Errante’s Antenna does away with the need for a ground plane or earth ground by utilizing a virtual ground.
http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/antenna_errante.htm
Errante’s Antenna does away with the need for a ground plane or earth ground by utilizing a virtual ground.
http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/antenna_errante.htm
Limit
1/4 wave antennas for 160m is not that big of a deal, considering 160 operators can coil the entire antenna, whereas in Part 15, a coiled antenna even fitting inside a 3 meter length is considered longer simply because of the antenna itself being nothing but a wire 1/4 wavelength long, wrapped and packed to fit in 3 meters length.
Personally I see no big deal with that, but others will pound the gavel and say it’s illegal.
That matching network in that article would produce considerable losses at flea power, whereas 160m hams can crank up that juice to compensate…up to 1.5Kw.
Part 15 can’t just crank up the power to compensate. 100mW DC input is the limit. Above that, your out of compliance.
RFB
If You Do
Damned if you do.
The part 15 song.
Scales
Scale the matcher down to the flea level it may work…but then there is that 3 meter length limit.
RFB
Isotron?
How about playin’ around with that design? It doesn’t need a ground..
Voodoo
Isotron is rather taboo and voodoo around here, though I have used one and they work incredibly well for those situations where a ground plane system is impractical or a situation where your above an Earth ground, like an apartment or hi-rise building.
RFB
Groundless Antenna
It’s a joke (or a swindle). “captating”. I don’t think so.
“All the concepts, methods, designs and devices presented on this web site are the original novelty works of FRANCESCO ERRANTE.”
…LOL
This is a perfect example of pseudoscience.
Pseudo
I tend to think that pseudo isn’t so pseudo until proven otherwise.
Experimenting can turn concepts into working examples. If one keeps in mind that like any circuit, an RF circuit needs a complete path, something unique could be developed.
Everything in front of us today at one time was considered pseudoscience.
Never underestimate the power of ideas and creativity.
Saying it can’t work or cannot exist until proven otherwise is in of itself “pseudoscience”.
RFB
Pseudo
RFB: Ha. Ha. That’s a real laugh!
Try again.
The Psuedo Corporation
Large corporations have been built out of pseudo science.
The alternative health care industry, to name one field.
A sheepish woman I knew practiced “Reiki”, the practice of holding hands over a sick person to “draw healing energy” from “the universe”.
Since I am conspicuously skeptical about the world she felt I was “the enemy”, even though I tried to convince her that I understood that her “profession” was only a commodity.
The public buys pseudo science.
Pseudo 2
“RFB: Ha. Ha. That’s a real laugh!”
Exactly. :p
RFB
It May Work
but perhaps not because of a “virtual ground”. It appears that there is a common mode path for RF from the secondary of transformer 9 back through the coax to transformer 5 and through this to the primary winding of 5 to the circuit ground. If this is so then there is a ground against which the antenna can work.
From the schematic there also appears to be a connection from the low end of transformer 9 secondary through component 10 (a conductive enclosure?) to the coax (7) shields thence through component 4 (a conductive enclosure?) to ground 3. This appears to be a hard wired ground path from the transformer secondary 13 low end to the ground at 3.
A test could be done by placing a RF current transformer around both coax cables (7) together and it would respond to a common mode current ar a net current to ground.
Neil
reply to radio8z
The answer to your doubt is provided a little bit further down the relevant page ( http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/antenna_errante.htm ),
where a schematic diagram
http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/schematics/antenna_errante_open_wire_balanced_transmission_line.jpg
and its notes show that the system can be set up with an open wire transmission line as well, provided that the impedance of local transformer’s(5) secondary winding, the impedance of the open wire balanced transmission line(7b) and the impedance of the remote transformer’s(9) primary winding be exactly the same.
pseudoscience???
on September 11, 2012 – 07:34 PhilB wrote
>It’s a joke (or a swindle). “captating”. I don’t think so.
>”All the concepts, methods, designs and devices presented on this web >site are the original novelty works of FRANCESCO ERRANTE.”
>…LOL
>This is a perfect example of pseudoscience.
————————————————————
Each and every circuitry presented on my web site ( http://www.Radiondistics.com )comes with a full description and a detailed background of its development (all of my devices are patented) and anyone wishing to verify those principles can build the units and test them for him-self.
Francesco Errante
Virtual ground: a clarification
A “virtual ground” is defined as a point in an electrical circuit that appears to be at ground, but is not actually attached to ground, it is therefore, a node having a 0 degree phase angle difference with respect to ground and has the same electrical potential as the Earth.
I have not invented the virtual ground nor its concept, what I have done, for first, was to apply it to the radio-electric transducers (antennas) and to the transmission lines.
Francesco Errante
Reply Re Virtual Ground
Thank you for your reply. I will study your documents further but it does appear that the low end of the output transformer is connected to the circuit ground.
Neil
Part 15 AM Antenna Needing/Using No Ground Connection
A 3-meter, center-fed dipole needs no connection to an earth ground or to a “virtual” ground, and would not need to use the networks shown in the design of Mr Errante.
Such a dipole operating on 1650 kHz, oriented in the vertical plane, using a 25-ohm loading coil, with the top of the upper arm 23 meters above the earth, and 35 mW of applied power would produce a groundwave field intensity of about 93 µV/m at a distance of 1 km, over real earth of conductivity 6 mS/m, dc 13.
This performance approximates that of a ~typical base-loaded/driven, 3-meter vertical monopole installed just above the surface of the earth and driven against buried r-f ground conductors, for the same frequency, applied power and earth conditions.
The r-f SWR bandwidth of the dipole would be less than the monopole, but probably still acceptable.
RE: RE: RE: reply to radio8z
I thank you for the interest shown.
Indeed, one of the end of the secondary winding(13) is connected to the circuit ground and so must be. But that point of the remote transformer circuit (you’ve called it output transformer) is at a virtual ground as it is connected through the chassis(10) to the virtual ground node(11), which is obtained by center-tapping the primary winding of the same remote transformer.
Francesco Errante
Groundless Antenna
I wrote this before I read Neil’s post “It May Work” more carefully , so I am repeating some of what Neil said. At least I came to the same conclusions independently for what that’s worth.
Referring to the diagram at:
http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/antenna_errante.htm
This diagram is remarkably similar to the Talking House coax/ATU configuration except the TH coax feed is replaced with a balanced transmission line.
The TH circuit has an RF transformer at both ends of the coax to match the coax impedance, the secondary of the ATU transformer feeds the antenna terminal through a loading coil, and the bottom end of the secondary is connected to the ATU case and the coax shield.
In the referenced Errante drawing, the only significant difference from the TH configuration is the use of a balanced feed line. You can fill in the secondary side of the transformer in box 10 with a tunable loading coil to drive a 3 meter antenna. The description of the “virtual ground” point (primary-side center tap in box 10) is vague, but it is easy to see the requisite path for antenna RF current from the bottom of the secondary in box 10 back to the earth ground shown at the lower left. Part of the path is over the balanced transmission line in COMMON MODE. The feed from transmitter side to antenna side is differential mode, but the antenna RF current connection to earth ground is common mode.
So, the end result is that the transmission line will radiate and we are left with the same controversy that surrounds the coax feed to an elevated TH ATU.
The Errante system is what it is, but the fundamentals of vertical antenna operation are not included in the description. In particular, there is no mention of the requisite ground plane (typically a ground radial system). The frequently mentioned “virtual ground” doesn’t really have any relevance in a good vertical antenna installation for part 15.
I was hasty in calling this pseudoscience and I apologize for that. At first glance the web pages make it appear to be questionable because of the vague style and lack of technical information. Perhaps the patents would provide more information, but they appear to be written in Italian.
further to Groundless Antenna
on September 12, 2012 – 04:12.PhilB wrote
>Groundless Antenna
>I was hasty in calling this pseudoscience and I apologize for that.
I do accept your apology, however, from what you have recently written, I gather that you’ve not studied my material properly, hence the reason why you are going through the wrong path.
I would be more than happy to explain anything you might wish to ask, but, prior of doing that, I must ask you to study my material in full, perhaps following the order suggested in my the web site menu. Of fundamental importance is the understanding of the virtual ground concept and its implementation in the studies of the radio-electric transducers (antennas).
http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/suppressor.htm
Thanks!
Francesco Errante
PS: Please, bear in mind that:
1) Errante’s elementary radiator (AKA Errante’s antenna) and the networks that make it possible to work are not a “TUNING DEVICE” – all Errante’s patented devices are meant to feed resonant radiators at their natural impedance (radiation resistance). Where multiband operations are accomplished that’s achived by exploiting natural harmonic resonance properties or by using multiple single-bander radiators arrangement (fan monopoles).
2) Radiators can be placed at any wanted angle and level with respect to the ground. Hence, determining their polarization.
3) The RF virtual ground node generation and its exploitation is the key in the Errante’s antenna design. Hence the elimination of the need for artificial ground planes.
4) Errante’s HF devices developments efforts are not directed towards the creation of electrically small aerials – which are inherently lossy.
5) Errante’s RF devices are primarily made to demonstrate the principles of physics on which they are based upon.
Questions about Errante Groundless Antenna
Hello, Mr. Errante:
Could you please tell us the maximum groundwave field intensity that a naturally resonant vertical monopole about 1/4-wavelength in physical height produces at a distance of 1 km over a perfect ground plane using only your virtual ground networks (no earth ground), with 100 watts of applied power?
Also, your web page http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/antenna_errante.htm states, “g. the VIRTUAL GROUND MONOPOLE HF ANTENNA offers a sharper radiation pattern than conventional full-size aerials.”
Could you please tell us how this takes place? Antenna engineering textbooks show that the radiation pattern of a base-driven, unloaded, linear monopole is a function of its electrical height, exclusively.
Thank you.
Rich’s questions on the Errante’s antenna
on September 12, 2012 – 14:48 Rich wrote:
>Hello, Mr. Errante:
>Could you please tell us the maximum groundwave field intensity that a naturally resonant vertical monopole about 1/4-wavelength in physical height produces at a distance of 1 km over a perfect ground plane using only your virtual ground networks (no earth ground), with 100 watts of applied power?
First of all, I wish to point out that a virtual-ground system is not a groundless system. In a previous post of mine I have tried to clarify that a “virtual ground node” is defined as a point in an electrical circuit that appears to be at ground, but is not actually attached to ground, it is therefore, a node having a 0 degree phase angle difference with respect to ground and has the same electrical potential as the Earth.
The absolute value of the measurement you required has no practical meaning in itself as it would be a function of several variable parameters: frequency for first. What would have a practical meaning is to compare the behaviour of a given monopole erected perpendicularly above the ground and very close to it and driven from its lower end in two different conditions, being them: 1) with a virtual-ground and 2) with a conventional ground-plane arrangement. The measurement at the receiving ends should be done by using precisely the same antenna and feeding arrangements, so that the 2 systems can be compared without mixing their effects. You can expect that one system -all in all- could show lower losses than the other or viceversa, but there would be not a great deal of difference in the signal strength at the received end until you raise the two arrangements off the ground, especially when large wavelength are involved. While the virtual ground one will continue to work at any height without the need of any change in its feeding, the ground-plane one will require its own ground-plane to move up with it and that poses a serious limitation to its practical employment, which dramatically increases with the increase of the wavelength and because the ground-plane monopole efficiency depends on its ground-plane, it is easy to comprehend the benefits of a virtual ground arrangement.
Moreover, in the virtual ground arrangement of a monopole high above the ground, the absence of a ground-plane, which acts as a shield between the monopole and the space below, will allow a better omnidirectional radiation pattern than the one offered by the same monopole at the same height but driven by a ground-plane arrangement.
Another important feature of the virtual ground system is that it can be tailor-made to suit any wanted radiator impedance while the ground-plane arrangement can only offer a very limited range of impedance matching. (@35 Ohm, the virtual ground one will, however, exhibit a typical 10% larger bandwidth, but that’s due to circuitry coupling and not to the radiator it-self).
>Also, your web page >http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/antenna_errante.htm states, >”g. the VIRTUAL GROUND MONOPOLE HF ANTENNA offers a sharper radiation >pattern than conventional full-size aerials.”
>Could you please tell us how this takes place? Antenna engineering >textbooks show that the radiation pattern of a base-driven, unloaded, >linear monopole is a function of its electrical height, exclusively.
>Thank you.
Please find the answer to this last question as part of my previous answer.
Field Intensity
The absolute value of the measurement you required has no practical meaning in itself as it would be a function of several variable parameters: frequency for first.
Just to note that the equation for the groundwave field intensity produced at a given horizontal distance by a monopole driven against a perfect ground plane includes variable terms for radiated power and path length, but no term for frequency.
For the same radiated power and path length with that perfect ground plane, the groundwave field intensity from a 1/4-wave monopole operating at 1 MHz is the same as from a 1/4-wave monopole operating on any other frequency when using that perfect ground plane.
This is why it will be informative to learn how the groundwave field from a 1/4-wave monopole with its base within a meter or so of the earth, and using only the Errante virtual ground compares to that produced by the same monopole driven against a perfect ground plane when using the same applied power and path length.
RE: Field intensity
on September 12, 2012 – 19:58 Rich wrote
>Just to note that the equation for the groundwave field intensity >produced at a given horizontal distance by a monopole driven against a >perfect ground plane includes variable terms for radiated power and >path length, but no term for frequency.
I thought, you where interested in experimental data. I’ve made a precise reference to “the absolute value of the measurement you required“. It should have been clear to you that I was talking about real life instrumental measurement and not theoretical calculations.
Moreover, the equation to which you’re referring to is an empirical formula which has been found to be inaccurate under certain conditions.
In practice the frequency of the radio-electric signals is the main independent variable physical quantity involved and the wavelength is a direct function of it and it is the wavelength to dictate the size of the aerials and all the practical limitation discending from the latter. It’s those limitations, mainly, that in practice prevents the groundwave field intensity from a given radiator, for the same radiated power and path length, from being the same on any frequency.
Real Life Measurement and Performance
F. Errante wrote:It should have been clear to you that I was talking about real life instrumental measurement and not theoretical calculations.
It was/is clear, and that is the information being sought. Perhaps the following will be a better way of stating this.
Please refer to the measured data at the link below. It shows the groundwave fields from a 1/4-wave monopole as measured by a broadcast consulting engineering firm using an accurately calibrated field intensity meter.
The r-f ground used by this monopole consisted of a set of 120 buried radials, each 1/4-wavelength long (in free space wavelengths), whose r-f loss resistance was approximately 2 ohms.
The Inverse Distance values on the chart are the theoretical values for this antenna system with no loss in the monopole, or in the r-f ground connection (perfect earth).
You will see that the field values measured less than a few tenths of a kilometer from the monopole are very close to the theoretical values for those distances.
Could you please advise what fields you would expect to measure if this system had used only your virtual ground reference, in place of the set of buried radials described?
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h85/rfry-100/MWFieldIntensityMeasurement.jpg
RE: Real life measurement and performance
on September 13, 2012 – 16:59 Rich wrote:
Could you please advise what fields you would expect to measure if this system had used only your virtual ground reference, in place of the set of buried radials described?
Provided there is no mismatching at the feeding point of a monopole at groung level, its radiated field intensity would be about the same no matter what RF earth grounding system you choose to adopt, as long as it’s up to the job, be it a conventional or a virtual ground one.
In your case a set of 120 buried radials are used, but, a proper RF earth grounding can be accomplished in many ways, some more efficient and rational than others.
http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/capacitive_grounding.htm
Francesco Errante
Errante Virtual Ground
Provided there is no mismatching at the feeding point of a monopole at groung level, its radiated field intensity would be about the same no matter what RF earth grounding system you choose to adopt, as long as it’s up to the job, be it a conventional or a virtual ground one.
Mr. Errante, could you please advise how your virtual ground can equal the performance of a set of 120 x 1/4-wave buried radials used with a monopole?
The function of the buried radials is to gather the r-f currents flowing in the earth close to the base of the monopole as a result of radiation from the monopole, and return them through a low-loss path to the ground reference terminal of the antenna system. This is necessary in order for the monopole system to radiate efficiently.
How would your virtual ground circuits perform that function, if they need, and have no connection to the earth?
RE: Errante virtual ground
on September 13, 2012 – 20:24 Rich wrote:
>The function of the buried radials is to gather the r-f currents flowing in the earth close to the base of the monopole as result of radiation from the monopole, and return them through a low-loss path to the ground reference terminal of the antenna system. This is necessary in order for the monopole system to radiate efficiently.
I wonder where you took what you’ve just stated from? Who on Earth has ever demonstrated that to you?
I’m sorry, but it appears that you do not have a clear understanding of what the RF earth grounding is or what is needed for, especially with regards to the radio-electric transducers (antennas)
The “function” you’re referring to is a myth.
Again, it appears that you’re not yet mastering the virtual ground concept.
The virtual grounding is made possible by creating a virtual ground node within the system it-self and that’s always possible.
Francesco Errante
The Myth of Radials?
F. Errante wrote: I wonder where you took what you’ve just stated from? Who on Earth has ever demonstrated that to you? I’m sorry, but it appears that you do not have a clear understanding of what the RF earth grounding is or what is needed for, especially with regards to the radio-electric transducers (antennas). The “function” you’re referring to is a myth.
Some readers may not be aware of the experimental work proving what I posted. Below is a link to a clip from it. This same information also is included in numerous antenna engineering textbooks.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h85/rfry-100/Monopole_Radial_Function.jpg
The complete text, charts, and photos of this research work are available as paper 4 at http://rfry.org/Software%20&%20Misc%20Papers.htm
Here is a link to another paper with supporting information.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h85/rfry-100/GroundCurrentNearMonopole.gif
How does the Errante virtual ground provide these functions for a monopole, when the virtual ground components are not connected to the earth?
Contradictory
rich himself has talked of elevated ground radials, certainly up in the air above dirt ground.
We are also familiar with high frequency ground planes, way up in the sky far away from dirt ground.
Would those proven “grounding” methods not be forms of virtual ground?
The virtual ground described by Mr. Errante makes perfect sense to my thinking, and I would go so far as to say that it’s obvious.
Radials
“Would those proven “grounding” methods not be forms of virtual ground?”
That’s exactly what they are, and they are not buried into the Earth.
If you provide a pathway for the return to form the complete circuit, be it a 0* phase node or an actual physical wire, both do the same thing, provide the pathway to complete the circuit.
This approach is no different from using phased magnetic fields to contain plasma, like that within a particle accelerator, or adjusting a circuit to take advantage of a specific duty cycle of a waveform.
It’s a matter of going outside the box of traditional methods, and there are plenty of examples of that all around us.
I don’t see too many horse drawn buggies running around on the highways.
Or messages being delivered by pigeon and babies dropped from pelican beaks.
RFB
Virtual Ground
The idea demonstrated in Mr. Errante’s system which uses center tapped transformers at both ends of a two conductor line is known to provide the 0 degree phase difference and the 0 volt potential difference between the two center taps. If one of these taps is connected to ground then effectively so is the other and this is achieved by the common mode signal on the transmission line. The signal is transmitted in differential mode and the ground is established in common mode.
With a differential, balanced current in two conductors (equal and opposite) there is no net radiation but with the ground current being common mode on the two conductors (equal and in phase) there will be radiation.
I am not missing the feature that the ground at the transmitter end (the transformer center tap) and the ground at the antenna end (the transformer center tap) are the same point electrically which effectively places the remote antenna ground at the transmitter end. Since there is radiation from the common mode currents in the transmission lines then this doesn’t help with the part 15 situation when using transmission lines or long ground wires which radiate.
As a historical note, the use of center tapped transformers to provide a “virtual” connection between the sending end transformer center tap and the receiving end transformer center tap has long been used by telephone companies to gain an additional circuit. Two two wire circuits could then provide a third circuit by using the enter tap circuits as an additional pair which permits three balanced differential phone circuits with 4 wires which saves two wires which would otherwise be needed. There are three circuits for the wire cost of 2 which is a substantial savings in copper for long runs.
Neil
RE: Virtual ground
on September 14, 2012 – 00:57 radio8z wrote
../. Since there is radiation from the common mode currents in the transmission lines then this doesn’t help with the part 15 situation when using transmission lines or long ground wires which radiate.
Dear Niel, as I have already demonstrated here:
http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/balanced_lines.htm
(a study set-out to investigate and demonstrate the electric behaviour of balanced transmission lines for radio frequency electric segnals in a progressive wave regime)
the transmission lines, when perfectly matched, both to the signal source and to the load, DO NOT originate hertzian radiation.
Francesco Errante
Transmission Line Radiaton
Dear Francesco,
It is agreed that a balanced two wire or coax transmission line does not radiate RF and this would be true of your system also except that the virtual ground at the antenna end connects to the ground at the transmitter end through a common mode through the transmission lines. Trace an instantaneous current into the antenna transformer center tap, it splits equally and 1/2 comes out the top transformer winding connection and 1/2 comes out the bottom transformer winding. Since both currents come out of these windings they are in phase and they are also in phase along the two transmission lines. Being in phase the radiation from the current in each line adds giving a net radiation. Do you agree that this is the situation? If the currents are not as I described then how can the center taps be at 0 degrees and 0 volts with respect to each other?
The reason balanced transmission lines do not radiate, as you certainly know well, is that the currents are equal and opposite in each wire which creates fields which cancel for no net radiation. When the currents are in phase the radiated fields add giving net radiation.
Neil
RE: Transmission line radiation
on September 14, 2012 – 02:36 radio8z wrote:
It is agreed that a balanced two wire or coax transmission line does not radiate RF”
BE CAREFUL! They do not origin hertzian radiation ONLY IF the currents flowing along them are in a progressive wave regime (no reflection), as demonstrated here:
http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/balanced_lines.htm
Until the publication of my studies and their accompaning demonstrations, it was thought that balanced lines would not radiate because the fields generated from each of its conductors would cancel each other out. That’s not true.
My single wire transmission line arrangement is a clear demonstration of this. See: http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/schematics/errante_one-wire_transmission_line.jpg
In general, a conductor does not radiate until there is no wave reflection on it. See:
http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/hertzian_radiation.htm
“except that the virtual ground at the antenna end connects to the ground at the transmitter end through a common mode through the transmission lines.”
The galvanic earth grounding shown in the Errante’s antenna schematics is an option, the behaviour of the virtual ground network is not affected in any way from that galvanic connection to the earth. This is because the virtual ground coincides with the earth ground, hence its name. The galvanic connection to earth is an implicit patent claim and it is meant to show the possibility for the system to be earthed for safety reasons. If the network would have needed an earth grounding, then, the “virtual ground” would have been meaningless. The virtual ground system is totally independent from the Earth for its functioning and can work in a totally electrically isolated environment such as air-bound installations.
“Since both currents come out of these windings they are in phase and they are also in phase along the two transmission lines.”
NOT AT ALL! The currents flowing in and out from the balanced terminals of the transformers are and MUST BE 180° out-of-phase with respect to each other. That’s called counterphase or pushpull.
“The reason balanced transmission lines do not radiate, as you certainly know well, is that the currents are equal and opposite in each wire which creates fields which cancel for no net radiation.”
I have answered this point already a few lines here above, however, I would attract your kind attention to the fact that when people affirm that “a cancellation of field take place (in the free space)” they fail to reason about the general energy balance of such a system. If a supposed cancellation of fields has to take place, then, fields must be generated first and this is an energy consuming process. So, if a RF generator gives out a certain amount of energy per time unit (power) and this energy is transferred through a suitable balanced line of a reasonable length (neglectable losses) to a matched load and the power measured at the load is almost the same of what is originaly erogated by the generator,
where would the energy for the supposed field generation and its subsequent cancellation come from
??? Its a simple question but no-one seems to have raised the question. ehehehehehe!
Francesco Errante
Differential and Common Mode
“Since both currents come out of these windings they are in phase and they are also in phase along the two transmission lines.”
NOT AT ALL! The currents flowing in and out from the balanced terminals of the transformers are and MUST BE 180° out-of-phase with respect to each other. That’s called counterphase or pushpull.
Dear Francesco,
You have stretched my imagination regarding these types of circuits and I thank you for your patience in responding to my posts.
Your answer to my quote above is true if we are discussing the differential signal where the currents are equal and opposite, that is are 180 degrees out of phase. These would be the push-pull currents which supply power to the load but there is another current path that I was describing which is the common mode path where current into the center taps flows equally along both lines in phase.
This current into the center tap of the antenna end transformer is the antenna current which is supplied by the secondary of the transformer. For antenna current to flow there needs to be a a return path and this is via the “virtual ground” connection at the bottom of the transformer secondary winding. This produces the common mode current I refer to.
Let me ask you this: Have you confirmed by measurment that there is no common mode current in the transmission lines or that there is no radiation from these lines? This could be done by placing a current transformer around the lines or by using a loop antenna to probe for a signal near the lines. I have used both methods to confirm that there is current and radiation from the ground lead in a conventional antenna system as is predicted by theory.
If I were to duplicate your circuit for these tests there would remain the question that my constructed circuit is not exactly as you describe so it would be best if you do these tests on a system which you built.
It will take some time for me to study the references you kindly linked so please bear with me.
Neil
RE: Differential and common mode
on September 14, 2012 – 19:23 radio8z wrote:
“…but there is another current path that I was describing which is the common mode path where current into the center taps flows equally along both lines in phase.”
Dear Niel,
only DC currents can freely flow that way (and that’s the path for the electrostatic charges or lightnings to reach the Earth through the galvanic earth grounding shown in the schematic diagram of the Errante’s antenna), that’s because, when handling AC currents, transformers work operating vector sums and differences of the signals at their terminals, according to the phase difference angle between the signals. If you inject 2 equal currents, in phase with respect to each other, into the balanced terminals of a transformer, the 2 magnetic fluxes generated by them inside the transformer will be cancelling each other out, resulting in a zero induction on the output transformer winding.
Moreover, in a RF transformer, deliberately employed in that conditions, the two currents would not even get to flow inside it as each of the two halves of the transformer balanced windings would show an impedance with an infinite value, owing to the inevitable mismathing, hence no RF current, of this supposed origin, could flow through the virtual ground node.
“Let me ask you this: Have you confirmed by measurment that there is no common mode current in the transmission lines or that there is no radiation from these lines? This could be done by placing a current transformer around the lines or by using a loop antenna to probe for a signal near the lines.”
Of course, I have.
There is even a better way to verify that, which is not affected from self-induction from the field generated by the radiator. All it takes is two sets of ferrite sleeves (each long about 2 feet) placed contiguously on each of the two lines towards their ends, in order to make 2 equal RF chokes capable of stopping any common mode RF eventually flowing on the coaxial lines conductive shield.
This cannot be done with open lines, but, there is another non invasive way to check for radiation, and that’s by employing my own hertian radiation detector. See: http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/detector.htm
Thank you!
Francesco Errante
Fresh look
After considering Mr. Errante’s response describing how antenna current flowing in the center tap of the transformer primary is cancelled by the two halves of the primary, preventing common-mode current on the balanced transmission line, I agree and understand the mechanism for cancellation.
However, a different mechanism exists that will cause radiation from the “balanced transmission line”. This has been confirmed by SPICE simulation. Refer again to the second diagram at http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/antenna_errante.htm, which is the version we have been discussing.
The current in the secondary of transformer 9 must flow through the antenna to the ground counterpoise to produce radiation. Since the bottom of the secondary is connected only to the primary center tap, any circuit path to the counterpoise ground must flow through the primary windings. In actuality, this current flow is shifted from balanced to predominance in the primary half-winding that is wound in-phase with the secondary, while little current flows in the primary half-winding that is wound out-of-phase with the secondary. This results in the current flow in the two legs of the balanced transmission line being severely unbalanced.
It is interesting to observe that the equal-and-opposite relationship of the voltage across the balanced line IS maintained in the presence of the antenna current, and the voltage and current are unchanged in the secondary of transformer 9. However, the current is very definitely NOT equal-and-opposite on the transmission line. Current flows predominantly on just one of the wires. The transmission line is supplying the mandatory path to the counterpoise ground, but the path causes severe current imbalance in the line. This will most definitely cause radiation from the transmission line.
The “balanced transmission line” acts as a ground wire for an elevated antenna, although likely not as effectively due to losses incurred through the transformers. The “virtual ground” terminology is an extremely misleading choice of words.
This scheme will work, after a fashion, to feed an elevated monopole, but there is still that pesky radiating “long ground wire” going up to the antenna (this is an FCC rules issue for Part 15, license free operation in the US). And if that earth ground connection shown at the diagram bottom left is not connected, the mandatory counterpoise ground path will end up going through the transmitter AC mains ground connection via a very lossy and unpredictable route. Again the antenna will work, but compared to what?
A heavy gauge wire connected directly from box 10 to earth ground is mandatory for lightning surge protection. This will also provide the MOST effective, lowest impedance RF ground path for the antenna. If the wire is mandatory, why bother with the “virtual ground” and all the related boxes and transformers?
RE: Fresh look
on September 15, 2012 – 09:02 PhilB wrote:
PhilB, would you please stop playing with your simulator and open your eyes?
…This results in the current flow in the two legs of the balanced transmission line being severely unbalanced.
That’s not true, at all.
The network block within the chassis(4) is nothing else than a virtual ground Bal-Un network (another of my own patent) and, as such, it delivers a perfectly balanced signal at its terminals regardless of being earth grounded or not. This network – as clearly stated on its description – is not an essential part of the Errante’s antenna. However, it is necessary to drive the core network in chassis(10) if the RF signal does not come from a balanced source, as it usually happens with the modern standards (RF coaxial transmission line).
N.B. “The transformer(9) and the radiator/captator(1) are the essential parts of the VIRTUAL GROUND ¼ of wavelength MONOPOLE ANTENNA, they alone, infact, constitute a ¼ of wavelength monopole antenna with balanced input.”
I hope this clarifies the matter.
Francesco Errante
Heh
..would you please stop playing with your simulator and open your eyes?
An open mind might help too.
RFB
Confirmation Please
“Let me ask you this: Have you confirmed by measurement that there is no common mode current in the transmission lines or that there is no radiation from these lines?”
“Of course, I have.”
Am I to conclude from this that no net (in phase common mode) RF current is measured in the transmission lines?
We both understand and agree to the details of how the differential currents are processed by the transformers so we need not pursue this further, but we do not seem to agree on the role or presence of common mode currents. I do not envision how your system can work without common mode currents to establish the virtual ground when the virtual ground is required to carry current (the current from the low side of the antenna transformer secondary).
Neil
RE: Confirmation Please
on September 15, 2012 – 20:03 radio8z wrote:
Am I to conclude from this that no net (in phase common mode) RF current is measured in the transmission lines?
You can get RF stray currents flowing on the transmission lines coming from anywhere and you can even expose the transmission lines to a strong 3rd party RF emission but no common mode current can ever get flowing inside the transformer balanced winding to interfere with the system stability at all.
I do not envision how your system can work without common mode currents to establish the virtual ground
A virtual ground node can only be obtained by differential currents.
Apart from the DC, all the RF current going through the virtual ground node are regulated by the transformers, which reject the RF common mode currents, as previously explaned.
Francesco Errante
Answer Please
I accept that you can get stray RF current but what I asked, and have not seen answered, is have you measured the net current on the lines and was it zero? Yes or no please. You have said that you made the measurement and described a measurement technique but what was the result?
Thank you,
Neil
Re: Answer Please
on September 15, 2012 – 23:51 radio8z wrote
..have you measured the net current on the lines and was it zero?
Yes, indeed!
The direct measurement method is the following:
in order to verify if RF common mode currents are generated on the coaxial transmission line shields, during the Errante’s antenna RF network being in use, RF emission from the radiator(1) must be suppressed, by replacing the radiator(1) with a dummy load, (that’s done by closing the remote transformer(9) secondary winding circuit(13) on a non-inductive resistor having a resistance value equal to the radiator impedance value), then, once the network has been powered up, measurements can be carried out along the lines by using several kind of probes.
Francesco Errante
Again
There is a problem with this because closing the transformer secondary with a dummy load eliminates the displacement currents caused by the antenna which flow from the antenna through the ground. The only path for transformer secondary current is through the dummy load which is not the case with an antenna.
“…in order to verify if RF common mode currents are generated on the coaxial transmission line shields…”
This implies that common mode currents are expected. Are we both using the term “common mode” to mean currents which are in phase in the two transmission lines and which will not subtract to zero?
Sorry to repeat but I seek a specific answer so let me ask only one question: Was the net current on the transmission lines zero when measured with an antenna in place?
Neil
Actual Simulation Results
Mr. Errante,
I will not stop “playing” with the simulation. Simulators are well respected design tools used universally throughout the electronics industry as a powerful engineering tool. The results I provide below are an analysis of your circuit. You have consistently made claims about the “virtual ground” in this circuit, but have not provided any supporting technical information to back up your claims.
Using LTSpice. Source: 1 MHz, 7.07 VRMS through 50 ohm resistor to point 2. Load: 50 ohm resistor to ground at output point 1.
RESULT 1:
circuit in second drawing at http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/antenna_errante.htm with 50 ohm resistor connected between point 1 on the drawing and earth ground to represent an antenna load and to allow displacement current to flow in the secondary of transformer 9:
i_rsource: RMS(i(rsource))=0.0761394 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
i_xfmr9_sec: RMS(i(l6))=0.0676365 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
v_xfmr_9_ct: RMS(v(ct9))=0.169979 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
i_line1: RMS(i(v3))=0.0686575 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
v_line1: RMS(v(line1))=3.41614 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
i_line2: RMS(i(v4))=0.00683015 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
v_line2: RMS(v(line2))=3.43736 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
i_bal_sum: RMS(i(v3)+i(v4))=0.0676365 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
i_rload: RMS(i(rload))=0.0676365 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
Summary of these results: current in line1 is ~10 times higher than in line2. The sum of the currents in both of the parallel lines, i_bal_sum, is very high indicating a severe line imbalance. The transmission line will radiate (ref: http://www.comportco.com/~w5alt/antennas/notes/ant-notes.php?pg=6). Also, a non-zero voltage is present at the center-tap of transformer 9, v_xfmr_9_ct, which indicates this “virtual ground” point is not identical to real ground as you have claimed.
RESULT 2:
Same circuit EXCEPT an additional wire was added connecting the center taps of both transformers to provide a real ground connection between box 4 and box 10:
i_rsource: RMS(i(rsource))=0.0753898 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
i_xfmr9_sec: RMS(i(l6))=0.0681183 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
v_xfmr_9_ct: RMS(v(ct9))=0 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
i_line1: RMS(i(v3))=0.0350779 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
v_line1: RMS(v(line1))=3.43285 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
i_line2: RMS(i(v4))=0.0350779 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
v_line2: RMS(v(line2))=3.43284 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
i_bal_sum: RMS(i(v3)+i(v4))=1.02958e-005 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
i_rload: RMS(i(rload))=0.0681183 FROM 0 TO 0.00029
Summary of these results: currents in line1 and line2 are equal. The sum of the currents in both lines, i_bal_sum, is very low indicating a very good line balance.
I will be happy to send the LTSpice .asc source file (4KB) to anyone who wants it. Contact me through the Member Email page.
RE: Again
on September 16, 2012 – 01:03 radio8z wrote:
There is a problem with this because closing the transformer secondary with a dummy load eliminates the displacement currents caused by the antenna which flow from the antenna through the ground.
Dear Niel, there is no such a current that flows from the antenna through the ground (unless impedance mismatching take place). Since my discovery on how an radio-electric transducer work, the displacement current concept doesn’t hold true any longer. See:
http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/hertzian_radiation.htm
The only path for transformer secondary current is through the dummy load which is not the case with an antenna.
NO. It is not!
Having demonstrated how the radio-electric transduction take place (see above) and having been able to demonstrate that the a radiator can always get neatly separated from its feeding network, through the implementation of a ground node generator such as the one employed here:
http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/photos/bal-bal/dipole_no_line_radiation_high_power_sideview.jpg
It is now possible to affirm that, for the purpose of verifying a RF electric circuit any proper radio-electric radiator can be substituted by its equivalent dummy load.
The use of the radiators substitution with dummy loads is what make possible the perfect determination of the electrical specifications that leed to the perfect impedance matching in all the Errante’s RF circuitry.
With regard to the measurement method previously illustrated and, in general, in all the measurements where radiators are substituted by the dummy loads, ALL THE CURRENT PATHS ARE PRESERVED, INCLUDING ANY CONNECTION TO THE VIRTUAL GROUND NODE [lower end of the transformer winding(13)].
Francesco Errante
Groundless Theory
Francesco Errante wrote:
Dear Niel, there is no such a current that flows from the antenna through the ground (unless impedance mismatching take place). Since my discovery on how an radio-electric transducer work, the displacement current concept doesn’t hold true any longer.
In a previous post in this thread, I retracted and apologized for saying this is pseudoscience. I now wish to retract that retraction.
Mr. Errante has continued to evade questions by repeating previous meaningless answers, answering a different question than the one asked, referring to various pages on his web site that have no meaningful or just plain bizarre information, and ignoring technical proof contrary to his “theories”.
This indeed is pseudoscience, voodoo science, or any of the other similar terms that have been use by legitimate scientists to describe illegitimate science.
Do a google search for “Francesco Errante”. You will get quite a few hits. First ignore the singer with the same name. Then look closely at the other hits. Most are pages on his own web site and others are robot-generated “related links” on places like wikipeadia, answers.com and dxzone. I was not able to find any third party discussions of his “theories” or “Errante’s Laws”. Maybe if I spent hours searching, but I’m not inclined to waste any more time on this.
I strongly advise Part15.us readers to ignore this thread, forget it and move on. It’s not worth your time, other than for possible entertainment purposes. “A Beautiful Mind” was a great movie. Maybe we will see a sequel..
A Plain Mind
There is beauty in the fact that if you bring your ideas to part 15.us they will be reviewed, double-checked, cross-examined and voted up or down. Whether we always appreciate what gets said, we members are very fortunate to be part of such a committee of minds.
In the case of “The Errante Groundless Antenna” I am entertained, a purpose which has been left open by a critic of the science involved, but not simply by the Antenna itself.
I am entertained by the hope that can be felt at the discovery of something that could be more than we had before; a step into the future of antennas.
Also of entertainment is the exchange and argument that flies between continents and the art of phraseology composing the postings.
Even the disappointment has its depth of entertainment value: could our team have somehow missed the message of the new antenna? That would be disappointing. Is the new antenna not what we’d hoped? That would be disappointing. But those two disappoinments are exactly 180-degrees apart, and cancel each other out.
I do hope Francesco Errante stays with us.
My Conclusion
Rather than prolong this discussion between Mr. Errante and myself I think it best to state my conclusion that this system offers no advantage for use in Part 15 AM systems. This is based on my study of the diagram he presents HERE.
This circuit has been known to telephone engineers for over 100 years and has been used to establish “phantom” circuits to save wire. I used this circuit in 1968 while in graduate school to send signals over 4 miles of twisted pair lines, copying the telephone application and the principles of operation are well known to engineers and myself. Of paramount importance is that the lines be balanced, meaning the currents are equal and opposite in the two conductive paths. This is necessary in telephony to prevent cross-talk and in an RF application to prevent net radiation from the lines. Mr. Errante refers to this as balancing the impedances which has the desired result of balancing the feed line currents.
A network analysis of this circuit will show that if a dummy load is connected across the secondary (13) then a balanced load is presented to the lines through transformer action (9) and the currents in the lines (7) will be balanced (equal and opposite). Under these conditions no radiation will be produced by the lines.
Phil and I have independently simulated this circuit and the results of these show that the currents are balanced with a dummy load so connected.
Phil and I have also simulated this circuit with the dummy load connected from the antenna connection (1) to signal common (3) which models the actual monopole antenna and found that the feed line currents are unbalanced which implies radiation from the feed line. Phil also generously provided me with a copy of his simulation schematic which I ran and when compared with my simulation confirmed that we each had identical results.
Mr. Errante takes exception and claims that the dummy load connected across the transformer secondary (13) is equivalent to the monopole antenna. It is not equivalent because the current paths differ between the dummy load and the antenna. The dummy load creates balanced line currents where the monopole antenna does not. If these two loads are equivalent then there would be no need to replace the antenna with the dummy load for testing.
Other than the dialogue on this forum neither Phil nor I have found via web search any peer review of this system.
My previous experience, network analysis, and simulations all lead to the conclusion that there is feed line radiation when this system is used to drive a monopole antenna and thus it offers no advantage for use in a Part 15 AM system.
Neil
Transformer Phasings
Somewhere early in this discussion Mr. Errante made the statement that his design exists for long-length antennae, and he probably never knew about part 15 3-meter antennas until he arrived here in this thread, therefore Neil arrives at a correct conclusion by indicating there is no application in part 15 for the Errante invention.
The opportunities made available by combining transformers in various phase patterns is also known in the world of stereophonic signal handling, where transformers can convert left and right to both L+ R mono and L – R differential signal, as found in the coding of FM stereo.
The L + R / L – R technique is also employed with two microphones placed in close vertical array, one being cardioid and the other figure 8, to achieve mid-side stereophonic sound, probably the most efficient and economical way of producing excellent stereo that is mono compatible.
These techniques achieve making three channels out of two:
1) Left
2) Right
3) Mono
What A *^*#
Some here are rather intent on discrediting this guy’s PATENTED system, and trying their best to FORCE it’s design parameters into Part 15 MW, for which ANY dumb idiot can tell you it is NOT designed around Part 15 MW!!
Duh.
Mr. Errante, maybe it’s time someone ask the question that should have been asked a long time ago. Can your system be built around the US Part 15 AM band limitations, and would it perform at least equally or perhaps a little better than a monopole over a radial system or even a simple wire attached by a thumbtack to the roof?
Thank you.
And I HIGHLY recommend readers ignore the recommendation by Phil to ignore this information. Be creative, be inventive, don’t be shoved into a box by others who won’t step outside from the virtual into the real world. Those who are afraid of new discovery will do their best to convince you anything outside of the status quo won’t work, yet they don’t even attempt to build one and test. How ironic!
RFB
Patents
Some here are rather intent on discrediting this guy’s PATENTED system…
A concept does not need to be proven as technically valid to be awarded a patent.
Therefore the award of a patent does not mean that the claims in the application for that patent are technically valid.
Earlier in this thread, Mr Errante was asked to provide measured data comparing the groundwave field at 1 km from a 1/4-wave monopole driven against an r-f ground consisting of 120 x 1/4-wave buried radials, to the same monopole using only his “virtual ground” networks with no connection to an earth ground — other parameters equal.
So far he has not chosen to do that, which should be a point of interest to him and his supporters.
Photos
It would appear to me that this antenna system is technically workable, and currently in use based on the photos of the website.
No one here can make any claims to it’s validity until you yourselves build one and do the measuring.
A simulator can tell you that it’s raining outside, and not a drop around and sun shining.
The results in a simulator does not mean that the claims in the application or measured device are invalid because the simulator says it’s invalid. Only actual world measurement can validate it.
So far no one here has chosen to do that…ie the real deal in the real world.
RFB
Performance Validation
No one here can make any claims to it’s validity until you yourselves build one and do the measuring.
The performance of a 1/4-wave monopole driven against 120 x 1/4-wave buried radials has been proven in thousands of real-world MW field intensity measurements going back 60 years or more.
Mr Errante states that his new, “novelty,” virtual ground networks can duplicate this performance, but AFAIK no verifiable documentation is available to prove this.
Such proof is his responsibility to provide, as this is his concept.
Two Ways To One
This can be solved by one of two ways.
1. Mr. Errante provides that measurement between the 1/4 wave monopole over 120 buried radials and the virtual ground antenna system designed for the MW band.
2. Someone else builds Mr. Errante’s system for the MW band and do the comparative measurements.
Using traditional formulas and parameters in a simulator or real world between two entirely different antenna systems is in of itself an absolute conclusion….bogus.
Thus a different set of formulas and parameters MUST be applied to this type of antenna. Trying to force fit it into something else is rather ridiculous.
Is this design approach workable in Part 15 AM? Well, was the designer intending this design to work in Part 15 AM?
Can this antenna design work in the constraints of Part 15 AM, even if it only works equal to or slightly better than a simple wire or 3 meter monopole over buried radials?
Who says that improvement in a Part 15 AM system is limited to just efficiency of the final RF stage? What if this design approach IS better than a simple wire or 3 meter long whip over some radials?
Guess the only way to find out is to build one and run some tests.
RFB
RE: Two Ways To One
on September 17, 2012 – 01:02 RFB wrote:
Guess the only way to find out is to build one and run some tests.
That’s very wise of you.
BTW, my attention was attracted to this thread since the original “pseudoscience” comments made in it and not from any particular affinity with Part15 equipment.
As far as Part15 is concerned a suitable Earth grounding system is available here:
http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/capacitive_grounding.htm
Thank you!
Francesco Errante
Getting Hands Dirty
“That’s very wise of you.”
There’s nothing better than getting outdoors and seeing the wonderful reality all around us. Though I don’t totally dismiss simulations, I just do not believe in them to be the only means of determining things. For very good reasons too. Pure simulation input results in pure simulation output. Now input some real world numbers from actual real world measurements and it’s quite a difference in the result.
Thanks for posting here and providing valuable info!
RFB
Proof
Using traditional formulas and parameters in a simulator or real world between two entirely different antenna systems is in of itself an absolute conclusion….bogus.
I have not modeled/simulated his virtual ground networks. Rather I “cut to the bottom line,” which is: how does a monopole using his virtual ground compare to one using a conventional r-f ground connection?
As a test case I asked the patent holder for his real-world field intensity measurements comparing monopole performance using only his “virtual ground” with those using 120 x 1/4-wave buried radials.
The patent holder claims that the two antenna systems are equivalent.
But it it his responsibility to provide provable data that can be scientifically duplicated by others, showing that his claims are valid.
Why should he, or anyone else expect others to do that?
The Others Expected
It was said: “Why should he, or anyone else expect others to do that?”
The others who might be expected to provide validation of concept would be those with sufficient interest.
Challenging an inventor to prove himself becomes kind of “Missouri-ish”, the U.S. midwesterners with the custom of stubbornly refusing to believe with their slogan “Show Me”. Not a slogan to be proud about, I say, being in Missouri.
I think responsibility to dismiss an idea remains to be proven by the dismissive one.
Responsibilty
The others who might be expected to provide validation of concept would be those with sufficient interest.
Shouldn’t an inventor have more interest than anyone else in proving the validity of that invention?
I think responsibility to dismiss an idea remains to be proven by the dismissive one.
I haven’t dismissed his idea. I simply asked him to prove its validity — which as the patent holder of such an idea/concept, he should be willing to do.
Setting the Bar
The question of what we can expect from others is an interesting exercise in ethics or perhaps I mean manners.
I once provided technical services for a TV station experimenting with stereo. I used a mid/side microphone which totally flabbergasted the TV techs. They couldn’t imagine getting a wide-stereo image perfectly mono-compatible, as they had never encountered the MS microphone technique.
They asked me how I did it. I thought the question was impudent since if they knew about the MS technique they never would have hired me. For that moment in time it was my “secret recipe”.
Yet, as a technician, I’ve asked many engineers, “How did you do that.”
Details Are Important
“I have not modeled/simulated his virtual ground networks. Rather I “cut to the bottom line,” which is: how does a monopole using his virtual ground compare to one using a conventional r-f ground connection?”
First thought that comes to my mind in the question above is which type of operation does the question refer to..ie Part 15 AM or Part 73 AM.
Although a frequency span of the virtual ground antenna system states 1Mhz and up, it would appear that the system being discussed and presented on the inventor’s website is intended for the HF ham radio bands, 160m and up.
But the bigger question is this..is the antenna system discussed here workable in the Part 15 AM constraints if such a system were designed with the Part 15 AM constraints in mind…ie 3 meter length limit which includes any coax and ground.
With the Part 15 AM limits in mind, this virtual ground antenna system might be a great alternative to that simple wire or elaborate run of ground wiring along baseboards in an apartment setting, perhaps even a great alternative to an Isotron.
And it might also be a great alternative for those operating a Part 15 SW station.
“As a test case I asked the patent holder for his real-world field intensity measurements comparing monopole performance using only his “virtual ground” with those using 120 x 1/4-wave buried radials.”
Well here again the discussion is steered to a Part 73 AM facility when the information on the inventor’s website points to nothing of the sort. Adding also that this antenna was found by a fellow member and simply linked to it here at Part 15.us for others to check out. No where in the OP post is there any hint or suggestion that this antenna system would be a great Part 15 AM antenna system.
Now if your test case was referencing a 90 foot tall monopole over a 120 buried radial system for 160 meters, then I can see the reasons for comparing and would also be interested in those results.
Part 15.us isn’t about Part 97, or Part 73.
So were back to the question..can this design approach be applied to a 3 meter Part 15 AM antenna specifications and work at least as well as a simple wire or 3 meter monopole over some buried radials?
“The patent holder claims that the two antenna systems are equivalent.”
Perhaps they are, if the two antenna system comparisons are for a specific band..say 160 meters, or 80 meters etc.
So is the discussion about an antenna system for Part 15 AM use or Part 97 amateur radio use or Part 73 licensed AM broadcast band use?
“But it it his responsibility to provide provable data that can be scientifically duplicated by others, showing that his claims are valid.”
I agree that data should be provided for others to examine and conduct their own testing. Keep in mind that even with provided measured data, the inventor’s location is different from your location or my location or anywhere else. Those differences should not drastically change things however.
I am sure that while applying for the patent of the design, Mr. Errante had to prove the design by a working example, and by that I mean a real world working example. One obviously exists as seen in the photos of the website. Saying it is his responsibility to prove the system to you, me or anyone else doesn’t give the already patented design any more or less credibility that it is a viable and working system when in fact it is a working real world system carrying a patent.
“Why should he, or anyone else expect others to do that?”
Expect others to conduct the testing? Again, which particular testing are we talking about? A Part 73 system comparison, a Part 97 system comparison, or a Part 15 system comparison?
At this point I would rule out a Part 15 system comparison because it is obvious that the current antenna system is not designed around the Part 15 AM parameters..ie 3 meter length limit etc. I doubt the current antenna design would be very effective with those matching transformers intended to handle a bit more juice than 100mW, not to mention the coaxes and radiator lengths.
However the current design would be comparable with a vertical monopole over buried radials for 160m and so on, perhaps even for a Part 73 system, if it were designed for that band.
I don’t think this particular design is intended to work in the constraints of Part 15 AM rules. But I bet that Mr. Errante would be able to answer the question..can this design approach work within the United States FCC Part 15.219 rule constraints..ie is there a possible design approach based on the current virtual ground antenna system that would work in the Part 15.219 limits?
RFB
Out-of-sync postings.
Dear Sirs,
owing to some disfunctioning of the spam filter, a few of my posts have appeared with quite a delay.
PhilB, radio8z and RFB, please do take a look at them.
Thanks!
Francesco Errante
RE: My conclusion
on September 16, 2012 – 20:22 radio8z wrote:
“…It is not equivalent because the current paths differ between the dummy load and the antenna.”
It doesn’t differ at all. It is precisely coinciding and, as I said, the connection between the lower end of the transformer winding(13) and the virtual ground node(11), during dummy load operation, is also preserved.
“The dummy load creates balanced line currents where the monopole antenna does not.
Apart from the fact that the terminology you’re using is inaccurate, I get what you’re trying to say. That’s quite a bold affirmation you’ve made. That assumption CANNOT be substatiated in any way. Why are you taking that for granted?
“If these two loads are equivalent then there would be no need to replace the antenna with the dummy load for testing.”
The substitution of the radiator with a non-radiating load is advisable in order to pin point any possible RF leakage from the network. Electrically they are equivalent but one radiates and the other one doesn’t. That’s all.
As things stand, I invite you to come back on this matter ones you have built the system for testing it yourself.
Thank you!
PS: Personal attacks will get you nowhere.
Francesco Errante
http://www.Radiondistics.com
Re: Again – an addition
Further to what I have previously written in my “RE: Again” post, I wish to add that all it was previously said is, obviously, referred to the behaviour of the Errante’s antenna while on radiation/transmission mode. The observation of its electrical behaviour during RECEPTION MODE, offers, instead, the opportunity to track down the reverse path of the relevant currents and their vector operations (currents flowing from the antenna to the groung).
RF signals of suitable wavelength, either induced on the monopole(1) or directly injected into the network from its terminal(1) will be transformed in two equal and balanced signals to be fed into the twin line (differential mode) to be later recombined into a single un-balanced signal having a the same impedance value of the transmission line(2) which will deliver it to the radio-receiver. DC charges, instead, if wanted, can reach the Earth ground through a preferential path. (Earth grounding of chassis(10).
The Obvious
carl wrote: rich himself has talked of elevated ground radials, certainly up in the air above dirt ground….The virtual ground described by Mr. Errante makes perfect sense to my thinking, and I would go so far as to say that it’s obvious.
Buried radial conductors around a monopole serve as low-loss paths back to the antenna system for the r-f current present in the earth as a result of radiation by the monopole (please refer to the complete Brown, Lewis & Epstein paper linked in my earlier post in this thread). The current in those conductors is produced by radiation from the monopole itself.
However the current in elevated radial wires is produced by conduction of the current present on the “ground” reference of the elevated source — which current would not exist if that ground reference had the zero potential of the earth.
Such elevated monopole/radial systems need no connection to an earth ground for nearly 100% radiation efficiency, but that does require the elevated radials to be about 1/4-wavelength, each.
In summary, buried conductors used as the r-f ground reference for a monopole behave differently than elevated conductors used as a counterpoise for an elevated monopole.
So the question remains: How does the Errante virtual ground provide the conditions needed for a 1/4-wave monopole to have ~the same radiation efficiency using only that virtual ground with no connection to the earth, as provided when using 120 x 1/4-wave buried radials, or several symmetrically-arrayed, 1/4-wave, elevated wires as a counterpoise?
Myth and fantasious “functions”
Dear Rich, when I say “demonstrate” I mean providing experimental verifications and not just experimental attempts.
Buried radials are a very rudimental, or should I say rough, and lossy kind of a capacitive RF earth grounding system. The radials act as a distributed capacitive coupling to the Earth.
A proper RF Earth grounding system, employing lumped capicities is disclosed here:
http://www.radiondistics.altervista.org/capacitive_grounding.htm
You are very stubborn, my friend! You keep on asking the same thing, over and over again: “How does the Errante virtual ground provide these functions for a monopole, when the virtual ground components are not connected to the earth?” I have answere you already, now, I can only suggest you to try and get acquainted with the virtual ground concept and the technique to get a virtual ground node on RF circuit.
I see no point in continuing this exchange, unless you start doing some testing for your-self.
Best luck!
Francesco Errante
Verifications
F. Errante wrote: when I say “demonstrate” I mean providing experimental verifications and not just experimental attempts.
Just to note that the 1937 I.R.E. paper on this subject written by Brown, Lewis & Epstein IS experimental proof of the function of buried ground radials used with monopoles.