Dear Richard and others:
You have helped me to understand what the issues are likely to be,
what they could be, and even a glimpse of what they might become.
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. Might be a paper in there somewhere.

It reminds me of a fundamentals of mathematics class that I took
from Prof. Halmos. Perhaps his greatest genius was his ability
frequently to suggest interesting problems.

I shall exit stage right 'till I have "thunk" through the
interesting bits. Thank you for your assistance.

73 Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin - Michigan USA
Home:

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:51:47 -0400, "J. McLaughlin"
wrote:

I have read several times the quotation that has prompted
discussion. (see below) The statement uses "it" too many times for
me
to know what is being contended.
...
My request is to see a clear statement in Standard English (BCC
English is ok) of what W8JI is contending.

Hi Mac,

The danger of this is these "arguments" (offered on the behalf of a
otherwise silent party) is that they have every chance of being under
reported, and over extended. It quickly devolves to "so-and-so
thinks...." to triumphantly prove it-just-ain't-so.

It reminds me of past statements offered as V9SRB's logic in his
behalf that never were suggested by him nor even intimated. As a
one-time shot against a full statement, I suppose that is enough to
critique, but I have seen this hothouse orchid bloom into fully
fleshed philosophies projected onto the silent protagonist by
unrelated statements forced into continuity by the critic presuming a
sub-context.

If Yuri, you have some beef against Tom, I can fully concur in his
personality taking you there. Has he offered howlers? You bet! Is
he guilty of other rhetorical shenanigans - don't we know. Is he
demonstrably skilled? Well, yes, that too.

[warning to readers, metaphors employed to a sly comic interlude]

Suffice it to say no Radio Moscow program ever interviewed a Radio
Free Europe commentator to serious issues - why would you expect such
a re-alignment of the heavens for your sake?

Ask George W for help; you might find he would take on the evil Dr.
Joyce Brothers to solve our moral problems with Howard Stern. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

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

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

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