On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:43:19 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:
Sorry, as so often happens I missed your point entirely. If you're
interested in having me understand what "circularity" you mean, you'll
have to be more blunt and pedestrian so I'm able to understand it.

Hi Roy,

You consistently demur expertise in English, and you are equally
troubled in Blunt, but the plea for help cannot go unanswered.

Let's see, we have a premise that the ground conductivity was
concocted from formula for the BL&E paper. If we proceed along the
lines this is true, then we immediately are faced with the conundrum:
ground quality of a field in New Jersey in the wintertime.

How was this determination made? When was this determination made?
What was the determination made? Oh well, all such quantitative
discussion is missing so the statement appears to have as much basis
as a guess, but we are faced with the complaint holding Reggie to a
higher standard:
Your program fails badly with any reasonable ground conductivity and
permittivity.
compared to what determination? Where? of What? by Whom?

This appears to be a war of wills between the best guessing software.

Can we presume the answers lie with:
Brown, Lewis, and Epstein did a good and careful job of measurement.
which, by the leading hypothesis contains no measure of conductivity?

So the objection to Reggie's software not conforming to results
offered by NEC-4 is proven by:
NEC-4 does pretty well with reasonable assumptions for the
ground quality of a field in New Jersey in the wintertime.
a strained appeal through BL&E,
NEC-4 matches their results quite well
which, by the leading hypothesis contains no measure of conductivity.
Which from FCC charts would suggest it to be uniformly dismal.

I've seen no discussion of actual quantifiable results against these
claims offered, so there is every chance that they are pinned together
by the evident circularity:

1. There has been no measurement of ground conductivity by BL&E
2. Reggies model for ground conductivity counters NEC-4
3. NEC-4's model for ground conductivity conforms to BL&E
4. There has been no measurement of ground conductivity by BL&E

I would like to see:
Your program fails badly with any reasonable ground conductivity and permittivity.
supported by something other than appeals to dead white engineers -
Reggie has a patent on that method already.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Reggie has a patent on that method already.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

Yes! It doesn't take much to get Roy to lose his temper and resort to
a frustrated attempt at character assassination.

Well, sadly, that's the end of the Bible. Between you, after 68
years, you experts have finally shredded it. ;o(
----
Reg, G4FGQ

"Richard Clark"
I've seen no discussion of actual quantifiable results against these
claims offered, so there is every chance that they are pinned together
by the evident circularity:

1. There has been no measurement of ground conductivity by BL&E
2. Reggies model for ground conductivity counters NEC-4
3. NEC-4's model for ground conductivity conforms to BL&E
4. There has been no measurement of ground conductivity by BL&E
_________________

At least now you admit that BL&E didn't measure ground conductivity. That's
progress.

First things first. The goal of BL&E's experimental work was to relate the
'efficiency' of MW vertical radiators of various electrical heights to
radial ground systems of various configurations. It did not state or find
that ground conductivity had any significant bearing on this, and, as shown
by their measured results, it did not.

The entire theoretical section of this paper where ground currents are
calculated, and the references to ground currents that were measured during
the experimental work could have been omitted both from consideration and
measurement without changing the conclusions of the paper. None of that was
significant to their measured results for field strength vs system
configuration, which was the purpose of their efforts. And omitting it
would have spared you your confusion.

The FCC considers every non-sectionalized AM broadcast vertical radiator of
a given electrical height using a given radial ground system to have a given
efficiency. Period. Ground conductivity at the radiator site has nothing
to do with that. It doesn't matter whether that site is in the middle of
Kansas with 30 mS/m conductivity, or on Long Island with 0.5 mS/m, radiation
emitted from a given antenna+radial ground system will be the same. The
purpose of the BL&E field work was to determine those efficiency values, and
it did so with high accuracy. Their findings have been a benchmark
confirmed at many hundreds (probably thousands) of AM broadcast station
applications since 1937.

By the way, even NEC-2 can be used to confirm the results of BL&E's study,
by inserting at the bottom of the vertical radiator a low-value DC
resistance simulating the resistance of the radial ground system connection
with a perfect ground plane. This again shows that ground conductivity is
insignificant in determining the radiation 'efficiency' of a MW broadcast
vertical and its radial ground system.

RF

"Richard Fry" wrote
At least now you admit that BL&E didn't measure ground conductivity.
That's
progress.

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

Admit it ? You got me wrong!

I was the FIRST to point it out many months ago. I did it politely by
blaming BL&E's poor memory.
----
Reg, G4FGQ

"Reg Edwards"
"Richard Fry" wrote
At least now you admit that BL&E didn't measure ground conductivity.
That's progress.

Admit it ? You got me wrong!
I was the FIRST to point it out many months ago. I did it politely by
blaming BL&E's poor memory.
___________________

Note that my post responded to the comments of Richard Clark,
not to yours.

Now if YOU will admit that there was no reason for BL&E to have measured
ground conductivity for this study, and quit saying that they "forgot" to do
it--that will be another victory for reality.

RF

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 19:41:54 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

Let's see, we have a premise that the ground conductivity was
concocted from formula for the BL&E paper.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:33:37 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

At least now you admit that BL&E didn't measure ground conductivity. That's
progress.

Hi OM,

Admission indeed, this is a consistent strain of interpretation along
with the remaining embellishment that is unresponsive to the post.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark"
Admission indeed, this is a consistent strain of interpretation along
with the remaining embellishment that is unresponsive to the post.
_____________

So you say, but what I have written is a relevant commentary on the
applicablity of the content and conclusions of the BL&E paper. You have
offered nothing to disprove my comments. Nor can you disprove them, because
objectively stated reality will not support whatever attempt you might make.

RF

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:31:57 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

"Richard Clark"
Admission indeed, this is a consistent strain of interpretation along
with the remaining embellishment that is unresponsive to the post.
_____________

So you say, but what I have written is a relevant commentary on the
applicablity of the content and conclusions of the BL&E paper. You have
offered nothing to disprove my comments. Nor can you disprove them, because
objectively stated reality will not support whatever attempt you might make.

Hi OM,

What you have written is called bloated prose. It is suitable for ad
copy and trade show handouts that tout insignificant advantages only
because there is nothing substantial to present.

Eight pages of discussion from the report covering the conductivity of
earth has been rendered a foot note by your diminution of attention.
Your absurd conclusion that ground conductivity had no bearing on the
outcome is glaring contradiction to the scope and purpose of the
entire enterprise. To reduce this focus of efficiency to copper loss
is a toothpick in the forest of effort by these men.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark"
What you have written is called bloated prose. It is suitable for ad
copy and trade show handouts that tout insignificant advantages only
because there is nothing substantial to present.

Eight pages of discussion from the report covering the conductivity of
earth has been rendered a foot note by your diminution of attention.
Your absurd conclusion that ground conductivity had no bearing on the
outcome is glaring contradiction to the scope and purpose of the
entire enterprise. To reduce this focus of efficiency to copper loss
is a toothpick in the forest of effort by these men.
__________________

You still provide no proof that what I wrote is incorrect
or inapplicable, I see.

I'm content to let objective readers decide for themselves
which of us has made the correct evaluation.

RF