"Richard Clark" wrote
Both Reg and you would do well to obtain and read a copy.

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

Until now I have not contributed to this discussion. Neither now and
very little in the past. So please leave me out of it.

I have produced one small program (I am surprised at the attention
drawn to it) which computes radiating efficiency of a short vertical
antenna based on a novel analysis of ground loss, ie., shallow buried
radial wires which behave as lossy transmission lines.

All I have to say is that the program gives the "right" answers.
Disprove it if you can.

It is as accurate as the ground "constants" are known, that is about
plus or minus 30 percent. The answers are forthcoming within
milli-seconds. No need to go on a one month training course. And it's
free. What more do you want?

To prove it wrong you have to create a set up similar to that pruduced
by BL&E - only this time don't forget to measure ground coductivity
and permittivity!

From what Roy says, BL&E were hardly better than bungling amateurs of
their era. The only reason their report is considered to be 'The
Bible' is because it was the only one ever produced and available at
the time.

They laid down so many radials it didn't matter what ground
conductivity was.
----
Reg.

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:16:45 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

They laid down so many radials it didn't matter what ground
conductivity was.

Hi Reg,

As usual you both lost track of the intent of the study. The whole
point was to insure it doesn't matter.

Sorry to rustle your skirts, but this falls under the heading of:
"Stating the bleeding obvious"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Reg Edwards wrote:

Until now I have not contributed to this discussion. Neither now and
very little in the past. So please leave me out of it.

I have produced one small program (I am surprised at the attention
drawn to it) which computes radiating efficiency of a short vertical
antenna based on a novel analysis of ground loss, ie., shallow buried
radial wires which behave as lossy transmission lines.

All I have to say is that the program gives the "right" answers.
Disprove it if you can.

Considering that Brown, Lewis, and Epstein's experimental work has held
as being valid for about 70 years now, it can be used as a test for
various attempts at calculating ground system losses. NEC-4 matches
their results quite well; your program produces results which are
dismally different. Anyone armed with both the BL&E paper and your
program can see for himself.

It is as accurate as the ground "constants" are known, that is about
plus or minus 30 percent. The answers are forthcoming within
milli-seconds. No need to go on a one month training course. And it's
free. What more do you want?

It's sure a lot easier to create an easy-to-use free program if the
results don't have to bear any resemblance to reality. But perhaps
you're right -- maybe people who use free software shouldn't expect the
author to be honest about the program's accuracy.

To prove it wrong you have to create a set up similar to that pruduced
by BL&E - only this time don't forget to measure ground coductivity
and permittivity!

Your program fails badly with any reasonable ground conductivity and
permittivity. NEC-4 does pretty well with reasonable assumptions for the
ground quality of a field in New Jersey in the wintertime.

From what Roy says, BL&E were hardly better than bungling amateurs of
their era.

Once again, you've crossed the line from your normal pomposity and
crankiness to an insult and lie.

The only reason their report is considered to be 'The
Bible' is because it was the only one ever produced and available at
the time.

Another untruth. It stands because their measurements took in quite a
number of conditions, and have been replicated.

They laid down so many radials it didn't matter what ground
conductivity was.

Those people who have read the paper know this to be untrue, also. They
made measurements with 2, 15, 30, 60, and 113 radials.

Isn't that kind of a record, Reg, three flatly untrue statements in a
single posting? You should record the name of that wine and save it for
those special occasions when you feel threatened by the possibility that
some Yanks might have done something useful 70 years ago. Hope your
favorite store has lots in stock. In vino veritas, indeed.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Whatever little BL&E may have contributed to the theoretical aspects,
it has always been disregarded by broadcasting engineers who always
did what they did last time - and laid 120 radials regardless of
economics.
----
Reg.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:54:35 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

and laid 120 radials regardless of economics.

Hi Reg,

For a million dollar station investment, I don't think the price for
shares in Anaconda have brought any significant attention to anyone.

Perhaps you are thinking of the relative price in 1906 when it cost 4
times as much against 5% of what we consume now. Well, maybe only 30
years ago when it cost more than 3 times as much as now. Or perhaps
only 10 years ago when it cost twice as much as now.

Odd, it seems the price of copper and the value of the Pound have been
tracking each other over that same period. Your complaint would be
better founded on us planting sterling radials.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC