I think we do not see the counterpoise idea implemented for two simple reasons:
1. People don't know what it is when the word is used, and
2. the idea of the counterpoise was first developed when there was not a profusion of manufactured antennas with a set of radials built into them.
I do not maintain on any level that we ought to make it a matter of practice again.
But I will stubbornly insist that it is necessary to understand its real meaning if one wants to run around tossing the word to and fro like grass seed and expect anyone to really know what they are talking about. Additionally, Cebik sought clarity for the term from the historical origins, but knew no one would give a rats rump ultimately.
And there is the matter of trying to convey an idea about how and why RF acts the way it does in a simple sentence that doesn't turn into dozens of posts of arguments and contradictions and ignorance piled on top of ignorance which leaves the poor soul who needed an answer more confused than before so that he just ends up saying, "I guess I'll just get an Imax 2000 and put it on a fence. Is a long chain link fence a good counterpoise?" (which of course it is not, but someone will immediately post that it is, it might , could be, maybe so, probably not, no way, my cousin used one, anything will do if conditions are right and a multitude of additional posts which have absolutely nothing to do with the concept of the counterpoise.)
You asked me. I answered.
Nothings going to change. And I doubt the guv'ment had anything to do with folks either being ignorant, or having alternatives to the counterpoise system. Antenna manufacturers replacing the art of the homebrew antenna system has done that.
By the way, I still use one everyday. It's my mobile antenna system.
