"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dan,
you know quite well what the post that started this thread asked for.
I only added the TOA comments to fill in some body where I was
coming from not for advice on what antenna to build.
People are quibling over the word "efficiency" which I find rather
wierd
especially since I am supposed to be in the company of fellow
engineers.
The subject was antenna radiation patterns and ascertaining the
relative volume of the main lobe which is the reason for an antenna and
comparing it to the total volume of the array which one accepts to
obtain the desirable primary lobe. Oh yes, when we talk of efficiency
one must multiply the ratio by 100 Some may have forgotten that!
Obviously this group comprises of a swarm of tadpoles with a few little
goldfish in a small pond none of which are qualified to be termed
faculty. Now you have something to get your teeth into since you deign
to respond to the initial post This term "I don't understand" is
usually used by student who enter class after late night partying and
it didn't work then either. A dull brain is a dull brain unless one
activates it.
Carry on with a thread of your own choice and quibble amongst
yourselves about what "is" is really meant by use of the word "is" For
what was a very short question this thread has gone amok and is way to
long
Art
wrote:
The moral of inventing meanings for words is that those meanings have
a short shelf life. This kind of thing doesn't even last out a week
in the white house press room.
True, true. If only all this word-twisting energy could be harnessed
as valid antenna design... the chipster seems to have relegated himself
these days to fairly innocuous posts elsewhere regarding staying on the
good side of your neighbors' graces by putting up visually low profile
antennas... Certainly a change from the f-word antenna wars of old. I
was a regular reader of r.r.a.a. in those days... not much of a poster
back then, though.
I wonder if a thousand-mile long, five mile high stack of rhombics
might meet Art's requirements... of course, at that point you could
just run open wire line to any distant receiver. That would be quite
efficient, from Art's standpoint.
73,
Dan
Your definition of efficencency was accepted and then a very good answer
within the boundaries of your definition was given which you rejected. The
fact is if you could recover all the energy that goes into the sidelobes or
radiates from the rear of the antenna and place it in the main beam you
would increase power in that direction precious little. Apparently what you
are seeking is a LASER beam performing in the HF spectrum. Even this would
not be very "efficent" for communicating from one point on the surface of
the earth to another point below the horizon that is to say you cant send a
signal through the Earth. Communication through the air via radio is
inherently inefficent if you look at it from the standpoint of thousands to
millions of watts at the transmitter with only microwatts being received.
In the futre we may learn to transmit nearly all of the power to a distant
point. If this happenes the most efficent method of getting an HF signal
across the ocean will be a moot point. By then will will be doing
matter/energy/matter conversion so that we will be able to transmit
ourselves over long distances if this is at all possible. In the mean time
hams will continue to make do with a very inefficent medium even by todays
standards
It is true that in the past we have accepted many thing that were true which
was not, many of these errors have been corrected at what seems to be an
expotential rate over the past couple of hundred years. Much of this was
accomplished by people viewing the world with a degree of open-mindedness
that had never existed in the past and this is a very good thing. Being
totally opened minded has it fallicies in making us not being able to
recognize when we have the correct answer. My mother as I am sure a lot of
other mothers have said this best. "I am open minded, just not so much as to
let my brains fall out." It is our closed mindedness that keeps of from
running off accepting every BS explantion that comes along
It has been your choice to deem anything someone says to you that you do not
agree with as RUDENESS. Perhaps we should all be POLITE to you and let you
go ahead with your fools errand. I doubt if most of us could be that cruel.
Actually most people are very polite to you in the truest snese of the word
carefully trying to explain things to you that you clearly do not
understand, trying to explain to you a reality you refuse to accept.