On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:21:58 -0400, "Walter Maxwell"
wrote:
Understood, Roy, but was this person saying that with just one height it
wouldn't give sufficient accuracy, or is he saying that with impedance knowledge
at many different heights there would still be no determination of any of the
ground characteristics?

Hi Walt,

And per my several critiques into this matter, all such broad
proclamations lack the fundamental of drawing a validation through
correlating work in the subject. Let's examine the one point offered:
He concluded that it wasn't possible to
set the antenna height and make measurements with sufficient accuracy to
infer the ground characteristics with any confidence.
This, of course, presumes that this source has any actual
authoritative data. Something that is prohibitively beyond the scope
of an individual to determine (when it is already rejected through
correlations of antenna characteristics and measurements) in the first
place suggests there is none.

Roy has already pointed out the futility of a piece-wise measurement
throughout the bulk of earth soaked by RF to its skin depth. I have
pointed out that these several treatments offered only go to the thin
veneer of soil. Some conclusions drawn were preposterous on the face
of the data offered. Further, to suggest the four lead measurement be
stretched to employing wavelength sized leads is fraught with error
through the denial of those leads becoming what every Amateur already
has, an antenna.

Reg has dismissed the use of an antenna to measure the earth's
contribution of loss, or to distinguish its characteristics by
perturbing the known characteristic of an antenna. Such dismissal is
not an argument - it is a conceit.

Walt, your data is comprehensive enough to build a soil model for the
band you studied. I seriously doubt anyone could challenge your
results if they were internally consistent.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC