1
$\begingroup$

The suggestion has been made on various ham-related websites that improving the conductivity of the Earth around a ground rod produces a worthwhile improvement in the e-m radiation from a vertical monopole using that ground rod. How effective is that?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Isn't "improving the conductivity of the Earth around a ground rod" the same thing as "installing radials"? Is there any question that radials are effective? $\endgroup$ – Phil Frost - W8II Jul 28 at 14:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I edited my answer to deal with your observation. $\endgroup$ – Richard Fry Jul 28 at 15:12
  • $\begingroup$ How about lowering the earth resistance using Epsom salt (magnesium sulfate) around the rods? See Signal Corps manual MIL-HDBK-419A starting on page 2-59 "2-9 ELECTRODE ENHANCEMENT". Scroll down to the sketch used in many ARRL publications. Sorry I didn't have a link, you'll have too Google it. ALSO, please see my own experience using Epsom salt. $\endgroup$ – Mike Waters Jul 28 at 21:01
  • $\begingroup$ A quick look at MIL-HDBK-419A prompts some concerns about its usefulness w.r.t. buried rods used as "r-f grounds." The measured data it shows appears to apply to the relatively low-frequency a-c of the utility power distribution grid and lightning protection, while omitting the additional need to provide a low-R path to the Earth for transmit/receive antenna systems operating in their part of the e-m spectrum. $\endgroup$ – Richard Fry Jul 29 at 9:35
3
$\begingroup$

Below for some perspective on this topic is a NEC4.2 analysis showing the difference in performance of a 40m, 1/4-wavelength, unloaded, base-fed vertical monopole antenna system when driven against either a 5/8" OD or a 12" OD, copper-clad, 8-ft long ground rod buried in poor Earth (1 mS/m, d.c. 5).

Increasing the ground rod OD up to 12" is the equivalent of modifying the Earth in that radius area around a 5/8" OD ground rod to be nearly a perfect conductor of the radial r-f currents in the Earth around the monopole, that flow toward the ground rod.

An improvement in system performance results, but not a very significant improvement.

enter image description here

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The graphic should say an 0.625" (5/8") ground rod rather than 0.0625", right? $\endgroup$ – rclocher3 Jul 28 at 17:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That is right. Thank you for catching my mistake. A corrected NEC graphic now is included in my answer above. $\endgroup$ – Richard Fry Jul 28 at 19:03
1
$\begingroup$

If by improving conductivity, you mean flooding several acres or square miles with ocean (or saltier) sea water (or via natural intrusion near a low lying shoreline or wetlands), or installing a solid copper floor several square wavelengths in size in the parking lot, yes.

But some people have reported improved antenna performance by putting a metal mesh of gopher wire (not too deep) under their lawn, with the vertical antenna grounded in the middle. Probably soldering or crimping adjacent mesh sheets is desirable.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ RE: "If by improving conductivity, you mean flooding several acres or square miles with ocean (or saltier) sea water ..., yes." — My answer addressed and concerned the conductivity of the region of the Earth within a 6" radius of the vertical axis of an 8-ft-long buried ground rod, however. $\endgroup$ – Richard Fry Jul 29 at 9:44
  • $\begingroup$ Wouldn't an only 6" radius in non-conductive ground be not much different from just having a larger diameter ground rod (12" iron pipe, etc.)? $\endgroup$ – hotpaw2 Sep 1 at 21:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.