[BC] FCC Approves proposed AM MoM Rules

[Cowboy]

On Sunday 28 September 2008 08:06 am, WBRadiolists at aol.com wrote:

>  Please forgive the "stupid questions" here...
>  
>  If you measure the tower as though it's completely unloaded, then use that 
>  for the modelling software... does it not then throw the modelling out the 
>  proverbial window as soon as you reconnect all of that other "stuff"?

 No.
 You model all that other "stuff" and reconnect it, so to speak.
 It changes, yes. Does the change track the model ?
 If not, STOP and find out why.

 Could be the model. Could be the "stuff." Could be something else
 not thought of or otherwise missed, like the depth of the ground system,
 or in the case of an older rebuild, how MANY ground systems, and
 their current condition ! Are they *really* bonded ?

>  Would it not make sense to measure and model it both ways, so that you can:
>  
>  a) see the difference, and
>  b) see what it will do in reality?

 Some of us have been doing exactly that for some years now.

 Keep in mind that field readings are very often <sic> of questionable
 reliability anyway. Who is usually carrying the FIM(s) during a full proof ?
 Can YOU determine the true field reading in the presence of a weak but
 very close re-radiated signal ?
 Keep in mind that re-radiators seldom have much ( if any ) affect beyond
 a few miles out, but where do you take your readings to "prove" the
 pattern ? They're ALL within just a few miles, aren't they ?
 What affect does ground conductivity have on sky wave signals ?
 Why, exactly, do we do a "proof" at all ?
 ;)

-- 
Cowboy