MK,

How satisfying it is to read your message, written in plain, easy to
understand, well-punctuated English, without any undeciferable coded
abbreviations.

I agree with what you say although I am unfamiliar with exactly how
the FCC fits into the scheme of things.

Amateurs and commercial broadcasters have a common fundamental
requirement. There is a service area to be covered with a given field
strength. Depending on frequency, requirements then diverge. But the
design methods used to satisfy requirements are all confined (or
should be) to the principles of engineering economics. Inevitably, the
Dollar, Pound, Frank, Mark, Rouble and the Yen rule the roost.

Both commercial broadcasters and amateurs do a cost-befit analysis.
The broadcaster takes into account the revenue acruing from selling
the service. The amateur, whether he likes it or not, has to ask
himself what the satisfaction of using the station is worth.

Amateurs' bank accounts are not unlimited.

Field strength at the limits of the service area depends on the power
efficiency of the radiating system. If engineering economics dictate
use of a set of buried ground radials then the peformance of the
ground radials must be included. Considering the system as a whole,
it may be economical NOT to achieve the maximum possible radiating
efficiency. Indeed, the maximum is seldom the target.

If there is an economical choice in the matter, once the location of
the station is decided, everybody agrees that efficiency depends on
soil resistivity at the site. To estimate efficiency it is necessary,
at the very least, to make a guess at soil resistivity. Perhaps just
by looking at the type of weeds growing in it. Or it can be measured.

Depending on how far it enters into station economics, it is possible
to numerically estimate efficiency from the number and length of
radials AND FROM SOIL RESISTIVITY.

B.L & E and the FCC don't enter into it.
----
Reg.

========================================
MK wrote,
The only stations that the FCC is concerned about is commercial.
And the reason they stick with the standard number is for stability
and getting the max bang for buck, and an easily expected
performance level. Buying a load of wire will beat using more
transmitter power over the long run. If they use 120 radials,
they know they will be getting close to maximum performance.
If they don't, it's a crap shoot. 120 radials *will* outperform
16 of them. There is no question, unless they are over sea
water. I'm not saying hams have to run that many. In fact, I
think 60 will do for most, except the most hard core for good
results. Even less for the more casual user.
But I have no problems with the FCC wanting a certain level
of performance for commercial stations. I have no problems
seeing why they do it either. Wire is cheap compared to
todays level of monthly light bill. With some stations, the
radials,
or lack of , in certain directions gives them a controlable
pattern with no surprises in f/s over a period of time
with changing ground conditions. The main thing is
stability of performance over periods of time. Or thats
my take anyway.
MK

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:07:39 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

MK,

How satisfying it is to read your message, written in plain, easy to
understand, well-punctuated English, without any undeciferable coded
abbreviations.

I agree with what you say although I am unfamiliar with exactly how
the FCC fits into the scheme of things.

Amateurs and commercial broadcasters have a common fundamental
requirement. There is a service area to be covered with a given field
strength. Depending on frequency, requirements then diverge. But the
design methods used to satisfy requirements are all confined (or
should be) to the principles of engineering economics. Inevitably, the
Dollar, Pound, Frank, Mark, Rouble and the Yen rule the roost.

Both commercial broadcasters and amateurs do a cost-befit analysis.
The broadcaster takes into account the revenue acruing from selling
the service. The amateur, whether he likes it or not, has to ask
himself what the satisfaction of using the station is worth.

Amateurs' bank accounts are not unlimited.

Field strength at the limits of the service area depends on the power
efficiency of the radiating system. If engineering economics dictate
use of a set of buried ground radials then the peformance of the
ground radials must be included. Considering the system as a whole,
it may be economical NOT to achieve the maximum possible radiating
efficiency. Indeed, the maximum is seldom the target.

If there is an economical choice in the matter, once the location of
the station is decided, everybody agrees that efficiency depends on
soil resistivity at the site. To estimate efficiency it is necessary,
at the very least, to make a guess at soil resistivity. Perhaps just
by looking at the type of weeds growing in it. Or it can be measured.

Depending on how far it enters into station economics, it is possible
to numerically estimate efficiency from the number and length of
radials AND FROM SOIL RESISTIVITY.

B.L & E and the FCC don't enter into it.
----
Reg.

Sorry to disagree, Reg, but it appears you're overlooking an important
point--the difference between the efficiency of the radiating system
itself, versus the efficiency of the ground area external to the
radiating system.

BL&E shows that when 90 - 120 (actually 113) radials of 0,4 w/l form
the ground system for a 1/4 wl radiator, the efficiency is 98.7%
efficient, REGARDLESS OF THE SOIL RESISTIVITY UNDER THE RADIALS. This
is shown by obtaining the field strength of 192 mv/meter at 1 mile for
1000 watts delivered to the antenna under the conditions described
above, compared to 194.5 mv/meter with a perfect ground having an
efficiency of 100%

It is only the soil resistivity of the ground external to the radial
system that determines the field stength external to the radial
system. Consequently, the soil resistivity (or conductivity, if you
like) is significant only in the areas external to the radial system.

Walt, W2DU

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:41:33 -0400, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

Sorry to disagree, Reg, but it appears you're overlooking an important
point--the difference between the efficiency of the radiating system
itself, versus the efficiency of the ground area external to the
radiating system.

Walter, my friend, you're beating a dead horse. It would appear that
Reg's mind is made up and no amount factual proof is going to change
it.

Had BL&E been Englishmen I sure things would be different.G

73,
Danny, K6MHE

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:39:28 -0700, Dan Richardson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:41:33 -0400, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

Sorry to disagree, Reg, but it appears you're overlooking an important
point--the difference between the efficiency of the radiating system
itself, versus the efficiency of the ground area external to the
radiating system.

Walter, my friend, you're beating a dead horse. It would appear that
Reg's mind is made up and no amount factual proof is going to change
it.

Had BL&E been Englishmen I sure things would be different.G

73,
Danny, K6MHE

Good point, Danny, how true.

Walt

Dan Richardson wrote -
Had BL&E been Englishmen I sure things would be different.G
====================================

They sure would!

They would have been instructed to go back and finish the job.
----
Reg.

Dan Richardson wrote -
Had BL&E been Englishmen I sure things would be different.G
====================================

They sure would!

They would have been instructed (by their employers) to go back and
finish the job.
----
Reg.

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

I am reminded of the military engineer who was dispatched by Napolion,
an engineer himself, in connection with standardisation of the Metre,
to measure the distance between the Earth's Equator and the North
Pole.

Measurements began, but the further the engineer departed from his
beautiful lady friend in Paris the more difficult it became to make
progress along the route. Eventually, he couldn't withstand the mental
and physical stress. He returned to her Parisian boudoir and resorted
to cooking the books in what time he had to spare.

So, the International Standard of Length, The Metre, held in Paris,
France, carefully guarded by the German occupying forces during WW2,
may or may not be equal to 39.37 English inches.

Actually, the most fundamental physical measurement standard is the
Mass of the Standard Kilogram on which everything else depends. But it
is quite an arbitrary quantity.

I have just finished a bottle of Blossom Hill, Californian, white
wine. Makes a pleasant change to arguing about what 'amateurs' BL&E
might, or might not have done before leaving the site.
----
Reg.

Reg Edwards wrote:

Dan Richardson wrote -
Had BL&E been Englishmen I sure things would be different.G
====================================

They sure would!

They would have been instructed (by their employers) to go back and

finish the job.

----
Reg.


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

I am reminded of the military engineer who was dispatched by Napolion,
an engineer himself, in connection with standardisation of the Metre,
to measure the distance between the Earth's Equator and the North
Pole.

Measurements began, but the further the engineer departed from his
beautiful lady friend in Paris the more difficult it became to make
progress along the route. Eventually, he couldn't withstand the mental
and physical stress. He returned to her Parisian boudoir and resorted
to cooking the books in what time he had to spare.

So, the International Standard of Length, The Metre, held in Paris,
France, carefully guarded by the German occupying forces during WW2,
may or may not be equal to 39.37 English inches.

Actually, the most fundamental physical measurement standard is the
Mass of the Standard Kilogram on which everything else depends. But it
is quite an arbitrary quantity.

I have just finished a bottle of Blossom Hill, Californian, white
wine. Makes a pleasant change to arguing about what 'amateurs' BL&E
might, or might not have done before leaving the site.
----
Reg.


All the above is/maybe true but remember that all the formule work using
the values represented in the METRE and the KILOGRAM. Something must be
correct here....

Dave WD9BDZ

David G. Nagel wrote:
SNIPPED for readability

All the above is/maybe true but remember that all the formule work using
the values represented in the METRE and the KILOGRAM. Something must be
correct here....

Dave WD9BDZ

Yep! Everything simply requires adjustments to proportionality
constants, Reynolds numbers, Plankian constants, etc.

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:09:23 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:


I have just finished a bottle of Blossom Hill, Californian, white
wine. Makes a pleasant change to arguing about what 'amateurs' BL&E
might, or might not have done before leaving the site.
----
Reg.

I hate to say this, Reg, but calling BL&E 'amateurs' is insulting to
me. I knew them well, and worked with B and E in the RCA Laboratories
antenna lab, and they are anything but 'amateurs'. I think you
finished off the Blossom Hill to rapidly.

Perhaps you should take a look at the long list of IRE articles
published by Dr. G.H. Brown, reporting his work that shaped the
present design of all AM BC antennas. Did you ever wonder what
happened to the diamond-shaped AM towers? And why the AM towers
constructed since 1940 have a uniform cross section?

And did you know that Dr. Brown gave John Kraus, W8JK, the idea of
close spaced elements that culminated in the 'W8JK Beam' antenna?

L, (Bob Lewis) is also a fine engineer, although he is also a ham,
W2EBS.

Walt

| Sorry to disagree, Reg, but it appears you're overlooking an
important
| point--the difference between the efficiency of the radiating system
| itself, versus the efficiency of the ground area external to the
| radiating system.
|
| BL&E shows that when 90 - 120 (actually 113) radials of 0,4 w/l form
| the ground system for a 1/4 wl radiator, the efficiency is 98.7%
| efficient, REGARDLESS OF THE SOIL RESISTIVITY UNDER THE RADIALS.
This
| is shown by obtaining the field strength of 192 mv/meter at 1 mile
for
| 1000 watts delivered to the antenna under the conditions described
| above, compared to 194.5 mv/meter with a perfect ground having an
| efficiency of 100%
|
| It is only the soil resistivity of the ground external to the radial
| system that determines the field stength external to the radial
| system. Consequently, the soil resistivity (or conductivity, if you
| like) is significant only in the areas external to the radial
system.
|
| Walt, W2DU

Walt,

What if the ground outside the radial system was comprised of 30-1000
feet of sand and rock overlying any conductive soil below? Would we
then be able to measure 192 mv/meter at one mile with our 113 radials
of 0.4 w/l?

Ron, WA4IWN