On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 07:33:10 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

The text continues that for a MW monopole, the terminal condition consists

Problems here.

1. This was not a heap of explaining, only a pile;
2. this was not explaining at all, merely description;
3. this does not explain how a 118.60° tall antenna comes to be
resonant through
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 12:11:20 -0500, "Richard Fry" wrote:
The effective electrical length of a MW monople radiator determines its
resonant frequencies, and that must include the velocity of propagation
along the structure -- which is a function of the height AND width of the
radiator (mainly), and the operating frequency.

Using your reference
"Antenna Engineering Handbook," 2nd edition (pub. 1984),
by Johnson and Jasik
and having me carry your water of explaining, we find in figure 4-4
the correlation between resonance (the absence of reactance), length,
and diameter gives us a necessarily wide antenna of
13.9 meters

I cannot recall ever seeing any tower with a 45 foot diameter in a
commercial setting. However, that is not to say it doesn't exist,
merely that the odds for it are ridiculously astronomical.

If we browse the FCC database for other antennas to see how well your
reference "explains" how your quote above provides a resonance for
them, then we come across rather more astronomical odds being
fulfilled.

WFLF 75.00° tall 540 kHz
requires a tower diameter of 364 feet =whew!=

KNOE 63.00° tall 540 kHz
Let's just say that is so far off the charts it ceases to be
astronomic and becomes galactic in improbability. Basically this
reveals the breakdown in hyperbole's capacity to describe the metaphor
of improbability - especially in the face of these examples that
follow:

WGOP (POCOMOKE CITY) 63.00° tall 540 kHz

WWCS 63.50° tall 540 kHz

WYNN 65.50° tall 540 kHz

KDFT 59.30° tall 540 kHz

WXNH 56.30° tall 540 kHz

WLIE 62.30° tall 540 kHz

There's no point going further as this hardly exhausts one frequency
assignment, much less the AM band.

The long and the short of it stands with my original statement:
Any
association between resonance, velocity of propagation, height, width,
etc. and something like our 118.60° tall antenna needs a heap more
explaining than resonance, velocity of propagation, height, width,
etc. - but such explaining is a specialty occupation here in this
group.

Expanding slightly, it is absurd to attach a 90° tall claim to an
antenna simply because it has been resonated through adaptive
measures. Unfortunatley, being absurd is also a specialty occupation
here in this group.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC