"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message
...

Hi Yuri,

snipirst of all, I have not done experiments to compare single wire
Beverages vs.
dual wire, with the other wire being laid underneath the Beverage.
I had the problem with statement "the wire below the Beverage is the wire
couples to the lossy media below it so well it becomes very
lossy" as far as I know wire maintains it's conductivity regardless where
it is
laid.

Yuri
Wire conductivity may not be pertinent in this case as "coupling" can reduce
the applied current
I would be extremely surprised if Tom inferred that wire conductivity
changed.
Regards

Art


Perhaps more accurate statement would be that wire laying on the ground
becomes less significant in its contribution to the performance of the
above
Beverage.
But because the "ground" wire is connected typically at the termination
point
and at the feedpoint to the Beverage system, I am not sure that it can be
"ignored". Some claim this forms the "open wire" parallel system and has
significant effect on the Beverage performance. There is dispute as far
signal
arrival angles are concerned, some signals get subjected to wave tilt due
to
poor ground, some signals have their own tilt due to propagation and
terrain
effects.
To find out the reality, the exact systems should be compared in various
situations. Modeling might not provide fool proof answers due to some
programs
having hard time to model reality, that can be confused by varying ground
characteristics along the Beverage.

Yuri, K3BU

On 23 Aug 2004 22:32:00 GMT, oUsama (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:
I had the problem with statement "the wire below the Beverage is the wire
couples to the lossy media below it so well it becomes very
lossy" as far as I know wire maintains it's conductivity regardless where it is
laid.

Hi Yuri,

In fact, no one has said otherwise. It follows of common sense unless
ground were exceptionally conductive such that its magnetic field were
to compress the skin-effect layer of the wire. If that were so, it
would be a new world for us all.

Perhaps more accurate statement would be that wire laying on the ground
becomes less significant in its contribution to the performance of the above
Beverage.

Quite so - if demonstrable.

To find out the reality, the exact systems should be compared in various
situations. Modeling might not provide fool proof answers due to some programs
having hard time to model reality, that can be confused by varying ground
characteristics along the Beverage.

C'mon now, with only two or three wires involved? The only problem
modeling programs have difficulty with are with modelers.

I compared two such designs. Nothing very involved with a 3M high
100M long Beverage operating in the 80M band (perhaps not long enough,
I will let others do their best if they find fault). I then compared
it with another which had a wire running below it 1cM above ground
level. The two showed more than 8dB difference with the ground wire
model clearly lossier (EZNEC declared at that same 8dB).

Now, I know that such antennas are not designed to be transmit
antennas (and again, perhaps too short to boot); so I will leave that
to others to engage as a receive antenna if they doubt reciprocity (or
I will do that later this eve for them as I often have to).

Yuri, the problem with you arguing Tom's position is that nothing is
said of this glaring difference. It is quite remarkable (or I made
some remarkable mistake or the wire is just too short as I mentioned)
and it DOES denote a dramatic departure from accepted Beverage
characteristics which has been undisclosed as a comment from Tom, if
in fact he offered it. This 8dB loss does make sense in that you have
a leaky transmission line in a death embrace with ground. The wires
would split the power and the lower power contribution would certainly
attempt to warm the worms with more gusto.
[ IF perhaps we were to employ the old twinlead twist every foot or
so, we might find things evened out ;-) ]

I will let that simmer for this evening.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yuri, the problem with you arguing Tom's position is that nothing is
said of this glaring difference. It is quite remarkable (or I made
some remarkable mistake or the wire is just too short as I mentioned)
and it DOES denote a dramatic departure from accepted Beverage
characteristics which has been undisclosed as a comment from Tom, if
in fact he offered it. This 8dB loss does make sense in that you have
a leaky transmission line in a death embrace with ground. The wires
would split the power and the lower power contribution would certainly
attempt to warm the worms with more gusto.
[ IF perhaps we were to employ the old twinlead twist every foot or
so, we might find things evened out ;-) ]

I will let that simmer for this evening.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Here is the perhaps the best outline of the "problem" by VE7DXR and you might
want to try to plug it into program to see the correlation.
Yuri

Observations done here 8 and 15 years ago using a 600m Beverage on the MW
broadcast band seem to verify the above statement. Even though the DC
resistance of the wire is naturally very low, it was found that the
"counterpoise" lying on the ground underneath the antenna, and connecting the
ground rod at the far end of the Beverage with the ground rod at the receiver
end's matching transformer, in fact, was acting like a "Beverage on Ground",
rather than a short circuit between ground rods. That is, it delivered a signal
to the grounded side of the matching transformer. The result was that signal
strengths often were stronger from transmitters broadside to the antenna (10 dB
or so), the occasional solid nulls on signals from the back of the antenna were
degraded, and little increase in signal strength from signals from the far end
of the antenna were observed.

Those of us who performed this experiment stopped using "counterpoises" from
that point forward, unless we used them as antennas in their own right.
best wishes,
Nick, VE7DXR

On 24 Aug 2004 12:45:35 GMT, oUsama (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:

Here is the perhaps the best outline of the "problem" by VE7DXR and you might
want to try to plug it into program to see the correlation.

Hi Yuri,

I don't see how. On the face of it, it doesn't make sense.

it delivered a signal to the grounded side of the matching transformer.

It is all fine and well to observe that a wire draped along the ground
picks up signal (such an antenna I have seen "named" the Snake in the
Grass Antenna which is more an open terminated coax). However to
proudly state that it delivers it to ground begs the obvious comment
"how do you know?"

You must in fact break the connection, insert a load, and this means
it no longer delivers it to ground (can't have your cake and eat it
too). Such receive antennas are admittedly poor in efficiency but
useful as "quiet" antennas (where the receiver gain makes up for low
efficiency).

To cap it off, what is the "problem" anyway?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yuri, K3BU wrote:
"If anyone cares to discuss the subject, or, explain how the conductor
laid on the ground can lose its conductivity, bring it on."

My observations on Tom, W8Ji`s antics are similar to Yuri`s. Too bad
because Tom has much to offer. We all make mistakes, and for everyone`s
benefit we should admit we are wrong when it happens.

The loss from an r-f conductor near the earth is likely more from
displacement (dielectric) loss than conductor conductivity. At Radio
Free Europe we found it more economical to build a kneehigh 2-wire
600-ohm transmission line of Copperweld than to build a stainless steel
dissipation lline high above the ground to dissipate 50 KW. It worked
very well but it was a collision hazard.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Yuri, K3BU wrote:
"If anyone cares to discuss the subject, or, explain how the conductor
laid on the ground can lose its conductivity, bring it on."

My observations on Tom, W8Ji`s antics are similar to Yuri`s. Too bad
because Tom has much to offer. We all make mistakes, and for everyone`s
benefit we should admit we are wrong when it happens.

What did he say that was wrong ?
What book this time are you quoting from?
What book states that you are correct in your own analysis?
We all know that you have some sort of connection with Radio Free Europe so
how did your antics prove
that Tom is in error? Yes Tom and others including myself can be
fraustrating but is that justification for dragging him thru the mud? Your
post sounds like a "swift boat"
advertisement so maybe some of it will stick
Art





The loss from an r-f conductor near the earth is likely more from
displacement (dielectric) loss than conductor conductivity. At Radio
Free Europe we found it more economical to build a kneehigh 2-wire
600-ohm transmission line of Copperweld than to build a stainless steel
dissipation lline high above the ground to dissipate 50 KW. It worked
very well but it was a collision hazard.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:43:07 GMT, "
wrote:
so maybe some of it will stick
more trolling

If I was going to join the trashing then at the least I would go to EHAM and
tell him why he is wrong. It just doesn't belong here on this group, it
belongs on the group where he made the statement.
I suspect that you soon will add snide remarks for which
you have s remarkable ability that has stood the test of time.on R.R.A.A.
Art

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:43:07 GMT, "
wrote:
so maybe some of it will stick
more trolling

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:53:02 GMT, "
wrote:
I suspect that you
more trolling

Art Unwin wrote:
"What did he say that was wrong?"

Recently Tom argued with Yuri that loading coils must have the same
current in and out. Circuit theory does not directly apply in all cases
due to the possibility of a reflected wave on the coil and due to
radiation from a loading coil.

Did Tom ever admit that it`s possible that current into one end of the
coil does not necessarily equal the current at its other end?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI