On 21 Sep 2006 17:05:44 -0700, "art" wrote:

Hi Art,

To close this out, we have discovered through the various
correspondents that:

When one looks at a.radiating array pattern one can see that the yagi
is very inefficient.

Is false. That much is clear through evidence, no theory necessary.

Does anybody know of the relative volume
contained in the main radiation lobe versus the total volume of the
entire pattern?

Yes, someone does. It was pointed out quite clearly that ALL the gain
from sidelobe or back lobe could not be assembled into very much
constructive gain. Economists call this the law of diminishing
return.

A casual look at a yagi radiation pattern would suggest
that it is less than 50% efficient at best

Is false. One can certainly contrive for abysmal efficiency (you use
mylar and bamboo in place of tubing don't you?); but that does not
make the range of yagis fall into disrepute through aberrations of one
designer.

especially when considering

Is false - there are no externalities, except local ground loss, to an
antenna (and that exception is because ground is part of the radiating
system).

DX work
where even the main lobe is less than 50% efficient when looking at
available
signal paths beyond 4000 miles which are somewhat below 12 degrees and
where the main lobe itself is centered between 13 and 14 degrees with
an
average amateur antennah

You don't have any choice in the matter. No element pair is ever
going to offer better. No single yagi is going to draw the peak
launch angle down to the elevations I've already identified. A stack
of yagis is hardly likely either.

The long and short of it is that you are facing 0.001% "efficiency"
without any probable method to even budge it up to 0.0015%.

Creationist scienze might help tho'.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On 21 Sep 2006 17:05:44 -0700, "art" wrote:

Hi Art,

To close this out, we have discovered through the various
correspondents that:

When one looks at a.radiating array pattern one can see that the yagi
is very inefficient.

Is false. That much is clear through evidence, no theory necessary.

Does anybody know of the relative volume
contained in the main radiation lobe versus the total volume of the
entire pattern?

Yes, someone does. It was pointed out quite clearly that ALL the gain
from sidelobe or back lobe could not be assembled into very much
constructive gain. Economists call this the law of diminishing
return.

A casual look at a yagi radiation pattern would suggest
that it is less than 50% efficient at best

Is false. One can certainly contrive for abysmal efficiency (you use
mylar and bamboo in place of tubing don't you?); but that does not
make the range of yagis fall into disrepute through aberrations of one
designer.

especially when considering

Is false - there are no externalities, except local ground loss, to an
antenna (and that exception is because ground is part of the radiating
system).

DX work
snip

That was funny
You don't have any choice in the matter. No element pair is ever
going to offer better.
No element pair etc pretty specific statement which offers safety

No single yagi is going to draw the peak ............................
But you are sticking with the inefficient Yagi, that should make it a
safe statement
I would listen more intently if you stated that the angle cannot be
drawn down regardless of the array used


launch angle down to the elevations I've already identified. A stack
of yagis is hardly likely either.

Again you cover yourself my involving the inefficient Yagi

The long and short of it is that you are facing 0.001% "efficiency"
without any probable method to even budge it up to 0.0015%.

Creationist scienze might help tho'.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Well it still gave me a laugh seeing you seeking safety in the Yagi
shadow

Do you also agree with what Roy said in a senior moment about wasted
yagi energy?

Art

On 22 Sep 2006 16:15:41 -0700, "art" wrote:

You don't have any choice in the matter. No element pair is ever
going to offer better.
No element pair etc pretty specific statement which offers safety

Hi Art,

Safety? The world recognizes a dry comment that is factual and does
not attach notions of sensation to it. [Fair warning to the
alliteration intolerant.] Fantasy fear (from prophecies) is called
the Pathetic Fallacy.

I would listen more intently if you stated that the angle cannot be
drawn down regardless of the array used

Another fallacy. Art, no one believes you would.... aw let's just
test the hypothesis to expose another fallacy:

The angle cannot be drawn down to those needed regardless of the array
used. You haven't got a chance at all. You are fated to cower
forever as being "inefficient" without any brighter prospects ever.

Do you also agree with what Roy said in a senior moment about wasted
yagi energy?

He wasted a lot of energy on you, Old Man, didn't he?

Still frightened? They say if you talk about your nightmares, they
will go away. I heard that last night in a movie "This Gun For Hire"
as told by Raven (Alan Ladd) to Veronica Lake. [This thread needs a
modicum of real entertainment value now that all technical content has
been drained.]

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC