Dear "Jeff" (no call sign):

Please read and study an antenna text such as Kraus' third edition of
Antennas. His first edition (published in 1950) is also an excellent
reference for this issue. The terms you use have been well defined for many
decades. Only patent attorneys are entitled to define word meanings that
differ from convention - and then only in a patent application. Words have
meanings.

Regards, Mac N8TT

"J. Mc Laughlin" wrote

Words have meanings.

Not always the *same* meanings to each of us, and it would seem pretty arrogant
to for one to presume that only *their* meaning is correct.

I'm reminded of a passage by Lewis J. Carroll......

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means
just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many
different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Homepage:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb
Member:
ARRL http://www.arrl.org
SOC http://www.qsl.net/soc
VWOA http://www.vwoa.org
A-1 Operator Club http://www.arrl.org/awards/a1-op/
TCDXA http://www.tcdxa.org
MWA http://www.w0aa.org
TCFMC http://www.tcfmc.org
FISTS http://www.fists.org
LVDXA http://www.upstel.net/borken/lvdxa.htm
NCI http://www.nocode.org

As my girlfriend likes to say "WORDS MEAN THINGS!"

Having a weird definition of efficiency doesn't help anyone out.

Needing an antenna with super-high-gain at one particular elevation and
azimuth angle is a weird, but... sort of valid question... but has
nothing to do with the efficiency of said antenna.

Dan

On 24 Sep 2006 11:29:08 -0700, "
wrote:

As my girlfriend likes to say "WORDS MEAN THINGS!"

Having a weird definition of efficiency doesn't help anyone out.

Needing an antenna with super-high-gain at one particular elevation and
azimuth angle is a weird, but... sort of valid question... but has
nothing to do with the efficiency of said antenna.

Dan


Hi Dan,

From discussions of years past with the chipster, his novel k2 fractal
flyer antenna (heavily constrained with unique parameters) offered the
"best" gain at 10 degrees that couldn't be bettered by anyone. He
took umbrage when this claim was examined in the modeler ("you can't
make a copy of that antenna! I own the rights!"):
http://www.qsl.net/kb7qhc/antenna/fr...r/k2/index.htm

It turned out that the word "Best" meant -4.63 dBi - which I promptly
bettered by more than half a dB (in an unpublished design I call the
Foolish fractal Flyer). The chipster also made efficiency claims
similar to Art's (that is, using the same corruption of language). It
didn't take long to flush that efficiency with the same merits.

The moral of inventing meanings for words is that those meanings have
a short shelf life. This kind of thing doesn't even last out a week
in the white house press room.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The moral of inventing meanings for words is that those meanings have
a short shelf life. This kind of thing doesn't even last out a week
in the white house press room.

True, true. If only all this word-twisting energy could be harnessed
as valid antenna design... the chipster seems to have relegated himself
these days to fairly innocuous posts elsewhere regarding staying on the
good side of your neighbors' graces by putting up visually low profile
antennas... Certainly a change from the f-word antenna wars of old. I
was a regular reader of r.r.a.a. in those days... not much of a poster
back then, though.

I wonder if a thousand-mile long, five mile high stack of rhombics
might meet Art's requirements... of course, at that point you could
just run open wire line to any distant receiver. That would be quite
efficient, from Art's standpoint.

73,
Dan

Dan,
you know quite well what the post that started this thread asked for.
I only added the TOA comments to fill in some body where I was
coming from not for advice on what antenna to build.
People are quibling over the word "efficiency" which I find rather
wierd
especially since I am supposed to be in the company of fellow
engineers.
The subject was antenna radiation patterns and ascertaining the
relative volume of the main lobe which is the reason for an antenna and
comparing it to the total volume of the array which one accepts to
obtain the desirable primary lobe. Oh yes, when we talk of efficiency
one must multiply the ratio by 100 Some may have forgotten that!
Obviously this group comprises of a swarm of tadpoles with a few little
goldfish in a small pond none of which are qualified to be termed
faculty. Now you have something to get your teeth into since you deign
to respond to the initial post This term "I don't understand" is
usually used by student who enter class after late night partying and
it didn't work then either. A dull brain is a dull brain unless one
activates it.
Carry on with a thread of your own choice and quibble amongst
yourselves about what "is" is really meant by use of the word "is" For
what was a very short question this thread has gone amok and is way to
long
Art

wrote:
The moral of inventing meanings for words is that those meanings have
a short shelf life. This kind of thing doesn't even last out a week
in the white house press room.

True, true. If only all this word-twisting energy could be harnessed
as valid antenna design... the chipster seems to have relegated himself
these days to fairly innocuous posts elsewhere regarding staying on the
good side of your neighbors' graces by putting up visually low profile
antennas... Certainly a change from the f-word antenna wars of old. I
was a regular reader of r.r.a.a. in those days... not much of a poster
back then, though.

I wonder if a thousand-mile long, five mile high stack of rhombics
might meet Art's requirements... of course, at that point you could
just run open wire line to any distant receiver. That would be quite
efficient, from Art's standpoint.

73,
Dan

Dan,
you know quite well what the post that started this thread asked for.
I only added the TOA comments to fill in some body where I was
coming from not for advice on what antenna to build.
People are quibling over the word "efficiency" which I find rather
wierd
especially since I am supposed to be in the company of fellow
engineers.
The subject was antenna radiation patterns and ascertaining the
relative volume of the main lobe which is the reason for an antenna and
comparing it to the total volume of the array which one accepts to
obtain the desirable primary lobe. Oh yes, when we talk of efficiency
one must multiply the ratio by 100 Some may have forgotten that!
Obviously this group comprises of a swarm of tadpoles with a few little
goldfish in a small pond none of which are qualified to be termed
faculty. Now you have something to get your teeth into since you deign
to respond to the initial post This term "I don't understand" is
usually used by student who enter class after late night partying and
it didn't work then either. A dull brain is a dull brain unless one
activates it.
Carry on with a thread of your own choice and quibble amongst
yourselves about what "is" is really meant by use of the word "is" For
what was a very short question this thread has gone amok and is way to
long
Art

wrote:
The moral of inventing meanings for words is that those meanings have
a short shelf life. This kind of thing doesn't even last out a week
in the white house press room.

True, true. If only all this word-twisting energy could be harnessed
as valid antenna design... the chipster seems to have relegated himself
these days to fairly innocuous posts elsewhere regarding staying on the
good side of your neighbors' graces by putting up visually low profile
antennas... Certainly a change from the f-word antenna wars of old. I
was a regular reader of r.r.a.a. in those days... not much of a poster
back then, though.

I wonder if a thousand-mile long, five mile high stack of rhombics
might meet Art's requirements... of course, at that point you could
just run open wire line to any distant receiver. That would be quite
efficient, from Art's standpoint.

73,
Dan

Dan,
you know quite well what the post that started this thread asked for.
I only added the TOA comments to fill in some body where I was
coming from not for advice on what antenna to build.
People are quibling over the word "efficiency" which I find rather
wierd
especially since I am supposed to be in the company of fellow
engineers.
The subject was antenna radiation patterns and ascertaining the
relative volume of the main lobe which is the reason for an antenna and
comparing it to the total volume of the array which one accepts to
obtain the desirable primary lobe. Oh yes, when we talk of efficiency
one must multiply the ratio by 100 Some may have forgotten that!
Obviously this group comprises of a swarm of tadpoles with a few little
goldfish in a small pond none of which are qualified to be termed
faculty. Now you have something to get your teeth into since you deign
to respond to the initial post This term "I don't understand" is
usually used by student who enter class after late night partying and
it didn't work then either. A dull brain is a dull brain unless one
activates it.
Carry on with a thread of your own choice and quibble amongst
yourselves about what "is" is really meant by use of the word "is" For
what was a very short question this thread has gone amok and is way to
long
Art

wrote:
The moral of inventing meanings for words is that those meanings have
a short shelf life. This kind of thing doesn't even last out a week
in the white house press room.

True, true. If only all this word-twisting energy could be harnessed
as valid antenna design... the chipster seems to have relegated himself
these days to fairly innocuous posts elsewhere regarding staying on the
good side of your neighbors' graces by putting up visually low profile
antennas... Certainly a change from the f-word antenna wars of old. I
was a regular reader of r.r.a.a. in those days... not much of a poster
back then, though.

I wonder if a thousand-mile long, five mile high stack of rhombics
might meet Art's requirements... of course, at that point you could
just run open wire line to any distant receiver. That would be quite
efficient, from Art's standpoint.

73,
Dan

Dan,
you know quite well what the post that started this thread asked for.
I only added the TOA comments to fill in some body where I was
coming from not for advice on what antenna to build.
People are quibling over the word "efficiency" which I find rather
wierd
especially since I am supposed to be in the company of fellow
engineers.
The subject was antenna radiation patterns and ascertaining the
relative volume of the main lobe which is the reason for an antenna and
comparing it to the total volume of the array which one accepts to
obtain the desirable primary lobe. Oh yes, when we talk of efficiency
one must multiply the ratio by 100 Some may have forgotten that!
Obviously this group comprises of a swarm of tadpoles with a few little
goldfish in a small pond none of which are qualified to be termed
faculty. Now you have something to get your teeth into since you deign
to respond to the initial post This term "I don't understand" is
usually used by student who enter class after late night partying and
it didn't work then either. A dull brain is a dull brain unless one
activates it.
Carry on with a thread of your own choice and quibble amongst
yourselves about what "is" is really meant by use of the word "is" For
what was a very short question this thread has gone amok and is way to
long
Art

wrote:
The moral of inventing meanings for words is that those meanings have
a short shelf life. This kind of thing doesn't even last out a week
in the white house press room.

True, true. If only all this word-twisting energy could be harnessed
as valid antenna design... the chipster seems to have relegated himself
these days to fairly innocuous posts elsewhere regarding staying on the
good side of your neighbors' graces by putting up visually low profile
antennas... Certainly a change from the f-word antenna wars of old. I
was a regular reader of r.r.a.a. in those days... not much of a poster
back then, though.

I wonder if a thousand-mile long, five mile high stack of rhombics
might meet Art's requirements... of course, at that point you could
just run open wire line to any distant receiver. That would be quite
efficient, from Art's standpoint.

73,
Dan

art KB9MZ wrote:

Thus my major lobe needs to be robust between about 10 degtrees and 4
degrees to ensnare most of the communication.

I don't recall you stated which band but I'll assume 20 meters.
Assuming flat terrain (for your Indiana QTH), a single Yagi at 120'
(your maximum possible) would cover these angles best. 140' (or 2
wavelengths high if it is not 20m) would be the optimum heightl to
center your main lobe at 7 degrees.

Two stacked Yagis at 60' and 120' would be better than a single one at
120' or 140' for 4-10 degrees, but obviously this means more work and
expense.

If your terrain is not relatively flat, and if you are lucky to be on a
hill with a gentle slope in the direction of England, the optimum
height will be much less. However you would need to model this using
HFTA in the most recent Antenna Handbook or YT in older editions.

73, Bill W4ZV