intentionally shorten the elements (10" alu tower section to 100' then 27.5'
tubing) to make sure I had some room to play with the inductor (and considering
I was unable to satisfactorily model that severe taper) but with this approach
maybe I should try to make them resonant at 1.8.
Anyway when the rains finally stop in another month I hope to get started on
it. The site is quiet farmland with the far field almost nothing but flat rice
paddy for at least 20 wavelengths in every direction. Hope to be QRV later this
season!
73 Bob HS0ZIA
________________________________
From: Terry Conboy <terry.conboy@gmail.com>
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2011 6:47 AM
Subject: Re: Topband: coax cable counterpoise
On 2011-09-24 6:32 PM, Bob Kupps wrote:
> Hi when I lived in the Mojave desert I fed my 70' crank up tower as a folded
> monopole on 160m and used 8 radials made from electric 1/4 waves of old coax
> cable laying on top of the ground. The center conductors of the radials were
> fed with the shield of the feed line and the radial shields all connected
> back at the center to the DC tower ground. The far ends of the radials were
> left open and therefore reflected a direct short back at the center ends.
> This seemed very effective and I had good results even running 5 watts in
> contests.
>
> Anyway I now live in northern Thailand and am planning a full size 4 square
> array built over a flooded rice paddy which is about the opposite to my
> previous QTH in ground conductivity. I want to farm the land as much as
> possible however so am considering some type of elevated counterpoise instead
> of ground radials, possibly using only 1-3 tuned coax radials as a
> counterpoise for each vertical.
>
> Any thoughts on this approach?
>
> 73 Bob HS0ZIA
>
Bob,
Sounds like you should have a killer array on 160m with ground conductivity
that is probably the next best thing to sea water!
The input inpedance of each of the of the open-circuited 1/4 wavelength coax
radials, assuming RG-8A coax, isn't quite zero, but 1.23 ohms at 1.83 MHz,
according to TLW. So you are adding 1.23/8 = 0.15 ohms of loss to the ground
system, which you probably would never notice. These impedances become
inductive above resonance, and capacitive below resonance, so you're causing a
slight reduction in the system bandwidth, since the reactiance moves the same
way as the antenna vs. frequency. Again, these are all in parallel, so
probably no big deal. (Of course, smaller coax would have higher loss: RG-8X
about 2 ohms each, and RG-58 about 3 ohms.)
Otherwise, the coax radials just look like large diameter wire radials that are
shorter than a free space 1/4 wavelength on the OUTSIDE of the coaxes, where it
counts. With on-ground (or on-sand, in the desert), any radial is essentially
non-resonant and only serves to lower the loss resistance for currents flowing
in the ground back to the base of the antenna. So you probably have a bit
higher ground system loss, since the shorter than 1/4 wl radials are somewhat
less effective than longer conductors in most cases.
At your Mojave QTH, you would probably have seen hardly any difference if you
had just shorted the center conductor and shield together on each of the coaxes
at the base of the tower.
However, for elevated radials, they need to be pretty close to 1/4 wavelength
conductors (on the outside, in the case of coax radials) to be resonant. So an
elevated ground system made with [0.25 wl * VF] length coaxes with have ground
system impedance that is capacitive and this will appear directly at the
feedpoint. One way to compensate for this is to make the coaxes longer than
[0.25wl * VF], so their input impedance will be inductive enough to cancel the
effect of the outside of the coaxes being shorter than 0.25 wl.
To check this out, I made a model in EZNEC with a 132.7 foot vertical, and
three 132.7 foot copper wire radials (elevated 10 feet) with resonance at 1.83
MHz. Gain at 16 degree takeoff over "Very Good" ground is 2.74 dBi and feed Z
is 39.4 ohms. Assuming RG-8A coax radials, I added the input impedances of
the open-circuit coax lines in series with the radials and adjusted the radial
lengths for resonance. This required the coax radials to be 125.1 feet each
(only 7.6 feet shorter than normal conductors). Gain with the coax radials is
2.63 dBi and the feed Z is 40.4 ohms. SWR bandwidth is very close to the same
for both. Modeling might get you in the ballpark, but will undoubtedly require
some field adjustment due to variations in coax velocity factor, the dielectric
constant of the outside jacket (which I've never seen specified), ground
conductivity/permittivity, and the approximations inherent in modeling
conductors near ground in NEC2.
Another alternative is tuning your vertical radiators longer than normal to
supply enough inductive reactance to tune the system to resonance. For a
single radiator, this probably isn't a big deal, but when dealing with a phased
array, where the mutual coupling between the elements needs to be taken into
account when designing the feed/phasing system, this will only make your life
more complex.
Have fun!
73, Terry N6RY
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|