On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:13:02 GMT, "
wrote:



Yet at the same time many are anxious to find out how I managed
to lower the TOA. even in the face of presumed flawed analysis.
Weird. very weird yet again none declared it impossible


Perhaps my pestering you for the "secret" to lower "TOA" without
changing the antenna height was too oblique to qualify as "declaring
it impossible."

Therefore, let me as my congressman would say (actually not *my*
congressman, he's not that bright), "I would like to revise and expand
my remarks: It's impossible."

Actually, it is possible to lower the takeoff angle (the elevation angle
at which the pattern is maximum) without changing the antenna height.
The method is to narrow the free-space elevation radiation pattern. For
example, modify the EZNEC example file W8JK.ez by changing the height (Z
coordinates) to 0.5 wavelength. The takeoff angle is 25 degrees. Delete
one of the elements to make a dipole and note that the dipole's takeoff
angle is 28 degrees. The lowering is due to the substantially greater
elevation directivity of the W8JK. There aren't too many modestly sized
horizontal arrays that have enough elevation directivity to make much of
a difference in takeoff angle, however, so the difference is generally
small at best. It's also interesting to note that the takeoff angle of
this dipole over real ground is 2 degrees lower than the takeoff angle
of the dipole over perfect ground.

But as we and others have pointed out before, lowering the "takeoff
angle" (as the term is used by modeling programs) doesn't guarantee
better DX performance, and really doesn't mean much at all. For example,
the modified W8JK has a gain of 5.66 dBi at an elevation angle of 10
degrees and 0.31 dBi at 5 degrees. If we change source 2 phasing to -144
degrees for a nominally unidirectional pattern (see the recent
discussion about the impact of current distribution on front/back
ratio), the takeoff angle rises slightly to 26 degrees. But the gain at
10 degrees elevation is now 6.55 dBi and at 5 degrees 1.15 dBi, both
greater than the W8JK with its lower takeoff angle. And at very low
elevation angles, the gain of the dipole over real ground is very nearly
the same as the gain of the dipole over perfect ground, despite the
difference in takeoff angles. At higher angles, the dipole over perfect
ground is better, despite its higher takeoff angle.

Actual gain at elevation angles of around 2 to 10 or 12 degrees is a
valid and useful measure of DX performance; "takeoff angle" isn't. But
based on past performance, I'm not holding my breath that we'll be
seeing any actual numbers from Art about his innovations.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Wes Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:13:02 GMT, "
wrote:




Yet at the same time many are anxious to find out how I managed
to lower the TOA. even in the face of presumed flawed analysis.
Weird. very weird yet again none declared it impossible



Perhaps my pestering you for the "secret" to lower "TOA" without
changing the antenna height was too oblique to qualify as "declaring
it impossible."

Therefore, let me as my congressman would say (actually not *my*
congressman, he's not that bright), "I would like to revise and expand
my remarks: It's impossible."

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Actually, it is possible to lower the takeoff angle (the elevation angle
at which the pattern is maximum) without changing the antenna height. The
method is to narrow the free-space elevation radiation pattern. For
example, modify the EZNEC example file W8JK.ez by changing the height (Z
coordinates) to 0.5 wavelength. The takeoff angle is 25 degrees. Delete
one of the elements to make a dipole and note that the dipole's takeoff
angle is 28 degrees. The lowering is due to the substantially greater
elevation directivity of the W8JK. There aren't too many modestly sized
horizontal arrays that have enough elevation directivity to make much of a
difference in takeoff angle, however, so the difference is generally small
at best. It's also interesting to note that the takeoff angle of this
dipole over real ground is 2 degrees lower than the takeoff angle of the
dipole over perfect ground.

But as we and others have pointed out before, lowering the "takeoff angle"
(as the term is used by modeling programs) doesn't guarantee better DX
performance, and really doesn't mean much at all. For example, the
modified W8JK has a gain of 5.66 dBi at an elevation angle of 10 degrees
and 0.31 dBi at 5 degrees. If we change source 2 phasing to -144 degrees
for a nominally unidirectional pattern (see the recent discussion about
the impact of current distribution on front/back ratio), the takeoff angle
rises slightly to 26 degrees. But the gain at 10 degrees elevation is now
6.55 dBi and at 5 degrees 1.15 dBi, both greater than the W8JK with its
lower takeoff angle. And at very low elevation angles, the gain of the
dipole over real ground is very nearly the same as the gain of the dipole
over perfect ground, despite the difference in takeoff angles. At higher
angles, the dipole over perfect ground is better, despite its higher
takeoff angle.




Actual gain at elevation angles of around 2 to 10 or 12 degrees is a valid
and useful measure of DX performance; "takeoff angle" isn't.

That is exactly what I pointed to in the discussion. The top half of the
forward
lobe of a directive array is of no use say for opening a band. The important
point
is the underside contour of the main lobe where there is useful gain at the
angles
that Roy stated. For instance; a 60 foot + boom yagi with a gain of around
16 dbi
will have a TOA at say 13 degrees but it is also possible to construct a
directive array
of 10 degrees TOA that has the same underside contour as the yagi design and
thus equal
in performance. The difference is that a yagi design has a fat lobe with
narrow beam width,
where asyou can construct a radiator or an array that has a larger beam
width,
but with a thinner lobe that covers the aforementioned degrees of coverage
required.
Another point of mention is that many associate low TOA with antenna height
but
without specificity with respect to feed point height or as in other cases
such as a top hat or "unused" array as with stacked antennas
For me it is a question of phase angle provided by a transmitting point
where its optimum angle is directly opposite the earths surface and
supplimented
by a secondary radiation of a similar phase, but to explain why
would be impossible with respect to this group so don't ask

One particular poster hit things right on the head when he referred to
resistive impedance
THRU OUT the length of any radiator./s, he obviously knows his stuff tho I
question
the thin wire aproach to accomplish this i.e. negate reactance



But
based on past performance, I'm not holding my breath that we'll be seeing
any actual numbers from Art about his innovations.



Just for me, try to hold your breath for ten minuits.
You well know that no figures are accepted by the know
alls on this group. Even observed tests undertaken are not accepted unless
the so called guru is actually present which would be impossible , since the
gurus
wish is to preserve their perceived stations and not subject to ridicule
On this actual thread I have given explanations and figures and only
ommited how I achieve it ,which I will save until I have completed pertinent
studies.
As a former engineer which apparently you say that you are one also, it is
important
to review and check your work several times to ensure that it is in
presentable state
to fellow engineers for review. One says that it is impossible, another
somehow
turns his responses to unfounded gibberish and another declares the whole
thing as hillarious and so on, such that any comment made, even when made
in approval,
is meaningless as comments made are emotional and without any technical
depth.
Art Unwin KB9MZ..............XG



Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Wes Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:13:02 GMT, "
wrote:




Yet at the same time many are anxious to find out how I managed
to lower the TOA. even in the face of presumed flawed analysis.
Weird. very weird yet again none declared it impossible



Perhaps my pestering you for the "secret" to lower "TOA" without
changing the antenna height was too oblique to qualify as "declaring
it impossible."

Therefore, let me as my congressman would say (actually not *my*
congressman, he's not that bright), "I would like to revise and expand
my remarks: It's impossible."

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:44:34 GMT, "
wrote:

For me it is a question of phase angle provided by a transmitting point
where its optimum angle is directly opposite the earths surface and
supplimented
by a secondary radiation of a similar phase,

My design is simpler and does it better.

but to explain why
would be impossible with respect to this group so don't ask

Hi Art,

Time has proven when we do ask, you can't answer - so your advice is
commendable on two counts.

You well know that no figures are accepted by the know
alls on this group.

You haven't offered any
1. Data;
2. Notes;
3. Models
and certainly no
4. Figures.

Even observed tests undertaken are not accepted unless
the so called guru is actually present which would be impossible

Then they are not "observed tests."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:54:50 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Actually, it is possible to lower the takeoff angle (the elevation angle
at which the pattern is maximum) without changing the antenna height.
The method is to narrow the free-space elevation radiation pattern. For
example, modify the EZNEC example file W8JK.ez by changing the height (Z
coordinates) to 0.5 wavelength. The takeoff angle is 25 degrees. Delete
one of the elements to make a dipole and note that the dipole's takeoff
angle is 28 degrees. The lowering is due to the substantially greater
elevation directivity of the W8JK. There aren't too many modestly sized
horizontal arrays that have enough elevation directivity to make much of
a difference in takeoff angle, however, so the difference is generally
small at best. It's also interesting to note that the takeoff angle of
this dipole over real ground is 2 degrees lower than the takeoff angle
of the dipole over perfect ground.

All true. I see my response was too encompassing. What I was trying
to refer to was Art's "magic" design.

To wit: "Would hams have an interest in a two element 20 M antenna
that have (sic) lower TOA than the norm, say 9 degrees instead of the
normal 14 degrees?"

I can't imagine anything that will make a 2 (or any other number)
element horizontal antenna of any configuration have a TOA of 9
degrees other than placing the array center at a height of ~105' above
real ground at 14 MHz.

"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:54:50 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Actually, it is possible to lower the takeoff angle (the elevation angle
at which the pattern is maximum) without changing the antenna height.
The method is to narrow the free-space elevation radiation pattern. For
example, modify the EZNEC example file W8JK.ez by changing the height (Z
coordinates) to 0.5 wavelength. The takeoff angle is 25 degrees. Delete
one of the elements to make a dipole and note that the dipole's takeoff
angle is 28 degrees. The lowering is due to the substantially greater
elevation directivity of the W8JK. There aren't too many modestly sized
horizontal arrays that have enough elevation directivity to make much of
a difference in takeoff angle, however, so the difference is generally
small at best. It's also interesting to note that the takeoff angle of
this dipole over real ground is 2 degrees lower than the takeoff angle
of the dipole over perfect ground.

All true. I see my response was too encompassing. What I was trying
to refer to was Art's "magic" design.

To wit: "Would hams have an interest in a two element 20 M antenna
that have (sic) lower TOA than the norm, say 9 degrees instead of the
normal 14 degrees?"

I can't imagine anything that will make a 2 (or any other number)top hat
element horizontal antenna of any configuration have a TOA of 9
degrees other than placing the array center at a height of ~105' above
real ground at 14 MHz.



I don't remember the two element bit and I also stated it was NOT a yagi
design.
You mentioned horiuzontal antenna which suggests a yagi design unless you
intended
horizontal "polarisation". Roy, same as I, is pointing out the number of
incorrect statements that you have made and you are now adding to them.
To help you out I will stop posting on this thread to save you any further
embarrasment, that way you will not need to admit to anymore errors.
Pity you didn't define what you meant with respect to antenna height i.e.
feed point height, top hat height, a higher unfed antenna height and so on.
Adding ambiguety just leads to confusion for everybody.
Frankly you are looking more like Richard every day with your leaning on
emotions instead instead of technical matters pertaining to the thread with
the
assumption that all must be placed before you for judgement as you are the
leading analysts in antenna design.
Actually with respect to this thread both of you are showing that you are
wearing no clothes tho Richard could well be wearing Shakespeare hose
of a see thru nature that he wears around his abode.
See you on another thread perhaps.
Regards
Art KB9MZ....XG

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:36:35 GMT, "
wrote:
I don't remember the two element bit

Because so much of antennas is still unknown, perhaps. So we will
proceed with what you DO know!

Actually with respect to this thread both of you are showing that you are
wearing no clothes tho Richard could well be wearing Shakespeare hose
of a see thru nature that he wears around his abode.

Hi Art,

You certainly entertain some strange fantasies - however one has to
wonder why you expose them here?

It's tough enough trying to separate the wild claims you offer from
actual work performed and then to have to wade through your mauve
musings.

Glad to hear
To help you out I will stop posting on this thread
again....

not holdin' my breath ;-)
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:36:35 GMT, "
wrote:


"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:54:50 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Actually, it is possible to lower the takeoff angle (the elevation angle
at which the pattern is maximum) without changing the antenna height.
The method is to narrow the free-space elevation radiation pattern. For
example, modify the EZNEC example file W8JK.ez by changing the height (Z
coordinates) to 0.5 wavelength. The takeoff angle is 25 degrees. Delete
one of the elements to make a dipole and note that the dipole's takeoff
angle is 28 degrees. The lowering is due to the substantially greater
elevation directivity of the W8JK. There aren't too many modestly sized
horizontal arrays that have enough elevation directivity to make much of
a difference in takeoff angle, however, so the difference is generally
small at best. It's also interesting to note that the takeoff angle of
this dipole over real ground is 2 degrees lower than the takeoff angle
of the dipole over perfect ground.

All true. I see my response was too encompassing. What I was trying
to refer to was Art's "magic" design.

To wit: "Would hams have an interest in a two element 20 M antenna
that have (sic) lower TOA than the norm, say 9 degrees instead of the
normal 14 degrees?"

I can't imagine anything that will make a 2 (or any other number)top hat
element horizontal antenna of any configuration have a TOA of 9
degrees other than placing the array center at a height of ~105' above
real ground at 14 MHz.

Note this is not a *direct quote*. I did not say "top hat" in the
original post.



I don't remember the two element bit and I also stated it was NOT a yagi
design.

Let me refresh your memory:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:57:31 GMT, "
wrote:

"I don't operate on 40 M so I may be missing something but exactly
what is it that stands out with this antenna that would make it
desirable to hams? Efficiency would be reflected by the loads
used which is not necessarily "state of the art". He then states "a
large F/B is effected" but it doesn't show before and after overlaid
plots !
Would hams have an interest in a two element 20 M antenna that have
lower TOA than the norm, say 9 degrees instead of the normal 14
degrees?
I think I can quickly put one together for the week end while putting
the present assembly aside.
Regards
Art"

End quote

Doesn't the foregoing *exact* quote say, "...two element 20 M
antenna....?"

You mentioned horiuzontal (sic) antenna which suggests a yagi (sic) design unless you
intended
horizontal "polarisation".

Okay polarize it any way you want, and I don't see where I mentioned
Yagi at all.

Roy, same as I, is pointing out the number of
incorrect statements that you have made and you are now adding to them.

Roy made a valid point. You on the other hand are full of it.

To help you out I will stop posting on this thread to save you any further
embarrasment (sic), that way you will not need to admit to anymore (sic) errors.

When you can show me an error, I will admit to it. So far there's
nothing to admit to. But I can understand your desire to drop out.

Pity you didn't define what you meant with respect to antenna height i.e.
feed point height, top hat height, a higher unfed antenna height and so on.

I said, "array center." If you want to vertically polarize it you
might make it at ~70 to 80' with a pair of collinear dipoles if you
can figure out a practical way to feed it. That would give a whopping
4 - 5 dBi at 9 degrees, where my Yagi design at 70' has 12 dBi at 9
degrees even though the max gain is at 13 degrees. (One of the points
Roy was making)

You're claiming some magic design that will lower the "TOA"
significantly, from the "norm" (from whatever hat that came from) of
14 to 9 degrees, without increasing the antenna height. I'm
suggesting that you can't do it. Prove me wrong - wait a minute; you
already confessed that you couldn't.


Adding ambiguety (sic) just leads to confusion for everybody.

This coming from an expert at bafflegab.

And speaking of bagglegab...

Frankly you are looking more like Richard every day with your leaning on
emotions instead instead of technical matters pertaining to the thread with
the
assumption that all must be placed before you for judgement as you are the
leading analysts in antenna design.
Actually with respect to this thread both of you are showing that you are
wearing no clothes tho Richard could well be wearing Shakespeare hose
of a see thru nature that he wears around his abode.
See you on another thread perhaps.
Regards
Art KB9MZ....XG

"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:36:35 GMT, "
wrote:


"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:54:50 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Actually, it is possible to lower the takeoff angle (the elevation angle
at which the pattern is maximum) without changing the antenna height.
The method is to narrow the free-space elevation radiation pattern. For
example, modify the EZNEC example file W8JK.ez by changing the height (Z
coordinates) to 0.5 wavelength. The takeoff angle is 25 degrees. Delete
one of the elements to make a dipole and note that the dipole's takeoff
angle is 28 degrees. The lowering is due to the substantially greater
elevation directivity of the W8JK. There aren't too many modestly sized
horizontal arrays that have enough elevation directivity to make much of
a difference in takeoff angle, however, so the difference is generally
small at best. It's also interesting to note that the takeoff angle of
this dipole over real ground is 2 degrees lower than the takeoff angle
of the dipole over perfect ground.

All true. I see my response was too encompassing. What I was trying
to refer to was Art's "magic" design.

To wit: "Would hams have an interest in a two element 20 M antenna
that have (sic) lower TOA than the norm, say 9 degrees instead of the
normal 14 degrees?"

I can't imagine anything that will make a 2 (or any other number)top hat
element horizontal antenna of any configuration have a TOA of 9
degrees other than placing the array center at a height of ~105' above
real ground at 14 MHz.

Note this is not a *direct quote*. I did not say "top hat" in the
original post.



I don't remember the two element bit and I also stated it was NOT a yagi
design.

Let me refresh your memory:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:57:31 GMT, "
wrote:

snipots !
Would hams have an interest in a two element 20 M antenna that have
lower TOA than the norm, say 9 degrees instead of the normal 14
degrees?
I think I can quickly put one together for the week end while putting
the present assembly aside.
Regards
Art"

End quote


Yes I remember it now and yes I think I could put one together
...........so what, nothing special in that!



Doesn't the foregoing *exact* quote say, "...two element 20 M
antenna....?"

You mentioned horiuzontal (sic) antenna which suggests a yagi (sic) design
unless you
intended
horizontal "polarisation".

Okay polarize it any way you want, and I don't see where I mentioned
Yagi at all.


No, I am making the point regarding the "horizontal antenna" comment
I would not say my antenna was "horizontal" per se ,if it were then
reference
to a yagi design could be used at a stretch for any "horizontal antenna'
that
consists of a boom


Roy, same as I, is pointing out the number of
incorrect statements that you have made and you are now adding to them.

Roy made a valid point. You on the other hand are full of it.



Roy just reiterated what I said previously where the bottom contour of the
main lobe
can remain the same for many antennas which have different TOA and it is
this
contour that is importantThus TOA can be designed for the frequency of
choice. Period!
And try as you might you just can't change this fact.



To help you out I will stop posting on this thread to save you any further
embarrasment (sic), that way you will not need to admit to anymore (sic)
errors.

When you can show me an error, I will admit to it. So far there's
nothing to admit to. But I can understand your desire to drop out.

Pity you didn't define what you meant with respect to antenna height i.e.
feed point height, top hat height, a higher unfed antenna height and so
on.

I said, "array center." If you want to vertically polarize it you
might make it at ~70 to 80' with a pair of collinear dipoles if you
can figure out a practical way to feed it. That would give a whopping
4 - 5 dBi at 9 degrees, where my Yagi design at 70' has 12 dBi at 9
degrees even though the max gain is at 13 degrees. (One of the points
Roy was making)

Array center means what? The center of a loop, the center of an inverted
vee,
the center of.. well no point in carrying on with the "Array center"



You're claiming some magic design that will lower the "TOA"
significantly, from the "norm" (from whatever hat that came from) of
14 to 9 degrees, without increasing the antenna height. I'm
suggesting that you can't do it. Prove me wrong - wait a minute; you
already confessed that you couldn't.


Lets get back to facts as stated in this thread and not innuendo.
My tower is a fold over, the antenna
is such that the method of coupling is unique and is the foundation of the
design
(I know groans regarding my fascination with CLOSE coupling.) The single
feed point of the antenna
assembly is at approx 65 feet. It is capable of placing best F/B at the SAME
frequency as
best gain.The impedance level is not controlled ( low impedance) as with a
high gain yagi design.
and its performance can be compared to a 1WL boom Yagi design antenna . Yes,
I can use a
commercial rotor instead of my heavy prop pitch rotor.
I also have said that it could not compete with the simplicity of the YAGI
mechanical
design aproach.
All the above I have mentioned one way or another together with the fact
that the main lobe
has a larger beam width than the yagi design which can be important when the
gain of the antenna
narrows the beam. And lastly, I pointed out the basic theory using the
vector diagram approach
when idealistically where radiation at the rear is removed the main lobe is
a pure circle and not elongated
as a YAGI design would provide and where one can surmise that forward side
lobes would not be
generated. Oooops forgot.it can be used as a multi bander!
Now those are the facts that I have presented. Others have twisted the above
to suggest something else
or additions. For me what I have presented is just a pushing out of the
envelope antenna knoweledge
and to show that no matter what, all is not known about antennas or R.F.
radiation And as with all new things
that come forward all will say that they knew that all the time but just
didn't get around to it,
just like many say when they see the winning lotto number.
I will not offer any more facts since the intent of many is to just promote
arguments, play games
and certainly not to discuss technicalities that suggest all is false and
point out why with logic.
Think about the initial thread heading and then note to yourself how
individuals responded
in answer to the heading. Yup all were different but all with the diversion
aproach.
And you of all people scolded me for presenting a "precis" regarding vector
analysis because many
stated they had no understanding of its use and where the experts stayed
silent because they failed to
remember 101 and where you miraculously remembered it after my post. Even
then you failed to point
out any points that made it a bogus aproach.


I would say that the average antenna at a height of 1 WL has a elevation
angle
(TOA ) of around 14 degrees . Read the Antenna book of the ARRL!



Adding ambiguety (sic) just leads to confusion for everybody.

This coming from an expert at bafflegab.

And speaking of bagglegab...

Frankly you are looking more like Richard every day with your leaning on
emotions instead instead of technical matters pertaining to the thread
with
the
assumption that all must be placed before you for judgement as you are the
leading analysts in antenna design.
Actually with respect to this thread both of you are showing that you are
wearing no clothes tho Richard could well be wearing Shakespeare hose
of a see thru nature that he wears around his abode.
See you on another thread perhaps.
Regards
Art KB9MZ....XG

You got me to come back Wes to this thread but no more.
Have at it You are now free to wave your arms around like
Andy Capp knowing that all you say will not be refuted
regardles of the clothing that you wear



Regards
Art KB9MZ...XG

Art, please fill in the blanks. Trust me, it won't harm in any way your
ability to obtain a patent.

----------

Hi, I'm aunwin. I have invented an antenna that's an improvement over
existing designs, because:

1. The gain of a __[A]__ when mounted ______ feet high is _____ dBi at
an elevation angle of __[b]___ degrees. My remarkable antenna has a gain
of ____ dBi at that same angle.
2. At the same frequency as used to determine the gain in item 1, the
reference antenna has a front/back ratio of ______ dB at an elevation
angle of __[b]__ degrees. My marvelous antenna has a front/back ratio of
______ dB at that same angle.
3. At a frequency _____% [above|below] the frequency of items 1 and 2,
the reference antenna's gain has dropped to _____ dBi and the front/back
to ____ dB. My terrific antenna, however, still has a gain of ______ dBi
and front/back of ______ dB.
4. When matched to 50 ohms at the frequency of items 1 and 2 which is
____ MHz, the reference antenna has a 2:1 SWR bandwidth of _____ MHz. My
outstanding antenna has a 2:1 SWR bandwidth of ______ MHz.


A = the name of a reference antenna having a similar size, number of
elements, complexity, or cost compared to your antenna. In other words,
a common antenna that your antenna is better than.
B = an elevation angle useful for DX work -- choose anything between 2
and 10 or so degrees. It would be best to give gain and front/back for
multiple angles.

That'll show those ignorant troglodites like Roy and Wes that there are
still Galileos out here who can laugh in the gurus' faces and come up
with performance they never dreamed of! You wanted numbers, I gave you
numbers. Choke on those, you doubters!

----------

That's all you've got to do, Art, just fill in the blanks. A few
numbers. No need for expositions on coupling, polygons, or takeoff angles.

Not holding my breath,

Roy Lewallen, W7EL