On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:51:33 -0600 (CST),
(Richard Harrison) wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
"The "earliest high frequency antennas" were in fact BCB."

Yes, but not in Ed Laport`s book. Ed`s book covers LF, MF, and HF. Ed as
Chief Engineer of RCA International was most interested in RCA`s
maritime service, radiograms, shortwave broadcast, and radio relay
services. These were conducted above 1700 KHz.

However, his observation was a historical one, not a current (at the
time of printing) one as evidenced by his stating that things changed.

snip
Art Unwin started this thread it seems because he faulted a vertical
antenna for not having a 100-mile range using low power.

The vertical has a null overhead almost guaranteeing no short-hop sky
wave.
Low power obviates ground wave DX.

This is far from true and again relies on HF, not MF observations.
You don't have to go very deep into your buddy's "Radio Propagation
Handbook" (Pete Saveskie). Chapter one, Ground Waves, employs a very
simple scenario with an 1/8th wave vertical radiator monitored out a
distance of 240 KM to no apparent difficulty in Ham terms, much less
FCC coverage issues. The discussion of the necessity for horizontal
antennas at this greater distance is notable by its vacuum in the
text.

My own study of Ground properties through a variety of references has
found there is quite a characteristic shift, a knee in the data, at
the 3 MHz frequency that clearly differentiates propagation at 160M
from that of 80M.

Shortwave stations clearly have an economic necessity to optimize
within their bands of operation. BCB stations are likewise
constrained. The two exhibit very different antenna solutions. It
follows that 160M more closely conforms to BCB than Shortwave for all
reasons considered.

To make an evening sky wave trip of 100 miles at 160 meters, Art needs
an antenna with a lot of high-angle radiation, 60 or 70-degrees more or
less to use the ionosphere for short skip, or he needs enough effective
power to punch a signal through along the ground.

A horizontal dipole could provide the high-angle radiation for the sky
wave.

And yet experience and reporting to this matter has shown abysmal
results. The shortfall of expectation with regard to actuality lies
in the Ground.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC