Roy Lewallen wrote:
I hope the readers will forgive me if I considered the radiation of the
two cases to be equal, not worrying about a couple of dB difference in
the range of -30 dBi.

Actually, a more fair comparison is to replace the stub with a wire and
move the rest of the antenna over ten feet so it goes up 25 feet, zigs
to the side by ten feet, and then goes up another 25 feet from there.
That makes the current in the stub and the current in the horizontal
section approximately equal. With that configuration, the radiation
from the horizontal section is 12 dB greater than from the stub, i.e.
24 times as great. Seems the stub works pretty well after all.

Anyone who attempts to model a lengthy coil as a lumped "load" component
won't get results that closely model reality, for the same reason that
anyone who attempts to model a long wire as a short wire will be
disappointed. Neither should be a surprise.

What kicked off this discussion in the first place is that someone claimed
to know the current below and above a bugcatcher type coil based on modeling
loads in EZNEC. Presumably, he was indeed in for a surprise.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----