On 23 Sep, 07:29, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 22 Sep, 07:22, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote

The most efficient radiator is one wave length long where
it is considered to be in equilibrium with a parallel electrical
cuircuit.
For most efficient radiation both the capacitance and the
inductance must act as a energy storage such that when
the terminals are shorted the energy is released in a burst
such that radiation can begin. ... In the case of a fractional
wave length radiator the pendulum type radiation is not
available for radiation

___________

Note (for one example of many) that in an antenna system consisting of a
1/2-wave, center-fed dipole driven by a matched, balanced transmission
line,
the dipole itself radiates virtually all of the r-f energy present at the
antenna feedpoint.

The radiation efficiency of a system as in the above example, but using a
full wave dipole is no better than the 1/2-wave version, other things
equal.
The full wave version just has a different radiation pattern.

RF

I don't know what your credentials are for you to make such a
statement but it is a free world after all!
A quad radiator is a wave length radiator with a gain more than a half
wave as one sample.
Computor programing confirmes more radiation from full wave antennas
and mathematics according to Maxwell,s rules substantiate it. I can
understand not believing computor programs but I am very interested in
any mathematical data that would support your stand which is contrary
to the mathematics that I and others support.
What you are stating is that an attena in a series cuircit format
produces the same radiation as a parallel or tank cuircuit. I am more
than eager to read the contrary mathematical proof that is contrary to
the mathematics that I hold true. You may have hit on the true
explaqnation of radiation which Einstein, Planck and many others went
to their grave without solving it
Regards
Art KB9MZ.....XG

I dont know his credentials either but Richard is absolutly correct.
Efficency is the ability to radiate the signal and not turn it into
infra-red energy and has nothing to do with gain.

The Math:
Efficiency = (power applied to the antenna system - power turned into heat
by the antenna system)/power applied to the antenna system.

Doesnt take a computer, doesnt take Maxwell or Einstien to explain. 5th
grade math works pretty well in this case.

The best thing the OP can do for his existing antenna is install a good
ground system and impedance matching networks, antenna tuner. If I were
really serious about it I would invest in an antenna analyzer so I would
know when my antenna is tuned for optimum match to my radio and log the
settings of my tuner. With the ground system and antenna type he has I am
sure the ground resistance is soaking up most of his signal. He would surely
benifit from improving his ground system.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In comparing two antennas with similar omni direction radiation field
I state that gain in the field is indicative of increased radiadion
but that is a side issue brought up as often is in this newsgroup in
tha absence of a point by point debate. That method of responding is
pretty much used by all polititions. If you state what you THINK makes
the "best antenna" from accurate empirical data then I have no problem
with what you say, I just don't agree with it.
I say that because you focussed on drive or feed impedance when it is
well known that a matching impedand does not infer we have a matching
impedance in the system. Am illustration of the point. The new touted
antenna from Rohd
island university proclames a shortened antenna with a 52 ohm matching
impedance. Since a half wave antenna is not in equilibrium the energy
for themissing half must go somewhere. In the case of the new antenbna
the extra energy went back into the feed line and possibly could have
radiated from there and not the antenna. The ground plane that you put
forward infers that the ground plane is the other half of a equivalent
full wave dipole, and it may well be if one can say that the ground
plane radiates and prevents the ground wasting the energy. Personally
I don't believe that ground radials radiate but that is O.K. So how is
this new fangled antenna corrected to radiating efficiently.
How is that done? The antenna uses an inductive turnsfor shortening a
antena thatis not in equilibrium so to bring it into equilibrium you
add a mirror immage of the antenna including the windings and connect
the two at the top together with the image antenna wound over the
initial antenna such that the extra indunct becomes balanced( not
cancelled) and thus one can feed it at the two wire extremities. Now
you have no end effects energy losses and the circulating current has
no need to find a way to balance the circuit by seeking the ground or
backtracking up the feed line.It takes no time at all to prove this
with a small home made antenna and it is that what I was sugesting
from the beginning. By the way this is exactly what the scientific
community has been pursuing with the anttena
therom of merging electrical and magnetic field as well as others.
Until now nobody was aware that if Gauss had continued with his static
theorem and enlargened it to a dinamic basis more information about
radiation would be revealed with consequenct advances as to what
creats or starts radiation rather than continueing with a situation
founded on a assumption of which there is no proof. The theorem of an
extended gaussian logical strategy to bring it into the format of
radiation production destroys the present assumptions alluded to both
in mathematical term and also in empirical terms without deviation
from Maxwells laws with the extra proof that computor programs built
around
Maxwells laws also confirms the equilibrium position. Now I have no
problem with people that all existing designs are better but for sure
industry and the younger generation is not opposed in reviewing
perceived improvements since they are not addicted to preventing
change. The bottom line is that a person asked for info and it is upto
him to choose which he will accept and one should not get into
distress if counter information becomes chosen.
Have a great day
Regards
Art KB9MZ

On Sep 23, 11:18 am, art wrote:
In comparing two antennas with similar omni direction radiation field
I state that gain in the field is indicative of increased radiadion ...

....yes, but radiation only in limited az/el sectors, at the expense of
loss of radiation in the other sectors.

The field gain in a particular direction is due to the change in
pattern shape, not an increased radiation efficiency of the "better"
antenna.

For the same input power accepted by different antennas, the total
power radiated into the volume of space is the same, no matter what
the shapes of their respective radiation envelopes.