On Feb 24, 7:50*pm, tom wrote:
tom wrote:

Thanks Roy. *I was rushed at the time and also didn't care too much,
since it was obvious that even though the elements weren't parallel or
on quite the same centerline, they were very close to it. *He picks at
nits when he says his antennas are different. *I could get similar
results from a good windstorm.

tom
K0TAR

Ok, revisiting things now that I have time, I discovered something,
which The Art may (ok, will) get off into an incomprehensible rant about.

I did a simple normalization. *I calculated the lengths of the elements
and the location of their centerpoints. *I then calculated the distance
between the centerpoints. *I then put it all in a nice level and square
2 element array. *I left the diameters alone.

New endpoints -

-37.455 * -219.135 * 707 * -37.455 * *219.135 * 707 * 1
* 37.455 * -195.45 * *707 * *37.455 * *195.45 * *707 * 1.25

Results at 14.175 using EZNEC+ 5

* * * * * * * Gain * * * F/B
Original * * 9.87 dBi * 7.84
Normalized *10.29 dBi * 8.58

The impedance curves were not different enough to be of note and were
matchable to 50 ohms with good efficiency.

I'll take the one with better gain and F/B that's also nice looking with
elements that are easier to mount because they're at 90 degree angles,
thank you. *Yes, run-on sentence.

tom
K0TAR

Tom I have no problem with your choice of going with the one with the
best front to back, what ever one that is. The crux of the matter is
under the equations of Maxwell optimiser programs do not provide the
planar form as the best radiator. I understand that Roy now has an
optimiser program for sale and I fully expect for it to follow the
same pattern as well as prove my point on the circular wound antenna
as apparently he supplies more than enough segments assuming the
computer has the power to use them.
However a look at the larger picture the same particulars provided
state that one can manipulate the elements to occupy a small volume as
long as the resonance and equilibrium restrictions are held to. I see
that as the real prize that will come from my workif one had the
equipment to do the optimization. Ofcourse if Roy's program still
provide the yagi as the optimizer result then there is a definate
conflict with other computer programs that use Maxwells equations.
Looking back at the idea that waves are the carrier of communication
it leaves us with the silly propersition that a Faraday cage
perforations must be less in size to that of the incoming wave! Thus
for a cage for use on the top band
can live with openings that are a bit smaller than 180 metres! Now
some text books have dropped the size opening to approx 1/10 of a WL
which is still way to large to enclose the eddy current
rotation.Einstein failed to prove his theorem and was forced to invent
quantum mechanics which provided the answer of particles that he
anticipated and now with the above standard physics figures supplies
the same result. So it is up to the ham himself to decide whether it
is worthwhile to have an antenna sensitive to all signals that are
thrown at it, where it operates in a smaller volume than the yagi or
stay with one more pleasing on the eye. I personally do not have the
equipment to pursue what appears to be smaller antennas than presently
used all the way down to point radiation.
What hams have to recognise now is that the much vaunted antenna
programs do not consider the yagi as an optimized array and to decide
whether to ditch the programs or pursue what the programs based on
Maxwell provide to its limits.
Art Unwin KB9MZ......xg