Tom if you want to align yourself who say they don't understand that is
fine with me.

Do you have anything to say about radiation efficiency of a yagi which
is what the posting is about you mentioned something about 95 efficient
which you got from some where you could describe why and how 5% of the
input anergy is lost or were you just guessing?
Start a new thread if you like and I will go to bed as I am going
nowhere with this and I am not anxious to stay when profanitys break
out and it is heading that way

art wrote:
Not a reasonable answer, could be speculation like some of the comments
I get from experts. The yagi is not totally efficient in changing the
time changing field to a radiative field
because it has detuned elements contrary to what Roy states that a
reflector aids the forward lobe.......that is trash talk but many of
the so called experts are following like lemmons


Tom Ring wrote:
art wrote:

Tom Ring wrote:

art wrote:
snip

There again maybe it is best that you be honest and say
you don't understand! Better that than join those who have
nothing to say about antennas!


Actually Art, you are already the master of misunderstanding.

tom
K0TAR

See Tom you had nothing of value to say about antennas or the question
at hand
I think you would be better conversing with members of this group who
are intent on disruption and stop questions on antennas. What goes
around comes around so I will not answer in kind. If you want to stick
with the idea that a yagi is the next thing to sliced bread then be my
guest Better still study up on the code so you can join friends.


And to continue the theme -

Actually Art, yagis are usually better than 95% efficient.

tom
K0TAR

art wrote:
the so called experts are following like lemmons


Kind of reminds ya of a defective cars. Huh?

JS

art wrote:

See Tom you had nothing of value to say about antennas or the question
at hand
I think you would be better conversing with members of this group who
are intent on disruption and stop questions on antennas. What goes
around comes around so I will not answer in kind. If you want to stick
with the idea that a yagi is the next thing to sliced bread then be my
guest Better still study up on the code so you can join friends.


And, actually Art, and most important, you seem to have no comprehension
about what is possible to realize with a yagi that is about a half
wavelength. What you want to do takes yagis that are 10, 20 or more
wavelengths. And very high above the ground.

Reality is a nasty thing.

tom
K0TAR

There you go Tom still giving comments but no substance. Pretty simple
accept that a yagi
is not the best thing since sliced bread starting with the use of
detuned elements.
If you do not understand what detuning elements do then you can have
nothing reasonable to offer so don't blame me for that. If you have a
salient staement I'll listen because I started the thread. If you want
to change things then start your own thread to get them talking about
it. Boy.....posts are coming out of the woodwork, where has everybody
been?


Tom Ring wrote:
art wrote:

See Tom you had nothing of value to say about antennas or the question
at hand
I think you would be better conversing with members of this group who
are intent on disruption and stop questions on antennas. What goes
around comes around so I will not answer in kind. If you want to stick
with the idea that a yagi is the next thing to sliced bread then be my
guest Better still study up on the code so you can join friends.


And, actually Art, and most important, you seem to have no comprehension
about what is possible to realize with a yagi that is about a half
wavelength. What you want to do takes yagis that are 10, 20 or more
wavelengths. And very high above the ground.

Reality is a nasty thing.

tom
K0TAR

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
There you go Tom still giving comments but no substance. Pretty simple
accept that a yagi
is not the best thing since sliced bread starting with the use of
detuned elements.
If you do not understand what detuning elements do then you can have
nothing reasonable to offer so don't blame me for that. If you have a

ok, so educate us, what do detuned elements do?

art wrote:

There again maybe it is best that you be honest and say
you don't understand! Better that than join those who have
nothing to say about antennas!


Interesting, but you cannot argue with decibels, and the yagi is more
efficient that a dipole without reflector and director, at least at
capturing signal.

However, while I can picture the reflector acting as a mirror (and to
some extent, this can be "proven", make the reflector a sheet and see
how much signal is radiated to the other side, away from the driven element.

But, that darn director has always bothered me, I see it acting more as
a "magnifying glass to rf" than absorbing the signal and re-radiating it
to the de, or absorbing the signal and coupling it to the de via
magnetic or capactive means... one more bit of a puzzle which gives me
visions of the ether (which some say is caused by evil spirits and/or
the drugs I did in college (I don't think the beer hurt anything!))

But, with his calculator in hand, I know cecil will take this head on...

JS

John Smith wrote:
art wrote:

There again maybe it is best that you be honest and say
you don't understand! Better that than join those who have
nothing to say about antennas!


Interesting, but you cannot argue with decibels, and the yagi is more
efficient that a dipole without reflector and director, at least at
capturing signal.

So the increase in reactive impedances radiation efficiency goes up?


However, while I can picture the reflector acting as a mirror (and to
some extent, this can be "proven", make the reflector a sheet and see
how much signal is radiated to the other side, away from the driven element.hat energy d it

Oh come on John, Llewellyn states the rear adds to forward radiation
and you come along with similar junk. A vector to the rear where there
is an detuned element which some how
over turns the idea of energy can't be created or destroyed ? I suppose
Roy will come up with some trash that because the reflector is reactive
it overcomes the vector that created it!



But, that darn director has always bothered me, I see it acting more as
a "magnifying glass to rf" than absorbing the signal and re-radiating it


Come on John if it is detuned from the frequency of use it can;'t be
reradiating everything
remember the hint I gave in the posting


to the de, or absorbing the signal and coupling it to the de via
magnetic or capactive means...
Oh John you have done it again if you are going to revolve
your position around coupling then losses will mount up
even more. It really isnt a puzzle unless you listen to
comments from experts who only read about Yagi's
and shut everything else out or are just looking for an
opportunity to snipe or emmulate snow code.

one more bit of a puzzle which gives me
visions of the ether (which some say is caused by evil spirits and/or
the drugs I did in college (I don't think the beer hurt anything!))

But, with his calculator in hand, I know cecil will take this head on...

I thought ether was something that did not posses its own energy
support
only a mediam for energy to pass thru, but we could change the
subject to that I suppose


JS

John Smith wrote:
art wrote:

There again maybe it is best that you be honest and say
you don't understand! Better that than join those who have
nothing to say about antennas!


Interesting, but you cannot argue with decibels, and the yagi is more
efficient that a dipole without reflector and director, at least at
capturing signal.

So the increase in reactive impedances radiation efficiency goes up?


However, while I can picture the reflector acting as a mirror (and to
some extent, this can be "proven", make the reflector a sheet and see
how much signal is radiated to the other side, away from the driven element.hat energy d it

Oh come on John, Llewellyn states the rear adds to forward radiation
and you come along with similar junk. A vector to the rear where there
is an detuned element which some how
over turns the idea of energy can't be created or destroyed ? I suppose
Roy will come up with some trash that because the reflector is reactive
it overcomes the vector that created it!



But, that darn director has always bothered me, I see it acting more as
a "magnifying glass to rf" than absorbing the signal and re-radiating it


Come on John if it is detuned from the frequency of use it can;'t be
reradiating everything
remember the hint I gave in the posting


to the de, or absorbing the signal and coupling it to the de via
magnetic or capactive means...
Oh John you have done it again if you are going to revolve
your position around coupling then losses will mount up
even more. It really isnt a puzzle unless you listen to
comments from experts who only read about Yagi's
and shut everything else out or are just looking for an
opportunity to snipe or emmulate snow code.

one more bit of a puzzle which gives me
visions of the ether (which some say is caused by evil spirits and/or
the drugs I did in college (I don't think the beer hurt anything!))

But, with his calculator in hand, I know cecil will take this head on...

I thought ether was something that did not posses its own energy
support
only a mediam for energy to pass thru, but we could change the
subject to that I suppose


JS

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Some time ago I mentioned how inefficient Yagi design
antennas were thinking more in the way of how little of
the radiation used got to its required direction.
At that time people said the antenna was efficient though
they wanted to talk about
actual radiation efficiency and the sniping began
.Nobody but nobody came back with the radiation
efficiency of a Yagi as they saw the question, they
just wanted to throw stones.Imagine that antennas
was not what the experts wanted to talk about and
the newsgroup took a turn for the worst
So I join in with the thoughts of radiation efficiency
of a yagi unless you prefere to give up this antenna
newsgroup. But before you scream out and throw
stones again I will referr to efficiency as most of the
members of this group what's left of them think of the term.
So let's look at that if that is what you preferr..

The basic small yagi has three elements one driven,
one a reflector and one a director yet only one
element has a truly resistive impedance whereas
the other two do not. Since two elements out of the
three are producing reactive impedances and wherein
the reactive portions of impedance is pure waste
pray tell me how one can consider a yagi as efficient?
And please, please don't waste time on "I don't understand"
otherwise everything drops down to the subject of spark noise
which was really decided by hams a long while ago.
On the other side of the coin, if the reactive portion of an
impedance is not waste then why is LCR
type mesh circuitry only revolve around lumped circuitry?
HINT add up the power emminating from each element
P =I sq times real resistance for those who are just followers.

There again maybe it is best that you be honest and say
you don't understand! Better that than join those who have
nothing to say about antennas!


Hi Art

OK, I dont understand. Perhaps I could begin to understand if I was
given the definition of efficiency we are using in this discussion. How do
you define efficiency?

Jerry

Hi Jerry perhaps I am wrong that there ARE people who want to talk
antennas
We went thru this some time ago and I was referring to efficiency of
the yagi antenna
with respect to the radiation field where much is reflected to areas of
no concern.
Others did not like this and said efficiency referred to is one of the
radiation facets of a radiating array and the yagi is efficient and
then the sniping statrted and the newsgroup went down hill as others
joined to emulate and perpetuate abrasive non antenna related
subjects. I just popped back to see if the group wanted to change back
to antenna talk
and posted the term efficiency of the yagi in terms of radiation which
everybody was
auguing about. Well things haven't changed they still just want to
throw stones and more will join in as the thread goes on., Ill stick it
out for an hour or so and then move on again.
Cant wait for somebody to compare with free space stuff to add to the
confusion, I know it will come




Jerry Martes wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Some time ago I mentioned how inefficient Yagi design
antennas were thinking more in the way of how little of
the radiation used got to its required direction.
At that time people said the antenna was efficient though
they wanted to talk about
actual radiation efficiency and the sniping began
.Nobody but nobody came back with the radiation
efficiency of a Yagi as they saw the question, they
just wanted to throw stones.Imagine that antennas
was not what the experts wanted to talk about and
the newsgroup took a turn for the worst
So I join in with the thoughts of radiation efficiency
of a yagi unless you prefere to give up this antenna
newsgroup. But before you scream out and throw
stones again I will referr to efficiency as most of the
members of this group what's left of them think of the term.
So let's look at that if that is what you preferr..

The basic small yagi has three elements one driven,
one a reflector and one a director yet only one
element has a truly resistive impedance whereas
the other two do not. Since two elements out of the
three are producing reactive impedances and wherein
the reactive portions of impedance is pure waste
pray tell me how one can consider a yagi as efficient?
And please, please don't waste time on "I don't understand"
otherwise everything drops down to the subject of spark noise
which was really decided by hams a long while ago.
On the other side of the coin, if the reactive portion of an
impedance is not waste then why is LCR
type mesh circuitry only revolve around lumped circuitry?
HINT add up the power emminating from each element
P =I sq times real resistance for those who are just followers.

There again maybe it is best that you be honest and say
you don't understand! Better that than join those who have
nothing to say about antennas!


Hi Art

OK, I dont understand. Perhaps I could begin to understand if I was
given the definition of efficiency we are using in this discussion. How do
you define efficiency?

Jerry