Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
K7ITM wrote in
: .... Yes--and then if they were exactly equal, would that not imply only transmission line current on the stub? Obviously, they are exactly Thinking some more about it, my current thinking is that my analysis was flawed. I was using the standing wave currents, when I should be using the travelling wave components. I suspect that when NEC models the conductor arrangement at my fig a), it correctly accounts for propagation delay and the phase relationships compute correctly. If we replace the stub with a TL element, I suspect that NEC reduces the TL to a two port network and loads a segment of the vertical with an equivalent steady state impedance of the s/c stub network. If that is done, the reduction to a lumped load means that there is zero delay to travelling waves, and the computed currents (amplitude and phase) in the vertical will be incorrect. This means that you cannot replace a resonant stub with a high value of resistance, it doesn't work. If that is the case, it suggests that NEC cannot model such phasing schemes using TL elements. Owen |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Vertical colinear | Antenna | |||
representation of crime in the uk media | Broadcasting | |||
"Diamond CoLinear"? | Antenna | |||
Colinear vhf/uhf from QST | Antenna | |||
vertical colinear | Antenna |