On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 23:45:44 -0400, "Jack Painter"
wrote:

http://www.cpccorp.com/deep.htm

See the data in that
paper above for some sample resistance measurements which they consider
"average"

Hi Jack,

Interesting link.

The paper offered was a model of terse reporting, sticking only with
the facts as best they could come by them, and little in the way of
overextending themselves with fanciful interpretations. The averages
were what they found for themselves, not abstracted and generalized to
the world at large.

I would suggest that they also made some cogent observations about the
soil structure that goes beyond myths and software passing as the new
age equivalent of old wive's tales. I would further observe that
making a declaration of what the resistance of ONE electrode is, is
farcical in the extreme. It would take two to tango and with that
second one added to measure the first, problems abound!

Especially notable is the 10 fold variation in reported electrode
resistance over a 4 year period, and the 10 fold variation of
electrode resistance within a survey group. Such an error range
easily eclipses what is taken on faith as "average ground." And then
we have to ask ourselves that embarrassing question, just how does the
mud in my backyard compare to "average?"

Your comments on
That means as close to
equipotential as possible, and it does not assume a good ground, or even any
ground at all in certain cases.
translate with fungible results to RF for the same reason. No one
here knows what quality ground they live over (really! to one skin
depth at HF?).

I would still like to know how many radials Reggie needs for his
several KOhm mud in his garden. No, I take that back, what I want to
know is what parameters he puts into the software that predicts the
number of radials - and why would it matter?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC