Au contraire. We HAVE been building. What is different now is that we have affordable tools that Mssrs. Brown, Lewis and Epstein would surely drool over. The photographs in the study and some other related literature outline the difficulties they went through to produce the document. What we also have is the ability now to measure relative skywave signals (Remote Beacon Network) in a way that allows real statistical comparisons of stations in many different propagation situations and locations, and get it down to an accuracy of a dB or two, even for trans-oceanic paths.
Now the old topic is popping up with NEW designs to test out, and it turns out there are some new things to compare. BL&E had MONEY behind them, though they did have a wire budget they exhausted (113 radials instead of 120, the story is they ran out of wire). For BL&E to have been truly comprehensive, they would have needed to redo it in Hawaii, North Carolina, and a half dozen other places, to add another matrix dimension to their figures in places with altogether different soil qualities. For our part, we just need to keep after the subject. People ARE putting up new designs on Top Band, and using them, and this annoyingly (for some) repetitive topic has been the vector for the new ideas. 73, Guy. On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Mark van Wijk <pa...@home.nl> wrote: > > It is time to stop talking. > > This topic pops up every six months or so for many years now. > > Go to a defined and mutual agreed property and build / test all mentioned > radial models. > > No need to keep throwing theories, agreed/non agreed standards, computer > models and hardly relevant what-works-for-me stories at each other. > > 73 Mark, PA5MW > > _______________________________________________ > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK > _______________________________________________ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK