"Reg Edwards" wrote about the elevation pattern of a loaded vertical against
ground as being ~ the same as that of a longer, unloaded vertical, per
Terman:

No, it doesn't ! You have been warned once before
about quoting Terman as the Bible.
______________

I wonder, then, what your basis is for saying so.
At least I give a source.

Terman also publishes a formula to calculate the elevation pattern of a
shortened vertical with a top-mounted capacity ring, driven against
ground -- but it's too much to post here without mathematical notation. The
formula was credited by Terman to George H. Brown from his "A Critical Study
of Broadcast Antennas as Affected by Antenna Current Distribution" published
in the Proceedings of the I.R.E.

Terman also says that inserting a coil a bit down from the top of a
shortened vertical gives results equivalent to using a top mounted capacity
ring.

RF

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:38:49 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

Terman also says
nothing about a Helical wound slim jim. Of course, this begs the
question "Why would he?"

The results are predictable, boringly so, and several have already
been down that road to no net gain. However, common sense in these
matters can be discarded if only someone offers validation, however
slim that may be from any jim. Such inventors stand on the shoulders
of dwarfs. Sorry for the allusion, as it again reprises the obvious
that physical height in relation to a standard (wavelength) dominates
the principle. However as principles and seeking validation go, no
doubt the topic will drift towards top loading dwarfs....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote:
Sorry for the allusion, as it again reprises the obvious
that physical height in relation to a standard (wavelength) dominates
the principle. However as principles and seeking validation go, no
doubt the topic will drift towards top loading dwarfs...
_____________

So far you have not provided support for your statements on this subject
from any recognized antenna authority. Do you really believe that your
understanding of this, and your statements about it are better/more accurate
than those of Frederick Terman and George Brown?

RF

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:34:08 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

So far you have not provided support for your statements on this subject
from any recognized antenna authority. Do you really believe that your
understanding of this, and your statements about it are better/more accurate
than those of Frederick Terman and George Brown?

Hi OM,

What you demand is simply a lazy form of leaning on authority without
presuming to investigate the principles involved. I am not interested
in top loading dwarfs or in replacing simple insights with name
dropping and personalities.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
So far you have not provided support for your statements on this subject
from any recognized antenna authority. Do you really believe that your
understanding of this, and your statements about it are better/more
accurate
than those of Frederick Terman and George Brown?

What you demand is simply a lazy form of leaning on authority without
presuming to investigate the principles involved. I am not interested
in top loading dwarfs or in replacing simple insights with name
dropping and personalities.
________________

From your post above we must take it that you have investigated what
Brown/Terman have to say on this subject, and can prove them wrong. If you
wish your statements to be believed above theirs, you will need to show your
work. Immortality awaits.

RF

Wasn't George Brown one of the ancient trio of experimenters who laid
out 118.5 radials but all three forgot to measure the most important
characteristics - ground conductivity and permittivity!

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:56:27 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:
Immortality awaits.

How kind, I am usually accused of that, short a T.

No, no, OM, I simply observed how you dredge up authorities to impeach
them. It's a tough act to follow. :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I must point out that although my exchange with you has been short and
seemingly pointless; you feel a necessity to place yourself in prominence,
of both your "knowledge", opinions and your person.

I hardly wish you to keep up with such tiring and pointless expenditure of
energy on your part--I have found you to only be self-serving in your
devotion to your ego, yourself and your personal endeavors to make a fool of
yourself and destroy any sense of dignity one might have been able to afford
you.

I can only speak for myself of course, but you have completely destroyed any
credibility I could have granted you and, would only accept any offerings
from you after having checked them through other sources--since this is the
case, little is to be had from giving you any further considerations at all.



Regards


--
Hay, if'n ya'll cun't konstructivly partecipete in this disscusion, haw
aboot speel-checkin it fer me?


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:38:49 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

Terman also says
nothing about a Helical wound slim jim. Of course, this begs the
question "Why would he?"

The results are predictable, boringly so, and several have already
been down that road to no net gain. However, common sense in these
matters can be discarded if only someone offers validation, however
slim that may be from any jim. Such inventors stand on the shoulders
of dwarfs. Sorry for the allusion, as it again reprises the obvious
that physical height in relation to a standard (wavelength) dominates
the principle. However as principles and seeking validation go, no
doubt the topic will drift towards top loading dwarfs....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

John, I just love your logical assembly and choice of words. It flows.
Too good for amateur radio.

I wish I had your vocabulary.
----
Reg.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:42:31 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:

but you have completely destroyed any credibility I could have granted you

I being Brett, or Jim Jones?

To return to rote (yes, annoyingly on topic):
The physical size in relation to wavelength dominates launch
characteristics, NOT electrical length.

73's,
Richard Clark, KB7QHC