Topband: FCP versus loaded or "T" radialsradials

[Floyd Sense]

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 at comcast.net>
> To: topband reflector <Topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: FCP versus loaded or "T" radialsradials
> Message-ID: <8d064422-bfdb-3352-ba35-5c0d72f7f5bd at 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.
>