I'm glad you see the concept through the mobile setup.
This is why it frustrates me when folks want to put a 1/4 wave whip on a pole of indiscriminate length and use it for a base antenna. Someone always arises to sing its virtues in spite of it being a lousy setup. It is not necessary to understand the counterpoise as it was originally used to know why a whip on a pole is a poor antenna setup, but when folks start in about how the whip needs a counterpoise, when in fact it needs a groundplane, the ignorance is perpetuated even more. Now we have introduced a new generation of radio operators to our own failed understanding.
Your thread here is a good one.
We can discuss how height affects RFI due to proximity of the antenna to the interfered with electronics.
We can distinguish between RFI due to proximity, and what is or is not CMC.
We can learn that TVI is the result of either CMC or RFI, or both, and we can learn to see the similarities between the activity of the three, and note the distinctions between them, too.
We can even explore the possibility of reducing TVI due to RFI by lengths of coax. And we can sort out the possibility that CMC is somewhat controllable by coax lengths if for no other reason than cable losses reducing the impact of any CMC that may have made the lossy trip back to the shack.
More than anecdotes can be employed by bringing the might of the antenna model to the discussion, and skills can be honed by discussing the variables utilized by different modelers to get their results. Those of us who read and watch become more familiar with the terms used, and the application of those terms. Tomorrow we are just a little less ignorant, and a little better prepared to enjoy our hobby and teach others.
Maybe, just maybe, if we have the energy to fine tune the points raised by your questions we can sort out the similarities and distinctions between Counterpoise and Groundplane and one of these days someone else will have an "Ah Ha" moment that leads them to a broader understanding of their radio experience so that when a newbie asks them whether a chain link fence is a good counterpoise they will be able to say to them that a chain link fence has as much relationship to a counterpoise as Ed Sullivan does the the Geico Gecko and put the honest hearted operator on the true road to understanding that will help him to know when he needs a counterpoise, and when he needs a groundplane and how to build it himself.
By the way, from what I've read of the little available the use of the counterpoise has been most useful when the soil is poor. It was considered to be better than the buried radials system in such a case as the capacitance added a dimension of assistance to the poor soil that burying the network in the ground did not provide.
I understand how and why, but I am not educated enough on this type of electrical science to draw you a bunch of hyphens, commas, colons, pi, hash marks and Y's, Z's and other letters including above all an "n" to appear to make a point that no one will understand except Einstein. I simply know that's what it said was been done, and I am still a student of the deeper concepts of science that makes it work.
I don't believe the counterpoise has fallen out of fashion at all. I believe it has become misunderstood and consequently fallen into disuse.
I can think of the posts and writings I've encountered that have drawn from speculations over the differences between the performances of the same antenna over different soils. There have been sessions of name calling, disputes, and incredulity over this simple difference. Why can one person see a different result than another? We accept the laws that govern RF behavior and are willing to lose friends over those things we believe, yet often it is the simple missing component in our understanding that causes us to disagree and disbelieve one another.
I grew up where you now live. I know the amount of rain fall that is customary there. I heard all of the discussion of the water table beneath the soil, and the concerns for the possibility of the city sinking a little at a time. Maybe it never will, but it is a firm case for the conductivity of the soil, and of the advantage it gives over soil like my own rocky mountainous terrain. And I have read the threads where folks derided your experiences with your antennas. To me that appears as evidence of a certain deficiency in their understanding of things such as what is possible under a different set of prevailing circumstances. Does the soil reflect a signal more efficiently, or does it absorb it more readily. What is the best course of action to either take advantage of those conditions, either to use them , or to make whatever corrections might be possible to get a better result. Certainly there have been some who made this a matter for consideration when they put together a radio station. With so many antenna choices today the questions all seem to center on "which antenna is the best" as if there is a magical best antenna out there. The focus is misplaced, I believe. The search for that answer should be one that centers on discovery of which works best. Many advise this course, but then the inquirer is once again sent through a litany of antenna manufacturers with someone who lives in Chicago insisting the best antenna for the guy who lives in th Mohave Desert is the one that he has proven beyond doubt works because its the best in his Chicago neighborhood. I believe the importance of knowing what things mean is essential to knowing how to direct someone to discovering his/her best solution. The laws of nature that govern the results we get are inviolable. We just have to try to come to terms with them and work as partners with the environment we are in.
I know this is time consuming, and many just want to get on the air. It is such hastiness that has created the "Super Bowl", and lead to the mongrelization of high bred radio communications in favor of the junk yard dog heavy mega wattage radio. Some day I will have to take the time to get off my behind and move on to other bands where purity and science and partnership with understanding may still have some vestigial hold on the thinking of Radio Operators, and where it is still a fine thing to talk 10,000 miles on a handful of watts, and where the operator knows it is because he became a partner with his QTH. But then again, Cebiks complaint was that Amateurs operators didn't seem to know what they were talking about regarding the counterpoise. Could it be because they don't seem to care?
Anyway. Glad you took the time.
