On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:10:52 -0400, jawod wrote:

If the cistern is filled with salt water, would the near field of a
vertical be significantly enhanced?

Hi John,

No.

Would it lower the TOA?

No.

Does significant flow in a body of water (in this case, the Ohio River)
represent a different dielectric than ground or non-flowing lake water?

No.

How would it effect propagation from a vertical or other antenna system?

A vertical would propagate better, at lower angles, along the length
of the water ("along" being in the straight line from the radiator, to
the water, and across, or along the water on the same extended line).

The water, if you will, acts as a "reflector" because it has a huge Z
mismatch to the air above it (more than 10:1, if I recall) and not
because it has some miraculous conductivity (it doesn't). Salt water
also creates illusions of conductivity. Actually, yes it is better
than an insulator, and adds loss galore in comparison. The inherent
beneficial property is that it has an even higher mismatch to the air
above it which aids reflection at lower angles of vertical
polarization.

Now, the distinction is that in the near field, water and sal****er
are ****-poor (pun intended) conductors. You would be better off in a
desert of dry sand, a very poor conductor. On the flip side, at a
distance (where radiation lobes are developed) water and sal****er are
huge sources of low angle propagation for vertically polarized
radiation.

Moral: transmit from on high a sand dune, out over the ocean (or
lake).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC