On Wed, 30 May 2007 21:41:03 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Does the model result in a low deivepoint impedance?

Hi Richard,

No more nor less than by the consideration of classical designs.

Does the Vee result in high response off the tips of the elements?

This and the next draw the answer together:

Does close coupling between elements result in great bandwidrh for the
antenna?

Coupling? No, but the bandwidth is in gain, not match (which can be
taken care of by other means). The V shape takes the higher
frequency's tendency to become endfire and aligns it with the boom
(meaning the forward gain at higher frequency is still towards the
front instead of being off the ends of a standard, orthogonal design).
Think how the V shape of the Rhombic brings the lobe towards the major
axis. At the lower frequency, the V angle doesn't matter much and so
the forward gain is still aligned with the boom.

Something of a parasitic half Rhombic (or parasitic V).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark, KB7QHC wrote:
"Sonething of a parasitic half Rhombic (or parasitic V)".

Yes, but the rhombic or Vee antenna usually needs sides which are
wavelengths long to produce significant gain. I don`t know what Art has
proposed. The TV antenna on the roof near me looks like a Yagi with its
elements all bent to the same angle with the boom. Their lengths aren`t
multiwavelength even at 200 MHz. Maybe at UHF? VHF gain would depend on
phasing between the reflector and the driven element, and the multiple
directors and the driven element. Thus its performance would begin with
its similarity with the straight Yagi, I`d wager.

Before cable and satellite were available, many configurations were
tried for TV. Some were sold more on appearance than performance.

It`s tough to cover a 4 to 1 frequency range smoothly, but they tried.
Some produced decent pictures at some distance from the transmitters
over many VHF channels. Amazing!

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:37:32 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Richard Clark, KB7QHC wrote:
"Sonething of a parasitic half Rhombic (or parasitic V)".

Yes, but the rhombic or Vee antenna usually needs sides which are
wavelengths long to produce significant gain.

I was responding to your TV antenna example that exhibited the V shape
with parasitics. The long and short wavelengths both point along the
major axis.

I don`t know what Art has proposed.

Nobody does.

The TV antenna on the roof near me looks like a Yagi with its
elements all bent to the same angle with the boom. Their lengths aren`t
multiwavelength even at 200 MHz. Maybe at UHF?

Exactly.

VHF gain would depend on
phasing between the reflector and the driven element, and the multiple
directors and the driven element. Thus its performance would begin with
its similarity with the straight Yagi, I`d wager.

Exactly (but probably not with any spectacular gain for all the
elements).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

how many s-units more exseptional gain does your v have compared to my
dipole at 20 feet?

On May 30, 9:02 am, art wrote:
I read a comment attributed to Cebik where he stated that any
antenna that is not 1/4, 5/8, 1/2 or 1 wave length is not much of an
antenna !
This is a false statement especially when one considers an antenna
element
based on 1 WL. This antenna is widely used and well described
in all antenna books.
I have modelled a similar arrangement in Gaussian form
where the elements are bent into a Vee shaped like yagi with elements
extremely close together where it provides exceptional gain and
pattern
and can be related visually to a bent long boom but without
elements.
A planar antenna can also be made with a similar length of radiator
with
a variable resonator that makes it applicable to a continuous10 thru
20
antenna wherein the resonator serves as a radiating portion instead
of
the normal coax stub. Also ideal for S.W. listeners on intervening
frequencies.( See Cecil's antenna page which uses variable stub
lengths instead of a variable resonator)
Seems like a lot of mis information is being given out with respect
to
antennas apparently with the silent agreement of perceived antenna
experts
and where caustic opinions out weigh technical content .
Regards
Art