Richard Fry wrote:
. . .
No, the BL&E paper (accurately) stated that 194.5 mV/m is the
theoretical maximum field possible at 1 mile for 1 kW radiated by a
perfect 1/4-wave monopole over a perfect ground plane. The peak
values they measured came very close, but never quite achieved that
value.

Can you explain why they very nearly accomplished this perfect ground
value even though the ground wave signal had to propagate one mile over
ground of finite conductivity? What do you think would have happened to
the signal strength if the mile of intervening ground had been replaced
by a perfect ground?

It would appear that with the average of the two distances, my model
accords quite closely to BL&E.

Mr. Clark - kindly note that in your first quote above you say that,
if anything, "modelers" show MORE response than BL&E Then when
pressed a bit you say that your model "accords quite closely" with
BL&E.

Yet the results of my EZNEC near-field model showed considerably LESS
ground wave field at 1 km than either the FCC approach or the BL&E
data.

If you can answer the questions I asked above, you should understand why
EZNEC doesn't predict the same value as the obviously (to me) normalized
BL&E values. I'll look into the correspondence between EZNEC and FCC
predictions.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL