On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:10:50 -0800 (PST), Richard Fry
wrote:

On Dec 1, 12:25*pm, Richard Clark wrote:

And this is relative to what?

To my post saying:

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 04:09:34 -0800 (PST), Richard Fry
With more research you'll find that the fading zone is not located a
fixed 70 miles away from every AM station.

followed by your post saying:

And yet you discount that as an NEC analysis, strange. All far-fields
are taken from the perspective of distance.

You're not following.

And this is relative to what?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Dec 1, 12:38*pm, Richard Clark wrote in
response to my quote below:

Below is a link to a clip from Terman's Radio Engineers Handbook, 1st
edition, showing that the greatest single-hop range for skywave
signals occurs from the radiation of the monopole at elevation angles
of less than ten degrees. But looking at a NEC far-field analysis
this would seem impossible, due to the greatly reduced fields in this
sector that NEC shows for a vertical monopole over real earth.

What is it that is impossible? Or is this about seeming?
__________

1. A far-field NEC analysis of the elevation radiation pattern of a
monopole over real earth shows little to no relative field below 10
degrees elevation. No doubt that is true of your NEC model under
discussion here, is it not?

2. Terman's Fig 55, and the experience and field measurements of AM
broadcast stations for many decades shows that there is _considerable_
radiation launched in this sector. In fact for monopoles of 5/8 wave
and less the radiated field is maximum in the horizontal plane.

How would you characterize the discrepancy existing between items 1
and 2 above?

RF

On Dec 1, 1:22*pm, Richard Clark wrote:

And this is relative to what?

And this is relative to what?
_______

Juvenile.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:40:06 -0800 (PST), Richard Fry
wrote:

1. A far-field NEC analysis of the elevation radiation pattern of a
monopole over real earth shows little to no relative field below 10
degrees elevation. No doubt that is true of your NEC model under
discussion here, is it not?

I see that this question bears on my previous correspondence where you
have failed to attend to that relevance. In fact, my model's 1°
response is only 1.6dB below the peak response at 8° (both of which
are below 10°). That peak response is roughly half a dB below a
perfect ground response at 0°.

I will again repeat two questions that seem to plague you to the point
of silence in their regard:

1.
What is the relevance of your side topic? Please answer it within
that side thread where I raise this question.

2.
...NEC far-field analysis this would seem impossible,
due to the greatly reduced fields in this sector ....
your statement lacks quantifiables. "Impossible" is
yellow-journalism fluff and the less than 1dB variations I have
reported are within the accumulation of field errors of the "possible"
that went into engineering reports. "Impossible" and "possible" are,
to all intents and purposes, describing the same thing.

What is it that is impossible? Or is this about seeming?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:40:06 -0800 (PST), Richard Fry wrote:

1. A far-field NEC analysis of the elevation radiation pattern of a
monopole over real earth shows little to no relative field below 10
degrees elevation. No doubt that is true of your NEC model under
discussion here, is it not?

I see that this question bears on my previous correspondence where
you have failed to attend to that relevance. In fact, my model's 1°
response is only 1.6dB below the peak response at 8° (both of which
are below 10°). That peak response is roughly half a dB below a
perfect ground response at 0°.
_______

Then your NEC analysis is not a _FAR-FIELD_ NEC analysis, as
repeatedly I have referenced in my posts, and even as is shown in your
quote of the same point, above.

I suggest you carefully read and consider what I write as many times
as is necessary in order to avoid such gaffes.

The rest of your post of the date/time quoted above I will dismiss, as
I have already responded to it.

RF

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:24:30 -0800 (PST), Richard Fry
wrote:

Then your NEC analysis is not a _FAR-FIELD_ NEC analysis, as
repeatedly I have referenced in my posts, and even as is shown in your
quote of the same point, above.

So, how do we parse your reply? I see the assertion from you
no relative field below 10 degrees elevation.
I see from me
my model's 1° response is only 1.6dB below
the peak response at 8° (both of which are below 10°).
That peak response is roughly half a dB below a
perfect ground response at 0°.

To the greater part of the community in this group, the difference
between
no relative field below 10 degrees elevation.
and roughly half a dB below perfect at 8° elevation (which qualifies
as below 10° elevation) would leave us to believe you equate
no relative field = a field at 0.6dB below perfect
Unless, of course, you care to ammend this with quantifiables of your
own.

This portends you cannot answer for your assertion:
...NEC far-field analysis this would seem impossible,
due to the greatly reduced fields in this sector ....
your statement (now statements) lacks quantifiables. "Impossible" is
yellow-journalism fluff and the less than 1dB variations I have
reported are within the accumulation of field errors of the "possible"
that went into engineering reports. "Impossible" and "possible" are,
to all intents and purposes, describing the same thing.

What is it that is impossible? Or is this about seeming?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Fry wrote:

...
Juvenile.

Richard Fry, meet Richard Clark ... I warned you silly-grin

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:

...
What is it that is impossible? Or is this about seeming?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

So then, you found "another one." And, when his energy runs out, when
he is done with you, you will still be posting your "last man standing
cr*p" ... (Cecil mentioned that--I caught on)

How impressive ... men have known you, men have argued with you, men
have debated you ... men have found you a fool ... yawn

Go back to your cave troll, await the next, he will eventually tire of
you ... double-yawn

You waste our efforts ...

Regards,
JS

On Dec 1, 8:00*pm, John Smith wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
...
What is it that is impossible? *Or is this about seeming?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

So then, you found "another one." *And, when his energy runs out, when
he is done with you, you will still be posting your "last man standing
cr*p" ... (Cecil mentioned that--I caught on)

How impressive ... men have known you, men have argued with you, men
have debated you ... men have found you a fool ... yawn

Go back to your cave troll, await the next, he will eventually tire of
you ... double-yawn

You waste our efforts ...

Regards,
JS

No John they are like souls, looking for some body to talk to,
Looking for some body to argue with,Looking for somebody to fraternise
with.
Leave them alone as they are so happy at this time making friendly
fools of each other
like the chant of two natives bouncing around a wood fire banging two
sticks together.
While they are slapping each other like guys like kb9...... can write
in peace knowing that for
the moment they are safe. Personaly I am happy that they have found
each other thus
leaving others alone for cordial conversations and debate without the
concern of seeing
a foot suddenly appear from the next cubical. Soon the whistle will
blow when they both
have to retreat to the nursery to have their diapers changed.
It is going to take RF a long time to determine what he is dealing
with and Richard is
not likely to let go with out a fight
Sad Sad Sad but funny at the same time

Art Unwin wrote:

...
No John they are like souls, looking for some body to talk to,
Looking for some body to argue with,Looking for somebody to fraternise
with.
Leave them alone as they are so happy at this time making friendly
fools of each other
like the chant of two natives bouncing around a wood fire banging two
sticks together.
While they are slapping each other like guys like kb9...... can write
in peace knowing that for
the moment they are safe. Personaly I am happy that they have found
each other thus
leaving others alone for cordial conversations and debate without the
concern of seeing
a foot suddenly appear from the next cubical. Soon the whistle will
blow when they both
have to retreat to the nursery to have their diapers changed.
It is going to take RF a long time to determine what he is dealing
with and Richard is
not likely to let go with out a fight
Sad Sad Sad but funny at the same time

Art:

I will not lie to you, I have a hard time following you. Sometimes I
even doubt your sanity, your grounds on which you make your statements,
very often, evade me--however, you have never neared the "fool status" I
place the "reciter of Shakespeare" in (read this as Richard Clark!) ...
you at least bring me areas I wonder about and do not sound so foolish
.... :-)

Regards,
JS