On 22 Apr, 19:41, Tom Ring wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...

Art wrote:
"Again, Richard you are taking things out of context since the arrays
referred to were not in equilibrium.'

I noted no acceleration nor motion. As a firm believer in the
conservation of energy I`m sure that the antenna, on average, received
no more energy than it emitted or conducted away. That is balance or
equilibrium.

Art also wrote:
"Terman was referring to close spaced of the parasitic form, even
mentions corner reflectors."

Yes, and he also mentions the Yagi array. But I believe Terman meant to
say the best antenna gains of the day, for the antenna`s size,
regardless of direct or parasitic drive, were obtained from corner
reflector and Yagi antennas. That hasn`t changed but it certainly may.
But, Kraus, whose invention, the W8JK array, has two dipole elements
spaced 0.125 wavelengths apart and driven 180-degrees out of phase,
certainly has no parasitic element. That was certainly on his mind when
he wrote the comments on page 185 in "Antennas". On the facing page,
184, he diagrams two antennas, the W8JK and a stack of two dipoles which
are driven in-phase, not out-of phase like the W8JK.

Low radiation resistance is a consequence of tight coupling between the
closely-spaced elements. This makes the coupling to the array likely
lossy in making impedance transformations necessary to match the array
to the transmission line. Kraus has some suggestions on how to make
these arrays more compatible with their transmission lines.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

I f this were a hospital you couldnt distinguish the doctors from the
patients.. LMAO

Jimmie

If you are implying that Richard is incorrect in his statements and that
Art has even a tiny clue about reality, you are sadly mistaken.

You should study a bit about the subject before you criticize the "Doctors".

tom
K0TAR- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom ,you should not hit Jimmie for not studying what you believe to be
critical. To often you have shown yourself to be ignorant of the finer
details of radiation that you are accusing Jimmie of not being
knoweledgable about. Regarding what Richard stated you did not give
one iota of evidence that his comments were correct possibly because
you are devoid of any knoweledge around which you could consider a
debate. Tom once again you show your ignorance about antennas and
radiation to the World. Wasn't it you who was so vociforace in your
critisisms when the MIT doctor came aboard with his mathematical
analysis? Was it not you who stated you cannot add the measure of time
to both sides of an equation infering that equilibrium is thus
abandoned? You really should have obtained an understanding of algebra
before embarking on a realm of finger pointing at the old age of the
mid eighties.
You can talk the talk when you prove that you can walk the walk and
that can't be done if you have a crippled mind.
Art