On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:35:11 -0400, "Walter Maxwell"
wrote:
Your mentioning Mathcad, (I have 2000i ed.)

Hi Walt,

My version is ancient in comparison, but I can't see the cost of
upgrading.

made me think of using Excel to
produce some graphs of the data, however, there are two other projects that must
come first. I have used Mathcad only to solve problems using the equations one
can build there, and have not explored the graphing possibilities.

I enjoy Mathcad for tying them together. When I think of Excel, it is
with pedestrian bar graphs and pie charts.

With both
Excel and Mathcad available do you think I should spend the time learning
graphics with Mathcad, or stick with Excel which I already know how to use?

Stick with Excel, but look into XLZIZL.xls for analysis.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:35:11 -0400, "Walter Maxwell"
wrote:
Your mentioning Mathcad, (I have 2000i ed.)

Hi Walt,

My version is ancient in comparison, but I can't see the cost of
upgrading.

made me think of using Excel to
produce some graphs of the data, however, there are two other projects that
must
come first. I have used Mathcad only to solve problems using the equations one
can build there, and have not explored the graphing possibilities.

I enjoy Mathcad for tying them together. When I think of Excel, it is
with pedestrian bar graphs and pie charts.

With both
Excel and Mathcad available do you think I should spend the time learning
graphics with Mathcad, or stick with Excel which I already know how to use?

Stick with Excel, but look into XLZIZL.xls for analysis.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Thanks for the advice, Richard,

Walt

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:42:45 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Least of all does KB7QHC's lying slander worry me.

I love you too, Reg. Thanx for taking the time to acknowledge me.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Reg Edwards wrote:

Walt, would it be possible for somebody to go to B.L & E's
original
site and measure the soil charateristics which they completely
forgot
all about. . .

But what would that tell us about the soil conditions to, say, three
skin depths -- or even one? What conclusions could we draw from that
information?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

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

None, except that you are nit-picking as usual.

And that B, L & E, all three of them, were floundering about in an
amateurish fashion.

Yet it had been well known to others for 35 years that soil
conductivity and permittivity had a profound effect on ground wave
propagation.

All they had demonstrated was that 113 radials was more than
sufficient for MF and low HF broadcast propagation which was what
everybody already knew.

And so the rounded-up, Marzipan the Magician, magic number of 120 got
stuck in the bibles. A typical American way of going about things. ;o)
----
Reg.

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:42:45 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Least of all does KB7QHC's lying slander worry me.

I love you too, Reg. Thanx for taking the time to acknowledge me.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Lying slander is a redundancy, isn't it? Just the opposite of sanitary sewer as
an oxymoron. I've been enjoying Richard's redundancy and Punchinello's responses
immensely.

Walt, W2DU

Reg Edwards wrote:

[Responding to the question of what useful information could be obtained
from measuring the surface soil conductivity at the B, L, and E site]

None

But I'm sure that won't stop you from your frequent complaints that they
"forgot" to measure it. I see you've found other things to criticize,
though. . .

, except that you are nit-picking as usual.

Asking what use it would be to measure the surface conductivity (as you
suggested) is nit-picking? You have a strange way of evaluating things.

And that B, L & E, all three of them, were floundering about in an
amateurish fashion.

Ah, you play the role of armchair quarterback very well. Sure is too bad
you didn't think of doing the experiment in 1937 -- I'm sure you would
have done it right. All AM broadcast stations would be using precisely
100, not 120 radials, and we'd know the surface ground conductivity of
the measurement field (but still wouldn't know what to do with the
information). The Reg of '05 would have the warm, satisfied feeling of
knowing that another seminal piece of work was done by one of Her
Magisty's loyal subjects (or was it His Magisty in '37 -- I forget)
instead of the gnawing aggravation he experiences thinking that some
American ruffians might actually have done something useful. Life would
sure be a lot better today, wouldn't it?

Yet it had been well known to others for 35 years that soil
conductivity and permittivity had a profound effect on ground wave
propagation.

Propagation, yes. But nobody had a good handle of the effect of ground
systems on antenna efficiency until their experiments.

All they had demonstrated was that 113 radials was more than
sufficient for MF and low HF broadcast propagation which was what
everybody already knew.

You obviously haven't read the paper. It has nothing at all to do with
propagation.

And so the rounded-up, Marzipan the Magician, magic number of 120 got
stuck in the bibles. A typical American way of going about things. ;o)
----

Boy, it really must hurt deeply to think that some Americans did
something that the rest of the world considers to be pioneering. Have
some more wine -- it'll dull the pain.

But under no circumstances should you actually stoop to reading the
paper you're so fond of criticizing. It would just make you feel worse.

Reg.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
certified Reg's Old Wife -- and inveterate nit-picker

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:34:32 -0400, "Walter Maxwell"
wrote:

Lying slander is a redundancy, isn't it?

Hi Walt,

The laws, and I imagine the understanding, varies immensely across all
borders and jurisdictions. In some places it is slander to reveal the
truth, in others to disparage with a lie.

One could imagine the paradox of uttering a lying truth, I suppose.
However, given Reg's propensity to slander outrageously, as though it
were a prerogative of old age and infirmity, and to wrap me in under
the same mantle well before my time (but perhaps not infirmity); this
callow youth takes it as no less honour than the tap of the sword on
the shoulders by a Queen.

Alternately, lacking any quantitative data, a shortfall that Sir
Kelvinator of ice box fame would shudder at, I cannot think Reg's
opprobrium is any less part of the act of Punchinello (in other words,
indistinguishable from honest labor when such is so mixed with
intemperance and reckless fulmination).

Either way, I always enjoy the flourish of his hyperbolic arcs.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Reg;
How many radials are required in GB for a commercial broadcast station ?

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...

Reg Edwards wrote:

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

None, except that you are nit-picking as usual.

And that B, L & E, all three of them, were floundering about in an
amateurish fashion.

Yet it had been well known to others for 35 years that soil
conductivity and permittivity had a profound effect on ground wave
propagation.

All they had demonstrated was that 113 radials was more than
sufficient for MF and low HF broadcast propagation which was what
everybody already knew.

And so the rounded-up, Marzipan the Magician, magic number of 120 got
stuck in the bibles. A typical American way of going about things. ;o)
----
Reg.

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:34:32 -0400, "Walter Maxwell"
wrote:

Lying slander is a redundancy, isn't it?

Hi Walt,

The laws, and I imagine the understanding, varies immensely across all
borders and jurisdictions. In some places it is slander to reveal the
truth, in others to disparage with a lie.

One could imagine the paradox of uttering a lying truth, I suppose.
However, given Reg's propensity to slander outrageously, as though it
were a prerogative of old age and infirmity, and to wrap me in under
the same mantle well before my time (but perhaps not infirmity); this
callow youth takes it as no less honour than the tap of the sword on
the shoulders by a Queen.

Alternately, lacking any quantitative data, a shortfall that Sir
Kelvinator of ice box fame would shudder at, I cannot think Reg's
opprobrium is any less part of the act of Punchinello (in other words,
indistinguishable from honest labor when such is so mixed with
intemperance and reckless fulmination).

Either way, I always enjoy the flourish of his hyperbolic arcs.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, as I both said and implied earlier, I enjoy you both immensely. Your
elegant usage of expression as a degreed literary is hardly unnoticeable.

Walt

Walter:

Does that mean you do agree with me and Shakespeare sucks--or not?
grin

John

"Walter Maxwell" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:34:32 -0400, "Walter Maxwell"
wrote:

Lying slander is a redundancy, isn't it?

Hi Walt,

The laws, and I imagine the understanding, varies immensely across
all
borders and jurisdictions. In some places it is slander to reveal
the
truth, in others to disparage with a lie.

One could imagine the paradox of uttering a lying truth, I suppose.
However, given Reg's propensity to slander outrageously, as though it
were a prerogative of old age and infirmity, and to wrap me in under
the same mantle well before my time (but perhaps not infirmity); this
callow youth takes it as no less honour than the tap of the sword on
the shoulders by a Queen.

Alternately, lacking any quantitative data, a shortfall that Sir
Kelvinator of ice box fame would shudder at, I cannot think Reg's
opprobrium is any less part of the act of Punchinello (in other
words,
indistinguishable from honest labor when such is so mixed with
intemperance and reckless fulmination).

Either way, I always enjoy the flourish of his hyperbolic arcs.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, as I both said and implied earlier, I enjoy you both
immensely. Your elegant usage of expression as a degreed literary is
hardly unnoticeable.

Walt