The KISS SSB Counterpoise - Revealed ( with Pics )

[svclanguage]

Originally Posted by daddle

Having beat that subject into the *ground* here's another question for the *engineers* in the crowd. My boat uses a considerable amount of 8cm wide copper foil in the ground system attached to the tuner ground. One clown told me with a straight face that RF would not travel to ground in a round wire so foil was a must. Others insist it is better but offer no reason. I understand its advantage in capacitive coupling to the seawater if run in the bilges. But other than that coupling is the advantage worth the trouble? Obviously if round wire does not make a good RF conductor we have a problem with the antenna itself ...

Any facts from science?

While you are correct about the capacitive advantage of foil, the main reason foil is better than a round conductor is due to the Skin Effect. Radio frequency current in a conductor tends to pass only through a thin layer on the outer surface of the conductor (only about 20 micro meter at 10mHz for copper). A flat or foil conductor will have much less resistance than a round conductor of similar cross sectional area as it has a much higher surface area per unit length. So, in a flat section of copper more of the copper conducts the RF current. Why is it OK to use round wire for antennas, the reason has more to do with what is practical than what is best.

Since this thread is about the KISS_SSB I assume your question is related to it. Resistance to RF current is probably the least of the reasons why the KISS-SSB is a poor counterpoise.

[ka4wja]

I've been busy lately and just saw these continued posts last night.....and debated whether or not to even bother responding as I suspect that if I do, I'm just feeding the hunger of trolls???
(When I hear people talk of antenna efficiencies and ground losses, I wonder if they really want to know, or do they just enjoy arguing???)

But, now I'm wondering if some would find some actual facts helpful???

{FYI, there is a tremendous amount of factual data regarding vertical antennas and "grounds"....much of the research and testing (>90%) has been done by/for:
a) specifically for MW broadcasting ("AM Radio" here in the US)
b) MF/HF amateur radio (ham radio)
With the remaining research being military/gov't (for VLF/LF/MF/HF), with only a very small amount applying directly to ship-borne maritime systems....

So, it takes some digging thru things to find direct applicable data...but it is there....and what you don't find directly can be interpolated fairly accurately...}


{Bottom line:
Ground losses on-board our boats varies between ~ 1/2db and as much as 10db (or more in extreme cases)....with typical cases in the middle, and the KISS at the bottom end....
You CAN improve your signal, by reducing these losses, significantly...as much as 6db improvement isn't difficult....
You can make the relative difference between radiating your whole 150 watts (or damn near all of it).....or as little as 20 watts (or less)...depending on what you use as an antenna ground (counterpoise, radials, rf ground, ground plane....whatever you wish to call it...)
Understand that a 6db loss is comparable to an output power of 37watts....and there are many who have ground system losses even greater than 6db....
Can I tell a 6db difference on-the-air?? YES, I can...
Can I tell a 3db difference on-the-air?? YES, I can....
Can I tell a 1db difference on-the-air?? No, not very well on HF....

If anyone wishes to see if they can tell the difference....get in touch with another boat a ways away from you, say after a net....and talk to them for a while at full-power and then both reduce power ("mid-power" is going to be about 3.5db difference) and continue on talking....and then after a while, both reduce to low power (20watts will be about 8.5db lower than 150 watts), and continue on talking for a while.....
Then both switch back-n-forth from hi, mid, and low power quickly (within a few seconds), comparing signal strengths and readabilities...
This works best if when starting contact (on high power) neither of you has a "perfect" copy on the other, but can still carry on a conversation (RST of say 35, or so)
If you do this with many, many boats....over days, weeks, years....you'll get a feel for what you can tell by just listening....but even if you're new to it, you can get a pretty good idea, even without using a S-meter...(nothing wrong with an S-meter, but there are few that are accurate/calibrated!!!)

The main reasons that the exact numbers aren't mentioned much is NOT because they are not known....but...
a) most just want it "better", and are not concerned (nor might not understand) the numbers...
b) there are many variables from boat to boat, and installation to installation, so exact numbers end up being a "range" of numbers, not just one number....}





Point-by-point....

Originally Posted by plebian99

The could be construed to be an over simplification when you consider the overall antenna efficiency equation. However the overall point is relevant, what is the efficiency impact on a short antenna of 1 ground system versus the other? How many ohms ground loss are we dealing with?

1) We need to define "antenna efficiency" and "ground loss", as well as antenna system "effectiveness" (see below)
2) Not sure if we need to measure it, as it can be pretty well determined by mathematics and interpolated from other tests....(see below) {Besides, a few years ago I "loaned" my OIB Imped Bridge to a friend who got a stat. engr. job offer up north, and he was supposed to return it a couple months...never heard from him again....
Now that I'm semi-retired I never bought another, but I still have my analyzers and rf current xformers/loops, which go a long way to prove my words....but, since I have no witnesses, you just take my word or not....}

Here are some "basic" definitions....

Antenna System Efficiency:
--- How many of the watts delivered to the antenna are actually radiated as RF / electro-magnetic energy.

Antenna System Effectiveness:
--- How much of this radiated RF is going where I want/need it to go. (radiation angle and direction)

Please take note that, obviously you CAN have an efficient antenna that is ineffective...
But also that you can have an antenna of low efficiency which is effective for your application (an example here is a short mobile-style whip, or a scrap of wire, etc. on a boat in the ocean...)



Ground loss:
--- The "ground" (stuff under the antenna and out a couple wavelengths = near field.....and out past a few wavelengths = far field) whether water or dirt, or copper wire, etc., has a large and important role in determining both the "efficiency" and the "effectiveness" of vertical antennas...
(although please understand that this is NOT the case for horizontal antennas, where the "ground" has little control on efficiency, but significant influence on effectiveness...)

Near-field losses contribute to lower antenna system efficiency....
--- In the near field, antenna return currents travel through the ground, and back to the antenna feed-point / base of the antenna.
The resistivity of this ground causes the I2R ground losses, and plays an important part in vertical antenna efficiency.
{Any RF resistivity in this system (whether dirt/earth, fiberglass, etc.) cause I2R ground losses, and any reduction in this resistivity reduces I2R ground losses....(sea water is NOT as conductive as copper, but is a VERY good RF conductor nonetheless....and since most here don't have a copper-hulled vessel, using the sea water as the "ground" significantly reduces ground losses...) and getting this "ground" connected to the antenna tuner in as low-loss way as possible, is a good idea as this reduces loss...
Adding radials and/or use of lifelines, etc. as radials, can also reduce ground losses, although since our vessels aren't too big in terms of wavelength (nor do we sail antenna platforms), it is difficult to reduce ground losses much further, compared to a direct-seawater connection and using the seawater to reduce these antenna return current losses...(but, happily the difference isn't large..) }
--- Also in the near field we have absorption losses, caused by the radio waves penetrating the ground. These are due to the interaction of the near-field energy-storage fields of the antenna and/or radials, with the ground.
These losses persist no matter what you use as a counterpoise (radials, etc.), but happily these losses aren't too significant in/over sea water!!


Although we are primarily discussing near-field losses...
Far-field losses can contribute negatively to both efficiency and effectiveness...(thankfully we don't have far-field loss to worry about over sea water!!)
--- Many wavelengths away from the antenna, the radio wave are reflected by the ground and combine with the direct wave from the antenna to form low-angle radiation. What is absorbed by the ground is far-field ground loss. The losses here in/over sea water are VERY VERY low, and since it is the reflection-coefficient that sets the pba, here over sea water the pba is extremely low (depending on what frequency, and on what book / formula this angle can be as low as < 0.5 degrees), above this angle the reflected wave adds to the direct wave, and at this angle the signal is -6db from a "perfect ground"...(whatever the "exact" number is for your communications, it is going to be very low!!)




Calculated losses:
Briefly...(haven't the time to write a treatise here...)
Buried / on-ground radial (even those a few inches above the ground) ground losses are well known...from 0.1 ohm (for 120 radials of 0.4-wavelengths long) to 30 ohms (for 2 radials of 1/8-wavelength long)....and even significantly higher with one or no radials at all.....this can mean as much as 6db (or higher) loss in the ground system...

Elevated radials (usually 1/4-wave resonant) must be "elevated" above the ground by significant height...(0.04-wave or higher), sailboat lifelines are "acceptable" here....(but, due to asymmetry, length and height, they are not optimal....but good nonetheless!!)
Modern computer modeling has actually shown better (lower-loss) figures than actual recent measured values......
Some of these measured values have shown that elevating radials by approx. 0.04-wavelength, reduces ground system losses by as little as 1db with 4 radials (and even as little as 0.2db for 32 radials), compared to "buried" or on-ground radials....
Other real-world tests have shown vertical antenna systems with as few as 6 - 8 elevated radials (elevated 0.05-wave high), exactly 1/4-wave long, have a comparable field strength to those using 120 buried radials.

Due to the inaccuracies of computer modeling regarding ground losses, and the quite varied test data from different real-world tests, it is not possible for me to give definitive answers for "elevated" radials...
But, suffice to say, they do work and work better than wires buried in the bilge....

I don't remember the exact figures (everything I'm writing here is off the top-of-my-head, as I'm not near any of my reference books) for the one real-world tests of elevated radials over seawater, but interpolating results from many other tests, etc. has shown that a few elevated radials (such as the lifelines) can reduce ground system losses by 3db (or more) compared to a few random wires buried in the bilge....and certainly much better than a KISS-SSB-Ground!!!

FYI, for those wishing to do some testing with consumer equipment, please save yourself effort and understand that (when using a 1/4-wave antenna as an example with a 36-ohm characteristic impedance), if the elevated radials are not connected to the ground (such as radials in our boats or isolated lifelines, etc.), measuring antenna impedance does not give you any indication of near-field ground losses....there will be no significant lowering of resistive impedance....

Originally Posted by plebian99

The only way you can counter this high angle radiation (from radials) is by adding lots of long radials.
Actually not true at all....
Buried radials do not produce unnecessary high radiation angles....

And, neither do elevated radials that are symmetrical (3 or 4, evenly spaced)....and although not necessary for cancelling of high-angle radiation, preferably resonant (1/4-wave)
{note that NONE of these specifics apply to our boats, as we cannot elevate the radials enough (0.04-wave high at MINIMUM, and preferably twice that), nor have enough radials fit in/on our boats, nor have resonant radials (detuned by many other things on-board, not to mention each other), and MOST IMPORTANTLY we do not have the room for a symmetrical radial / ground plane....
So, the mention of how to counter any high-angle radiation from radials on-board is a pretty moot point, and I suspect one brought up just to confuse the issue!!!}






We dealing with bits of wire or foil installed in a haphazard manner with no consideration of where the highest RF current density is and hence where the highest loss is. Huh??
For end-fed antennas 1/4-wave (or shorter) the highest current density is at the base of the antenna, and hence where the highest ground loss occurs....and while for longer antennas (up to 1/2-wave long) ground current rises as you move away from the antenna base, with a peak at about 0.35-wavelength from the antenna base/feed-point attained with a 1/2-wave long antenna...
Hence this is why radials are not only required/recommended even with 1/2-wave and/or 5/8-wave antennas, but that the adage of "many shorter radials is better than a few longer ones" (which applies to so-called current-fed antennas of 1/4-wave or shorter), does NOT apply to longer antennas....
Marketing hype notwithstanding (for end-fed half-waves not needing radials), the research was done a LONG time ago (decades before I was born!!)

Sorry if I seem to be so intense about this, but it just gets to me that such a simple concept which had detailed research published since the 1930's is held up as a "mystery"....
Come on....this is NO mystery....."The phase and magnitude of earth currents near transmitting antennas" was published in 1935!!!

And, nobody was advocating any "haphazard" system design/installation.... Rather to the contrary, I've always advocated having the sea water connection as close as possible to the antenna base/feed-point, and using as low-loss/low-inductance connection method as practical on-board...(certainly not haphazard!)





I find it amusing that there is so much debate about ground systems when so much more could be gained by optimizing the antenna system dynamics such as loss and takeoff angle. Everyone speaks as if their antenna systems are perfect on all frequencies and have uniform characteristics on all frequencies.
I assume you are not a sailor, or at least not an ocean cruiser/voyager.... as it seems you're not familiar with the facts that most of the boats we are sailing on have a mast held up by 316 Stainless Steel Wire, which we insulate and feed as an antenna of appropriate length for low-angle radiation on our most necessary frequencies....
And our antenna systems need to work effectively (note I did not write efficiently) from approx. 2mhz thru 26mhz....(and of course it can't cost too much money..
We simply accept the "loss" of the stainless steel wire vs. copper...
And determine the length of our antennas by deciding what freqs we most often require low-angles of radiation on, and accept less desirable angles of radiation on other less important (or less effected) frequencies....

I do not recall anyone touting that their antenna system was "perfect" nor "optimum" on all frequencies....Where in the world do you get that from???

What I find amusing (actually disturbing) is that you seem to write like your knowledge is so "superior" to others, and the fact is obvious that you don't really understand that we ALL have known/accepted and calculated/planned-for these other "amusing antenna system dynamics" a LONG time ago....
(I actually was schooled in HF vertical performance dynamics in the early 1970's....about 40 years ago....and most others here also know/accept/understand these "dynamics" very well....)

Perhaps we should all take a step back and not pontificate so much???




Nobody here or on any other forum has quantified ground loss over seawater, so saying that any ground is better than any other is just pure speculation. It is even more irrelevant when you cant show its impact on antenna efficiency. Especially we have no impedance versus frequency data that allows us to calculate efficiency.
--- I'm sorry, but I just can't read (and respond) and further...
I, for one, am NOT speculating.....just because I don't have the time to write a treatise on this subject, nor point out your ignorance (and arrogance) point-by-point, doesn't mean that I do not have the knowledge / information...
BTW, since you seem to have more time than I do, why didn't you simply write the answers here, instead of insulting the many sailors/cruisers who are interested in learning????

Arghh!!
I give!!!
I tried....but when I look down the page and the rest of the pontification, I realize that I'm wasting my time, trying to separate out things line-by-line, item-by-item....
You win!!!

So, here are some of my final words on this matter (I'm done trying!!!)....
Believe them or ignore them...your choice, I will not attempt to persuade you....no will I post further in th thread, just to time consuming!!

Whether you accept the "quantifications" or not, here are some FACTS:
For our typical 40' - 50' long sailboats, with a sloping, automatic-tuner-fed / base-fed, vertical antenna (backstay) of typically 40' - 50' long, starting at the extreme aft end of the vessel (within a few feet of the sea water in height and horizontal distance), using this antenna for MF/HF communications (from ~ 2mhz thru 28.5mhz)::::

a) --- Making a short (as close to the auto-tuner ground lug as possible) low-loss/low-inductance direct connection to the sea water as the antenna ground ("RF ground" / "counterpoise" / etc..), gives a reasonably low-loss ground and allows for decent antenna efficiency throughout the range of freqs/uses....
It is NOT a "perfect" antenna...but it is typically better than most others, for the wide applications required...

While wide, flat copper strapping gives much lower loss / lower inductance than round wire (14ga wire has 48% higher inductance than 3" wide copper strap, and even 0000ga wire has 11% higher inductance than 3" wide copper strap, and copper strap is pretty cheap), when making the ground connection... Make no mistake that RF currents obviously do flow thru round wire....it is just the loss in the wire is greater (see SSCA posting
http://www.ssca.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14156&start=15 ) and when trying to get the rf currents to/from the sea water and the antenna feed-point, a lower loss in the ground system is good!!! / improves antenna efficiency and effectiveness!!

b) --- Using "radials" (as many and as long as possible)....and/or using lifelines, pushpits, toerails (under the anodizing), etc.... can also provide a decent ground for the antenna....

c) ---- The KISS-SSB-Ground does not provide a low-loss / low-inductance ground for the antenna.....
Is it better than nothing at all, yes...
Is it better than a few random scraps of wire tossed in the bilge, NO!!!
Is it worth the money, NO...(my opinion here!)

Although it was NEVER my intention to pan the KISS, nor insult anyone who has one installed....
I think I "proved" that the KISS is inferior (by many db, in most cases) to other types of ground (especially compared to a direct sea water, and lifelines), even though I didn't measure the "ohms" as was requested...

Why you'd need that for proof is beyond me, as I "proved" > 6 months ago that I had higher RF antenna current with a direct sea water connection than with radials and that even that was higher than the KISS...but whatever...

Here (above) I provided the theory that "proves" the results!!!

So, to sum up:
I told of my RF antenna current results....
I told of the on-air results...
I told (and showed) the non-resonance traces / results...
I told of real-world ground loss tests...
I told of computer modeled results...
I told of the basic theory...
I told of the wealth the research done for > 75 years....

I'm honestly not sure what else would satisfy you....but whatever it is, I don't have the time....

I do hope that is enough...
If not, you're on your own!!!
I'm outta' here!!

Sorry, I just don't have the time to continue with this, item-by-item....
Fair winds to all...

John
s/v Annie Laurie



BTW, on a side note, a few years ago I good friend e-mailed me a funny article about "how to use buzz words" and "how to influence and BS people", with them thinking that you really know what you're talking about, all WITHOUT you actually saying anything coherent....
I thought some of you might like it....it's kind of cool to think of how much BS we read/hear that is written/spoken by those that are really ignorant!!!
Have fun...

What is said What is meant

1. It has long been known that. . . I haven't bothered to look up the
original reference but. . .

2. Of great theoretical and Interesting to me
practical importance. . .

3. While it has not been possible The experiment did not work out,
to provide definite answers to but I figure I could at least get
these questions. . . a publication out of it. . .

4. This system was chosen as This is what I had handy and/or I
especially suitable to show "borrowed" it from the lab next door. . .
the predicted behavior. . .

5. Three of the samples were chosen The results on the others didn't
for detailed study. . . make sense. . .

6. Accidentally strained during Dropped on the floor. . .
mounting. . .

7. Handled with extreme care Not dropped on the floor. . .
throughout the experiment. . .

8. Typical results are shown. . . The best results are shown. . .

9. Agreement with the predicted
curve is. . .
excellent fair
good poor
satisfactory doubtful
fair imaginary

10. It is suggested that. . .
It is believed that. . .
It may be that. . . I think. . .

11. It is generally believed A couple of other guys think so
that. . . too. . .

12. It is clear that much additional a. I don't understand it. . .
work will be required before a b. My grant is up for renewal. . .
complete understanding. . .

13. Unfortunately, a quantitative a. Nobody else understands it either.
theory to account for these b. Guess the subject of my grant
results has not been formulated. proposal.

14. Correct within an order of Wrong. . .
magnitude. . .

15. Thanks are due to Joe Smith for Smith did the work, and Doe
assistance with the experiments explained what it meant.
and to John Doe for valuable
discussion.

16. It is intuitively obvious to Well I saw the derivation for this once,
the most casual of observers. but I can't find it now, and it is
way too complicated to add in the book,
and anyway, I'm not very casual today.

17. The derivation is left to the I couldn't find the derivation in any of my
reader. reference books, and I couldn't figure it
out, so you go figure it out! (And when you
do, please send it to me).






Assumed to be first published by a 63-year-old official named Philip Broughton, while working at the U.S. Public Health Service, a sure-fire method for converting frustration into fulfillment (jargonwise). Euphemistically called the Systematic Buzz Phrase Projector, Broughton's system employs a lexicon of 30 carefully chosen "buzzwords":


Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

0. integrated 0. management 0. options
1. total 1. organizational 1. flexibility
2. systematized 2. monitored 2. capability
3. parallel 3. reciprocal 3. mobility
4. functional 4. digital 4. programming
5. responsive 5. logistical 5. concept
6. optional 6. transitional 6. time-phase
7. synchronized 7. incremental 7. projection
8. compatible 8. third-generation 8. hardware
9. balanced 9. policy 9. contingency

The procedure is simple. Think of any three digit number, then select the corresponding buzzword from each column. For instance, number 257 produces "systematized logistical projection," a phrase that can be dropped into virtually any report with that ring of decisive, knowledgeable authority. "No one will have the remotest idea of what you are talking about," says Broughton, "but the important thing is that they're not about to admit it."


Here is an alternative set of Buzzwords....


Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

0. integrated 0. encoded 0. optimizer
1. asynchonous 1. programmable 1. converter
2. analog 2. monitored 2. reactor
3. parallel 3. reciprocal 3. transducer
4. functional 4. demodulated 4. interface
5. transferable 5. logic-based 5. buffer
6. digital 6. transformational 6. filter
7. synchronized 7. incremental 7. instrument
8. compatible 8. fifth-generation 8. regenerator
9. balanced 9. time-phase 9. generator

[ka4wja]

daddle,
Sorry I missed your post/question....
And, while others have tried to answer you, here is a fairly accurate/least complicated answer....

Originally Posted by daddle

One clown told me with a straight face that RF would not travel to ground in a round wire so foil was a must. Others insist it is better but offer no reason. ....
... But other than that coupling is the advantage worth the trouble? Obviously if round wire does not make a good RF conductor we have a problem with the antenna itself ...
Any facts from science?

~~~~ Facts from science:
1) Obviously RF does flow thru round wire, even in a "ground" system... (don't believe the "clowns")
2) Resistance to RF flowing is less in conductors with larger surface areas (such as copper strapping vs. round wire)
3) The "scientific" formulas are not complex....(any clown that cannot at least point you to them, is someone of questionable abilities in this "circus"!)
4) The primary "scientific" reason that a short length of wide copper strapping is recommended for antenna grounds on boats is to allow a lower-loss / lower inductance connection to the sea water (where the sea water is being used and an antenna ground / counterpoise, NOT the copper...)
Although it should be noted that many radio dealers/installers do NOT understand this, and they mistakenly assume that the short length of copper strapping IS the antenna ground, and since they were told to "always use wide copper strap" for connecting the antenna ground, the erroneous information continues to spread!!!
5) The primary "scientific" reason that many are told to use "lots of wide copper strapping in the bilges" is (as you mentioned) to allow some capacitive coupling to the sea water, for your antenna ground....
Although, it has been proven by real-world tests many years ago (and by some calculations) that this "capacitive coupling" is inferior to a direct sea water connection, this approach is still used by some....
6) Further, with short vertical antennas (short in terms of wavelength), such as those 1/4-wave or less, RF ground currents are highest at the antenna base / feed-point, and having the lowest loss possible in this close proximity area is also a plus....and since many of the "old myths" come from the days of 23' whips and/or smaller boats with shorter backstays, AND these users mainly confined to 2mhz thru 8mhz (and sometimes 12mhz), these shorter antennas and lower freqs meant that the rf ground currents were always quite high AND that rf ground quality was an even larger determiner of performance that it is on other designs....
So, here again is another "scientific" reason for the recommendation of wide copper strapping....


~~~~~
So, the above were the "scientific facts" that you asked for....here are the formulas and calculations....
(Note that I posted these formulas and did these calculations last year, and linked to that SSCA posting earlier....but I'm sure it got lost in amongst all my ramblings..)
7) The formulas:
Calculating Inductance in copper....

Round Wire:
L = 0.508 l [2.303 log10 (4 l/d)-0.75] x 10-2

Flat Strap:
L = 0.508 l [2.303 log10 (2 l/w+t)) + 0.5 + 0.2235 (w+t)/ l] x 10-2



8) The calculations:
Using the 3" (8cm) wide (100" / 2.5m long) copper strap as my "control" inductance, here are the results:

--- 4/0 ga (0000 ga) wire has 11% more inductance than 3" wide copper strap...
--- 14ga wire has 48% more inductance than 3" wide copper strap....



~~~~~~~

9) Finally to the "tough question"...

Originally Posted by daddle

... is the advantage worth the trouble?

Well, in my opinion, YES....
But, others may have a different opinion....

The reason I answer yes, is multi-fold:
a) If using the wide copper strapping to run to a direct sea water connection....It will allow a lower-loss/lower inductance connection....
b) The costs of 3" wide copper strapping is NOT too high....here in the US, it'll cost you less than $3/ft....so if you use the typical run of 8' - 10', that's < $30 USD....compared to the cost of the radio, etc. that is cheap...
http://www.gacopper.com/012-CopperStrap.html

http://www.gacopper.com/Braid-Strap-...omparison.html

http://www.gacopper.com/022-CopperStrap.html



10) Here is a link to the SSCA Disc Board thread where this was discussed last year....
SSCA Forum &bull; View topic - A Few SSB Install Questions



Please take note that I use the words strap and strapping, NOT foil....
If you can cut the copper easily with a pair of scissors, it probably thin "foil"....and thin foil is too thin to hold up longterm on-board....
I use heavier copper strapping....(I actually use .022" thick strapping....but .012" strapping is fine for most)
Put a coat or two of paint (or epoxy) on it (except for the very ends, where you're making the connection), and it will last you decades...

Whatever ground / antenna design and connections you choose, I also use and recommend Penatrox-A,, which is a conductive grease specifically designed to improve/maintain electrical contact between metals (especially dissimilar metals), and keep that connection fairly water-resitant....
I've been using it for 30 some years now....works great!!




I do hope this answers your question, and that I didn't ramble too much!!


Fair winds.

John
s/v Annie Laurie

[CAELESTIS]

Ok, I'll bite. I have a KISS, it works great, but I am willing to try my own experiment with a 25' copper strap to the nearest continuously submerged thru-hull.

What is the preferred method of attaching the strap to the hull? 5200? Epoxy? Carpet tape?

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by CAELESTIS

Ok, I'll bite. I have a KISS, it works great, but I am willing to try my own experiment with a 25' copper strap to the nearest continuously submerged thru-hull.

What is the preferred method of attaching the strap to the hull? 5200? Epoxy? Carpet tape?

No, first try a single piece of AWG14 wire like they claim will out perform the KISS There must be a reason nobody really compared it with actual transmissions between boats.

For the copper foil, I used 5 minute epoxy to attach itto the hull and painted it with BilgeKote from International IIRC.

[senormechanico]

If all you are doing is an experiment, you don't really need to attach it to the hull at all.
Just make sure to keep it as straight as possible on the way to the thruhull.
Sharp bends become inductive and capacitive which you don't want.
It's the same theory about lightning grounding not having sharp bends.

[ka4wja]

Caeletis,
In brief, a 25' run will most likely be acting as a radial / counterpoise itself....not necessarily a bad thing, but you might not see much difference between using that 25' strap connected to the underwater thru-hull vs. not having that end connected to anything...
This is the reason that using a keel bolt / external lead keel, as a connection point to the sea water has varied results...
And, your results might be the same, i.e. varied....although it should outperform the KISS, this long length does present issues...

Originally Posted by CAELESTIS

I am willing to try my own experiment with a 25' copper strap to the nearest continuously submerged thru-hull.

What is the preferred method of attaching the strap to the hull? 5200? Epoxy? Carpet tape?

On the lower freqs (4mhz particularly), you might find this long length of strapping (25') to be okay, but I doubt that on the higher freqs (12mhz / 14mhz, and above) that you'll find too much difference whether it is connected to the sea water or not....

Do the experiment if you choose, but understand that in order to use the sea water as your antenna ground (vs. the copper in the boat), the length and inductance of the connection from the antenna tuner to the sea water is the major determiner of your sea water grounds performance...

Further for just an experiment, no need to secure it at all....
And, while sharp bends are not usually recommended, they are not too influential to overall performance....it is the length, clean connections (and a clean underwater metal), and overall inductance that matters here....



Fair winds to all....I'll be "unsubscribing" to this thread....

John
s/v Annie Laurie

[CAELESTIS]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

If all you are doing is an experiment, you don't really need to attach it to the hull at all.
Just make sure to keep it as straight as possible on the way to the thruhull.
Sharp bends become inductive and capacitive which you don't want.
It's the same theory about lightning grounding not having sharp bends.

Well I already put the strap in, held in position with tape. There are a few bends done like Jedi post #157. Now that I joined the club of the tortured copper strap installers, I might as well finish it.

[svclanguage]

Originally Posted by CAELESTIS

Ok, I'll bite. I have a KISS, it works great, but I am willing to try my own experiment with a 25' copper strap to the nearest continuously submerged thru-hull.

What is the preferred method of attaching the strap to the hull? 5200? Epoxy? Carpet tape?

What is it that you want test in your experiment, is to show that the kiss is similar to a piece of wire 14' long or do you want to compare kiss to seawater ground or other counterpoise.

In either case you will need some way to quickly disconnect the kiss and connect to other ground/counterpoise to attempt to eliminate changes in propagation. Another confounding factor is radiation angle that might change when you change counterpoise. To help eliminate this factor you need stations at various distances and bearings. You also might want to test at multiple frequencies.

As others have posted, 25' is a long run, but will help at lower frequencies say 8Mhz and less. Perhaps you have some metal closer to the tuner such as rudder post where you can connect short piece of flexible wire like marine grade #10 between post and tuner or copper strap whichever is closer. While most of the post and metal structure is not in direct contact with water it is in close proximity which helps. Hose clamp is one way to connect wire to rudder post.

For more on HF SSB counterpoise see: http://bigdumboat.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=21

Rick

[plebian99]

I think you missing the point of the rant.

I am very familiar with the limitations of antennas installed in yachts. So with this in mind by how much can you really improve actual antenna radiation efficiency. You criticize me for contributing nothing yet you accept the endless pages of unscientific prattle from hams telling people to do things that is just voodoo at best.. Did you stop and actually ask yourself what exactly are you or they trying to improve? Does it actually need improving. The KISS ground system raises some very interesting questions which directly relates to the rant. Putting aside whether the KISS is a good ground or just a piece of wire. The KISS directly points to the point that I am trying to convince you people off. If you connect any ground system and you have ground loss the signal should improve. Being that the KISS is considered a lousy ground system and users report good results does this not prove the point that ground loss is already at the lowest it can be and anything more than the KISS is a waste of effort? So who is kidding who with all this expert ground wisdom when you cant quantify the ground loss size or problem?

All the ground experts would have more credibility when they quantify and measure the ground loss. When they do this regardless of antenna size or type(assuming verticals) we will know automatically what the radiation efficiency is. Then regardless of what antenna is chosen we will know exactly what the efficiency will be on any marine frequency. Its really so simple its a no brainer. Despite the thousands of yachtmans who have complained about all the SSB ground mumbo jumbo, nobody here has actually explained to them why they need to reduce ground loss. They cant explain why they need to reduce ground loss because they dont know what the ground loss figure is. The average yachtman can understand what the voltage drop on a piece of wire will be and the impact it has on delivering current. RF has the exact same efficiency formula yet the so called experts dont even understand this simple formula that is just as simple as voltage drop versus distance on a chart.

You have John Ka4WJA giving me a whole 5 pages out of the ham folklore book about ham books and what Brown did over land. Then he conveniently extrapolates the data to be applicable over seawater. He then plucks a ground loss figure from the air. All amusing stuff to say the least. What has he proven? Absolutely nothing and contributes very little to how the average yachtman can install an effective SSB ground system. I suppose if he quantified the ground loss the answer for all yachts people would be a universal answer regardless of antenna type. Ground loss does not change if you have sailing a Beneteau or Pacific Crealock fibreglass yacht. Its a constant.

Again when all you technical experts have real measured data then you can argue you point and have credibility. Since you do dont have the answer that allows a simple yachtsmen to do some simple maths that explains the impact of one ground system versus the other, all you are preaching is anecdotal voodoo that has no scientific basis.

You have people who are measuring the KISS and measuring all the wrong things that does not prove or disproves its efficiency. When you evaluating a ground system and you ignore its impact on ground loss resistance you lose all your technical credibility I am sorry to say. Likewise when you pick a ground loss figure from the air and want to give other yachts people advice on how to fix the problem this is even more laughable when you dont know what the ground loss resistance is.

All the books that all these hams so conveniently quote from has all these formulas and data there in them. They actually have measured the improvement that a good ground system makes over a poor ground system over land. The caveat is that they actually know what the ground loss resistance is of the soil. Yet here we dont know what that ground loss resistance figure is of yacht sitting on saltwater. The experts conveniently brush this information under the carpet and then go on to say that they are experts and have all the answers. If they had the actual ground loss resistance figure you could then publish a 1 page chart in a sailing magazine that allows any sailor to install a ground system. Yes, its that easy. But again we have the experts prattling pages of diatribe year after year and year after year people are still having problems despite all the advice from the RF wizards.

In my rant I am calling you guys out on the mumbo jumbo that you all are preaching. I am sorry to say most of it is all anecdotal rubbish thats not backed by meaningful measured data or solutions. Its meaningless since you dont know what the ground loss resistance is. How can you honestly give ground advice even with the variability of different antennas if you dont know what the ground loss resistance is. Hey maybe the can of bake beans will work as well as KISS. Skeptical prove it with the ground loss figure!

I am KISS Skeptic however the KISS is really pointing out the failings of the ground experts. Nobody here can quantify the size of the problem or what it is that you really trying to solve. Since you cant quantify the problem how can you really say the KISS is effective or not. Maybe a can of bake beans connected to the ground terminal achieves the same thing as the KISS. Some will laugh but we can actual calculate how efficient a can of bake beans is as a ground system. All we have here is a lot people screaming ground cookbook recipes that has as many permutations and combinations as the milky way.

Again the Antenna radiation formula is a simple half a line formula and it seems the ground experts here have never seen it or used it. If they use this formula with data that they measured they would offer a firm and precise answers to the impact that the KISS or a can bake beans will have when connected to the ground terminal. Since all we have is 5 years of cut and paste and endless meaningless anecdotal reports, and no measured data, its no wonder 3/4's of the sailing world is totally confused by all endless crap on ground systems year after year.

Again the rant is very simple, put up the data or shutup. All we seem to have endless pages of contribution more about enhancing ones "SSB ground Expert status" and look at me " I am expert ham" that has read books for 40 years but I cant tell you how to fix the problem. Really enough is enough, engineers deliver solutions and answers not more voodoo techno babble that makes one become a good researcher into voodoo forums not a practical SSB user.

Sailors want effective tools that work. Science provides the answers it seems many here have forgotten the basics and are totally twisting and ignoring the science.

Oh my contribution is this, what is the measured ground loss resistance? Dont know I thought so! So that makes most of the ground advice nonsense? Must I start telling stories about the war and how much DX I worked the other day that proves the ground loss resistance? Measure it boys and girls then you can really help the sailing world with delivering a minimum acceptable RF ground system.

Originally Posted by Mystic38

wow... rant much?

given the thread is about the KISS, its effectivity, its cost effectiveness and then suitable options, exactly how does your practical experience on cruising sailboats help in this topic?....ah, i see you had nothing to contribute after 1000 words +/-

If you had any experience of sailboat SSB installations, you would note that there is a real limitation on antenna instals.. an insulated backstay accounts for likely 98%, followed by a whip, and a retractable spool of cable and sundry others.. So on a sailboat, the antenna is what it is... you can model this antenna till the cows come home if you wish, but it still is what it is... an insulated backstay or a whip or a piece of wire.

So, these leaves improvement in the counterpoise as the viable option for improved signal performance... and recall that the counterpoise installation is the single biggest headache in a SSB install. period...but again, after 1000 words +/- you had nothing to contribute.

I would thank everyone who has taken time and effort to discuss, explain and contribute positively to this (still) most important topic. counterpoise

[plebian99]

John

With all due respect.

You going off on a million tangents.

The antenna efficiency formula is very simple formula.

Marine radios dont have calibrated S-meters.

Browns study was made over land not seawater.

You need to know what the ground loss resistance is so the basis for your assumptions are all wrong. You factoring in factors that are largely irrelevant although important if you want to be anal about it. Whats the antenna radiation efficiency it depends on the ground loss resistance. Why is this so hard to understand?
I can produce a chart for antenna efficiency on 2 mhz versus the size of RF Ground system. What part of this picture dont you understand that you shooting off in every direction?

You dont know what the ground loss resistance over seawater is on the typical yacht. Dont pluck figures from the sky measure it!

All you have is anecdotal data that is applicable to that day, month, sunspot numbers and cycle period. Anecdotal reports have no meaning to anyone else.

Again all your ham signal strength testing methods is just flawed.

If you want test signal strength. Here is how you do it.
1. Model the antenna over seawater.
2. From the plots work out the takeoff angle.
3. Position your measuring antenna in the peak of the main lobe.
4. Connect your calibrated antenna to the calibrated spectrum analyzer.
or
Do as you did with the KISS. Do a return loss on your spectrum analyzer in the near field with your measuring antenna connected to one port in the near field. Its a very accurate way of measuring the impact of ground loss and ground system efficiency.

Please dont even talk to me about measuring ground system loss by switching between two ground systems on a boat using a HF radio as a signal level meter. Man this is so flawed and you know why its flawed.

You stating all the basic points that everyone understands.

Lets just stick to the ground loss figure and what impact any ground system will have on the radiation efficiency. Thats all that should concern me you and the average yachts person.

The bottom line is this. Once you know the ground loss figure you can easily measure the impact that any ground system has on the radiation efficiency of any antenna system. You can can quantify exactly how much better one ground system is over another by using the worst case radiation efficiency example. Why is this so hard to understand?

If you look in your ham text books you can see a simple chart that exactly shows the efficacy of one ground system versus another. Its just a simple matter of then extrapolating it across to the radiation efficiency formula.

You can produce a chart that simply says.

KISS 10% efficient
3 copper foil strips 15 % efficient
10 copper foil strips 20 % efficient
30 short radial 25 % efficient
Fuel tank as ground 12 % efficient
Can of bake beans 2% efficient
120 radials on your mega yacht 100% efficient and so on.

An efficiency table like this is all that the average sailor needs. Its simple for any decent ham or RF engineer to produce such a table. Its so simple its a nobrainer.

We have had years and years of debates by many in numerous sailing forums and there has been no data produced like this. Is the lack of data a indication of how poor the RF Ground Experts understand the topic? I think so because the same old dead cat is dragged out year after year in every sailing forum.

If we are engineers or technical enthusiasts we have failed the sailing audience in a miserable way because the answer is just so simple. If other hams or engineers cant understand these simple formulas and the way RF ground system can be tabulated in very simple efficiency table they really need to re-educate themselves and stop wasting other sailors time preaching all this nonsense.

All yacht use vertically polarized antennas so the antenna efficiency formula is directly applicable and so is the ground loss Delta. When we know the ground loss delta it would very easy for anyone to bury this subject once and for all and quantify the efficiency of all RF ground systems. Rather than endless diatribes from posts in forums its really time someone did some really RF engineering measurements. This subject has been flogged to death in ham publications and the ground dog put out of its misery. When will this ideal reach the sailing world. All I can say is that I wish I had a dollar for all the postings in forums on SSB ground systems! This crap year after year really has to end. I am not surprised that most sailors have tuned out and turned off or avoided SSB altogether.

The final point is that despite KISS ground systems failings as a universal and efficient ground system. There will be at some frequency that the KISS ground will offer a more than acceptable RF ground system. Anyone who denies this vital fact about the KISS clearly has a poor understanding of how RF ground actually work. Another point in fact is that on many frequencies the typical backstay becomes a voltage fed antenna and that over seawater even the KISS will wok in an efficient manner. Now if we knew what the ground loss resistance was we could easily model the KISS and all the common mode currents that cause so many sailors so much trouble. Who is going to volunteer to be the Superman of the RF engineering world? I am stuck up high in the Swiss Alps and nowhere near seawater. Maybe you can volunteer?

Originally Posted by ka4wja

I've been busy lately and just saw these continued posts last night.....and debated whether or not to even bother responding as I suspect that if I do, I'm just feeding the hunger of trolls???
(When I hear people talk of antenna efficiencies and ground losses, I wonder if they really want to know, or do they just enjoy arguing???)

But, now I'm wondering if some would find some actual facts helpful???

{FYI, there is a tremendous amount of factual data regarding vertical antennas and "grounds"....much of the research and testing (>90%) has been done by/for:
a) specifically for MW broadcasting ("AM Radio" here in the US)
b) MF/HF amateur radio (ham radio)
With the remaining research being military/gov't (for VLF/LF/MF/HF), with only a very small amount applying directly to ship-borne maritime systems....

So, it takes some digging thru things to find direct applicable data...but it is there....and what you don't find directly can be interpolated fairly accurately...}


{Bottom line:
Ground losses on-board our boats varies between ~ 1/2db and as much as 10db (or more in extreme cases)....with typical cases in the middle, and the KISS at the bottom end....
You CAN improve your signal, by reducing these losses, significantly...as much as 6db improvement isn't difficult....
You can make the relative difference between radiating your whole 150 watts (or damn near all of it).....or as little as 20 watts (or less)...depending on what you use as an antenna ground (counterpoise, radials, rf ground, ground plane....whatever you wish to call it...)
Understand that a 6db loss is comparable to an output power of 37watts....and there are many who have ground system losses even greater than 6db....
Can I tell a 6db difference on-the-air?? YES, I can...
Can I tell a 3db difference on-the-air?? YES, I can....
Can I tell a 1db difference on-the-air?? No, not very well on HF....

If anyone wishes to see if they can tell the difference....get in touch with another boat a ways away from you, say after a net....and talk to them for a while at full-power and then both reduce power ("mid-power" is going to be about 3.5db difference) and continue on talking....and then after a while, both reduce to low power (20watts will be about 8.5db lower than 150 watts), and continue on talking for a while.....
Then both switch back-n-forth from hi, mid, and low power quickly (within a few seconds), comparing signal strengths and readabilities...
This works best if when starting contact (on high power) neither of you has a "perfect" copy on the other, but can still carry on a conversation (RST of say 35, or so)
If you do this with many, many boats....over days, weeks, years....you'll get a feel for what you can tell by just listening....but even if you're new to it, you can get a pretty good idea, even without using a S-meter...(nothing wrong with an S-meter, but there are few that are accurate/calibrated!!!)

The main reasons that the exact numbers aren't mentioned much is NOT because they are not known....but...
a) most just want it "better", and are not concerned (nor might not understand) the numbers...
b) there are many variables from boat to boat, and installation to installation, so exact numbers end up being a "range" of numbers, not just one number....}





Point-by-point....

1) We need to define "antenna efficiency" and "ground loss", as well as antenna system "effectiveness" (see below)
2) Not sure if we need to measure it, as it can be pretty well determined by mathematics and interpolated from other tests....(see below) {Besides, a few years ago I "loaned" my OIB Imped Bridge to a friend who got a stat. engr. job offer up north, and he was supposed to return it a couple months...never heard from him again....
Now that I'm semi-retired I never bought another, but I still have my analyzers and rf current xformers/loops, which go a long way to prove my words....but, since I have no witnesses, you just take my word or not....}

Here are some "basic" definitions....

Antenna System Efficiency:
--- How many of the watts delivered to the antenna are actually radiated as RF / electro-magnetic energy.

Antenna System Effectiveness:
--- How much of this radiated RF is going where I want/need it to go. (radiation angle and direction)

Please take note that, obviously you CAN have an efficient antenna that is ineffective...
But also that you can have an antenna of low efficiency which is effective for your application (an example here is a short mobile-style whip, or a scrap of wire, etc. on a boat in the ocean...)



Ground loss:
--- The "ground" (stuff under the antenna and out a couple wavelengths = near field.....and out past a few wavelengths = far field) whether water or dirt, or copper wire, etc., has a large and important role in determining both the "efficiency" and the "effectiveness" of vertical antennas...
(although please understand that this is NOT the case for horizontal antennas, where the "ground" has little control on efficiency, but significant influence on effectiveness...)

Near-field losses contribute to lower antenna system efficiency....
--- In the near field, antenna return currents travel through the ground, and back to the antenna feed-point / base of the antenna.
The resistivity of this ground causes the I2R ground losses, and plays an important part in vertical antenna efficiency.
{Any RF resistivity in this system (whether dirt/earth, fiberglass, etc.) cause I2R ground losses, and any reduction in this resistivity reduces I2R ground losses....(sea water is NOT as conductive as copper, but is a VERY good RF conductor nonetheless....and since most here don't have a copper-hulled vessel, using the sea water as the "ground" significantly reduces ground losses...) and getting this "ground" connected to the antenna tuner in as low-loss way as possible, is a good idea as this reduces loss...
Adding radials and/or use of lifelines, etc. as radials, can also reduce ground losses, although since our vessels aren't too big in terms of wavelength (nor do we sail antenna platforms), it is difficult to reduce ground losses much further, compared to a direct-seawater connection and using the seawater to reduce these antenna return current losses...(but, happily the difference isn't large..) }
--- Also in the near field we have absorption losses, caused by the radio waves penetrating the ground. These are due to the interaction of the near-field energy-storage fields of the antenna and/or radials, with the ground.
These losses persist no matter what you use as a counterpoise (radials, etc.), but happily these losses aren't too significant in/over sea water!!


Although we are primarily discussing near-field losses...
Far-field losses can contribute negatively to both efficiency and effectiveness...(thankfully we don't have far-field loss to worry about over sea water!!)
--- Many wavelengths away from the antenna, the radio wave are reflected by the ground and combine with the direct wave from the antenna to form low-angle radiation. What is absorbed by the ground is far-field ground loss. The losses here in/over sea water are VERY VERY low, and since it is the reflection-coefficient that sets the pba, here over sea water the pba is extremely low (depending on what frequency, and on what book / formula this angle can be as low as < 0.5 degrees), above this angle the reflected wave adds to the direct wave, and at this angle the signal is -6db from a "perfect ground"...(whatever the "exact" number is for your communications, it is going to be very low!!)




Calculated losses:
Briefly...(haven't the time to write a treatise here...)
Buried / on-ground radial (even those a few inches above the ground) ground losses are well known...from 0.1 ohm (for 120 radials of 0.4-wavelengths long) to 30 ohms (for 2 radials of 1/8-wavelength long)....and even significantly higher with one or no radials at all.....this can mean as much as 6db (or higher) loss in the ground system...

Elevated radials (usually 1/4-wave resonant) must be "elevated" above the ground by significant height...(0.04-wave or higher), sailboat lifelines are "acceptable" here....(but, due to asymmetry, length and height, they are not optimal....but good nonetheless!!)
Modern computer modeling has actually shown better (lower-loss) figures than actual recent measured values......
Some of these measured values have shown that elevating radials by approx. 0.04-wavelength, reduces ground system losses by as little as 1db with 4 radials (and even as little as 0.2db for 32 radials), compared to "buried" or on-ground radials....
Other real-world tests have shown vertical antenna systems with as few as 6 - 8 elevated radials (elevated 0.05-wave high), exactly 1/4-wave long, have a comparable field strength to those using 120 buried radials.

Due to the inaccuracies of computer modeling regarding ground losses, and the quite varied test data from different real-world tests, it is not possible for me to give definitive answers for "elevated" radials...
But, suffice to say, they do work and work better than wires buried in the bilge....

I don't remember the exact figures (everything I'm writing here is off the top-of-my-head, as I'm not near any of my reference books) for the one real-world tests of elevated radials over seawater, but interpolating results from many other tests, etc. has shown that a few elevated radials (such as the lifelines) can reduce ground system losses by 3db (or more) compared to a few random wires buried in the bilge....and certainly much better than a KISS-SSB-Ground!!!

FYI, for those wishing to do some testing with consumer equipment, please save yourself effort and understand that (when using a 1/4-wave antenna as an example with a 36-ohm characteristic impedance), if the elevated radials are not connected to the ground (such as radials in our boats or isolated lifelines, etc.), measuring antenna impedance does not give you any indication of near-field ground losses....there will be no significant lowering of resistive impedance....











Although it was NEVER my intention to pan the KISS, nor insult anyone who has one installed....
I think I "proved" that the KISS is inferior (by many db, in most cases) to other types of ground (especially compared to a direct sea water, and lifelines), even though I didn't measure the "ohms" as was requested...

Why you'd need that for proof is beyond me, as I "proved" > 6 months ago that I had higher RF antenna current with a direct sea water connection than with radials and that even that was higher than the KISS...but whatever...

Here (above) I provided the theory that "proves" the results!!!

So, to sum up:
I told of my RF antenna current results....
I told of the on-air results...
I told (and showed) the non-resonance traces / results...
I told of real-world ground loss tests...
I told of computer modeled results...
I told of the basic theory...
I told of the wealth the research done for > 75 years....

I'm honestly not sure what else would satisfy you....but whatever it is, I don't have the time....

I do hope that is enough...
If not, you're on your own!!!
I'm outta' here!!

Sorry, I just don't have the time to continue with this, item-by-item....
Fair winds to all...

John
s/v Annie Laurie



BTW, on a side note, a few years ago I good friend e-mailed me a funny article about "how to use buzz words" and "how to influence and BS people", with them thinking that you really know what you're talking about, all WITHOUT you actually saying anything coherent....
I thought some of you might like it....it's kind of cool to think of how much BS we read/hear that is written/spoken by those that are really ignorant!!!
Have fun...

[captden]

I bought the Kiss counterpoise last year and all Ican say is I had better reception before by just running the copper foil from the tuner to the closest through hull

[fjwiley1]

Wow...long Thread....started on 10-03-2011, at 14:52.

And the conclusion is:??

[goboatingnow]

I really think contributions like Plebian99 contribute little to this debate, His whole point can be summed up as

"no data blah, hence nonsense", however he contributes no data as well. Hence its just a whinge in the wind.

John (ka4wja) has contributed technical information on this and other topics , here and elsewhere on many RF topics and to me , I find his comments understandable and persuasive. He attempts to rationalise complex system and present a reasonable solution. The next time I do a SSB install, it will be wide 22 thou coper strip to a closeby underwater fitting

dave

[plebian99]

If its "blah blah blah" nonsense you simply dont understand the problem.

Here is the question. WHat is the ground loss resistance over seawater?

If you are a RF ground expert and you dont know the answer to that question, you wont know how to go about fixing the RF grounding problems that sailors are having. Neither can you have any authority with your expertise when suggesting a fix.

You simply cant fix a problem if you cant define electrically what the magnitude of the problem is.The hams very well know that the ground loss can be measured quite accurately and a RF grounding solution be suggested once you know the figure. Since 100% of experts here dont know the answer they cant look you straight in the eye and say "I have the answer" They dont know because they have not measured the problem.

If a simple marine electrical guy had this problem and someone said " my lights are dim, and i am losing voltage" A simple electrician would pull his multimeter out and check for losses or voltage drop. RF is exactly the same but we have hams here posing as experts who dont even have the basic equivalent of a RF multimeter to make these measurements. They then want to tell people that they are experts when they dont have the proper tools to measure and come up with a solution. You expect engineers to have respect for people with this level of RF ignorance. Nobody is denying that this a community and everyone is trying to be helpful and friendly. But these threads go on for years. I bet nobody here has a 12 volt wiring problem that goes on for 5 years and thousands of pages on how to fix a simple wiring problem. But this is exactly what we have for these SSB ground threads. Really this BS has to end because its simply a lot of technical ignorance that is turning the science of radio into voodoo that only the wizards can fix and talk about from the comfort of their chairs. This is the 21st century not the 14th century.

It seems sailors in the SSB forum are more intent on reading endless pages of nonsense from hams that goes on for years rather than wanting to understand a
very simple electrical problem. An RF electrical problem that every other industry in the world that uses HF radio has sorted out.

We have hams making measurements on all the wrong things that actually is not related to fixing or determining the size of the problem. You fail in your expert status in any engineers eyes when you dont even know or cant grasp what the exact electrical problem is that you trying to fix. Its obvious that most who offer advice dont even understand the simplicity of the problem by the often endless posts going over many years with no answers. They seem to cherry pick and distort the very engineering references that actually tells them exactly how to measure and fix the problem. Yet they chose to ignore all the good engineering research that has been done in the field and promote themselves as yacht RF ground experts who have the keys to the holy grail. The problem of RF ground loss is a universal problem and when you know the size of the problem the solution is the same when the ground loss figure is known.

I dont buy it, and you and anyone else can call it nonsense if you like. But the fact is that they might be knowledgeable radio hobbyists but they certainly not experts who understand a very simple problem.

Here is the question again. What is the ground loss resistance over seawater of the typical yacht? Its a very simple question and this figure will be the same for any kind of sailing cruising yacht.

When someone figures out the answer to this question, you will soon understand all the bunkum that is promoted in the many yacht SSB forums.

If you are so confident at being so dismissive and calling other peoples posts nonsense. Maybe you can answer the question and prove your expert engineering status that can actually help sailors develop a realistic and practical ground system that actually works. The endless cookbook recipes from experts that are only relevant to one yacht(theirs) is not and will not be a universal solution without knowing what he ground loss figure is.

The fact is when you can understand the ground loss problem, you then can build a RF ground system that will work on any yacht. When You understand the ground loss equation you will know how far to go when building your ground system. If you encounter other problems you will also know if its related to the ground loss or the antenna feed or tuning system.

When all these experts answer this basic question they will have credibility in the eyes of engineering professionals. At the moment in my eyes all they reflecting is anecdotal experience mixed in with the ham radio hobby and a lot of fishy sailor stories passed off as science by the so called experts.

So do you have the answer to the problem? Its very simple really. Maybe one of the experts will get their fingers wet and make some measurements with proper test equipment.

The final point regardless of what you think of the KISS being a legitimate RF grounding solution. You cant say the KISS or any ground for that wont work when you DONT KNOW WHAT THE GROUND LOSS RESISTANCE IS. Pages of measuring the wrong thing and endless pages of threads does not give your the answer or fix the problem. Only knowing what the RF GROUND LOSS resistance is will give you that answer.


The bottom line is that any piece of metal connected to the grounding lug will be a counterpoise. I dont need a expert to tell me that I need to connect a piece of wire to the ground lug according their secret expert recipe. What I or anyone else wants to know is how effective and how much metal should be connected to do the best possible job considering the circumstances. While the experts dont know the ground loss resistance they really know very little and are just offering advice that is stating the obvious. "ladies and gentleman connect some wire or metal to the ground lug" It can be "either my recipe or his recipe" Whose recipe do you like.? Now if you feel more comfortable reading year after year of the same recycled posts and advice and it makes you feel better because you like a certain author thats OK. All I want is simple technical answers not ham mumbo jumbo that cant hold water or withstand technical scrutiny.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I really think contributions like Plebian99 contribute little to this debate, His whole point can be summed up as

"no data blah, hence nonsense", however he contributes no data as well. Hence its just a whinge in the wind.

John (ka4wja) has contributed technical information on this and other topics , here and elsewhere on many RF topics and to me , I find his comments understandable and persuasive. He attempts to rationalise complex system and present a reasonable solution. The next time I do a SSB install, it will be wide 22 thou coper strip to a closeby underwater fitting

dave