"art" wrote in message
ps.com...
Hi Jerry sorry that I didn't respond to you earlier but here goes
untuned elements which haveWhen you decide to get something going you
need a means to get there.
When you decide on the means you need to know if you are expending the
minimum energy to get there
In this particular case we have decided on generating a time varying
field around some reradiatiung elements to obtain a radiating field of
some sort Since we are applying energy
to elements we want to know if the elements are doing a good job or are
they losing out on energy translation by generating heat e.t.c instead
of it all going where I want it to. So what we do is find out what
energy we put in to obtain our objective and measure what we got out
towards our objective to see how effective we were which is a measure
of efficiency... Ideally we dont want to produce heat and all that
other stuff but the anteena array that we have chosen to do this is a
yagi array of elements which starts of with a resonant dipole which has
a purely resistive impedance. But the yagi then goes on to upset things
by adding which have a reactive impedance which detracts from the purly
resistive value of the impedance which means losses when we should have
added extra resonant elements to the set up as a means of adding to the
structure to maintain zero losses BUT the yagi does go a long way
towards our objectives so it has hung around for a long while. As a
side issue
we should also consider the environment that our array is working in
and also the type of element material we are using as well as the means
taken to input power but that gets more complicated so the question is
really revolving around the energy input versus a magnetic near field
generation that goes on to form a far field radiation field.
SOOOOOOOooooo
efficiency in this case compares the electrical power applied to the
yagi to generate a magnetic and electric fieldaround the yagi and to
check how much energy was lost on the way to our objective. Sorry for
the delay but fortunately I did check back in before I moved on to
other things
Regards
Art





Jerry Martes wrote:
Hi Art

You know, I am really a slow learner. I still dont understand how
efficiency is defined. Can you try again to teach me how efficiency is
defined??

Thanks
Jerry



"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
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



At resonance it is the antenna as a whole that is resistive not just the
driven element.

art wrote:
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
roups.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


It troubles me that so many wish to "hold court" on this NG. Establish
obscure, bizarre or downright wrong rules of discovery to pump up their
own egos. So much opportunity to share advice in a collegial fashion,
realizing the breadth (or shallowness) of understanding that exists
amongst "us".

Is Elmer really dead?

John
AB8O

My thoughts exactly information is not really sort only an excuse to
snipe
Movement in any science is by increments of knoweledge though I do
believe absolute miricles do occur Seems like people only want
questions that they have answers for not items that create original
thought. Seems also that many believe that radiating methods have been
exhausted but every year the patent ofrfice issue different designs. I
have found during my life when I have been given a patent that people
will say thats obvious or I knew that or that should be shared with me
evry one being after the fact. Such people are not interested in
anything new unles they read about it in a book or they will state that
they do not understand. I started out with the intent of explaining a
new technology with respect to radiation but I cannot continue as we
have sniping starting with the question. A few months ago I started
with a question and nobody liked it so after some time I decided to
word the question as they said it should have been stated......Well
they have now donned different hats and are aiming for the original
question again.. You just can't win if you are in a information sharing
mode with people who are confinced they know it all and that is why
they are sniping. Now since my education value is considered in doubt I
will back off so that those who perceive themselves as experts will
carry on the load for others who may be interested in knoweledge but
only if they know everything such that they can critisize.
Has anybody pointed to a flaw in the Yagi design and the cause of it
and what idealy could be done to improve things? Ofcourse not, their
forte is to throw stones pure and simple.
I can understand it from Roy since he has a personal financial interest
in conversations revolving around Yagi antennas. But some of the others
have been known to produce absolutely nothing to the subject. Even
Cecil who I suggest with his extra deep physics
education gets mocked sometimes from people with I suspect just a high
school graduation that is the school stood on a hill. Check out the
responses so far to get an understanding
of the people that you are dealing with starting with Turner who with
his vast background of educatiate has taken on the task of judging mine
as demeaning as one of the lowest of the low. What has he achieved in
life or with antenna design to allow him to assume the mantle of
nobility which he does not share so that others may learn? Are there no
positive thoughts out there about antennas or to phrase an answer to
what they believe is the question. ?
At the moment I have only heard about negatives that prevent posting
from showing their expertise that they believe they have and where at
the present time we can only trust.
Has anybody supplied a efficiency number of anything to do with this
question or what they perceived was the querstion explaining in detail
how they arrived at a particular position rather than just guessing,any
one, anybody nothing positive anything positive?
jawod wrote:
art wrote:
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
roups.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


It troubles me that so many wish to "hold court" on this NG. Establish
obscure, bizarre or downright wrong rules of discovery to pump up their
own egos. So much opportunity to share advice in a collegial fashion,
realizing the breadth (or shallowness) of understanding that exists
amongst "us".

Is Elmer really dead?

John
AB8O

art wrote:
Even Cecil who I suggest with his extra deep physics
education gets mocked sometimes ...

Art, I'm flattered but it is wrong. I have a B.S.
degree in EE from Texas A&M and Masters work in
education from Sam Houston State. I took Balanis'
antenna course at ASU and he and I worked together
on GSM simulations because my real field of expertise
is digital electronics. What I am mocked for is
thinking outside the box, e.g. that the distributed
network model allows RF energy to be tracked through
an antenna system.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On 1 Dec 2006 18:29:51 -0800, "art" wrote:


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?

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

Please let us know what electronics school you attended so we can
avoid it like the plague and, if at all possible, have it
de-certified.

Thanks,

Bill, W6WRT

Bill prove me wrong thats all you have to do prove me wrong
Its a simple statement detuned elements create inefficiency
Avoid it like a plague you say, it is to late in your life to think
about getting an education You have presented nothing of value
to the question, absolutely nothing. I suggest you continue to
be a lemming and follow the others. Doesnt it worry you
that you have placed yourself out on a limb by preceeding
experts comments instead of waiting so you can follow ?
Seems like the antenna group is still happy with their fellow
associates in the group so pick up some more stones say
some swear words and impress
the others.
See you maybe in a couple of weeks when I may drop back in.

so save some of those projectiles!


Bill Turner wrote:
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On 1 Dec 2006 18:29:51 -0800, "art" wrote:


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?

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

Please let us know what electronics school you attended so we can
avoid it like the plague and, if at all possible, have it
de-certified.

Thanks,

Bill, W6WRT

art wrote:
Its a simple statement detuned elements create inefficiency

Do detuned elements increase I^2*R losses?
Do detuned elements increase dielectric losses?
Do detuned elements increase ground losses?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Help me help me please , a detuned element has a reactive impedance
value, simple fact.
Now with your superior knowledge and education show not just me but all
of us how the production of a reactive impedance does not or cannot
impede the formation of emmited flux? I dont want just comments or
guesses just an explanation of your position which aligns with the laws
of Kirchoff, Ampere, Green ,Laplace etc as a group or as single people
to give your response some credability . Cecil has given you a starting
point as to what exactly reactance is so the rest should be easy for
you considering how easily you can dismiss my logic and education
regarding the Yagi antenna. Bill I cant wait to hear the mutterings of
a master of your station, a chance to learn something really new, maybe
not even written in a book Go man go! Well I know you can't.... but I
am just demonstrating that if you want to snipe then others will be
encouraged to snipe and it is not nice. Knoweledge is what I am after
not errent gun shots



Bill Turner wrote:
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On 1 Dec 2006 18:29:51 -0800, "art" wrote:


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?

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

Please let us know what electronics school you attended so we can
avoid it like the plague and, if at all possible, have it
de-certified.

Thanks,

Bill, W6WRT

art wrote:

Help me help me please , a detuned element has a reactive impedance
value, simple fact.

NOT CORRECT! It is a complex impedance that contains both a resistive and an
reactive component.

Now with your superior knowledge and education show not just me but all
of us how the production of a reactive impedance does not or cannot
impede the formation of emmited flux? I dont want just comments or
guesses just an explanation of your position which aligns with the laws
of Kirchoff, Ampere, Green ,Laplace etc as a group or as single people
to give your response some credability . Cecil has given you a starting
point as to what exactly reactance is so the rest should be easy for
you considering how easily you can dismiss my logic and education
regarding the Yagi antenna. Bill I cant wait to hear the mutterings of
a master of your station, a chance to learn something really new, maybe
not even written in a book Go man go! Well I know you can't.... but I
am just demonstrating that if you want to snipe then others will be
encouraged to snipe and it is not nice. Knoweledge is what I am after
not errent gun shots



Bill Turner wrote:

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On 1 Dec 2006 18:29:51 -0800, "art" wrote:



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?

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

Please let us know what electronics school you attended so we can
avoid it like the plague and, if at all possible, have it
de-certified.

Thanks,

Bill, W6WRT

David are you going nuts? I used the word impedance whichcan mean two
components only one of which is used for power. What on earth are you
trying to say now or are you looking for a reason to thro stones. Now
calm down and point out where I was not CORRECT as you put it and what
are the consequences of this error relative to what we are talking
about?
If your point is that I didn't emphasise the word complex then there is
no need to respond, you can have it your way I don't mind if it helps
you out with your apparent anger.


Dave wrote:
art wrote:

Help me help me please , a detuned element has a reactive impedance
value, simple fact.

NOT CORRECT! It is a complex impedance that contains both a resistive and an
reactive component.

Now with your superior knowledge and education show not just me but all
of us how the production of a reactive impedance does not or cannot
impede the formation of emmited flux? I dont want just comments or
guesses just an explanation of your position which aligns with the laws
of Kirchoff, Ampere, Green ,Laplace etc as a group or as single people
to give your response some credability . Cecil has given you a starting
point as to what exactly reactance is so the rest should be easy for
you considering how easily you can dismiss my logic and education
regarding the Yagi antenna. Bill I cant wait to hear the mutterings of
a master of your station, a chance to learn something really new, maybe
not even written in a book Go man go! Well I know you can't.... but I
am just demonstrating that if you want to snipe then others will be
encouraged to snipe and it is not nice. Knoweledge is what I am after
not errent gun shots



Bill Turner wrote:

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On 1 Dec 2006 18:29:51 -0800, "art" wrote:



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?

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

Please let us know what electronics school you attended so we can
avoid it like the plague and, if at all possible, have it
de-certified.

Thanks,

Bill, W6WRT