On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Tom W8JI <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the first step is explaining and verifying how a conductor can be a > counterpoise without having external fields.
This is a non-issue, Tom. It stems from what I meant when I said "cancel fields". Apparently some considerable number, even the majority, think this phrase means cancel fields entirely. To others this means cancellation is taking place at some level. The latter has until now been my usage of the phrase. I come by it honestly because I have had many conversations using it this way without confusion or requests for clarification. I can however think of an email exchange in recent months where that may have been the crux, but I did not figure that out at the time. I figured it out after all of yesterday's complaints about how that can't be a counterpoise. And I see how it would radiate into the discourse. But I have no emotional need to defend it, nor have I any interest in engaging in a linguistic debate which might be as juicy and fun to linguists, as a good chess game is to others. Nor have I any interest in "converting" anyone to one side or another. I will happily adjust my usage. ** I sincerely apologize to anyone whom I may have misled by my terminology. ** >From now on, I will use adjectives and adverbs to qualify "cancel" in the future, something that would be understood by someone of either usage. I have no dog in any fight about which is right. Just another example of the impreciseness of language and the demonic difficulty of writing technical text that explains everything to everybody. So from now on you will see: a) "completely cancel" meaning 100% or close enough to cancellation that it makes more sense to consider it cancelled than not. b) "partially cancel" meaning some degree of cancellation, and probably that what isn't cancelled requires reckoning. c) "cancel to the degree possible", or "cancel to a high degree" where partially cancel does not communicate the gist of it. If one looks at the body of my comment (multiple posts over a period) you will find many posts where I describe the outcome of the FCP, footprint-wise, current-wise and field-wise, as corresponding to a pair of opposing 1/16 wave raised radials, except with a useable feed Z. This clearly has some radiation. It clearly is creating a field beneath, and therefore inducing current in the dirt. The FCP radiates at -30 dBi according to NEC4. That's really low for an antenna element. But, it DOES radiate. According to NEC4, using area integration of field squared data from the counterpoises only, excluding the vertical radiator, the FCP only has 8.2% of the power loss in the dirt as a pair of 1/4 wave raised radials. But it IS a field and current, therefore power loss. The graphical representation of this difference is graphed in figure 2, page 22 of the article: http://www.w0uce.net/Olinger_FCP_article_as_published_in_NCJ.pdf The article was written last February and March. Colloquially, "doesn't radiate" is how you would characterize a dipole that came in at -30 dBi. Of course in other situations, -30 dB means the thing is broken because you are looking for -100 dB. So I will try to absent my discourse here of colloquialisms, but that is starting to take the fun out of it. I would ask people to remember that my time and effort on these issues is part of my hobby, and I am trying to have some fun too. I am not submitting work to the PhD committee. 73, Guy _______________________________________________ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
