Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 3/31/2011 7:26 PM, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Mar 31, 7:10 pm, "Richard wrote: We don't disagree as far as current distribution is concerned, but maybe in the belief that such a helix at an operating frequency that is 3X its first resonance has a practical benefit for users. I'm not saying that it has a benefit - just that a 270 degree electrically long antenna can never have the same radiation pattern as a 51 degree physical whip even if the physical length of the 270 degree helical antenna is physically 51 degrees. To be clear on what I am saying: Up to a certain percentage of a wavelength, the physical length of the antenna dictates the radiation pattern. Above that percentage of a wavelength, the theory falls apart. It is akin to assuming that the current distribution in the top portion of a monopole is a straight line. At some point, the straight line assumption fails because the current distribution is actually sinusoidal. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Cecil - Do you have an EZnec file you can post? I'd like to see what you're doing. Thanks es 73, John |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Fractal Sleeve for Monopoles? | Antenna | |||
Magnetic monopoles | Antenna | |||
Helically-wound Monopoles | Antenna | |||
Vertical dipole, helically wound - comments? | Antenna | |||
End Effect on folded dipoles/monopoles? | Antenna |