Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 6:06:33 PM UTC-5, gareth wrote:
wrote in message ... On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 5:27:41 AM UTC-5, gareth wrote: What is the nature of free space such that it requires antennae to be at least 1/4 wave before accepting radiation efficiently? Ding, ding, ding. Totally false statement. Don't pass go, don't collect $200. Convince yourself by calculating the retarded potential from a far field when the same field strength comes from a dipole and when it comes from a short antenna. You find that there has to be more power fed into the short antenna (irrespective of feed impedances and ohmic resistances) to achieve that same field strength. To put it plainly in a language you can likely understand, bull****! If you feed a 1/2 wave dipole with 100 watts, almost all of that power will be radiated by the antenna. If you feed a 1/10 wave dipole with 100 watts, almost all of that power will be radiated by the antenna. Any difference between the two would be so small as likely to be hard to measure. This is etched in stone theory known for many years. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
When can a radio be called "vintage"? | Boatanchors | |||
More Corporate Welfa "CONservative Capitalist "Free Market"Laissez Faire Republican Hypocrite Talk Radio Flunkies Silent As TaxpayersBail Out AIG With $85 Billion | Shortwave | |||
What's in a "wall wart" so-called "transformer"? | Homebrew | |||
Nature of "ground" beneath my house? | Antenna | |||
Why Is a Ship Called: "She"? :-) | Boatanchors |