Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 6 Jun, 18:00, Mike Coslo wrote:
(Richard Harrison) wrote in
news:28667-46639927-
:

Jimmy D wrote:
"Wouldn`t it be nice if Art did the comparison?"
Yes. I thought a Gaussian was a 17-sided polygon.
heptakaidecagon?

73 de Mike KB3EIA -
Newsgroup members,
Thought I would give you another example to laugh at.
Looking at the 17th eddition of the ARRL Antenna handbook
page 11-18 I came across an optimised 20 metre antenna,
The shortest boom length was 16 feet for 3 element
and the spec was 20db F/B, SWR 2:1 and going for
maximum gain which amateurs seem to think is every
thing
The ARRL antenna achieved 7.5 dbi max
My antenna which is of GAUSSIAN form was also a 3 element
and achieved an average of 30 F/B and 20 db worst case.
SWR was 2:1 ofcourse ranging from 1.34 :1 worst case.
Gain figures were 11.45,11.3 and 10.9 dbi
The main lobe was 62 deg BW and TOA 14 degrees.
I didn't use the 16 foot boom length as the starting
point but held the beam to the required 3 elements.
So instead of using the ARRL 16 foot boom I used a
8 foot boom. Again I forced the antenna into a planar
mode so a reasonable comparison could be made.
So have at it. Point out the areas of specs that
the antenna fails and have a laugh at the same time.
I'll leave you to find the deliberate error if
there is one so you can have your moment in the sun.
Art


define 'gaussian form'.



All I'd like to see is a couple real hard numbers. Like element length
and position on boom.

And I'd bet lunch at Ruth's Chris, even though I don't like steak at
all, that if the thing really shows the numbers Art claims, that the
real drive point impedance is in the range of 5 ohms or less.

Come on Art, you won't give away a million dollar idea if you publish
the construction details of an 8 foot long 3 element 20 meter beam. You
will be able to squash anyone like a bug with your 30 foot version.

tom
K0TAR