MK,

How satisfying it is to read your message, written in plain, easy to
understand, well-punctuated English, without any undeciferable coded
abbreviations.

I agree with what you say although I am unfamiliar with exactly how
the FCC fits into the scheme of things.

Amateurs and commercial broadcasters have a common fundamental
requirement. There is a service area to be covered with a given field
strength. Depending on frequency, requirements then diverge. But the
design methods used to satisfy requirements are all confined (or
should be) to the principles of engineering economics. Inevitably, the
Dollar, Pound, Frank, Mark, Rouble and the Yen rule the roost.

Both commercial broadcasters and amateurs do a cost-befit analysis.
The broadcaster takes into account the revenue acruing from selling
the service. The amateur, whether he likes it or not, has to ask
himself what the satisfaction of using the station is worth.

Amateurs' bank accounts are not unlimited.

Field strength at the limits of the service area depends on the power
efficiency of the radiating system. If engineering economics dictate
use of a set of buried ground radials then the peformance of the
ground radials must be included. Considering the system as a whole,
it may be economical NOT to achieve the maximum possible radiating
efficiency. Indeed, the maximum is seldom the target.

If there is an economical choice in the matter, once the location of
the station is decided, everybody agrees that efficiency depends on
soil resistivity at the site. To estimate efficiency it is necessary,
at the very least, to make a guess at soil resistivity. Perhaps just
by looking at the type of weeds growing in it. Or it can be measured.

Depending on how far it enters into station economics, it is possible
to numerically estimate efficiency from the number and length of
radials AND FROM SOIL RESISTIVITY.

B.L & E and the FCC don't enter into it.
----
Reg.

========================================
MK wrote,
The only stations that the FCC is concerned about is commercial.
And the reason they stick with the standard number is for stability
and getting the max bang for buck, and an easily expected
performance level. Buying a load of wire will beat using more
transmitter power over the long run. If they use 120 radials,
they know they will be getting close to maximum performance.
If they don't, it's a crap shoot. 120 radials *will* outperform
16 of them. There is no question, unless they are over sea
water. I'm not saying hams have to run that many. In fact, I
think 60 will do for most, except the most hard core for good
results. Even less for the more casual user.
But I have no problems with the FCC wanting a certain level
of performance for commercial stations. I have no problems
seeing why they do it either. Wire is cheap compared to
todays level of monthly light bill. With some stations, the
radials,
or lack of , in certain directions gives them a controlable
pattern with no surprises in f/s over a period of time
with changing ground conditions. The main thing is
stability of performance over periods of time. Or thats
my take anyway.
MK