"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Don't professionals use the term?
I don't believe so.
snip
The ARRL Antenna Book probably uses TOA. It's a publication intended for
amateurs. No, a graph of incoming ray angles is not a graph of TOA as used
by EZNEC and other programs. You've just given a good example of the
misunderstanding and confusion that the term is subject to.
They give an incoming angle not a spread
What is wrong with the common
perception
that it is the angle of maximum gain?
Nothing at all. It's just that a lot of people think it means something
else. In some of your postings, in fact, I get the sense that you don't
always use it with that meaning. For example, you sometimes seem to give a
lot of weight to the TOA as a figure of merit, and none at all to the
hing field strength or gain at the angle at which communication is taking
place. So either you're using TOA in a different sense, or you have no
interest in maximizing the ability of an antenna to communicate
effectively.
snip
Roy,
by now you must know that I experiment a lot using computor models
and actual building. I built a 80 meter boom yagi which was neat because
the underside of the first lobe captured a lot of signals as the band is
opening. So was the next step to make even a longer boom yagi to drive
the underside of the lobe lower, no ....because I am now too old and weaker.
So I now pursue the object of a lower take of angle by using more elements
with more coupling and one that can rotate in a circle equivalent to a
two element beam. I believe this can be accomplished with the same gain
and a lower take off angle than a 60 foot boom yagi. Thus TOA becomes
the most important thing for me as well as the "thickness" of the lobe.
That is the sense that your response questioned regarding my maximisation of
antenna
performance for which I use TOA.
Best regards
Art