Yes, I see this as "proof" (at the very least--it causes me to suspect) that
we are missing and ignoring some variable(s) which makes this all
overly-difficult... sounds to me you are noticing we need a "unified
antenna theory."

If so, I agree... and I certainly don't offer myself as anything more than
one who notices this--no answers--just questions....

Warmest regards,
John
--
Marbles can be used in models with excellent results! However, if forced
to keep using all of mine up... I may end up at a disadvantage... I seem
to have misplaced some!!!


"Asimov" wrote in message
...
| "John Smith" bravely wrote to "All" (11 May 05 22:25:13)
| --- on the heady topic of " Reflector Vs Director"
|
| The only thing I know is that an antenna is a tricky compromise
| between a myriad of physical constants that make it up. Simply
| changing the dimensions of an element will affect the optimum spacing
| for maximum gain. But then so too having maximum gain as a goal will
| often reduce bandwidth. So some compromise to gain/bandwidth must be
| made to have a real antenna at the end of the process. Many such
| mutually defeating compromises must be juggled with to achieve this.
| Then, as if this wasn't enough, one must add the interaction with the
| environment, thinks like weather, proximity to objects, noise, etc.
|
| A*s*i*m*o*v
|
|
| JS Reply-To: "John Smith"
| JS Xref: aeinews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:30174
|
| JS Oh yes, the important spacing--we agree on that alright (the rest
| JS too--I see that physical/electrical length as important to--but
| JS "electrical length" and "magnetic field shape" are related on an
| JS almost linear scale), but what is "in" that "spacing"--now there is
| JS the nut of this... that "magnetic field" is not a "proton
projection"
| JS and my antenna does not "glow"--and that "space" ain't no wire--or is
| JS it?
|
| ... Children come from God. He can't stand the noise either.
|