On 6 Dec 2003 12:27:00 -0800, (emma) wrote:

Hi Richard,

I tried it. I considered my Hentenna as a transmission line and I
applied the standing wave theory according to "THE ARRL ANTENNA BOOK
18th Ed 1997, Fig 65".
The currents flow the antenna as shown below:

http://antennas.ee.duth.gr/recradioa...ndingwaves.htm


Obviously, the currents of the 3 parallel horizontal branches are
flowing in the same direction. Their sum gives the total field. On the
other hand, we have 3 antiparallel pairs of currents flowing through
the vertical branches. Therefore the field becomes equal to zero.
As a result, the arrangement radiates and it can not be considered as
a transmission line.

Emma.

Hi Emma,

You are arguing from a forced analysis not from transmission line
theory. The flaw is that the current defines a transmission line.
The current flow defines the results, the transmission line structure
imposes the laws they must operate within.

The structure is a transmission line shorted at both ends and fed at
an opportunistic point for the purpose of matching to the source. It
is a classic, skeletal cavity resonator that leaks. Efficiency is in
the eye of the beholder.

More the question is: "What does it matter?" There is no gain
obtained from a design's name redefined away from transmission line to
the term Hentenna. Further, given the japanese expression of Hen to
denote strange (strange antenna), this naming only seeks to mystify
what is quite ordinary (even if it is uncommon).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC