Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:19:28 -0500, Murray wrote:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. This is still pretty obnoxious. --------------010006030806060308030708 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Any body dealing with antennas in this group, what I read was pretty off color and off subject. Hi Murray, It is called the price of admission, and is the exercise of American rights to unrestrained speech. Want to know what a CCD antenna is really supposed to do compared to say a delta loop...Just put one up and it seems too good to be true compared to my well known hot signal 40 meter delta...what is your opinion and please reply all so I will get a person response. The CCD is one of those arm-chair designs that is a gift to mankind in the form of gain from a dipole. To being with, the theory behind it is that this antenna is frequency specific, and that it is much larger than the standard dipole it replaces. If this is news to you, then there's trouble ahead. Continuing, the theory behind it maintains that each section is tuned and presents a current maxima that aids with each of its neighbors to thus increase gain. The standard current distribution along the standard dipole is cosine shaped by and large. For the CCD it is presumably linear - until you get to the ends of course where it plummets to 0 in the last section. Myself, I respond to this description of an antenna by parts as being much like a fresnel lens in its conception. However, modeling, such as I have done, fails to substantiate the claims even if through contortions and exasperation I do manage to attains some semblance of the linear current model. Further, physical models bear out no particular boon to mankind that has been extolled. dont think Ill be reading this group everyday...who cares about the british pound? EH? This falls into the category of off topic response, something you presumably eschew and simultaneously indulge in. This, too, is a commonplace activity. I am happy to respond to all topics that interest me. There are other endlessly boring discussion of antennas - notably those that have survived hurricanes as evidenced by photo doctoring - that remain on topic, and off interest. I don't complain about it though, except to recite as a parable. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
significance of feedline orientation | Shortwave | |||
FS: Connectors, Antennas, Meters, Mounts, etc. | Antenna | |||
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? | Antenna | |||
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna | Antenna |