Topband: Skimmer calibration

[Carl]

>I said:
>
>>> That just isn't factual at all. Radials under the vertical antenna have 
>>> virtually no effect on wave angle unless they are sparse and grossly 
>>> unbalanced, allowing them to radiate like a low horizontal antenna.
>>>
>>> Radials change the efficiency, not the pattern, unless the radials 
>>> radiate like a dipole.
>>>
>>> 73 Tom
>>
>>
>> Note that I didnt say anything about changing the pattern, just the 
>> energy included at low angles and where the efficiency starts at the base 
>> and at the often poorly understood Fresnel Zone if you really want more 
>> power in those low angles and not heating worms or sand granules.
>
> That, by definition, is a pattern change.
>
> You said it improves groundwave. What you think happen just does not 
> happen.
>
> It improves efficiency. It does not change elevation pattern, it does not 
> change Fresnel zone losses significantly. It does not improve groundwave 
> any significant amount more than it changes sky wave.
>
> This is because the "often poorly understood" Fresnel zone extends far 
> beyond practical radial field area, and virtually all of the ground wave 
> attenuation from soil losses is miles from the antenna over the entire 
> long length of a path. It is not localized loss.
>
> 73 Tom


All of which is well known and well published.
You might ask Frank, W3LPL, or Richard Fry to explain it to you better than 
I seem to do since you appear to get hung up on the semantics.

Looking at the coastal AM BCB patterns I mentioned a week (WGBB 1240) ago or 
others recently will show you the effects of salt water and land.

Carl
KM1H