On 20 Jun 2005 11:36:28 -0500, wrote:

A simpler method that avoids all the digging and repacking of
the soil is described at

http://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/2005/0...arameter_.html

I've been meaning to try it at my qth this summer.

Hi Torsten,

Another attractive solution of one datum trying to solve a
multivariate problem.

On review of the material offered at this link above, I find that its
"Figure 2, widely used graph of conductivity versus frequency for
various soils" is in brutal conflict with other published material.
The inscription of "transition frequency" reveals such examples that
are off from the data inflections by orders of magnitude. Further,
there is no citation for where this figure was lifted (and there is
evidence of doctoring, if only to erase the original figure number).

The data in "Table 1, 18" monoprobe, Co = 7.41 pF. On my antenna hill
with an AEA-CIA analyzer" also reveals a curious condition that is
nearly equal to swamp-like conditions in its Q evaluations, and yet
showing almost no frequency variation nearly equal to desert like
soil.

The graph, "Figure 10, Comparison of Er between two sites" reveals
that the Hill site has a soil condition equal to Fresh Water at 1 MHz.
It then plunges to a "Very Wet Soil" condition at 8 MHz (curious thing
about this, is that earlier data did not show any frequency variation
in Q). The Rose Garden site, again, showed very swamp like
conditions. This is a very exceptional region of the country, to say
the least. I've seen only one example in fiction: Dilbert's visits to
Elbonia where every one lives in waist deep mud.

In graph, "Figure 11, soil conductivity with and without grass cover
using an 18" monoprobe," is presented data that is inverse
relationship to published data. But this, too, is (in)consistent with
other material presented at the link provided.

This goes on and on - to the neglect of confirmation against the
numerous references cited (without corresponding discussion nor
tie-in).

There is a wealth of data and information, but given it does not agree
with other published data, it appears to suffer from a poverty of
correlation. The simple numbers revealed as conductivity, di-electric
constants and the Q relationships; if used as sanity checks, says that
precision and accuracy in measurements does not redeem this analysis.

Something is very seriously in error: either my reading, or the
material offered.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC