"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
wrote:
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...

wrote:

. . .
Now Roy I have a problem with what you are saying here
I spend hours modelling an array to lower the TOA or angle of max
radiation
which directly controls the main lobe dimension both in width and
height.

And, as I've said quite a few times in one way or another, it's largely a
waste of time.


Why? A single word question
On what authority do you base that statement on?

Because "takeoff angle" as you use the term does not bear a direct
relationship to the ability to communicate.

O.K. Roy if you are going to let this discussion revolve solely around the
term
of TOA which is a datum line around which the main lobe evolves,, A term you
have voiced
opposition to over the years and which you personally use in your own
antenna program design
then you will be succesfull in any debate regarding antennas. I have stated
many times that the
elevation angle denotes the line of maximum gain and the lobe that surrounds
this angle denotes
the area of communication ability represented by the oft used term of the 3
dB window.
You are refusing to accept the use of this term because of personal
emotional reasons,
that you only use the term under protest because of commercial reasons and
now as a basis for rejecting.
new knoweledge supplied by computor programs.,. presumably by clinging to
"all is known" mantra
I will never persuade you to view this thread with an open mind.
You have stated that TOA as I describe the term does not bear a direct
"relationship "
to the ability to communicate which obviously must relate to a part of a
post where you
envision that you have accomplished a "gottcha".
One person stated that everybody knows that I am right which I question,
especially
since you have now come forward with contrary thoughts.
Roy, there can be no debate if one must always accept
all your statements in Pope like fashion that excludes discussion.
Best regards
Art
Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:
. . .
You are refusing to accept the use of this term because of personal
emotional reasons,
that you only use the term under protest because of commercial reasons and
now as a basis for rejecting.
new knoweledge supplied by computor programs.,. presumably by clinging to
"all is known" mantra
I will never persuade you to view this thread with an open mind.

. . .

Roy, there can be no debate if one must always accept
all your statements in Pope like fashion that excludes discussion.
Best regards

This sort of response doesn't constitute a debate, and it's nothing I
see any need or desire to respond to.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 03:11:34 GMT, "
wrote:

a basis for rejecting.
new knoweledge supplied by computor programs

Hi Art,

More baloney cut thick. You have NOWHERE offered any discussion of
ANY new knoweledge (sic); but you hug such manufactured sentiments
like an emotional life preserver.

You rctleeny challngeed Roy for his athortuy. You wloud do well to
leran spllenig bfoere ripeteang that aigan.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 03:11:34 GMT, "
wrote:


a basis for rejecting.
new knoweledge supplied by computor programs


Hi Art,

More baloney cut thick. You have NOWHERE offered any discussion of
ANY new knoweledge (sic); but you hug such manufactured sentiments
like an emotional life preserver.

You rctleeny challngeed Roy for his athortuy. You wloud do well to
leran spllenig bfoere ripeteang that aigan.

What I want to know is how we are going to alter reality when the
computer program shows it is wrong!




- Mike KB3EIA -