On Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:36:23 AM UTC-5, John S wrote:
An antenna for which there is a sharp peak in the power radiated or
intercepted by the antenna at a certain frequency,

This is not correct.

At 14.32 MHz a certain dipole accepts 159.2w from a 100v source into a resonant 62.8 ohm feedpoint impedance. At 14.25 MHz, it accepts 160.2w from a 100v source into a non-resonant 61.9-j6 ohm feedpoint impedance. So it appears that you are technically correct but maybe splitting hairs.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On 8/23/2012 3:22 PM, W5DXP wrote:
On Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:36:23 AM UTC-5, John S wrote:
An antenna for which there is a sharp peak in the power radiated or
intercepted by the antenna at a certain frequency,

This is not correct.

At 14.32 MHz a certain dipole accepts 159.2w from a 100v source into a resonant 62.8 ohm feedpoint impedance. At 14.25 MHz, it accepts 160.2w from a 100v source into a non-resonant 61.9-j6 ohm feedpoint impedance. So it appears that you are technically correct but maybe splitting hairs.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


It does not say "a sharp peak in the power *accepted*" by the antenna.

John

On 8/23/2012 3:22 PM, W5DXP wrote:
On Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:36:23 AM UTC-5, John S wrote:
An antenna for which there is a sharp peak in the power radiated or
intercepted by the antenna at a certain frequency,

This is not correct.

At 14.32 MHz a certain dipole accepts 159.2w from a 100v source into a resonant 62.8 ohm feedpoint impedance. At 14.25 MHz, it accepts 160.2w from a 100v source into a non-resonant 61.9-j6 ohm feedpoint impedance. So it appears that you are technically correct but maybe splitting hairs.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


You just showed that the off-resonant antenna accepts *more* power than
the resonant one. That is not a "sharp peak."

John

On 8/23/2012 3:22 PM, W5DXP wrote:
On Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:36:23 AM UTC-5, John S wrote:
An antenna for which there is a sharp peak in the power radiated or
intercepted by the antenna at a certain frequency,

This is not correct.

At 14.32 MHz a certain dipole accepts 159.2w from a 100v source into a resonant 62.8 ohm feedpoint impedance. At 14.25 MHz, it accepts 160.2w from a 100v source into a non-resonant 61.9-j6 ohm feedpoint impedance. So it appears that you are technically correct but maybe splitting hairs.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


You used a fixed 100V source. If you can do that, I can use a fixed 1A
source. In that case a resonant antenna of 62.8 ohms feedpoint
resistance will radiate very nearly 62.8W. An antenna with a feedpoint
impedance of 62.8 + j50 will radiate very near 62.8W.

There is no sharp peak in the power radiated whether at resonance or
not. The definition as it stands is incorrect.

On Friday, August 24, 2012 12:25:23 PM UTC-5, John S wrote:
You used a fixed 100V source.

Let's modify the definition until you agree with it. How about?

resonant antenna [′res·ən·ənt an ′ten·ə] (electromagnetism)
An antenna in which there is a peak in the standing wave energy on the antenna at a certain frequency during receive when configured as an unloaded parasitic element using a constant power, variable frequency source for the incident RF fields.

Would you agree that that energy peak indicates antenna resonance?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On 8/25/2012 8:59 AM, W5DXP wrote:
On Friday, August 24, 2012 12:25:23 PM UTC-5, John S wrote:
You used a fixed 100V source.

Let's modify the definition until you agree with it. How about?

resonant antenna [′res·ən·ənt an ′ten·ə] (electromagnetism)
An antenna in which there is a peak in the standing wave energy on the antenna at a certain frequency during receive when configured as an unloaded parasitic element using a constant power, variable frequency source for the incident RF fields.

Would you agree that that energy peak indicates antenna resonance?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


I'm sure you've heard the saying "Never mud wrestle with a pig..."

On 8/25/2012 8:59 AM, W5DXP wrote:
On Friday, August 24, 2012 12:25:23 PM UTC-5, John S wrote:
You used a fixed 100V source.

Let's modify the definition until you agree with it. How about?

resonant antenna [′res·ən·ənt an ′ten·ə] (electromagnetism)
An antenna in which there is a peak in the standing wave energy on the antenna at a certain frequency during receive when configured as an unloaded parasitic element using a constant power, variable frequency source for the incident RF fields.

Would you agree that that energy peak indicates antenna resonance?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


Would you agree that my previous statements are correct?

On Sunday, August 26, 2012 4:46:16 PM UTC-5, John S wrote:
Would you agree that my previous statements are correct?

Going back how many years?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On 8/26/2012 5:51 PM, W5DXP wrote:
On Sunday, August 26, 2012 4:46:16 PM UTC-5, John S wrote:
Would you agree that my previous statements are correct?

Going back how many years?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

If you have to ask, then you are just being an asshole as usual. You
always want to have an argument whether you are right or wrong. That's
why I referred to wrestling a pig. Go screw with somebody else, pig.

On Sunday, August 26, 2012 8:32:23 PM UTC-5, John S wrote:
On 8/26/2012 5:51 PM, W5DXP wrote:

Would you agree that my previous statements are correct?

Only a perfect person never makes an incorrect statement.

I gave an example where that definition applies to a conjugately matched non-resonant antenna. Of course, all conjugately matched antenna *systems* are resonant whether the antenna is a resonant or non-resonant length. Seems that definition has the same flaw as in Reflections, by Walter Maxwell (SK).. Where he said, "My antenna tuner really does tune my antenna", he probably should have said, "My antenna tuner really does tune my antenna system." The definition should IMO also eliminate the word "sharp" from the definition. A resonant 1/2WL dipole does have a peak but it isn't sharp because of the broad bandwidth.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com