Re: Counterpoise and MMC demise

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net>

Tesla list wrote:
 >
 > Original poster: "Jim Lux by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" 
<jimlux-at-earthlink-dot-net>
 >
 > At 11:44 AM 6/20/2003 -0600, you wrote:
 > >Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>"
 > ><evp-at-pacbell-dot-net>
 > >
 > >A rule of thumb for designing vertical broadcast antennas is that the
 > >there is little benefit in having a counterpose whose RADIUS is equal to
 > >the height of the antenna.  I can't see why this shouldn't be at least
 > >as applicable to TC's.  A good solid ground to "ground" is of course an
 > >important safety factor.
 > >
 > >Ed
 >
 > Little benefit for a counterpoise radius of the height? Or is it little
 > benefit in having a counterpoise bigger or smaller..

	Sorry about that.  Should have said much GREATER than the height.  A
larger ground plane/counterpoise would be better, but it's a question of
economics and in commercial service a bigger counterpoise implies more
land to buy or rent, plus the cost of the materials and labor.  Since,
at least to most of us, our TC's are toys the economic aspects (chicken
wire is mighty cheap) don't matter so much as the space available.

Ed