I just looked through a bunch of old mags and found one from you. I is
the April/May 1989 issue. Funny how I didn't subscribe, but I have a
copy with a mailing label with a date later than your "records". mmmmmm.

Henry WA0GOZ


Can you describe what is on the label, with codes if any please?

Thanks, Yuri

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 22:15:56 -0400, "J. McLaughlin"
wrote:

I shall file in my list of
interesting-things-to-think-about-in-a-serious-way the issue of what
happens to the behavior a wave antenna having a "wire" on the ground
directly under the antenna wire. I do recall dealing with a similar
issue where I was verifying a modeling issue by testing the Zo of a very
long wire over a conducting plane.

Hi Mac,

Where the discussion remains technical, it seems to me that both Tom
and Yuri are saying the same thing. On the other hand, they may say
it differently, but the conclusions seem to agree.

Your experience and studies to this point would be instructive.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

KB7QHC:
Where the discussion remains technical, it seems to me that both Tom
and Yuri are saying the same thing. On the other hand, they may say
it differently, but the conclusions seem to agree.


Huh? Which "same thing?"

Yuri

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:


I just looked through a bunch of old mags and found one from you. I is
the April/May 1989 issue. Funny how I didn't subscribe, but I have a
copy with a mailing label with a date later than your "records". mmmmmm.

Henry WA0GOZ


Can you describe what is on the label, with codes if any please?

Thanks, Yuri

Sure

WA0GOZ S 9005
Henry Knoll
10081 103rd St. No.
Stillwater
MN 55082

On 23 Aug 2004 03:11:29 GMT, oUsama (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:

KB7QHC:
Where the discussion remains technical, it seems to me that both Tom
and Yuri are saying the same thing. On the other hand, they may say
it differently, but the conclusions seem to agree.


Huh? Which "same thing?"

Yuri

Which difference?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

wrote in message ...
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:


I just looked through a bunch of old mags and found one from you. I is
the April/May 1989 issue. Funny how I didn't subscribe, but I have a
copy with a mailing label with a date later than your "records".
mmmmmm.

Henry WA0GOZ


Can you describe what is on the label, with codes if any please?

Thanks, Yuri

Sure

WA0GOZ S 9005
Henry Knoll
10081 103rd St. No.
Stillwater
MN 55082


Wow, that's looks like hard proof to me. Now Yuri can refund a couple of
dollars to Henry, gain spiritual peace over resolving that debt from 1989,
and the world will be a better place for all.

Maybe I could get all those deceased computer mags from the 1980's to refund
their defaulted subscription balances to me, and I could go have a
magnificent banquet dinner for two at McDonalds.

Ed
wb6wsn

KB7QHC:
Where the discussion remains technical, it seems to me that both Tom
and Yuri are saying the same thing. On the other hand, they may say
it differently, but the conclusions seem to agree.


Huh? Which "same thing?"

Yuri

Which difference?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

What are you refering to? Can you be more specific?
Wire laying on the ground "changing" resistance or terminating Beverage in the
ocean?

Yuri

On 23 Aug 2004 12:59:45 GMT, oUsama (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:
Wire laying on the ground "changing" resistance

Hi Yuri,

As Mac said, there are many "its" in the quote. However the vague
combinations do not resolve to different interpretations as you
persist. The extra wire leads to the same conclusion you BOTH
describe and that is Beverage-like antenna characteristics. As that
is a unique consequence of ground's retarding the wavefront, it
necessarily follows that Tom maintains (and directly states) that the
extra wire does NOT interfere with that action. He states why - tight
coupling. He no where states that metallic copper assumes ohmic loss
as the loss is a consequence of proximity to earth. Further, I've
seen no statement from you or Tom that maintains the extra wire
destroys the Beverage-like antenna characteristic, hence there is not
a hair's width difference between you two.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Can you describe what is on the label, with codes if any please?

Thanks, Yuri

Sure

WA0GOZ S


You are right, I found it on the computer.Printed listings missed it, because I
received your check on 89/06/06 after the regular 8905 issue was mailed, your
payment arrived later, I sent you 8905 issue and it didn't show up on the
printout. Searching computer I found it. I have mailed check with refund today.
I am sorry for mixup, comments and above all, that I was not able to continue
publishing and sinking money into Radiosporting. I am still hoping to scan old
issues and perhaps continue with it on Internet (no money outlay for printing),
but only as time permitting.

I am glad we could sort thing out.

73 Yuri

Hi Yuri,

As Mac said, there are many "its" in the quote. However the vague
combinations do not resolve to different interpretations as you
persist. The extra wire leads to the same conclusion you BOTH
describe and that is Beverage-like antenna characteristics. As that
is a unique consequence of ground's retarding the wavefront, it
necessarily follows that Tom maintains (and directly states) that the
extra wire does NOT interfere with that action. He states why - tight
coupling. He no where states that metallic copper assumes ohmic loss
as the loss is a consequence of proximity to earth. Further, I've
seen no statement from you or Tom that maintains the extra wire
destroys the Beverage-like antenna characteristic, hence there is not
a hair's width difference between you two.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

First of all, I have not done experiments to compare single wire Beverages vs.
dual wire, with the other wire being laid underneath the Beverage.
I had the problem with statement "the wire below the Beverage is the wire
couples to the lossy media below it so well it becomes very
lossy" as far as I know wire maintains it's conductivity regardless where it is
laid. Perhaps more accurate statement would be that wire laying on the ground
becomes less significant in its contribution to the performance of the above
Beverage.
But because the "ground" wire is connected typically at the termination point
and at the feedpoint to the Beverage system, I am not sure that it can be
"ignored". Some claim this forms the "open wire" parallel system and has
significant effect on the Beverage performance. There is dispute as far signal
arrival angles are concerned, some signals get subjected to wave tilt due to
poor ground, some signals have their own tilt due to propagation and terrain
effects.
To find out the reality, the exact systems should be compared in various
situations. Modeling might not provide fool proof answers due to some programs
having hard time to model reality, that can be confused by varying ground
characteristics along the Beverage.

Yuri, K3BU