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

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

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. 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.

tom
K0TAR

"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

wrote:


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

I said "sphere".

Moron.

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