On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:53:06 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

We can then proceed into where confusion might reside (it not being
found in these antennas): GROUND. Yes, the death embrace of the
original models with GROUND profoundly skews the data.

Hi All,

Well, I find there is more technical content to dissect in at least
one dead horse.

Let's look at the "traveling wave" model and see what it has to offer
in the cold harsh light of reality.

Right off the bat with its performance: -23.74dB
What could possibly account for all this loss? The "load?"?

Instead of tossing the load, let's toss ground and put this corpse in
free space. It's performance: -0.30dB

I don't know how any math error like this could be used to validate a
model, but the efficiency as an antenna that hugs ground so vigorously
hardly measures up to either a dipole or a rhombic. On the plus side,
confusion certainly offers many vendors an income, and suckers are
born every minute who would love a low noise antenna.

However, what happened to the currents when we discarded ground? Well,
the pristine constant current of the former model plunges right down
the toilet of expectations (while performance shot through the ceiling
at the same time - one has to wonder what was confusing about this?).
Phase change? That cute 90 degrees formerly nudged and cosseted onto
center stage has now been nailed to the floor with no more total
variation than 2.15 degrees. Hard to imagine how a transmission line
could so thoroughly rape its inventor.

Turning to the "standing wave" model, would it be instructive how a
ground free performance might similarly fare?

Right off the bat with its performance: -1.69dB
it would seem a stretch to find any more efficiency (and shows how
that traveling wave model really sucks). However, without ground for
completeness' sake: -0.28dB

However, what happened to the currents when we discarded ground? Well,
roughly the same 2 degree shift we found when the "traveling wave"
model split the sheets with ground, but beyond that, an almost
identical current taper and phase lock-down found with the "traveling
wave" model free of ground (or in comparison to itself close to
ground).

So, is there any substantial difference between the two models once
ground's death grip is released? I will leave that question for
tea-leaf analysis, because engineers would have buried this dead horse
long ago.

***** Irony meter pegged *****

I would like to point out that the only things changed with these
original models was a switch from 2D to 3D analysis to reveal total
loss; and a switch from the ground offered to free space. I look
forward to Cecil, once again, impeaching his own evidence (and
typically without once mentioning the data).

I am sure I have sunken to new lows and once I am exposed for what I
am (an English major), vindication will taste sweeter than wine. (may
as well steal that thunder too)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC