Dr. Duffy could be totally right. The problem with his post is when I matched
that against all the study and research I've doneon the subject myself the fact
is NOTHING he said in that post matched or even came close to matching ANYTHING
I've ever readon the subject. I literally did a double take, gave a mental
"WTF?" and read it twice more. It made no sense at all to me. Obviously itmade
no sense at all to a number of people. He might be totally correct but
expressed the argument in terms only another PhD in Solid State Physics would
grasp but if soand his ability to express such things in more layman terms is
that poor then he just wasted his time. 73,
David, AA9G
ex W5DCG and KC9EEV
On Friday, January 23, 2015 6:21 PM, Steve Maki <lists@oakcom.org> wrote:
I was flabbergasted at the response to Duffy's post, which seemed
relatively non controversial to this relatively low level scientific
brain of mine. Can't one specify a perfect ground (even though
impossible in the real world) when modeling antennas? Is that not a
useful exercise as an educational tool? Does that not prove his point?
-Steve K8LX
On 1/23/2015 4:32 PM, Wes Attaway (N5WA) wrote:
> "Believing in something does not make it so" .... Really?
>
> What about an isotropic radiator, defined as a theoretical point source, as
> used in every antenna modeling program?
>
> What about the "imaginary numbers" which consistently pop up in mathematical
> analyses?
>
> The author (Bryan Fields) was careful to point why the use of something that
> is not physically realizable is still useful (even required) in certain
> kinds of analyses.
>
> I think he made a perfectly valid argument about why the concept of an RF
> Ground is important, as he says "in understanding current flow in RF
> circuits".
>
>
> -------------------
> Wes Attaway (N5WA)
> (318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA
> Computer/Cellphone Forensics
> EnCase Certified Examiner
> -------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bryan
> Fields
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:52 PM
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] RF Ground is not a Myth
>
> On 1/19/15, 9:29 PM, James Duffey wrote:
>> The RF ground is a useful theoretical construct. This theoretical
> construct
>> is a result of solid thinking.
>
> Believing in something does not make it so.
>
>> Given that it is hard to realize in
>> practice, but it does have its use in understanding current flow in RF
>> circuits, the practical problems in implementing a useful ground, and why
>> we have problems in circuits that we don't think should have problems.
>> Simply put, an RF ground is an infinite source or sink of carriers,
>> delivered or received with minimal delay. That of course is not
> realizable,
>> but understanding why the carriers cannot be delivered or absorbed with
>> minimal delay helps a great deal in understanding the practical
>> implementation of circuits we design.
>
> Literally nothing is correct in that paragraph.
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|