Not so. If I cannot accept an answer that I figure to be unreasonable then I
do not accept them. In Roy's case I accept
the majority of his explanations, but not all. In your case you come up with
many knoweledgable explanations
on various facets of science ,but in general, you concentrate more in
attacking others opinions with out supplying corrections
I say this only where your posts are clear and not smattered with relatively
unused words where a shorter one would suffice How ever those are in the
minority.
If I do not concurr with any explanation offerred .in no way does this
suggest that I am spitting on the individual and thus treating him with
disrespect. In your case you treat me in disrespect which as far as I am
concerned requires reciprical treatment. You ask for it and you will get it
from me without retreat On the other hand respect demands respect, your
choice as I am now americanised for retaliation without regard to common
courtesy as per the Britts
Art



"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:53:44 GMT, "
wrote:

No one has come up with a explanation

Hi Art,

As usual, I see you simply enjoy posting without corresponding.
C'mon, it is more than obvious you have no interest in any explanation
other than your own.

Roy and a couple of others qualify and have yet to respond
You've spit on them so much that is hardly surprising - is it?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Using a antenna computor program the main lobe at 10 degrees does
not
deviate from a circle even if the F/R is more than 30 db ( note F/R
vs F/B)
and this is comprised of vector addition mode as with a yagi design.

=================================

Using a computer program automatically incorporates all the defects in
the programmer's reasoning and understanding of the problems
involved - plus other bugs.

Never use a computer program as the Bible.

Tom, now you are being silly.
You obviously do not know all about antennas other wise
you would be anxious to display your knoweledge as to why this is
impossible.
But then you can't and thus want to assault the messenger.
I could present the facts to an individual for confirmation but this would
only mean
a deflection of comments from me to the adjudicator from people with the pre
disposition of yourself

Art

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:

You are not alone as I thought it meant quieter contacts but it is said
(ARRL publication) that it then becomes more difficult to aim, ala the
rombic.
That's why I see my antenna's flattening of the main lobe without loss in
beam
width an advantage.

Oh boy, is this going to be fun!

Next he'll be selling a box that does perpetual motion.

tom
K0TAR

I could not agree more This is why I requested comment on my computor
findings.
It is easy to generate a program to agree with what is known to all.
It is another thing to pre forecast results from an untried array.
It appears from comments given that the computor programs are not to be
fully
accepted, especially if a lobe pattern produced is circular in nature and of
various thickness
Tho I must admit I am unaware of what text books they are being guided from.
,
Regards
Art



"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
Using a antenna computor program the main lobe at 10 degrees does
not
deviate from a circle even if the F/R is more than 30 db ( note F/R
vs F/B)
and this is comprised of vector addition mode as with a yagi design.

=================================

Using a computer program automatically incorporates all the defects in
the programmer's reasoning and understanding of the problems
involved - plus other bugs.

Never use a computer program as the Bible.

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:

Tom, now you are being silly.
You obviously do not know all about antennas other wise
you would be anxious to display your knoweledge as to why this is
impossible.
But then you can't and thus want to assault the messenger.
I could present the facts to an individual for confirmation but this
would only mean
a deflection of comments from me to the adjudicator from people with the
pre disposition of yourself

Art

Nope, I don't know everything, but I do know the amount of energy radiated
can't be more than what the transmitter outputs, so the sum of energy
around the sphere has to equal that.

Goodness me, do you really think that is in quesdtion in this debate ?

If you think you can make
the main lobe broader, then you are implying that you can radiate more
powwr than than was originally there.

You really are jumping the Grand Canyon in TWO strides !.
I have no idea what you are saying or alluding to.
To make something broarder is describing one dimension only.. less if used
in ratio terms
To describe energy one must have more than one dimension or unit.
Surely one must know this to graduate from High school in the U.S. or am I
mistaken.?
If so it then accounts for some of the wierd responses that have come my
way.
Art








tom
K0TAR

snip
" wrote in message
news:h7L1e.388$Vx1.382@attbi_s01...

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:

snip

Art

Your statement
Nope, I don't know everything, but I do know the amount of energy
radiated can't be more than what the transmitter outputs, so the sum of
energy around the sphere has to equal that.

My response
Goodness me, do you really think that is in quesdtion in this debate ?

Your statement
If you think you can make
the main lobe broader, then you are implying that you can radiate more
powwr than than was originally there.

My response

You really are jumping the Grand Canyon in TWO strides !.
I have no idea what you are saying or alluding to.
To make something broarder is describing one dimension only.. less if used
in ratio terms
To describe energy one must have more than one dimension or unit.
Surely one must know this to graduate from High school in the U.S. or am I
mistaken.?
If so it then accounts for some of the wierd responses that have come my
way.
Art


QED
Art









tom
K0TAR

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:40:38 GMT, "
wrote:
If I cannot accept an answer that I figure to be unreasonable then I
do not accept them.

Hi Art,

This is your standard line of bull****. Don't blame Shakespeare for
this standard offering of anglo-saxon clarity.

The simple answer to your question was already revealed in your
question which offered in part:
is formed using Yagi principles.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Exactly.

I know this may come as a shock to you, but the obvious problem is
that you have absolutely no understanding of just what
Yagi principles.
means and you refuse to go there. If you want to make this a 12 step
Shakespearian comedy, keep ignoring the elephant in your living room.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC