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

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
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

Art, why is it that you make statement like this and never give a reference
to where you got it?

On 30 May, 09:27, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

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

Art, why is it that you make statement like this and never give a reference
to where you got it?

Why is it that you also continually do what you do?
I read it on E ham which is why why I used the word "atributed"
You can always read up on Cebik's pages but what is important to you,
the relevant antenna facts or who to point your finger at?
Art

art wrote:
On 30 May, 09:27, "Jimmie D" wrote:

"art" wrote in message

groups.com...


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

Art, why is it that you make statement like this and never give a reference
to where you got it?


Why is it that you also continually do what you do?
I read it on E ham which is why why I used the word "atributed"
You can always read up on Cebik's pages but what is important to you,
the relevant antenna facts or who to point your finger at?
Art

E-ham is a pretty big site. Can you direct us to where you read it please?

Irv VE6BP

On 30 May, 11:17, Irv Finkleman wrote:
art wrote:
On 30 May, 09:27, "Jimmie D" wrote:

"art" wrote in message

groups.com...

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

Art, why is it that you make statement like this and never give a reference
to where you got it?

Why is it that you also continually do what you do?
I read it on E ham which is why why I used the word "atributed"
You can always read up on Cebik's pages but what is important to you,
the relevant antenna facts or who to point your finger at?
Art

E-ham is a pretty big site. Can you direct us to where you read it please?

Irv VE6BP- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Irv,
I remember reading the article "Dipole or Tripole" plus the
readers follow up comments but that is all
I will have to go back and research for the comment again.
You used the word "please" which is not typical of this group
so I will get right on it tonight and get back to you.
I had a quick hunt just now and came across a discussion
as to why the word "Pole" does not belong when talking
about antennas. I got in to great difficulty with that term
in my earlier years because physics constantly refers to
dipoles as "Dipole" irrespective of size ( Di = 2, pole equales
electrical poles") I got into trouble again on this newsgroup
again with re4spect to the use of that term from a couple of
posters. Sometimes it seems that you just cannot win!
Very best regards
Art

On 30 May, 11:17, Irv Finkleman wrote:
art wrote:
On 30 May, 09:27, "Jimmie D" wrote:

"art" wrote in message

groups.com...

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

Art, why is it that you make statement like this and never give a reference
to where you got it?

Why is it that you also continually do what you do?
I read it on E ham which is why why I used the word "atributed"
You can always read up on Cebik's pages but what is important to you,
the relevant antenna facts or who to point your finger at?
Art

E-ham is a pretty big site. Can you direct us to where you read it please?

Irv VE6BP- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Irv, you are correct when you stated it was a big site!
I spent a lot of time reading readers comments until my eyes glazed
over.
It was like reading every quabble from our own archives for the last
twenty years.
I think I will have to read the Cebik articles for myself and trace it
down that way
which will be much more educating. I am glad however that I used the
word "atributed"
rather than stating it as a fact. I will continue with this progect
Regards
Art

Art wrote:
"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."

There is a TV antenna something like that on a rooftop within 2 blocks
from here. IIt must have some exceptional characteristic. Someone built
it. The elements are short compared to several wavelengths at 200 MHz.

Does the model result in a low deivepoint impedance?

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

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

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 30 May, 19:41, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"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."

There is a TV antenna something like that on a rooftop within 2 blocks
from here. IIt must have some exceptional characteristic. Someone built
it. The elements are short compared to several wavelengths at 200 MHz.

Does the model result in a low deivepoint impedance?
No, as I remember it was of high impedance

Does the Vee result in high response off the tips of the elements?
That is out of my realm in knowledge since I do not know how one
measures that with ccommonly known units that is accepted in the
trade

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

Yes it did but you are thinking in terms of a yagi where element
spacing is a dominant factor for the focussing effect.
That is certainly not the case for a gaussian antenna where
spacing is not the dominant factor because of equilibrium demands.
Thus spacings can be very close as long as
the current flow direction in both radiators are in concert with
each other i.e. in equilibrium.
As I have previously said the Gaussian aproach gives
a constant gain which is in concert with other data desirables
which does not require compromises to be sort. The ARRL antenna book
have
a chapter devoted to this problem where three antenna designs
are created for desirables and the final design that with
compromises was the best that one could attain. This is always
the problem with yagi designs in that some covet certain desirables
where others contend they are not important. That's life.
The vee shaped length was 1.5 WL where the center current
curve is manipulated for best results. In a way it is
like an extended Zepp with respect to current pattern and the
radiation pattern is similar to a long boom yagi. For a normal
Gaussian antenna the max gain is equivalent to less than 20 feet
with three elements( 20 M ant ) and does not increasein length
or gain regardless of how many elements are added in search
of gain where as the yagi can be of infinite length in the
search of gain at the expense of beam width.
The Gaussian by the way pretty much maintains a 65 degree
beam width tho with extra ordinary methods such as the vee design
it can reduce to half of that. Why I do not know.
Regards
Art

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

art wrote:
On 30 May, 11:17, Irv Finkleman wrote:

art wrote:

On 30 May, 09:27, "Jimmie D" wrote:

"art" wrote in message

legroups.com...

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

Art, why is it that you make statement like this and never give a reference
to where you got it?

Why is it that you also continually do what you do?
I read it on E ham which is why why I used the word "atributed"
You can always read up on Cebik's pages but what is important to you,
the relevant antenna facts or who to point your finger at?
Art

E-ham is a pretty big site. Can you direct us to where you read it please?

Irv VE6BP- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Irv, you are correct when you stated it was a big site!
I spent a lot of time reading readers comments until my eyes glazed
over.
It was like reading every quabble from our own archives for the last
twenty years.
I think I will have to read the Cebik articles for myself and trace it
down that way
which will be much more educating. I am glad however that I used the
word "atributed"
rather than stating it as a fact. I will continue with this progect
Regards
Art

OK Art - Thanks for taking the trouble. Hopefully you'll find it, and next
time rememer to note the source -- even if you are just attributing a
statement. To those reading it, or at least myself, an attribution is
as good as a fact when you are trying to learn. When we find out who
attributed that statement to Cebik (who I hold in high regard), we can
perhaps learn where he got the information, or how he got misinformed if
such is the case.

Irv VE6BP

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