Pete: I don't have a dog in this hunt, but it seems to me that you may
be assigning a motive to Tom's research on this subject
that isn't supported by the article you cited. I read the unfinished
article twice and all I saw was an objective comparison
of several different counterpoise systems with the inverted L
described. Anyone who disagrees with any of the facts
presented should feel free to explain the error(s) in the approach and
also admit to any biases they may hold on the subject.
If the argument is that the FCP can't be accurately modeled, maybe
someone can explain just why that is.
73, Floyd - K8AC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 4 May 2019 12:14:42 -0400
From: N4ZR <n4zr@comcast.net>
To: topband reflector <Topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Topband: FCP versus loaded or "T" radialsradials
Message-ID: <8d064422-bfdb-3352-ba35-5c0d72f7f5bd@comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
At the risk of setting off a food-fight, I'm interested in opinions on
shortened radials (T or loaded) versus the K2AC/W0UCE folded
counterpoise design.? W8JI has an interesting unfinished page
<www.w8ji.com/fcp_folded_counterpoise_system.htm> attacking the FCP.?
Tom's a combative fella, but he's also very smart.? I am putting up an
inverted L, trying to avoid having to lay down 6000 or even 750 feet of
on-the ground radials, and don't really have room for resonant elevated
radials on 160.
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
|