| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#17
March 5th 05, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message ... wrote: Don't professionals use the term? I don't believe so. snip The ARRL Antenna Book probably uses TOA. It's a publication intended for amateurs. No, a graph of incoming ray angles is not a graph of TOA as used by EZNEC and other programs. You've just given a good example of the misunderstanding and confusion that the term is subject to. They give an incoming angle not a spread What is wrong with the common perception that it is the angle of maximum gain? Nothing at all. It's just that a lot of people think it means something else. In some of your postings, in fact, I get the sense that you don't always use it with that meaning. For example, you sometimes seem to give a lot of weight to the TOA as a figure of merit, and none at all to the hing field strength or gain at the angle at which communication is taking place. So either you're using TOA in a different sense, or you have no interest in maximizing the ability of an antenna to communicate effectively. snip Roy, by now you must know that I experiment a lot using computor models and actual building. I built a 80 meter boom yagi which was neat because the underside of the first lobe captured a lot of signals as the band is opening. So was the next step to make even a longer boom yagi to drive the underside of the lobe lower, no ....because I am now too old and weaker. So I now pursue the object of a lower take of angle by using more elements with more coupling and one that can rotate in a circle equivalent to a two element beam. I believe this can be accomplished with the same gain and a lower take off angle than a 60 foot boom yagi. Thus TOA becomes the most important thing for me as well as the "thickness" of the lobe. That is the sense that your response questioned regarding my maximisation of antenna performance for which I use TOA. Best regards Art |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode
