Yet Another Radial Question
 

Here is the scenario:

Hamshack on the west side of the house.

OCF dipole between two trees running perpendicular over the house with
the Balun directly above the shack (now *that* is handy)

Butternut vertical on the east side of the house. 12 radials so far.

Now here is what brings about the question. Over the winter months, I
had to have my sewer line to the street replaced, which ended up making
a huge mess out of my front yard. This means that I will probably end up
tilling and replanting a large part of the yard.

Is there any point to laying radials in the front yard? They would be
quite a ways (~50 feet) from the radials around the Butternut.

The main reason I ask though, is that I thought I heard here some time
ago, that a dipole would perform better over a good ground system.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I queried a real old timer locally about pretty much the same thing...
He said that would give me consistant radiation patterns, despite the ground
drying out during the summer.
Regardless, it certianly would not hurt!
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Here is the scenario:

Hamshack on the west side of the house.

OCF dipole between two trees running perpendicular over the house with the
Balun directly above the shack (now *that* is handy)

Butternut vertical on the east side of the house. 12 radials so far.

Now here is what brings about the question. Over the winter months, I had
to have my sewer line to the street replaced, which ended up making a huge
mess out of my front yard. This means that I will probably end up tilling
and replanting a large part of the yard.

Is there any point to laying radials in the front yard? They would be
quite a ways (~50 feet) from the radials around the Butternut.

The main reason I ask though, is that I thought I heard here some time
ago, that a dipole would perform better over a good ground system.

- Mike KB3EIA -

denton wrote:

I queried a real old timer locally about pretty much the same thing...
He said that would give me consistant radiation patterns, despite the ground
drying out during the summer.
Regardless, it certianly would not hurt!

Well at least I'm not the only one that had the same - possibly odd
question!

- Mike KB3EIA

I also wonder about 'good grounds' for dipoles.
If your terrain was very sandy - so much so that it would take over a
hundred ft of
ground rod to make a difference - then would this mean that your antenna
would
perform as though it was 100 ft higher - than over "normal" ground. ???

I've seen industrial plants use "ungrounded 480volt delta" system, and
with this system, if
any of the 480 v legs come into contact with "ground" (say a wet piece of
concrete floor)
there would be no sparks - as that corner would become the grounded leg.



"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Here is the scenario:

Hamshack on the west side of the house.

OCF dipole between two trees running perpendicular over the house with
the Balun directly above the shack (now *that* is handy)

Butternut vertical on the east side of the house. 12 radials so far.

Now here is what brings about the question. Over the winter months, I
had to have my sewer line to the street replaced, which ended up making
a huge mess out of my front yard. This means that I will probably end up
tilling and replanting a large part of the yard.

Is there any point to laying radials in the front yard? They would be
quite a ways (~50 feet) from the radials around the Butternut.

The main reason I ask though, is that I thought I heard here some time
ago, that a dipole would perform better over a good ground system.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Here is the scenario:

Hamshack on the west side of the house.

OCF dipole between two trees running perpendicular over the house
with
the Balun directly above the shack (now *that* is handy)

Butternut vertical on the east side of the house. 12 radials so far.

Now here is what brings about the question. Over the winter months,
I
had to have my sewer line to the street replaced, which ended up
making
a huge mess out of my front yard. This means that I will probably
end up
tilling and replanting a large part of the yard.

Is there any point to laying radials in the front yard? They would
be
quite a ways (~50 feet) from the radials around the Butternut.

The main reason I ask though, is that I thought I heard here some
time
ago, that a dipole would perform better over a good ground system.

- Mike KB3EIA -

=============================

No point in laying radials. Too far away from the Butternut. Current
does not flow that far along buried wires. Attenuation along the wire
is too great.
----
Reg.

"Hal Rosser" wrote

I also wonder about 'good grounds' for dipoles.
If your terrain was very sandy - so much so that it would take over a
hundred ft of
ground rod to make a difference - then would this mean that your antenna
would
perform as though it was 100 ft higher - than over "normal" ground. ???

I've seen industrial plants use "ungrounded 480volt delta" system, and
with this system, if
any of the 480 v legs come into contact with "ground" (say a wet piece of
concrete floor)
there would be no sparks - as that corner would become the grounded leg.

You might be mixing dc-theory with rf, and looking for a particular
relationship that's not there. The antenna is not 100' higher electrically
as you suggest. In terms of your 100' ground rod, just because it might take
that deep a hole to achieve say, 5 ohms dc-resistance, that does not make
the surface or an antenna above it at an elevated potential with respect to
each other.

A dipole certainly behaves differently over varying resistances of soils.
But the efficiency differences have never been equivalent to the antenna
being at a different elevation because of soil conditions. Now maybe I get
away with less ground loss from a half-wave dipole that is not quite a
half-wave above ground, because my soil is very sandy, is that what you
meant? It doesn't change the electrical height of my antenna any, but the
soil is such a lousy conductor that less is absorbed by a slightly too-low
antenna.

Jack

Sounds like your defining exactly what happens if you raise the antenna...

"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:lQYbe.241$qV3.90@lakeread04...
.......Snip......
But the efficiency differences have never been equivalent to the antenna
being at a different elevation because of soil conditions. Now maybe I get
away with less ground loss from a half-wave dipole that is not quite a
half-wave above ground, because my soil is very sandy, is that what you
meant? It doesn't change the electrical height of my antenna any, but the
soil is such a lousy conductor that less is absorbed by a slightly too-low
antenna.

Jack

You might be mixing dc-theory with rf, and looking for a particular
relationship that's not there. The antenna is not 100' higher electrically
as you suggest. In terms of your 100' ground rod, just because it might
take
that deep a hole to achieve say, 5 ohms dc-resistance, that does not make
the surface or an antenna above it at an elevated potential with respect
to
each other.

A dipole certainly behaves differently over varying resistances of soils.
But the efficiency differences have never been equivalent to the antenna
being at a different elevation because of soil conditions. Now maybe I get
away with less ground loss from a half-wave dipole that is not quite a
half-wave above ground, because my soil is very sandy, is that what you
meant? It doesn't change the electrical height of my antenna any, but the
soil is such a lousy conductor that less is absorbed by a slightly too-low
antenna.

Jack

You're probably right - but then why does the operator on the hill get
better recption than the one in the valley.
if sand is an insulator, then being on top of a 100-ft pile of sand would be
like at the topp of a glass tower, right?
why not?

"Hal Rosser" wrote

You might be mixing dc-theory with rf, and looking for a particular
relationship that's not there. The antenna is not 100' higher
electrically
as you suggest. In terms of your 100' ground rod, just because it might
take
that deep a hole to achieve say, 5 ohms dc-resistance, that does not
make
the surface or an antenna above it at an elevated potential with respect
to
each other.

A dipole certainly behaves differently over varying resistances of
soils.
But the efficiency differences have never been equivalent to the antenna
being at a different elevation because of soil conditions. Now maybe I
get
away with less ground loss from a half-wave dipole that is not quite a
half-wave above ground, because my soil is very sandy, is that what you
meant? It doesn't change the electrical height of my antenna any, but
the
soil is such a lousy conductor that less is absorbed by a slightly
too-low
antenna.

Jack

You're probably right - but then why does the operator on the hill get
better recption than the one in the valley.
if sand is an insulator, then being on top of a 100-ft pile of sand would
be
like at the topp of a glass tower, right?
why not?


Well, the irony of which Fred (W4IJE) replied surely applies - it seems to
have the same effect as "raising the antenna", which I did also admit. So
the only point I struggled to make was it is not electrically higher. Height
of an antenna surely helps us in all cases, and part of that is related to a
dipoles most efficient design height above ground, part is because we clear
interfering objects in the near and far fields when we "elevate" ;-)

I wouldn't stand on a tall sand hill in a thunderstorm, lightning would sure
be happy to race through you and down the side of the sand pile on its way
to a more conductive earthing! But a dipole erected 1/4 - 1/2 wave above the
same tall sand pile should be quite happy - especially if the Atlantic Ocean
was on one side, the Chesapeake Bay on another, and inland waters on a third
side. That pretty much describes the "hill" off the beach that I live on.

73,

Jack
Virginia Beach

Mike, KB3EIA wrote:
"The main reason I ask, is that I thought I heard here some time ago,
that a dipole would perform better over a good ground system."

It may not.

At a distant point, the received signal is probably composed of two
parts that started their journey as an incident ray and a ray which was
the incident ray`s reflection off on a tangent from the surface of the
earth.

If by good fortune these two rays happened to arrive at the distant
receiving point in-phase they would present a stronger signal than the
direct ray alone, and certainly a stronger signal than a combination of
two out-of-phase signals.

Unfortunately, the incident wave`s reflection is always out-of-phase
with the incident wave which produces it at the reflection point. A
perfect reflector would ensure the reflection was equal in magnitude as
well as out-of-phase to the incident ray.

Unless you get a difference in path length between incident and
reflected rays to invert the phase of one of the rays as compared with
the other, they will tend to cancel. You might be better off without the
reflected ray.

The ground connection in a vertical antenna system is entirely
different. Half the antenna system is the antenna`s image in the earth.
The connection to the earth or to a capacitive coupling to the earth
(elevated radials or ground-plane) carries the r-f current to the earth
side of the system. Any resistance in your gtound system directly adds
to loss in the system.With the usual vertical antenna system, radials
are essential.for efficiency..

This was a long-winded way to say you don`t need radials with a
horizontal dipole for r-f efficiengy. You do need a ground connection
for electrical safety and lightning protection. Radials work well for
these too.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:15:03 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

The main reason I ask though, is that I thought I heard here some time
ago, that a dipole would perform better over a good ground system.

Hi Mike,

You heard correctly. The ground system lowers losses which translate
to more power out. This is not method of controlling TOA, simply loss
- all angles of radiation improve.

I don't have the results published, but I have a near field study
showing interesting results for a dipole over ground, and over
shielded ground at:
http://home.comcast.net/~kb7qhc/ante...pole/index.htm

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
The main reason I ask though, is that I thought I heard here some time
ago, that a dipole would perform better over a good ground system.

Hi Mike,

You heard correctly. The ground system lowers losses which translate
to more power out. This is not method of controlling TOA, simply loss
- all angles of radiation improve.
_________________

Note that the intrinsic, free space pattern/gain of a dipole does not depend
in any way on the presence or nature of a ground plane.

Reflections from the ground (and other objects) can modify the classic donut
shape of the dipole pattern and produce relative gain in some directions, at
the expense of gain in other directions. But the "power out," or absorbed
by a matched dipole will be the same in any case.

A low-resistance ground system will increase the fields radiated from an
antenna that uses the earth as an 'image' part of the complete radiation
system, such as the vertical mast radiators used in MW broadcasting. With a
perfect ground in this situation, the base current in the vertical mast is
twice what it would be for the same power applied to an equivalent wire
dipole (less a ground system) in free space -- resulting in 3 dB system
gain.

RF

Richard Fry wrote:
"With a perfect ground in this situation (MW vertical tower) the base
current in the vertical mast is twice what it would be for the same
power applied to an equivalent wire dipole (less a ground system) in
free space -- resulting in 3 dB system gain."

I`m not agreeing or disagreeing, just listing facts.

Arnold B. Bailey in "TV and Other Receiving Antennas"on p. 500 gives the
gain of a horizontal half wave wire (thin), center-fed as zero dB at its
center frequency. He should. It is his reference for all other antennas.
His authority is the famous G.H. Brown in Proc. I.R.E., Vol. 33, p. 257,
April 1945. Antenna resistance = 60 ohms.

On page 538, Bailey gives the free-apsce gain of the quarter-wave
vertical antenna. It too has a gain of zero dB = 0 dBd. His authority is
A.S. Meier & W.P. Summers in Proc. I.R.E., Vol. 37, p. 609, June 1949.
Antenna resistance 28 ohms.

Power is current squared times the resistance..

Terman says on page 886 of his 1955 edition:
"Effect of Ground on Directive Gain of Ungrounded Antennas. Consider an
antenna is far enough from ground so that the total power radiated by a
given set of antenna currents is independent of the presence or absence
of the ground. Then a ground reflection that reinforces the main lobe
will double the field strength of the main lobe, and so will increase
the directive gain of the antenna system by a factor of 4." (thet`s a
power ratio of 4)

On page 885 Terman says:
" Consequentially (due to ground reflection nulls), to obtain strong
radiation in the directions approaching the horizontal using a
horizontally polarized radiating system, it is necessary that the height
of the antenna above the earth be of the order of one wavelength or
more."

Also on page 885 Terman says:
"In the case of horizontal polarization the effect of imperfect ground
is seen to be quite small, especially at low vertical angles. With
vertical polarization the ground imperfections have greater effect; in
particular, the filling of the nulls at moderately low vertical angles
is very pronounced."

For the power to be the same in a vertical mast and a wire dipole, the I
squared R must be the same in both cases.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Mike Coslo wrote:
Here is the scenario:

Hamshack on the west side of the house.

OCF dipole between two trees running perpendicular over the house
with
the Balun directly above the shack (now *that* is handy)

Butternut vertical on the east side of the house. 12 radials so far.

Now here is what brings about the question. Over the winter months,
I
had to have my sewer line to the street replaced, which ended up
making
a huge mess out of my front yard. This means that I will probably end
up
tilling and replanting a large part of the yard.

Is there any point to laying radials in the front yard? They would
be
quite a ways (~50 feet) from the radials around the Butternut.

Emphatically NO.

The main reason I ask though, is that I thought I heard here some
time
ago, that a dipole would perform better over a good ground system.

Maybe if the "good ground" is an acre or two of sheet copper and the
dipole is a half wave above it.


- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

I wrote:
"With a perfect ground in this situation (MW vertical tower) the base
current in the vertical mast is twice what it would be for the same
power applied to an equivalent wire dipole (less a ground system) in
free space -- resulting in 3 dB system gain."
to which Richard Harrison responded.
____________

Excuse my inaccurate statement about that current, and thanks for catching
it.

The input resistance of a 1/4-wave monopole working against a perfect ground
plane is 36.5 ohms,* or half that of a 1/2-wave dipole in free space. A
given input power then results in 1.414X more current in the monopole than
the dipole. Hence the monopole radiates 1.414X the field of the dipole.
And, as shown in Kraus 3rd edition, Table 6-2, a 1/4-wave monopole against a
perfect ground has 3 dB more gain than a 1/2-wave dipole in free space.

Increasing the field from the 1/2-wave, free space dipole by 1.414X in the
above example would require doubling its input power (3dB), which would
result in the same 1.414X increase in its current -- to the same value as
seen in the monopole with 1/2 that power.

* per Kraus 3rd Edition, p 567

RF

Richard Harrison wrote:

Mike, KB3EIA wrote:
"The main reason I ask, is that I thought I heard here some time ago,
that a dipole would perform better over a good ground system."

It may not.

At a distant point, the received signal is probably composed of two
parts that started their journey as an incident ray and a ray which was
the incident ray`s reflection off on a tangent from the surface of the
earth.

If by good fortune these two rays happened to arrive at the distant
receiving point in-phase they would present a stronger signal than the
direct ray alone, and certainly a stronger signal than a combination of
two out-of-phase signals.

Unfortunately, the incident wave`s reflection is always out-of-phase
with the incident wave which produces it at the reflection point. A
perfect reflector would ensure the reflection was equal in magnitude as
well as out-of-phase to the incident ray.

Unless you get a difference in path length between incident and
reflected rays to invert the phase of one of the rays as compared with
the other, they will tend to cancel. You might be better off without the
reflected ray.

The ground connection in a vertical antenna system is entirely
different. Half the antenna system is the antenna`s image in the earth.
The connection to the earth or to a capacitive coupling to the earth
(elevated radials or ground-plane) carries the r-f current to the earth
side of the system. Any resistance in your gtound system directly adds
to loss in the system.With the usual vertical antenna system, radials
are essential.for efficiency..

This was a long-winded way to say you don`t need radials with a
horizontal dipole for r-f efficiengy. You do need a ground connection
for electrical safety and lightning protection. Radials work well for
these too.

I'm beginning to think that what makes an antenna "good" is the time at
which a person uses it!

- Mike KB3EIA -

This is unfortunately an example of arriving at the right result by
using the wrong (actually, incomplete) method.

The field from a conductor is proportional not only to the current
flowing in it, but also the length of the conductor. So if you put the
same current into a dipole and monopole, and assuming they have the same
current distribution, the field from the dipole will be twice the field
from the monopole.

So let's start again. The input R of a monopole over an infinite perfect
ground is 1/2 the resistance of a free space dipole, so for a given
power input the monopole current is 1.414 times the dipole current, as
you said. Ok so far. But because the dipole is twice as long and with
the same current distribution (and oriented in such a way that the
fields from the two halves add in phase), the field from the dipole is
2/1.414 = 1.414 times the field from the monopole. However, each ray
from the monopole is reflected from ground, resulting in two rays adding
in phase at a distant point. This doubles the field from the monopole,
so it's now 2/1.414 = 1.414 times the field from the free space dipole.
This is the same result, but with the two additional important factors
of radiator length and ground reflection included.

A good check of the final result is to note that, neglecting loss, the
average field intensity from *any* antenna in free space has to be 3 dB
less than the average field intensity from *any* antenna over an
infinite ground plane, if the same power is applied to each. The reason
is simply that the supplied power is spread over half the volume when
the ground plane is present.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Richard Fry wrote:
. . .
The input resistance of a 1/4-wave monopole working against a perfect
ground plane is 36.5 ohms,* or half that of a 1/2-wave dipole in free
space. A given input power then results in 1.414X more current in the
monopole than the dipole. Hence the monopole radiates 1.414X the field
of the dipole. And, as shown in Kraus 3rd edition, Table 6-2, a 1/4-wave
monopole against a perfect ground has 3 dB more gain than a 1/2-wave
dipole in free space.

Increasing the field from the 1/2-wave, free space dipole by 1.414X in
the above example would require doubling its input power (3dB), which
would result in the same 1.414X increase in its current -- to the same
value as seen in the monopole with 1/2 that power.

* per Kraus 3rd Edition, p 567

RF

Hmmm, I was working on the "phases of the moon", you might have something...
grin

Regards,
John

Richard Clark wrote:

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:15:03 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:


The main reason I ask though, is that I thought I heard here some time
ago, that a dipole would perform better over a good ground system.


Hi Mike,

You heard correctly. The ground system lowers losses which translate
to more power out. This is not method of controlling TOA, simply loss
- all angles of radiation improve.

I don't have the results published, but I have a near field study
showing interesting results for a dipole over ground, and over
shielded ground at:

Interesting indeed!

- Mike KB3EIA -

You heard correctly. The ground system lowers losses which
translate
to more power out. This is not method of controlling TOA, simply
loss
- all angles of radiation improve.

======================================

Some buried wires under a horizontal dipole, at a height of 1/4 or 1/2
wavelengths, will, in theory, reduce losses. Some old wife, once upon
a time, must have read something about it in a book without bothering
about the magnitude of the effect.

It's not enough to be detectable. So don't listen to your voices or
waste time digging up your back yard and getting back ache.

There's far too much of old wives reading things in books and
ill-written radio magazines, getting the wrong ideas, and then
plagiarising them. Which innocent people hear about 3rd or 4th hand
or n'th hand.

The fabled SWR meter is another example.
----
Reg.

On Sun, 1 May 2005 23:06:25 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Some buried wires

Some?

under a horizontal dipole, at a height of 1/4 or 1/2
wavelengths,

Why that high? Another Wives' tale? What about 1/8 or 5/8 (or even
some fraction in between)?

will, in theory

Whose theory?

, reduce losses.

Clearly loose conjecture. You got any data, or is this merely
rustling baking crumbs out of your apron?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Reg:

You know about SWR meters, built any?
I have built one, two so-239's, center conductor between 'em has a toroid
with 20 turns, EACH SIDE of the winding on the toroid has a 50 ohm resistor
to ground AND cathode of a diode to it, EACH SIDE through the diode feeds a
bright LED, and BOTH LEDS share a common ground resistance (variable)...
(cap to drain off rf to ground and supply a dc voltage/current in diodes
circuits) one LED reads forward, other reads reverse... it "seems" to
work, but here everything seems to be as real as "time."
In use, I adjust the forward LED for approx. correct brightness, the rev LED
is "judged" in brightness to make a workable guess at SWR... (I have one
with a meter--different direction coupler design, I just get a kick out of
the leds... I built the one with the meter, it "probably" works correctly
grin)
Operation has been at 100 watts... and, I don't think it would take anymore
power, barely able to dim the led near/at dark condition now (but this make
it highly useable at 10 watts)... probably have to drop secondary turns on
the toroid (but, how many turns would I need to keep to assure accurate
operation of the directional coupler?) and/or supply voltage to the leds
though a resistive divider, if I went more power...


Is my "directional coupler" design correct?
Better ideas for this circuit?

Warmest regards,
John
"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
|
|
| You heard correctly. The ground system lowers losses which
| translate
| to more power out. This is not method of controlling TOA, simply
| loss
| - all angles of radiation improve.
|
| ======================================
|
| Some buried wires under a horizontal dipole, at a height of 1/4 or 1/2
| wavelengths, will, in theory, reduce losses. Some old wife, once upon
| a time, must have read something about it in a book without bothering
| about the magnitude of the effect.
|
| It's not enough to be detectable. So don't listen to your voices or
| waste time digging up your back yard and getting back ache.
|
| There's far too much of old wives reading things in books and
| ill-written radio magazines, getting the wrong ideas, and then
| plagiarising them. Which innocent people hear about 3rd or 4th hand
| or n'th hand.
|
| The fabled SWR meter is another example.
| ----
| Reg.
|
|

Reg, G4FGQ wrote:
"There`s far too much of old wives reading things in books and ill
written radio magazines, getting the wrong ideas, and then plagiarising
them."

Fact and fiction are both repeated. That does not make written material
unreliable. It may mean you need verification of data. Reputation of
authors is based on their performance. It does not make them infallible,
just usually right.

Even an anecdotal tale may not repeat in your situation.

Repeatibility is reasonably expected or demonstrated in some instances.
It is not necessary to make all the mistakes for yourself or to find all
the "bugs" yourself. Reading can help avoid failures. Education is
worthwhile.

T.A. Edison gave us the light bulb, the phonograph, and the movie
machine. Nikola Tesla gave us powerful electrical machinery,
transmission systems, and the ability to exploit alternating electrical
power by appreciation of electrical principles better than others in his
time. Tesla`s approach was educated and inspired by what he read in
books.

You can experiment like Edison (98% perspiration, 2% inspiration) or
reason like Tesla. Both methods brought tremendous results.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard, I can see you adopt the same attitude as I do towards
questions on this newsgroup which begin with "I have heard that . . .
.. ".

Hardly a reliable start to a question. One gets the impression the
questioner is unlikely to be able to understand the answer and tailors
the answer to suit.

Looking back over my career, I have never(?) taken anything out of a
book (Terman, etc) at face value. The number of occasions on which
errors and uncertainties of one sort or another have come to light has
justified the time and effort expended in checking.

Anybody who quotes Terman as from a Bible has only ever read him but
must have never actually used him in anger. I mention Terman only as
an example but hasten to add, in my opinion, he is amongst the most
reliable of popular technical authors. I have only his first edition
produced in the middle of WW2.

The work which continued during the life and death struggles between
the nations of WW2 never ceases to amazes me. During the battles of
Leningrad and Stalingrad, Russian engineers were designing High
Voltage DC power lines from yet-to-be-built hydro-electric power
stations deep in Asia, into Europe.

Stalin himself was concerned with the nutrition and the future of
school children. During the horrible prolonged battle of Stalingrad he
directed that children and mothers, then living in the frozen sewers
beneath the ruins, should be given top priority with food rationing.
This was based on the grounds that the average life of a soldier in
the city, having just survived crossing the river Volga, was only 7
hours and consequently he would not have time to eat and fully digest
a good meal.

As is well known the Germans ran out of food and ammunition first and
the survivors crawled out of the sewers and burning buildings to
surrender. The German generals must have known then the war was lost.
But it was not until 6 months later, in the Battle of Machines around
the city of Kursk, on the broad summer grasslands of the surrounding
steppes, littered with thousands of burning tanks, wrecked mobile guns
and aircraft, and deserted troop carriers, that Hitler must have been
convinced of ultimate defeat.

But another two years were to elapse and millions of Russian, Polish
and German lives were still to be lost before Russian tanks crossed
the Oder and Russian rockets and shells began to rain down on Berlin.
----
Reg, G4FGQ.

=======================================

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 May 2005 23:06:25 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Some buried wires

Some?

under a horizontal dipole, at a height of 1/4 or 1/2
wavelengths,

Why that high? Another Wives' tale? What about 1/8 or 5/8 (or even
some fraction in between)?

will, in theory

Whose theory?

, reduce losses.

Clearly loose conjecture. You got any data, or is this merely
rustling baking crumbs out of your apron?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Reg:

I can see how one such as I might be confusing.
I came from academic institutions which (stated) they believed, "There are
no "dumb" questions, only "dumb" people who WILL NOT put these questions
forward."

I interpreted this to say, "You can either choose to look STUPID with your
question--and change, or, you can choose to maintain your pride (remain
silent) and remain "STUPID!"
I would like to think I choose the first (but, due to my limited resources,
has only marginally improved my stupidity)...

Also, it was common belief that a person had to hear the concept, idea, etc.
six-times before it was absorbed by the mind in question and became
"knowledge."
There may be those gifted in absorbing information on the first try,
however, I fall into the group I mentioned above. frown
It does make me appreciate men/women/children with tollerance and
patience--if that is any factor which would redeem me....

Warmest regards,
John

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
|
| Richard, I can see you adopt the same attitude as I do towards
| questions on this newsgroup which begin with "I have heard that . . .
| . ".
|
| Hardly a reliable start to a question. One gets the impression the
| questioner is unlikely to be able to understand the answer and tailors
| the answer to suit.
|
| Looking back over my career, I have never(?) taken anything out of a
| book (Terman, etc) at face value. The number of occasions on which
| errors and uncertainties of one sort or another have come to light has
| justified the time and effort expended in checking.
|
| Anybody who quotes Terman as from a Bible has only ever read him but
| must have never actually used him in anger. I mention Terman only as
| an example but hasten to add, in my opinion, he is amongst the most
| reliable of popular technical authors. I have only his first edition
| produced in the middle of WW2.
|
| The work which continued during the life and death struggles between
| the nations of WW2 never ceases to amazes me. During the battles of
| Leningrad and Stalingrad, Russian engineers were designing High
| Voltage DC power lines from yet-to-be-built hydro-electric power
| stations deep in Asia, into Europe.
|
| Stalin himself was concerned with the nutrition and the future of
| school children. During the horrible prolonged battle of Stalingrad he
| directed that children and mothers, then living in the frozen sewers
| beneath the ruins, should be given top priority with food rationing.
| This was based on the grounds that the average life of a soldier in
| the city, having just survived crossing the river Volga, was only 7
| hours and consequently he would not have time to eat and fully digest
| a good meal.
|
| As is well known the Germans ran out of food and ammunition first and
| the survivors crawled out of the sewers and burning buildings to
| surrender. The German generals must have known then the war was lost.
| But it was not until 6 months later, in the Battle of Machines around
| the city of Kursk, on the broad summer grasslands of the surrounding
| steppes, littered with thousands of burning tanks, wrecked mobile guns
| and aircraft, and deserted troop carriers, that Hitler must have been
| convinced of ultimate defeat.
|
| But another two years were to elapse and millions of Russian, Polish
| and German lives were still to be lost before Russian tanks crossed
| the Oder and Russian rockets and shells began to rain down on Berlin.
| ----
| Reg, G4FGQ.
|
| =======================================
|
| "Richard Clark" wrote in message
| ...
| On Sun, 1 May 2005 23:06:25 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
| wrote:
|
| Some buried wires
|
| Some?
|
| under a horizontal dipole, at a height of 1/4 or 1/2
| wavelengths,
|
| Why that high? Another Wives' tale? What about 1/8 or 5/8 (or even
| some fraction in between)?
|
| will, in theory
|
| Whose theory?
|
| , reduce losses.
|
| Clearly loose conjecture. You got any data, or is this merely
| rustling baking crumbs out of your apron?
|
| 73's
| Richard Clark, KB7QHC
|
|

On Mon, 2 May 2005 17:41:41 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Richard, I can see you adopt the same attitude as I do towards
questions on this newsgroup which begin with "I have heard that . . .
. ".

Hardly a reliable start to a question.

Hi Reggie,

Reliability in questions? You've got the cart before the horse. If
"I have heard that" was an introduction to a statement, or development
of an idea; yes, certainly, a poor beginning. But as an introduction
to a question, it is apparent that the questioner is begging
contradiction or confirmation for "I have heard that."

In my particular instance, I supported the generality by offering a
new perspective and confirmation. Mike appreciated it, and that was
enough apparently as the remainder of discussion wandered the field
kicking over other stones.

One gets the impression the
questioner is unlikely to be able to understand the answer and tailors
the answer to suit.

Hardly uncommon, and successive correspondence removes any doubt or
resolves the enquiry. This is the point of posting afterall. The
only one posting threads I've seen are my own. ;-)

Looking back over my career, I have never(?) taken anything out of a
book (Terman, etc) at face value. The number of occasions on which
errors and uncertainties of one sort or another have come to light has
justified the time and effort expended in checking.

Anybody who quotes Terman as from a Bible has only ever read him but
must have never actually used him in anger. I mention Terman only as
an example but hasten to add, in my opinion, he is amongst the most
reliable of popular technical authors. I have only his first edition
produced in the middle of WW2.

The utility of references is manifold. Some use them as rubber
crutches for their xeroxed theories. I've noted this on more than one
occasion when Optics is so thoroughly pimped to serve impoverished
notions.

However, even in this, and other instances, such citations offer the
general readership a bibliography and some insight into the depth of
discussion to be found in those references. When all I see are
endless lines of copied equations, I am not impressed. However, when
I see logical development proceeding out of the topic at hand, the
original author would bear closer examination.

I have several of the cited works mentioned here. Too many are as dry
as bone, and hardly useful beyond the examples they laboriously wade
through the math to cover. Others are indeed treasures of first
principles.

What this reduces to, is to lean heavily upon the cliche of "Old
Wives' Tales" to whitewash a thread is in itself reducing the
discussion to voyeurism and is neither an original nor useful insight.
Kelvin would hardly be impressed at such rhetoric that evades
specifically challenging loose references. The difference is
Atlantic, we are less impressed by the arch comments that typically
inhabit "a letter to the editors of the Times." If you care to polish
up your style, I would suggest researching the better pieces written
before the age of TV (or radio for that matter).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Reg Edwards wrote:

Richard, I can see you adopt the same attitude as I do towards
questions on this newsgroup which begin with "I have heard that . . .
. ".

Hardly a reliable start to a question. One gets the impression the
questioner is unlikely to be able to understand the answer and tailors
the answer to suit.

Well gee, Reg, I did hear it and it was in here. Okay, I saw it on my
screen to be more precise.

And as for the depth of my understanding? It is *not* very deep. I am a
beginner in RF, having spent most of my career in computers. But I
attempt to learn. I hope to understand. And I appreciate the answers
that people have taken the time to give me.

And for the most part, I *do* pick up what I am told.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Reg, G4FGQ wrote:
"The German Generals must have known then that the war was lost. But it
was not until 5 months later, in the Battle of Machines around the City
of Kursk, on the broad summer grasslands of the surrounding stepps,
littered with thousands of burning tanks, wrecked mobile guns and
aircraft, and troop carriers, that Hitler must have been convinced of
ultimate defeat."

You would think so. Fortunately, for the most part, Hitler wasn`t known
for seeking and following the counsel of his subordinates, some of whom
were very competent. Often it seems Hitler believed what he wanted to
believe. His hubris was a serious fault, second only to his lack of
respect for human decency. The world would have been better off had
Hitler had minor vices, I believe. Hitler was a teatotaler, non-smoker,
vegetarian, and monogamous. Why couldnt he have been more like a
Churchill or a Roosevelt? With less imagined supeiority, he might have
been an ordinary fellow.

Hitler may have refused far too long to admit that Germany had lost the
war, but there are plenty of stories that his subordinates knew.

They were aware of the Allies weaknesses but they also recognized Allied
strength.

U.S. P-38 fighter planes were outclassed by single-engined German
fighters over Europe. But, when Herman Goering saw P-51 fighters
escorting Allied Bombers over Berlin, he is reported to have declared
Germany as the loser in the war, and that Germany should immediately
seek peace. He said that, knowing the Luftwaffe, though on the
defensive, was equipped with fantastic weapons including superb
conventional aircraft and with jets and rockets coming online. The fact
was that the U.S. could build aircraft faster than the Germans could
shoot them down.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI