(Richard Harrison) wrote in message ...
Art Unwin wrote:
"It is in this area that I view stagger tuning or coupling to be
efficient in character."

This is a struggle against nature. Like the double-tuned stagger
frequency transformer, the wider the frequency separation, the less the
coupling.

Richard it is no use bringing up the subject that you have told Art
e.t.c.
As far as I am concerned you do not have the faintest idea of what my
antenna consists of ...or..you don,t know what you are talking about
However you are in good company as the whole idea has been trashed by
the newsgroup and without dissention it was agreed that I have no
credability
Can't type either) So why are you bringing up the idea again of
antenna coupling?
That particular horse is dead.
You would be better off looking at your books and pulling out a
statement verbatum regarding a conjugate match or the date of Termans
birthday than trying to bait me on a subject where I have already
received a hiding from resident gurus and bypassers alike.

Art.



Another item promotes coupling in a transformer. It is placement of the
coils so they share flux. An opposite phenomenon is at work for Art, as
I`ve told him for the nth time. A small loop has a null in its radiation
perpendicular to the plane of the loop. Art`s loop shares the plane of
his dipole. The loop is suspended form the dipole and actually shares
conductor.

The dipole has maximum desired radiation perpendicular to the plane
containing the loop. At horizontal and low-angle directions to the
earth, this is the direction of the loop`s null. No way could radiation
from the loop reinforce dipole radiation.

In a yagi, the reflector is tuned lower in frequency and the director is
tuned higher in frequency than the driven element. The purpose of this
detuning is to get proper phasing between the elements so that director
directs and the reflector reflects and not vice versa. But, in the case
of the yagi, radiation of all the rods is in the same plane that they
share and that contains the desired direction of signal transmission /
reception.

In a dipole which shares conductor with one side of a suspended loop,
the only possible loop contribution to the dipole`s radiation is
straight up, or straignt down, or toward the ends of the dipole. This
could help it approach an isotropic antenna more closely. The isotropic
has about 2 db less gain than a dipole alone. Or, a slight gain toward
the earth, the zenith, or the dipole ends might be realized, as stated
before.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Art Unwin wrote:
"As far as I am concerned you do not have the faintest idea what my
antenna consists of ...or,,you don`t know what you are talking about."

How does Art`s antenna differ from Fig 10(A) on page 26-9 of the 19th
edition of the ARRL Antenna Book?. In that figure, the input of the "T"
is inductive until the series capacitance brings it into resonance.

The tuning section of Fig 10(A) forms a small loop. See Fig 4 on page
5-3 of the same Antenna Book for the small loop radiation pattern. Also,
see Fig 12 on page 2-8 for the dipole radiation pattern. Note that lobes
are perpendicular to the wire and plane of the dipole, and perpendicular
to the axis of the small loop. There are nulls perpendicular to the wire
and plane of the loop.

The loop`s null can`t help the dipole`s lobe. It can`t hurt it either,
other than by radiating some energy that might otherwise have gone into
the dipole. As the loop is small ( 0.1 lambda is one definition), its
contribution to radiation may be small. As the loop size grows, so will
its radiation, and its null will decline.

How does Art`s antenna differ from a T-matched dipole?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard,
When it comes to looking up books for quotations
you do a good enough job to be a librarian, but I am unaware
of any instance where a librarian was promoted to the engineering
section on a project basis. Each of the instances that you quote
are simple and direct..... as long as particular conditions are
followed.
When you strayed from your books to combine two situations it would
be wise for you to analyse the new situation to check for changes
in conditions. Unfortuately for you this will not be neatly laid out
in your books
In the case of a so called magnetic loop there are many conditions
to be met to ensure a figure 8 radiation pattern, with or without
deep nulls.
Thus just any old loop in any sort of conditions such as being
coupled to another object or not uniform in cross section e.t.c.
is not the same as the conditions that you referenced in the
handbook thus statements that regurgitate may well not now apply.
It is a pity that you do not have a interest in computor programs
or an interest in using one because if you did you could add to
your experience without the need of buying another book.



(Richard Harrison) wrote in message ...
Art Unwin wrote:
"As far as I am concerned you do not have the faintest idea what my
antenna consists of ...or,,you don`t know what you are talking about."

How does Art`s antenna differ from Fig 10(A) on page 26-9 of the 19th
edition of the ARRL Antenna Book?. In that figure, the input of the "T"
is inductive until the series capacitance brings it into resonance.

The tuning section of Fig 10(A) forms a small loop. See Fig 4 on page
5-3 of the same Antenna Book for the small loop radiation pattern. Also,
see Fig 12 on page 2-8 for the dipole radiation pattern. Note that lobes
are perpendicular to the wire and plane of the dipole, and perpendicular
to the axis of the small loop. There are nulls perpendicular to the wire
and plane of the loop.

The loop`s null can`t help the dipole`s lobe. It can`t hurt it either,
other than by radiating some energy that might otherwise have gone into
the dipole. As the loop is small ( 0.1 lambda is one definition), its
contribution to radiation may be small. As the loop size grows, so will
its radiation, and its null will decline.

How does Art`s antenna differ from a T-matched dipole?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Art Unwin wrote:
"It is a pity you do not have an interest in computor programs---."

If Art would publish impedance, gain, directivity, and bandwidth
comparisons of his antenna against a reference dipole at the same
height, from his computer programs, we might all know more about it.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:29:52 -0500 (CDT),
(Richard Harrison) wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:
"It is a pity you do not have an interest in computor programs---."

If Art would publish impedance, gain, directivity, and bandwidth
comparisons of his antenna against a reference dipole at the same
height, from his computer programs, we might all know more about it.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Hi Richard,

This would be consistent with one who is interested in antennas.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

(Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote in message
It is a pity that you do not have a interest in computor programs
or an interest in using one because if you did you could add to
your experience without the need of buying another book.

What good would it do? You would just ignore any results he had using
the program. Richard quotes his sources so you can look them up and
verify. What sources, tests, or otherwise, do you have to back up any
of your claims? Do you have any? This is not a trick question. MK