On 1/25/2014 8:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:54:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Not necessarily. Above ground, the radials provide only a (very low)
capacitive link to the ground. Below ground, they provide a direct link
to the soil. The effect creates a better ground plane for the antenna(s).
(...)
But an even more important point here is maintenance. It's very hard to
cut the grass when radials are above ground.

Not everyone agrees. See item #4:
http://lists.contesting.com/_topband/2002-04/msg00010.html



I'll go with the experts, instead of some amateur posting on the web.

AM radio stations wouldn't go to all of that expense if it weren't
worthwhile. And they have professionals advising them; ones with EE
degrees and years of experience.

But once again, you show your ignorance. Typical.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:46:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

On 1/25/2014 8:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:54:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Not necessarily. Above ground, the radials provide only a (very low)
capacitive link to the ground. Below ground, they provide a direct link
to the soil. The effect creates a better ground plane for the antenna(s).
(...)
But an even more important point here is maintenance. It's very hard to
cut the grass when radials are above ground.

Not everyone agrees. See item #4:
http://lists.contesting.com/_topband/2002-04/msg00010.html

I'll go with the experts, instead of some amateur posting on the web.

Reminder: This is an amateur radio specific newsgroup.

AM radio stations wouldn't go to all of that expense if it weren't
worthwhile. And they have professionals advising them; ones with EE
degrees and years of experience.

Elevated Radial AM Antenna Grounding System by Nott Ltd
http://www.nottltd.com/amgroundsystems.html

A Closer Look at Vertical Antennas With Elevated Ground Systems
http://rudys.typepad.com/files/eleva...al-version.pdf

Perhaps there's another reason why AM stations bury their radials?
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/ops/xmtr/NewThreat.pdf
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/steel/gnd/FLAP1.pdf

But once again, you show your ignorance. Typical.

Claiming that I'm wrong (or ignorant) does not automatically prove
your point.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 1/25/2014 10:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:46:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

On 1/25/2014 8:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:54:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Not necessarily. Above ground, the radials provide only a (very low)
capacitive link to the ground. Below ground, they provide a direct link
to the soil. The effect creates a better ground plane for the antenna(s).
(...)
But an even more important point here is maintenance. It's very hard to
cut the grass when radials are above ground.

Not everyone agrees. See item #4:
http://lists.contesting.com/_topband/2002-04/msg00010.html

I'll go with the experts, instead of some amateur posting on the web.

Reminder: This is an amateur radio specific newsgroup.


So? Do the physics change for Amateur Radio stations? I don't think so.

AM radio stations wouldn't go to all of that expense if it weren't
worthwhile. And they have professionals advising them; ones with EE
degrees and years of experience.

Elevated Radial AM Antenna Grounding System by Nott Ltd
http://www.nottltd.com/amgroundsystems.html


I see their claims. But anyone can claim anything (you're proof of
that). I have yet to see any figures that prove elevated radiator
systems are significantly "better" than buried ones.

And additionally, there are other factors which you conveniently ignore.
Probably because you can't read - or are just choosing to ignore facts
which conflict with your ideas.

But that's nothing new, either - and just what a troll does.

A Closer Look at Vertical Antennas With Elevated Ground Systems
http://rudys.typepad.com/files/eleva...al-version.pdf


Ah, another non-professional opinion. But at least he admits results of
multiple tests conflict.

Perhaps there's another reason why AM stations bury their radials?
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/ops/xmtr/NewThreat.pdf
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/steel/gnd/FLAP1.pdf


I doubt that was a concern when most AM radio stations were installed.
How many new ones do you know of?

Besides that, there isn't that much of a market for #22 wire - all
that's really needed when you have lots of radials, even with a 5-10KW
station, because there is so little current through any one conductor
(although buried radials are typically larger just so they last longer).

But once again, you show your ignorance. Typical.

Claiming that I'm wrong (or ignorant) does not automatically prove
your point.


Nope, but it once again calls attention to your ignorance. But I also
know trolls hate to be proven wrong. You're a perfect example.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:46:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

On 1/25/2014 8:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:54:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Not necessarily. Above ground, the radials provide only a (very low)
capacitive link to the ground. Below ground, they provide a direct link
to the soil. The effect creates a better ground plane for the antenna(s).
(...)
But an even more important point here is maintenance. It's very hard to
cut the grass when radials are above ground.

Not everyone agrees. See item #4:
http://lists.contesting.com/_topband/2002-04/msg00010.html

I'll go with the experts, instead of some amateur posting on the web.

Reminder: This is an amateur radio specific newsgroup.

AM radio stations wouldn't go to all of that expense if it weren't
worthwhile. And they have professionals advising them; ones with EE
degrees and years of experience.

Elevated Radial AM Antenna Grounding System by Nott Ltd
http://www.nottltd.com/amgroundsystems.html

A Closer Look at Vertical Antennas With Elevated Ground Systems
http://rudys.typepad.com/files/eleva...al-version.pdf

Perhaps there's another reason why AM stations bury their radials?
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/ops/xmtr/NewThreat.pdf
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/steel/gnd/FLAP1.pdf

But once again, you show your ignorance. Typical.

Claiming that I'm wrong (or ignorant) does not automatically prove
your point.

Welcome to the club; he does that with anyone on any group on any subject
when someone has the audacity to disagree with something he has said.




--
Jim Pennino

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:10:28 -0000, wrote:

Welcome to the club; he does that with anyone on any group on any subject
when someone has the audacity to disagree with something he has said.

Now you tell me. I don't read any other ham radio newsgroups, so I
missed the clue. For me, this has became an exercise in diplomacy and
tact, things that I usually do rather badly. While my efforts
produced nothing useful, it was a somewhat interesting exercise which
forced me to do some reading in areas where I know little.

I dunno. There do not seem to be many others jumping in, making
corrections, asking questions, or displaying any interest in this
discussion. It's mostly me and Mr Stuckle. I was tempted to emulate
his methods, but I just don't have the ability. Perhaps it's time
that I do something else.

Thanks much.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:10:28 -0000, wrote:

Welcome to the club; he does that with anyone on any group on any subject
when someone has the audacity to disagree with something he has said.

Now you tell me. I don't read any other ham radio newsgroups, so I
missed the clue. For me, this has became an exercise in diplomacy and
tact, things that I usually do rather badly. While my efforts
produced nothing useful, it was a somewhat interesting exercise which
forced me to do some reading in areas where I know little.

I dunno. There do not seem to be many others jumping in, making
corrections, asking questions, or displaying any interest in this
discussion. It's mostly me and Mr Stuckle. I was tempted to emulate
his methods, but I just don't have the ability. Perhaps it's time
that I do something else.

Thanks much.

You could continue on and eventually he will killfile you, usually after
posting a link that proves him wrong about something.

And it is not just ham radio groups, he is also an "expert" in various
programming languages and the same goes on in those groups all the time.



--
Jim Pennino

On 1/26/2014 1:59 AM, wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:10:28 -0000, wrote:

Welcome to the club; he does that with anyone on any group on any subject
when someone has the audacity to disagree with something he has said.

Now you tell me. I don't read any other ham radio newsgroups, so I
missed the clue. For me, this has became an exercise in diplomacy and
tact, things that I usually do rather badly. While my efforts
produced nothing useful, it was a somewhat interesting exercise which
forced me to do some reading in areas where I know little.

I dunno. There do not seem to be many others jumping in, making
corrections, asking questions, or displaying any interest in this
discussion. It's mostly me and Mr Stuckle. I was tempted to emulate
his methods, but I just don't have the ability. Perhaps it's time
that I do something else.

Thanks much.

You could continue on and eventually he will killfile you, usually after
posting a link that proves him wrong about something.

And it is not just ham radio groups, he is also an "expert" in various
programming languages and the same goes on in those groups all the time.




Yes, you are a well-known troll in several programming newsgroups. So
now your trolling here.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

On 1/25/2014 11:10 PM, wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:46:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

On 1/25/2014 8:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:54:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Not necessarily. Above ground, the radials provide only a (very low)
capacitive link to the ground. Below ground, they provide a direct link
to the soil. The effect creates a better ground plane for the antenna(s).
(...)
But an even more important point here is maintenance. It's very hard to
cut the grass when radials are above ground.

Not everyone agrees. See item #4:
http://lists.contesting.com/_topband/2002-04/msg00010.html

I'll go with the experts, instead of some amateur posting on the web.

Reminder: This is an amateur radio specific newsgroup.

AM radio stations wouldn't go to all of that expense if it weren't
worthwhile. And they have professionals advising them; ones with EE
degrees and years of experience.

Elevated Radial AM Antenna Grounding System by Nott Ltd
http://www.nottltd.com/amgroundsystems.html

A Closer Look at Vertical Antennas With Elevated Ground Systems
http://rudys.typepad.com/files/eleva...al-version.pdf

Perhaps there's another reason why AM stations bury their radials?
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/ops/xmtr/NewThreat.pdf
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/steel/gnd/FLAP1.pdf

But once again, you show your ignorance. Typical.

Claiming that I'm wrong (or ignorant) does not automatically prove
your point.

Welcome to the club; he does that with anyone on any group on any subject
when someone has the audacity to disagree with something he has said.





No, just when someone is ignorant.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================