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.

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

Roy Lewallen wrote:

But under no circumstances should you actually stoop to reading the
paper you're so fond of criticizing.

Are BLE's original papers available on the web? If not, that does
represent a substantial problem.

Despite having several derivative references, I must admit to never
having seen the originals either. But I do have enough information to
judge BLE's work worthy of respect. Pioneers always deserve an extra
helping of respect because - unlike everyone else, including all their
critics - they didn't have the benefit of perfect hindsight.

On the other hand, that work was done almost three-quarters of a century
ago. If we don't know more than the pioneers did, then we have wasted
their efforts.


--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

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.

"Fred W4JLE" wrote
Reg;
How many radials are required in GB for a commercial broadcast
station ?


====================================
Fred,
Depends on how long and thick they are. But in general, just
sufficient to meet overall technical and economic requirements with
one or two more for luck.

Design engineers, just to be awkward, are inclined to deliberately
avoid 120. Then they can sit back and have a good laugh when it still
works.
----
Reg, G4FGQ

Reg, G4FGQ wrote:
"A typical American way of going apoutthings.) "

Later to be called "Shock and Awe"?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI