| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
October 22nd 04, 10:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
YES
Art "Chuck" wrote in message news:N3ded.9115$6P5.8189@okepread02... wrote in message news:tEUdd.167111$He1.55962@attbi_s01... "Chuck" wrote in message news:fVSdd.9064$6P5.7971@okepread02... wrote in message news:bMDdd.293802$3l3.275124@attbi_s03... "Chuck" wrote in message news:XrBdd.8254$6P5.7645@okepread02... snip. ... Hi Art, Ok, I'm always open minded to learn something new... Wow,,,...... there are not many people around who could say that !. Since 99.999% of things presented as new are incorrect most experts have determined that the odds favor them if they label EVERYTHING new as in error. If something comes along that is really new they always have the comment ' I knew about that a long while ago" to fall back on. Hi Art, Anyone who believes they know it all, has much to learn :-) ... The program shows that the normal 2 element is not the optimum in that a polygon of vectors beats a triangle of vectors. At the same time with added elements you get diminishing returns in std and conventional forms. The program showed that 1 to 1.5 dbi was available over the standard 2 element on the same length boom.if one could overcome mechanical restraints. (I was comparing to a Beasely example of what gain could be attained for two elements on a 7 foot boom) Now that is not the end of the experiment as I cannot verify the accuracy of the program, because I did not write it, and I certainly cannot say that my modelling aproach is without error since that is what many 'experts' point to if they don't like the results. It was for that reason I asked if any similar data had been made available for boom length by reputable programmers and antenna 'experts' for comparison purposes .., If these initial results were quoted as accurrate there would be howls from all the resident antenna ' experts" and I would immediately be placed in the six foot hole that they have been trying to put you in for the last eight years Art I get the impression that what you are doing is placing any number of elements on a .1 lambda boomlength, in order to determine if the close proximity EM interactions produce more gain than just the standard 2 elements would on that same boomlength. In the optimization process, some of the resulting element diameters are quite small. You're asking if anyone else has looked into this, and if any results have been published. Is this a correct assessment so far? 73 de Chuck, WA7RAI |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Antenna tuner | Antenna | |||
| Question on antenna symantics | Antenna | |||
| Antenna future | Antenna | |||
Threaded Mode
