Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 25th 05, 08:34 PM
Reg Edwards
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Roy, surely you realise that all depends on soil conductivity and
permittivity which B, L & E forgot to determine before leaving the
site.

30 years previously, around 1905, Sommerfeld (and others) had produced
a significant report showing the importance of ground characteristics
on radiation and propagation at LF and below. Which B, L, & E ought
to have been aware of if they had known what they were about.

You should concentrate your thoughts on HF and above, not on LF and
VLF distractions. Different characteristics prevail at HF at which
frequencies amateurs are most concerned.
----
Reg


  #2   Report Post  
Old June 25th 05, 09:18 PM
Roy Lewallen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Reg Edwards wrote:
Roy, surely you realise that all depends on soil conductivity and
permittivity which B, L & E forgot to determine before leaving the
site.


It just isn't sinking in, is it? It depends on the conductivity and
permittivity to a skin depth or more, which was impossible for them to
determine. A surface measurement wouldn't have provided the necessary
information. Measurement of ground wave attenuation to another location
would have included ground with a variety of possible characteristics
different from those in the immediate vicinity.

30 years previously, around 1905, Sommerfeld (and others) had produced
a significant report showing the importance of ground characteristics
on radiation and propagation at LF and below. Which B, L, & E ought
to have been aware of if they had known what they were about.


I'm sure they were. But the paper has nothing to do with propagation.
What makes you think it does?

They certainly did know about the effect of conductivity. In a
theoretical analysis at the beginning of their paper they calculated
expected radial ground currents for several different ground
conductivities, and explain how current is distributed in the ground
with conductivity being a factor. The radial ground current analysis was
later found to be in error(*), but it's still considerably closer than
the results I've seen from your analysis and program.

You should concentrate your thoughts on HF and above, not on LF and
VLF distractions. Different characteristics prevail at HF at which
frequencies amateurs are most concerned.


That's a bizarre admonition from someone constantly harping about how
many radials American AM broadcasters use. I am indeed most interested
in HF, where skin depth is on the order of 12 feet for average soil, and
measurement of surface conductivity and permittivity is pretty useless.
Incidentally, since you haven't read their paper, you probably don't
know that the BL & E measurements were done at 3 MHz, which is HF.

(*) To my knowledge, no one has developed a method of calculating radial
currents or ground system losses with even approximate accuracy other
than with numerical analysis such as used by NEC-4. Many years ago I
spent a couple of years of spare time in a technical library looking for
just such an analysis without success. Reg's method is delightfully
simple but gives results which are very wrong.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
  #3   Report Post  
Old June 25th 05, 09:18 PM
Richard Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Reggie,

The following is so full of glaring contradictions - well, you can
rely on me to point them out. :-)

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 18:34:17 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Roy, surely you realise that all depends on soil conductivity and
permittivity which B, L & E forgot to determine before leaving the
site.


You have thoroughly refuted any intimate knowledge of their paper, it
goes unread by you, and yet you "know" this for a fact. Or perhaps
that is elevating your prose upon to an unwarranted pedestal.

30 years previously, around 1905, Sommerfeld (and others) had produced
a significant report showing the importance of ground characteristics
on radiation and propagation at LF and below. Which B, L, & E ought
to have been aware of if they had known what they were about.


However, your earlier reference to LF from Sommerfeld (and others) is
then wholly negated by you with:
You should concentrate your thoughts on HF and above, not on LF and
VLF distractions. Different characteristics prevail at HF at which
frequencies amateurs are most concerned.


Back in 1905, they called the frequencies above 1MHz VHF....

So, our trio, B,L, & E could just as easily had dismissed this work as
you have? Such legerdemain.

Sir Kelvinator asks, "Got any data, Reggie?"

This quality of fence sitting - arguing both sides against the middle
- is classic Punchinello.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What tool to measure SWR at 910 Mhz? [email protected] Antenna 14 May 10th 05 07:40 PM
Can you measure and post your DTMF Twist? Rick General 0 April 4th 05 07:57 AM
Measure Z with Vector Voltmeter properly The other John Smith Antenna 18 May 3rd 04 06:09 PM
Ground rods in rocky soil Northern Lights Antenna 15 November 22nd 03 09:14 AM
SWR will change with Source Z if you measure AT the Source Tarmo Tammaru Antenna 18 August 30th 03 04:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017