Having lived in the Newburgh area, I have to object again to this report that I have tried to debunk before. I have earlier communicated this objection to Mr. Fry which he chooses to ignore. Given th
... Simply put, the Newburgh area is at least a difficult area and at worst an entirely inappropriate area to test this thesis. ... Some may not be aware of the methodology used to determine the FCC
I agree with Tom's analysis -- a good radial system SHIELDS the field from the earth, returning the field and the IN PLACE OF the lossy earth. Studying N6LF's excellent work lit up the light bulb for
Jim, This brings up something I have been wondering about. You make several good points that I agree with. However, on one hand we have a very lossy earth (for instance sand) which would mean less co
Comments to two earlier posts by separate posters (clips below): But if indeed a less lossy ground means that fewer radials are needed to be placed in the field, then the coupling to the less lossy g
The source of the r-f current flowing on buried radials is the r-f current flowing in the earth as a result of radiation from the vertical monopole. Current is not "lost" to the earth from the buried
Richard, You have just upset the apple cart for me. For the sake of argument, assume a monopole with a single radial in free space. I would assume that this would be a somewhat efficient antenna with
Reply to W8JI post of Sat, 28 Feb 2015 19:14:07 -0500: The source of the r-f current flowing on buried radials is the r-f current flowing in the earth as a result of radiation from the vertical monop
The source of the r-f current flowing on buried radials is the r-f current flowing in the earth as a result of radiation from the vertical monopole. (etc) It seems to me that answer ignores other eff
The feedpoint connection, in all cases of vertical antennas, whether the system is shunt fed or series fed, or even if it is an end-fed half wave, ties one feed terminal to the ground or counterpoise
If the total energy flowing into the monopole system with buried radials is dictated only by its hard-wired connection through the transmission line back to the transmitter, then what is accounting f
Richard-- Is it conventional to compare the surface wave fields at a distance so near the Radial length and the wave length? 0.1 km Sounds like a lot, but it is only 100m, which is low, in Lambda ter
Is it conventional to compare the surface wave fields at a distance so near the Radial length and the wave length? I chose a horizontal plane distance that would be just a bit into the far field radi
As is touched on in a note found on the www with more detail than useful here ( http://n6mw.ehpes.com/AntennaGroundLoss3.pdf ) let me make a couple of points on ground losses without directly address