| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#12
January 31st 05, 10:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I also wrote:
"Fat antennas have more bandwidth, and that is inversely proportional to Q. Reducing antenna Q, by fattening the antenna, reduces the antenna potential by almost the same factor." Here is support from Ed Laport`s "Radio Antenna Engineering page 37": "It is seen that bandwidth is inversely proportional to antenna (or total circuit) Q. To decrease Q, the same design considerations are required as for the reduction of antenna potential." Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
| The "TRICK" to TV 'type' Coax Cable [Shielded] SWL Loop Antennas {RHF} | Antenna | |||
| The "TRICK" to TV 'type' Coax Cable [Shielded] SWL Loop Antennas {RHF} | Shortwave | |||
| Homebrew dipole help please? | Boatanchors | |||
| 40 meter dipole or 88 feet doublet | Antenna | |||
Threaded Mode
