Roy Lewallen wrote in message ...

Understood. But you have to admit that transformers and
transducers have some similarities. You will still have to optimize
the windings and magnets and size/shape of the speaker cone for
optimum power tranfer of a single tone. And you will have to have to
change the design if you decide to transmit sound underwater.


And transducers and automobiles have some similarities. You have to
optimize the engine of a car for optimum acceleration, and change the
tire tread design if you decide you want to drive on wet roads. So
really, an antenna is like an automobile.


Your sarcasm doesn't make your points as well as your logic.

How about this: An antenna is a transducer, and a transformer is
made up of two transducers.

So you need two antennas to make a transformer. And stick them
close together so they couple well, just for arguments sake.

Fair enough.





I see your point, that the primary could be considered one
antenna, and the core material like free space, and the secondary
would be the receive antenna. But i suspect even a single
transducer/antenna can be optimized for maximum lines of flux through
a core at a particular frequency, or max ERP in the case of the
antenna. Otherwise we wouldn't have to tune these things.


Yep, and an automobile can be optimized for maximum acceleration. Good
argument for considering an antenna a type of automobile, no?

Y'see, if you really, really want an antenna to be a kind of automobile,
you can cook up a bunch of reasons to convince yourself that it is. The
same method works for astrology and fortune telling, too.


Shall i call this a Straw man argument? Or putting words in
someone's mouth?

Ok, an antenna is a transducer. But you can still optimize it for
ERP, and that will depend on the impedance of free space or water or
whatever. Why not throw out the whole concept of free space impedance
if it doesn't matter?



Slick