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

On 24 Sep 2006 13:41:43 -0700, "art" wrote:

you know quite well what the post that started this thread asked for.

Yes, it is quite clearly offered in the Subject line, isn't it?

People are quibling over the word "efficiency" which I find rather
wierd
And that is the second word of only two words in the Subject line,
isn't it?

when we talk of efficiency one must multiply the ratio by 100
Are we to expect 96 more duplications of your post?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dan wrote:
"---of course at that point you could just run open wire line to any
distant receiver."

Yes, if it isn`t too distant.

If the 1000-mile open wire line lost 0.1 dB per 100 feet, loss would be
52.8 dB per mile or about 53 thousand db in its entire length, hardly a
useable transmission line.

On the other hand, suppose the wavelength were 160 meters. In the first
wavelength of a radio signal radiated in free space, you would lose 22
dB. In the second, you would lose an additional 6 dB. Doubling the
distance again to a total of 7 wavelengths, or 1120 meters, total space
loss would be 34 dB.

At a distance of 2240 meters from the transmitter, the loss is 40 dB
which is less that our open wire line would lose in its 1st mile, a
shorter distance.

Every mile of wire line extracts the same loss. Very long wire lines
become useless without repeaters to boost signal above the noise level.
Doubling line-of-sight radio path distance only increases path loss 6dB,
no matter how long the path is.

As for efficiency, J.D. Kraus says:
"The efficiency of an antenna is defined as the ratio between the power
radiated by it and the power delivered into the antenna." (page 866 of
3rd ed. of "Antennas".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
Dan wrote:
"---of course at that point you could just run open wire line to any
snip.

As for efficiency, J.D. Kraus says:
"The efficiency of an antenna is defined as the ratio between the power
radiated by it and the power delivered into the antenna." (page 866 of
3rd ed. of "Antennas".

I would think that the definition quoted was more applicable for a
radiator
than a antenna since the latter consists of addative and so called
destructive radiation. If an antennas radiative field was totally
destructive
the definition stated would include that as an efficient antenna !
Art

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI