Wes you are off on a tangent again. Go back the the initial posting on this
thread.
It says nothing about your poor antenna or even my antenna as I do not have
one.
It refers to gain and front to rear at the same frequency It does not
refer to an actual physical antenna. None of your postings refer in any
sense
can be seen as a technical response that directly refutes the accuracy of
what I stated.
In your responces I see nothing but snide remarkes or deviation from the
posed subject
by introducing your personal antenna exploits with your own particular
antenna
which I say is at an incorrect height. There is nothing in the initiating
post that
refers to an actual antenna or even ones that are at an incorrect height.
The true facts behind that initial posting that I had a NEC derived model
with extra ordinary back to front figures which made other people
suspicious
including me when I posted that info on another thread.
.. I was looking for answers to my findings.
This post consisted solely of presenting a theoretical analysis that
reflected
the possibility of max gain and max front to rear could appear at the same
frequency.
Nobody even tried to challenge the analogy becauuse everybody believes
all is known about antennas so there was no point in even to attempt to
understand the given analogy. Instead snide remarks were made and
diversionary tactics
in changing the subject to actual antennas such as yours.
The subject and question of this thread was made in the hope that
technically the analogy
made was incorrect and thus allows me personally to discount the accurracy
of my
modelling or on the other hand state they can find no fault with my analogy.
What did I get ? Knee jerk reaction and mirth at the possibility that
something new
had possibly been found when all had taken the position that it is safe to
debunk
because every thing is known. Not one person itemised a particular line
that
gave them particular problems electing to pursue different issues that they
have.
and not to respond to the initial request such as you bring up your own
personal
anternna. And remember, in an effort to circumvent this "roast" aproach
I offered to share everything I had with you but you preferred to continue
with
The "roast " aproach. Your antenna and your personal achievements are the
same
as what Roy did when he introduced his past achievements which again does
nothing
to vote pro or con to my theoretical analogy in a technical way.
Don't you realise that other silent viewers around the world are wondering
why the
few are having difficulty with the question. I sure hope that there are
many hams reading
how the so called gurus are dismissing everything other say. Is this the new
way America
feels about those outside of these borders?
Regards
Art....KB9MZ.......XG

"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:56:37 GMT, "
wrote:

Oh come on Wes look at your last posting where you poked fun at the idea
of
a polygon phasor array. And look at the other postings where it was
obvious
that many were not familiar with the same and needed more direction. Look
at
Roy,
he admitted he knows nothing about the subject

He did no such thing. Not only are you having difficulty expressing
yourself, you have similar difficulty understanding what others are
trying to tell you. I'm not trying to be cruel or harsh, but that's
just the way it is.


which when he next argues with the like of Cecil and others I will now
have
to think twice instead of accepting his typical
riposte that he supplies. But I give Roy credit for being honest in the
face
of personal embarassment regarding his lack of knoweledge
You say it was not necesary to provide a long convoluted pseudo treatise
on
vectors but many asked for it and you made a joke of the idea,
Regarding front to rear occuring at the same frequency. An operator wants
as
much gain as possible when communicating
so he does not need to resort to more power than needed. For best
communication it is nice to block of interference to the rear and thus he
needs best front to rear at the frequency of communication even tho it is
of
interest that he had better rejection at a lower frequency. The fact of
the
matter is that it is not the frequency being used, he has to live with a
lesser value of rejection, your opinion may well be different.

So if I understand you correctly ( a *really* dubious proposition) I
would have much better success with my 20 meter antenna if I embraced
your philosophy. My current antenna is of my design, a three-element
monoband Yagi-Uda parasitic array. You can see it in the picture on
qrz.com. It is an honest to goodness actual antenna. I have 310
countries confirmed on 20 meters most of them (The hard ones) worked
with this antenna. All at the "too-low" height (according to you) of
45' above ground. I would be delighted to send you an EZNEC,
Multinec, or NEC file that describes the antenna. The model accounts
for boom to mast connection, element taper, etc. (per Leeson,
"Physical Design of Yagi Antennas."), includes the stub matching feed
system and appears to accurately describe the antenna to the best of
my limited capability to measure it.

Over the band of interest, 14.0 to 14.25 MHz., the modeled free-space
FB exceeds 20 dB and the gain varies from ~ 7.9 to 8.15 dBi. The FB
peaks at ~ 14.12 MHz and the gain is maximum at 8.15 dBi at 14.25 MHz.
Pray tell, what operational advantage am I giving up because the gain
at 14.12 MHz (the FB peak) is *only* about 8.0 dBi instead of 8.15
dBi?


Now you also remarked that you do not want explanations, just the meat. I
gave what you call a "treatise" that explained the theoretical
underpinnings of what I have stated. It would be unwise at this point to
declare success without not only having a NEC model to confirm it but also
a
20 meter antenna and not say a 144 meg equivalent. Today we had snow, wind
and rain so I could not complete the job.If by chance the antenna gives a
third aproval i.e.Nec model then polygon discussion plus the antenna then
I
will forward it to RADCOM for peer review. It is at that time you can vent
your displeasure that you rejected my offer to share the actual
mathematical
and physical findings. If you were looking for a way to undermine what I
had
stated then my " treatise" now arms you with the knoweledge to disprove
what
I have stated as it is one factor that convinces me of my origonal
findings.
If you need more information regarding vectors I will be happy to aid you
in
your quest

No, I don't needed any more of your help with vectors. I wish you
every success with your RADCOM paper.