[TowerTalk] RF Ground is not a Myth

[Steve Maki]

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 at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bryan
> Fields
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:52 PM
> To: towertalk at 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.
>