>
>I'm not sure if that's Roy's position, or if he is relying on (or
>repeating) NEC data supplied to him.
So we are now into the "I'm not sure" realm of reporting?
I personally do not care who is right....just what can be proven without
continuing hyperbole. PLEASE stick to facts...not personal comments or
conjecture.
>
>> Regardless of modeling results, I remain to be convinced either way,
>
>Myself also. While the disagreement could be only at some sites (it
>could be an artifact of the deep skin depth on 160), N7CL's report
>indicates an accuracy problem exists on higher frequencies.
Higher frequencies were never a part of this discussion. Let us please
ALL contain our selves to 160M...not BCB...Not "other frequencies".
>
>When thinking in terms of EM theory and how fields interact, it
>makes no sense at all that a sparse radial system close (within 1/4
>wl or so) of earth should offer some large advantage over a full
>radial system.
Again...personal conjecture..right or wrong.The actual word you may be
looking for is "parity"...not large, small or whatever. Start with a
ground zero and go from there.
>
>Textbooks agree with the basic analysis N7CL presented, yet a few
>"papers and articles" seem to disagree.
I take it then that you agree that anything in an approved by you "text"
book is gospel. But you have also condemned many articles as "ham lore"
but were authored by very educated individuals.
"Basic", "few", etc are words that just do not cut it.
As a parent I have a big problem with revisionist textbooks...have they
invaded the EE world also?
Just what is the cut-off line between "ham lore" and ...for lack of a
better word...the "others". IMO, there are plenty of BSEE thru PhD
responses on either side.
I'll take peer-reviewed and
>time proven science over a model or personal paper any day.
And with that as a 100% across the board attitude we would never have
gone to the moon. Science, theories or whatever are always being
challanged..updated...discarded or whatever is the norm at the moment.
>This is especially true since one of the articles referenced as a
>"pioneering work" in supporting this new theory contains measured
>data that directly violates Kirchhoff's law. IMHO, a disagreement
>with Kirchhoff's law in measured data indicates a serious flaw.
>
If it is that flawed then you may wish to PUBLISH a rebuttal for all of
us to review. I do not play favorites here..I just would like to know
what is correct with the minimum of verbiage to wade thru.
IOW...do I or dont I spend hours outside with the radials? Where do I
determine the point of minimal return for my effort?
I would rather go fishing anyway.
73 Carl KM1H
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
|