wrote:

bandwidth
but uses a high impedance, this done by extreme "close" coupling,
in the order of a inch or so upwards to about 12 inches which I also wrote
up
in a patent some years ago just for kicks.

You mean like like the K1FO design? Or something else?

tom
K0TAR

I do not know of any designs
by K1FO, can you elaborate?
Art
"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. ..

wrote:

bandwidth
but uses a high impedance, this done by extreme "close" coupling,
in the order of a inch or so upwards to about 12 inches which I also
wrote up
in a patent some years ago just for kicks.

You mean like like the K1FO design? Or something else?

tom
K0TAR

wrote:

I do not know of any designs
by K1FO, can you elaborate?
Art

The number of his antenna designs is quite large, but all the "modern"
ones, 1990 (maybe earlier) and later, use a very close coupled first and
second director. It is a virtual trademark of his designs. I would
suggest googling for K1FO, and look at what's out there.

Or look in the ARRL antenna books.

tom
K0TAR

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 05:41:29 GMT, "
wrote:

I have just come to realise that if one drew a polygon of element phases in
a array
and all elements were 180 degrees to its companion element and excluding the
driven element, the max gain and max front to back will occur at the SAME
frequency!
Until now I was of the understanding that these two max figures could not
occur at
the same frequency. Is there anything written about this possibility?
Regards
Art



Art,

Your description is too vague for someone who doesn't have some form
of reference (maybe this is a continuation of a discussion from
elsewhere?) Anyway, since a polygon is any shape with more than two
sides in which all sides and angles are equal, this leaves a rather
wide variety of shapes. Is this referencing vertical or horizontal
elements? With the 180 degree element comparisons, I assume you are
dealing with an equal number of sides on each polygon, or in case of
verticals, at least an equal number of elements..


Is there any more you can tell us?


--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

"Buck" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 05:41:29 GMT, "
wrote:

I have just come to realise that if one drew a polygon of element phases
in
a array
and all elements were 180 degrees to its companion element and excluding
the
driven element, the max gain and max front to back will occur at the SAME
frequency!
Until now I was of the understanding that these two max figures could not
occur at
the same frequency. Is there anything written about this possibility?
Regards
Art



Art,

Your description is too vague for someone who doesn't have some form
of reference (maybe this is a continuation of a discussion from
elsewhere?) Anyway, since a polygon is any shape with more than two
sides in which all sides and angles are equal,


It does! then I have used the incorrect term.

In a yagi type diagram you can calculate the current and phase of each
elemrnt
but what one is interested in is the summation of the whole array and you
can do this
in the same way as you would do a vector diagram of forces.
With the yagi array you would first start with the reflector and draw to
scale a line
reflecting both phase angle and magnitude. You then add lines in cosecutive
order for all other elements in the array. The end of this 'toe to tail'
some what
erratic line will finish up some distance from the starting point,
but this distance, if drawn, represents the phase and magnitude
of the array as a whole. As a former mechanical engineer
but now nothing ,I was taught the term "polygon of forces" which is a
cumulative
vector array but the shape did not necessarily consist of "equal "sides as
you stated..
But then I am English born and it is known that Americans completely messed
up the Elizabethan era language which a true cockney still adheres to ,
where as
others in the same country have learned to talk in such a way it sounds as
if they
are trying to retain a marble in their mouth.without swallowing it.
Regards
Art


this leaves a rather
wide variety of shapes. Is this referencing vertical or horizontal
elements? With the 180 degree element comparisons, I assume you are
dealing with an equal number of sides on each polygon, or in case of
verticals, at least an equal number of elements..


Is there any more you can tell us?


--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 05:29:03 GMT, "
wrote:


"Buck" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 05:41:29 GMT, "
wrote:

I have just come to realise that if one drew a polygon of element phases
in
a array
and all elements were 180 degrees to its companion element and excluding
the
driven element, the max gain and max front to back will occur at the SAME
frequency!
Until now I was of the understanding that these two max figures could not
occur at
the same frequency. Is there anything written about this possibility?
Regards
Art



Art,

Your description is too vague for someone who doesn't have some form
of reference (maybe this is a continuation of a discussion from
elsewhere?) Anyway, since a polygon is any shape with more than two
sides in which all sides and angles are equal,


It does! then I have used the incorrect term.

In a yagi type diagram you can calculate the current and phase of each
elemrnt
but what one is interested in is the summation of the whole array and you
can do this
in the same way as you would do a vector diagram of forces.
With the yagi array you would first start with the reflector and draw to
scale a line
reflecting both phase angle and magnitude. You then add lines in cosecutive
order for all other elements in the array. The end of this 'toe to tail'
some what
erratic line will finish up some distance from the starting point,
but this distance, if drawn, represents the phase and magnitude
of the array as a whole. As a former mechanical engineer

I am not ... You may be using a term familiar to your trade and I am
unfamiliar with. I would be a layman in respect ... that could be
the misunderstanding. I was trying to envision the antenna you were
describing... can you imagine what I was seeing in my mind?




but now nothing ,I was taught the term "polygon of forces" which is a
cumulative
vector array but the shape did not necessarily consist of "equal "sides as
you stated..
But then I am English born and it is known that Americans completely messed
up the Elizabethan era language which a true cockney still adheres to ,
where as
others in the same country have learned to talk in such a way it sounds as
if they
are trying to retain a marble in their mouth.without swallowing it.

Actually, I like the UK accents. As I believe my misunderstanding has
nothing to do with the queen's English, but rather techno-speak for
your trade, I will pack up my octagon shaped array of dipole antennas
and gracefully move on to another topic.
Good luck and I'll catch you in another thread.

Buck


Regards
Art


--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

Buck,

I agree with you. I too cannot figure out what Art is trying to say.
However, your response containing the definition of a polygon is
incorrect. There is no requirement for equal sides or angles.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Buck wrote:

Art,

Your description is too vague for someone who doesn't have some form
of reference (maybe this is a continuation of a discussion from
elsewhere?) Anyway, since a polygon is any shape with more than two
sides in which all sides and angles are equal, this leaves a rather
wide variety of shapes.

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:46:24 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:

Buck,

I agree with you. I too cannot figure out what Art is trying to say.
However, your response containing the definition of a polygon is
incorrect. There is no requirement for equal sides or angles.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Right. Webster says a plane polygon is a closed figure bounded by
straight lines. No mention of number, length or angles, although it
seems to me that you best have at least three sides, although Art
might have a new polyglot method that uses only two. [g]


Buck wrote:

Art,

Your description is too vague for someone who doesn't have some form
of reference (maybe this is a continuation of a discussion from
elsewhere?) Anyway, since a polygon is any shape with more than two
sides in which all sides and angles are equal, this leaves a rather
wide variety of shapes.

A polygon which has equal sides and angles is a special case of polygon,
known as a "regular polygon".

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Wes Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:46:24 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:


Buck,

I agree with you. I too cannot figure out what Art is trying to say.
However, your response containing the definition of a polygon is
incorrect. There is no requirement for equal sides or angles.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Right. Webster says a plane polygon is a closed figure bounded by
straight lines. No mention of number, length or angles, although it
seems to me that you best have at least three sides, although Art
might have a new polyglot method that uses only two. [g]


Buck wrote:


Art,

Your description is too vague for someone who doesn't have some form
of reference (maybe this is a continuation of a discussion from
elsewhere?) Anyway, since a polygon is any shape with more than two
sides in which all sides and angles are equal, this leaves a rather
wide variety of shapes.

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:58:06 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

A polygon which has equal sides and angles is a special case of polygon,
known as a "regular polygon".

I stand corrected....



Roy Lewallen, W7EL


--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW