On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 01:14:36 +0200, "-.-. --.-" wrote:

Straight and clear. Well, maybe my knowledge of physics and mathematic can
go a bit far, including understand e.g. ground losses, path loss in free
space, takeoff angle, feed point impedance and other silly things regarding
antenna world but sorry, Maxwell equations are a bit harder for me

Hi Cristiano,

The only people that rely on things like Maxwell's equations, or
Gauss' Law are those who don't know the math.

You don't need that math to discuss 99% of the art of design. That
math might be mentioned, but whoever is trying to use it as their sole
point of discussion is someone who is lost.

I have been in the military - antennas work the same there too. I was
a teacher of RF Systems (LF/MF/HF/VHF/UHF/SHF). There is no magic
knowledge hidden by the government.

Well, i'm ever a optimistic mind... i just think that maybe tomorrow i can
use something better antenna thanks to MIL research ... like a trick to
build a 160m yagi in the same space of a 40 m yagi of course, just
joking... OTH radar DUGA-3 in Prypiat, ex USSR now Ukraine, is a good
example for me, MIL also need big antenna system.

Military designs and commercial designs did lead the way for practical
antennas .... 70 years ago. If you want to build an 160M version of a
RADAR antenna you might get more argument from your neighbors than you
will find here. That huge antenna will show every characteristic at
160M as it does at SHF, but you better be pointed in the right
direction.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC