antenna physics question
 

On Dec 14, 8:53*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:10*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote:

Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means?

Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is?

Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to
the discussion.

Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context.
Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context.
Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more
detailed and specific information.

Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has
to be defined each and every time it is used.

"Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the
discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information
required.

When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a
ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning.

The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and
can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics.

really? *i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in
either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or
ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication
electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in
either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete
or something.

First book I pick up, Electromagnetics by Kraus and Carver.

So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

but your basic point still fails... the definition of efficiency is
not universal, unique, nor unambiguous since it is not in ALL
textbooks, nor is it a simple single definition, as my list of
qualifiers in the ieee handbook illustrates.... oh, and those many
definitions are not just restating the same thing, they are VERY
different definitions depending on the aspect of the antenna you are
studying.

The fact that it is not in all textbooks is irrelvant.

Not everything is in all textbooks of any kind.

There are many scientific and engineering terms that can have qualifiers
to denote specificity.

And in most every case there is a qualified term that is in most common
use and is commonly used without the qualifier.

Every engineer I know when discusssing antennas in general that say "antenna
efficieny" mean "antenna radiation efficiency".

The ARRL Antenna Handbook, when talking about "antenna efficieny", refers
to "antenna radiation efficiency".

For most of the links of the 7,000,000 or so when you search for "antenna
efficieny" you come to a link that refers to "antenna radiation efficiency".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

ah, so you have performed a contextual statistical analysis on 7M
links in the last half hour... thats pretty good processing. what you
got for a computer there?

antenna physics question
 

K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:53Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:10Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54Â*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote:

Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means?

Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is?

Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to
the discussion.

Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context.
Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context.
Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more
detailed and specific information.

Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has
to be defined each and every time it is used.

"Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the
discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information
required.

When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a
ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning.

The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and
can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics.

really? Â*i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in
either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or
ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication
electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in
either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete
or something.

First book I pick up, Electromagnetics by Kraus and Carver.

So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

but your basic point still fails... the definition of efficiency is
not universal, unique, nor unambiguous since it is not in ALL
textbooks, nor is it a simple single definition, as my list of
qualifiers in the ieee handbook illustrates.... oh, and those many
definitions are not just restating the same thing, they are VERY
different definitions depending on the aspect of the antenna you are
studying.

The fact that it is not in all textbooks is irrelvant.

Not everything is in all textbooks of any kind.

There are many scientific and engineering terms that can have qualifiers
to denote specificity.

And in most every case there is a qualified term that is in most common
use and is commonly used without the qualifier.

Every engineer I know when discusssing antennas in general that say "antenna
efficieny" mean "antenna radiation efficiency".

The ARRL Antenna Handbook, when talking about "antenna efficieny", refers
to "antenna radiation efficiency".

For most of the links of the 7,000,000 or so when you search for "antenna
efficieny" you come to a link that refers to "antenna radiation efficiency".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

ah, so you have performed a contextual statistical analysis on 7M
links in the last half hour... thats pretty good processing. what you
got for a computer there?

No, I looked at the first four and all of them were referring to "antenna
radiation efficiency".

Then I scanned the summaries that Google gives for the first page of hits
and found that all but one referred to "antenna radiation efficiency".

The one exception was on a page about satellite calculations and they
were referring to "antenna aperature efficieny", as would be expected from
the context.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

antenna physics question
 

On Dec 14, 9:25*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:53*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:10*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote:

Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means?

Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is?

Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to
the discussion.

Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context.
Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context.
Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more
detailed and specific information.

Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has
to be defined each and every time it is used.

"Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the
discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information
required.

When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a
ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning.

The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and
can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics.

really? *i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in
either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or
ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication
electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in
either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete
or something.

First book I pick up, Electromagnetics by Kraus and Carver.

So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

but your basic point still fails... the definition of efficiency is
not universal, unique, nor unambiguous since it is not in ALL
textbooks, nor is it a simple single definition, as my list of
qualifiers in the ieee handbook illustrates.... oh, and those many
definitions are not just restating the same thing, they are VERY
different definitions depending on the aspect of the antenna you are
studying.

The fact that it is not in all textbooks is irrelvant.

Not everything is in all textbooks of any kind.

There are many scientific and engineering terms that can have qualifiers
to denote specificity.

And in most every case there is a qualified term that is in most common
use and is commonly used without the qualifier.

Every engineer I know when discusssing antennas in general that say "antenna
efficieny" mean "antenna radiation efficiency".

The ARRL Antenna Handbook, when talking about "antenna efficieny", refers
to "antenna radiation efficiency".

For most of the links of the 7,000,000 or so when you search for "antenna
efficieny" you come to a link that refers to "antenna radiation efficiency".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

ah, so you have performed a contextual statistical analysis on 7M
links in the last half hour... thats pretty good processing. *what you
got for a computer there?

No, I looked at the first four and all of them were referring to "antenna
radiation efficiency".

Then I scanned the summaries that Google gives for the first page of hits
and found that all but one referred to "antenna radiation efficiency".

The one exception was on a page about satellite calculations and they
were referring to "antenna aperature efficieny", as would be expected from
the context.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

oh, so from skimming a dozen links and only finding one who's apparent
reference wasn't what you were looking for that makes 'most' of the
other 7M fit your definition also. i know that polling works for
politicians to declare that they are going to win by only asking a few
hundred out of millions, but at least they don't just ask the first
few people they meet on the street and assume that they represent the
rest of the country.

antenna physics question
 

K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:25Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:53Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:10Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54Â*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote:

Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means?

Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is?

Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to
the discussion.

Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context.
Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context.
Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more
detailed and specific information.

Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has
to be defined each and every time it is used.

"Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the
discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information
required.

When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a
ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning.

The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and
can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics.

really? Â*i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in
either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or
ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication
electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in
either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete
or something.

First book I pick up, Electromagnetics by Kraus and Carver.

So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

but your basic point still fails... the definition of efficiency is
not universal, unique, nor unambiguous since it is not in ALL
textbooks, nor is it a simple single definition, as my list of
qualifiers in the ieee handbook illustrates.... oh, and those many
definitions are not just restating the same thing, they are VERY
different definitions depending on the aspect of the antenna you are
studying.

The fact that it is not in all textbooks is irrelvant.

Not everything is in all textbooks of any kind.

There are many scientific and engineering terms that can have qualifiers
to denote specificity.

And in most every case there is a qualified term that is in most common
use and is commonly used without the qualifier.

Every engineer I know when discusssing antennas in general that say "antenna
efficieny" mean "antenna radiation efficiency".

The ARRL Antenna Handbook, when talking about "antenna efficieny", refers
to "antenna radiation efficiency".

For most of the links of the 7,000,000 or so when you search for "antenna
efficieny" you come to a link that refers to "antenna radiation efficiency".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

ah, so you have performed a contextual statistical analysis on 7M
links in the last half hour... thats pretty good processing. Â*what you
got for a computer there?

No, I looked at the first four and all of them were referring to "antenna
radiation efficiency".

Then I scanned the summaries that Google gives for the first page of hits
and found that all but one referred to "antenna radiation efficiency".

The one exception was on a page about satellite calculations and they
were referring to "antenna aperature efficieny", as would be expected from
the context.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

oh, so from skimming a dozen links and only finding one who's apparent
reference wasn't what you were looking for that makes 'most' of the
other 7M fit your definition also.

It is called statistical sampling and is most appropriate for Google as
the links returned are ordered by relevance.

I do note you have nothing to say about the other two statements; what, no
nits to pick there?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

antenna physics question
 

On Dec 14, 10:36*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:25*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:53*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:10*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote:

Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means?

Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is?

Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to
the discussion.

Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context.

antenna physics question
 

K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:36Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:25Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:53Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:10Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54Â*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote:

Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means?

Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is?

Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to
the discussion.

Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context.
Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context.
Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more
detailed and specific information.

Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has
to be defined each and every time it is used.

"Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the
discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information
required.

When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a
ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning.

The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and
can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics.

really? Â*i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in
either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or
ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication
electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in
either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete
or something.

First book I pick up, Electromagnetics by Kraus and Carver.

So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

but your basic point still fails... the definition of efficiency is
not universal, unique, nor unambiguous since it is not in ALL
textbooks, nor is it a simple single definition, as my list of
qualifiers in the ieee handbook illustrates.... oh, and those many
definitions are not just restating the same thing, they are VERY
different definitions depending on the aspect of the antenna you are
studying.

The fact that it is not in all textbooks is irrelvant.

Not everything is in all textbooks of any kind.

There are many scientific and engineering terms that can have qualifiers
to denote specificity.

And in most every case there is a qualified term that is in most common
use and is commonly used without the qualifier.

Every engineer I know when discusssing antennas in general that say "antenna
efficieny" mean "antenna radiation efficiency".

The ARRL Antenna Handbook, when talking about "antenna efficieny", refers
to "antenna radiation efficiency".

For most of the links of the 7,000,000 or so when you search for "antenna
efficieny" you come to a link that refers to "antenna radiation efficiency".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

ah, so you have performed a contextual statistical analysis on 7M
links in the last half hour... thats pretty good processing. Â*what you
got for a computer there?

No, I looked at the first four and all of them were referring to "antenna
radiation efficiency".

Then I scanned the summaries that Google gives for the first page of hits
and found that all but one referred to "antenna radiation efficiency".

The one exception was on a page about satellite calculations and they
were referring to "antenna aperature efficieny", as would be expected from
the context.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

oh, so from skimming a dozen links and only finding one who's apparent
reference wasn't what you were looking for that makes 'most' of the
other 7M fit your definition also.

It is called statistical sampling and is most appropriate for Google as
the links returned are ordered by relevance.

I do note you have nothing to say about the other two statements; what, no
nits to pick there?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

no, i'm having enough fun with this nit.

Well nit this, as I said Google links are ordered by relevance and starting
on the second page you begin to find links to information about the efficiency
of a specific antenna as opposed to efficiency in general.

If you limit the results to about 57,000 results by putting antenna efficiency
in quotes, it is pretty much all specific to an antenna by the third page.

Yet the first page doesn't change.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

antenna physics question
 

On Dec 14, 11:29*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:36*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:25*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:53*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:10*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote:

Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means?

Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is?

Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to
the discussion.

Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context.
Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context.
Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more
detailed and specific information.

Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has
to be defined each and every time it is used.

"Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the
discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information
required.

When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a
ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning.

The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and
can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics.

really? *i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in
either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or
ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication
electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in
either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete
or something.

First book I pick up, Electromagnetics by Kraus and Carver.

So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

but your basic point still fails... the definition of efficiency is
not universal, unique, nor unambiguous since it is not in ALL
textbooks, nor is it a simple single definition, as my list of
qualifiers in the ieee handbook illustrates.... oh, and those many
definitions are not just restating the same thing, they are VERY
different definitions depending on the aspect of the antenna you are
studying.

The fact that it is not in all textbooks is irrelvant.

Not everything is in all textbooks of any kind.

There are many scientific and engineering terms that can have qualifiers
to denote specificity.

And in most every case there is a qualified term that is in most common
use and is commonly used without the qualifier.

Every engineer I know when discusssing antennas in general that say "antenna
efficieny" mean "antenna radiation efficiency".

The ARRL Antenna Handbook, when talking about "antenna efficieny", refers
to "antenna radiation efficiency".

For most of the links of the 7,000,000 or so when you search for "antenna
efficieny" you come to a link that refers to "antenna radiation efficiency".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

ah, so you have performed a contextual statistical analysis on 7M
links in the last half hour... thats pretty good processing. *what you
got for a computer there?

No, I looked at the first four and all of them were referring to "antenna
radiation efficiency".

Then I scanned the summaries that Google gives for the first page of hits
and found that all but one referred to "antenna radiation efficiency".

The one exception was on a page about satellite calculations and they
were referring to "antenna aperature efficieny", as would be expected from
the context.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

oh, so from skimming a dozen links and only finding one who's apparent
reference wasn't what you were looking for that makes 'most' of the
other 7M fit your definition also.

It is called statistical sampling and is most appropriate for Google as
the links returned are ordered by relevance.

I do note you have nothing to say about the other two statements; what, no
nits to pick there?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

no, i'm having enough fun with this nit.

Well nit this, as I said Google links are ordered by relevance and starting
on the second page you begin to find links to information about the efficiency
of a specific antenna as opposed to efficiency in general.

If you limit the results to about 57,000 results by putting antenna efficiency
in quotes, it is pretty much all specific to an antenna by the third page..

Yet the first page doesn't change.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

great, now why don't you try some negative searches for the other
specific terms that i quoted from the ieee book and see how many links
show up for them, then compare the relative numbers of links and their
order with the original search... that should keep you busy for a
while.

antenna physics question
 

On Dec 14, 12:24*pm, Registered User wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 05:37:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 14, 5:02 am, Registered User wrote:

When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a
ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning.
Antenna efficiency can be measured in different ways so the phrase
"antenna efficiency is 20%" can mean different things to different
people. All it takes is one person to ask how antenna efficiency is
calculated and it will become evident that context of "antenna
efficiency is 20%" does not provide all the information required.

Sure it does. *Antenna efficiency is only calculated one way,
so there is no need to add extra "metadata".

Funny thing, when working parabolic antennas antenna efficiency and
aperture efficiency are used interchangeably.

I find that a funny thing, since they define two different things.
They are not the same thing, and should not be confused,
intermingled, or even paired up on the same date to go watch
Star Wars at the midnight movies.
If I were to refer to aperture efficiency, I would call it aperture
efficiency, effective aperture, or maybe even antenna effective
area, but not antenna efficiency.

antenna physics question
 

K1TTT wrote:


great, now why don't you try some negative searches for the other
specific terms that i quoted from the ieee book and see how many links
show up for them, then compare the relative numbers of links and their
order with the original search... that should keep you busy for a
while.

It took about 10 seconds to cut and paste.

11,000 results with 7 out of 10 of the top results identical.

It appears your efficiency in attempting to deride what I've said is deficient.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

antenna physics question
 

On Dec 10, 8:37*am, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
*I am sure you also know that only
units used by Mawell represent the path
to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as
the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be
*unity.
Art KB9MZ....xg

Art, You have just mentioned a constraint on antennas that I was not aware
of. *Specifically "the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be unity".

This is new to me. Please tell me how I go about making capacitance and
inductance equal so their ratio can be unity. How do you get the Farads and
Henries to cancel out, leaving a dimensionless number.

Can you give me some real world examples?

joe

Joe,
a better insight to my thinking that may help
When a member has little or no reactance via cancellation you can use
V=I.R.
When R becomes exceedingly small the member reaches a critical point
and will oscillate
When this happens current increases dramatically which therefore
increases radiation. If you view the current curve on a dipole the
current is of cyclic form whereas in the case where critical
resistance is reached
the current flow is of a very high value pulse which also drops fairly
rapidly until it reaches a low point before it gets to the end of a
period.
When the element oscillates it has become a mechanical movement BELOW
the current path
and as can be seen by comparing to water flow
the raggednes in terms of cross sectional area of flow has createrd
eddy currents which in electrical terms is equal to displacement
current
as it is the creation of displacement current.or coefficient of
discharge
This states why magnetics as used in non equilibrium structures such
as the Yagi cannot be as efficient as a Meander form which achieves
higher current which propels or provides for radiation..
What propelled the notion of waves instead of particles is 1 they
ignored Gaussian thrust towards equilibrium and 2 turned to the
increase in current because of the mechanical "wave" action which only
provides change in amplitude which is not enough to provide an
acceleration of charge on a particle resting on
water since that requires two vectors.( I say a resting particle where
as it was never clear what the "wave" was lifting or where it came
from. This because the force required to remove an electron from its
element habitat
required more force than that was available.
( Gravity is termed as the weaker force in the Std model)
The bottom line being, a radiating structure in equilibrium devoid of
reactance with low resistance is the only way current over and above
that supplied becomes available.
By the way the std yagi is not a closed circuit
as equilibrium requires because the half wave length floats, where as
a full wave or "period"
is consistent or in a steady state when "overshoot" occurs. Thus only
when it is resonant is it devoid of reactance which limits the
bandwidth. In the case of a Meander form
the magnetic field is not present in cyclic form
allowing for surface current flow for extended periods and is not
frequency dependant.
As I have stated before, with my antenna current distribution is via a
surge with rapid decay which is accepted in RC L circuitry.
Hope that clears things up for you
Regards
Art