In article . net,
chuck wrote:

Thanks for the comments, Roger.

While I don't disagree with what you have said (except that antennae are
magic), I don't believe your remarks touch on the issues here.

The typical marine VHF antenna, for example, does not depend upon the
sea for its operation. I am assuming the usual quarter-wave ground plane
vertical atop a mast. Do you believe that because VHF and HF antennas
involve different frequencies the underlying theory is different?

A backstay "vertical" antenna may or may not depend on the sea for its
return path. Me has unequivocally asserted that it always depends on the
sea and thus its ground must be coupled to the sea. (400 sq. ft. of
copper is no better than nothing at all he believes)

Conventional antenna theory suggests that a backstay "vertical" could
utilize a counterpoise or other return path element (like a horizontal
dipole half) with no coupling to the sea at all.

Me asserts this is false: that such an antenna will not work.

I attempted to present a "reductio ad absurdum" argument showing that if
Me is correct, his reasoning leads to absurd results. There is no magic
here.

I would be pleased to reconsider any of my comments if they appear
incorrect or incomprehensible.

Regards,

Chuck

Best you go back to Elementary Physics, and relearn everything that you
didn't get the first time, on Antenna Theory, Frquency vs Impedance,
and Smith Charting of basic Marconi Style Antennas.....

Me