"Richard Clark" wrote
It's satisfying enough to see you're stunned. ;-)
That was the point of the sieve.
__________________

Your perception of that is as inaccurate as the one you espouse about loaded
verticals. Are you incapable of dealing with technical topics in a
technical manner?

I suppose now you'll claim that your post above was another sieve, and
congratulate yourself all over again.

RF

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:52:24 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

Are you incapable of dealing with technical topics in a
technical manner?

Hi OM,

I respond to all correspondence of interest. I see you enjoy talk
about talking about technical topics, but I have seen no technical
discussion from you for quite some time. That is your sole
responsibility as no one can do your typing for you.

I suppose now

Yes, but too often.

This is what I mean about choice and responsibility. You chose to
ramble on instead of offering technical discussion. I am equally
pleased to travel either path, and I suspect your protestation above
given the inclination obviously revealed below it.

So to match your diverging interests, can you answer
"What does Do Wa Diddy mean?"

If your heart of heart's desire for technical topics must be sated
first
What effect would surface phonon polaritons present to an
antenna's efficiency?

Either constitute another sieve. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Harrison" wrote
ON4UN says on page 9-29 of his 1994 edition of the Low-Band DXing
book: "Over sea-water the 5/8 wave has lost 0.8 dB of its gain already,
the 1/4-wave only 0.4 dB." (It`s less than one dB).

I think you should question that conclusion. Sea water (or any path of
fixed parameters) attenuates every groundwave by the same decibel amount for
the same path, conditions, and frequency. For example, using the FCC curves
for groundwave propagation from a radiator with 1 kW of power and 120
1/4-wave radials, over a seawater (only) path at 1MHz...

- a 1/4-wave vertical produces a field of 190 mV/m at 1 mile,
and 85 mV/m at 2 miles.
- a 5/8-wave vertical produces a field of 274 mV/m at 1 mile,
and 137 mV/m at 2 miles.

This is as expected. Doubling the distance reduces field strength by 6 dB
in each case. The absolute value of the groundwave signal has no bearing on
the percentage of it that is lost as it propagates.

Even a disappearingly small radiator produces radiation less than 1/2 dB
weaker than a 1/2-wave dipole, or a 1/4-wave vertical. In lossless
antennas, the only difference in radiated signal between the full length
antenna and a too-short antenna comes from the slight difference in
their patterns.

The difference in peak gain between an isotropic radiator and a reference
dipole in free space is 2.15 dB. Practical antennas in real-world
applications can show greater than 0.5 dB losses for shortened radiators.
In my example above, the 1/4-wave radiator would need about 2 kW of input
power to produce the same field as the 5/8-wave radiator with 1 kW, over the
same path -- which is a 3 dB ratio.

In 1949, I worked in a transmitting plant where two stations, KPRC, 950
KHz, and KXYZ, 1320 KHz, shared the same transmittinng tower. Both
stations had identical RCA 5-C, 5 KW transmitters. Regional coverage was
almost identical despite many more degrees in the tower at 1320 KHz than
at 950 KHz.

If the tower was 90 degrees at 950 kHz it would have been 125 degrees at
1320 kHz. The FCC efficiency for 90 degree towers is 190 mV/m at 1 mile for
1 kW, and about 210 mV/m for 125 degree radiators. So the 1320 kHz signal
was launched with a greater groundwave, but that advantage would be lost as
the signal propagated over whatever the ground conditions are for the path
(higher freqs have greater losses). Using the FCC curves and a conductivity
of 8 mS/m, the 5 mV/m contour should be about 35.5 miles away for the 5kW
950 kHz station, and about 27.5 miles away for the 5kW 1320 kHz station.
But close in probably few would know the difference.

Bill Orr writes on page 78 of "Vertical Antennas":
"A helix length of about .05 wavelength or more provides good results
as a substitute for a full size quarter wavelength vertical antenna."

Was 0.05 lambda the pitch of the helix? If so, how many turns? How were
the two installed? How were the antennas oriented, and In which direction
from the antennas was he comparing them?

+ + +

And thanks for some serious comments on this subject.

RF

"Richard Clark" wrote:
One's word is insufficient -- even if it comes from you
and/or Richard Clark.

And I presume you being the arbiter of what is right, then render
authority to make this citation sufficient to be proof of your
statement? :-)
__________________

Yes, you do presume. Your primary education should have provided you with
the concept of proving and supporting your work; I merely referred to it.

Experience here shows that you will claim whatever you want, and supply no
technical justification for it. That's up to you, but as you see by
responses here, it isn't earning you very much respect from others.

RF

"Richard Clark" wrote:

Drivel not worth serious consideration.

On 30/03/2005 10:34 AM, Tom Ring wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:09:17 -0600, Tom Ring
wrote:
[...]
Combat? I suppose you are fishing for the point award answers.
In Order:
Mr. Natural,
Flakey Foont.

Yes, combat - advice given to troops going to fight on the islands of
the Pacific. And I must have forgotten the re-use by Crumb; I used to
have all of them, way back when. I liked the Fabulous Furry Freak
Brothers better.

I simply cannot resist:

"Antennas will get you through times of no propagation better than
propagation will get you through times of no antennas."

I'll admit that I've lost the plot to this thread. Although, I've
picked up some interesting pointers on antenna design with respect to
electrical length. I really need to pick up a copy of the Terman book,
if only to read up on some of the references I've seen here.

At least it will give me a reason to use my erstwhile maths skills for
good, instead of for evil.

clvrmnky wrote:

Yes, combat - advice given to troops going to fight on the islands of
the Pacific. And I must have forgotten the re-use by Crumb; I used to
have all of them, way back when. I liked the Fabulous Furry Freak
Brothers better.

I simply cannot resist:

"Antennas will get you through times of no propagation better than
propagation will get you through times of no antennas."


I was going to use the original of that one, but decided I shouldn't. I
like your version a lot.

tom
K0TAR

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:55:09 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

That's up to you, but as you see by
responses here, it isn't earning you very much respect from others.

Hi OM,

I will concede the post of Beauty Queen to your overwhelming lead.
Tears will stain my pillow tonight. :-(

However much you may pine away for technical discussion, you balance
that with the relish to gust on with personalities. Clearly your
contest but no points for content nor style. Careful, there are
others eyeing that crown you seek.

I posed a question about pop music and antennas, both, given you have
abandoned the topic long ago. This in itself merely underlines how
inconsequential its outcome was. The vacuum of discussion along any
of those lines portends more banal gossip. I shouldn't await any
surprising development in your writing skills; but I'm an optimist and
look forward to that slight glimmer of talent that goes beyond the
swim suit competition.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
I will concede...
____

Let us all hope so.

RF

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:08:33 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

"Richard Clark" wrote:

Drivel not worth serious consideration.

Hi OM,

The sieve succeeded. We can eliminate popular music as serious
consideration from your vast repertoire of experience. It appears you
are somewhat constrained on the topic of Polaritons (Plasmons to some)
too. In the future I will try to dumb down the technical and elevate
the popular. By some accounts we would end up discussing Shakespeare
again!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC