Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: Modeling "Ground" and losses

To: <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Modeling "Ground" and losses
From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Reply-to: Tom W8JI <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 18:16:56 -0500
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>
If the total energy flowing into the monopole system with buried radials is dictated only by its hard-wired connection through the transmission line back to the transmitter, then what is accounting for the reduction of its radiated power?

Nothing I said even remotely implies loss would be the same as things are changed, so the question or "exercise" is completely meaningless to the topic.

I said the system is complex. I said radial current comes from more than one cause. I said it is far more than just a simple transference of current from soil to the radials.

The radials are directly exposed to antenna fields. The radials are directly connected to the antenna feedline. If they are anywhere near soil or in soil, they are coupling to the soil. The soil is part of the system. A fence near the radials is part of the system. Unconnected wires are part of the system. A lake or ocean near the antenna is part of the system.

It is a huge mix of things interacting, not just a boy and his radial, with the radial collecting currents only from the soil.

By definition, soil or not, the radials have current. By definition, connected to the feedpoint or not, the radials (like any conductor around an antenna) will have current.

But if that isn't enough, the field strength change of a model doesn't even prove what physically happens. The model just estimates or calculates a result. It might be spot on, but it just is a calculated summary of results of many things.

73 Tom
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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