Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
SUPER J-POLE BEATS YAGI BY 1 dB | Antenna | |||
GP -> yagi driven element? | Antenna | |||
Yagi, OWA and Wideband Yagi etc etc | Antenna | |||
>>>>> DIRECTIONAL YAGI FOR 92.9 MHz (180 degrees)<<<<<<<<< | Antenna | |||
Quad vs Yagi (or log) | Antenna |