On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:08:26 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

How about polarization?

Hi Roy,

How about it?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:16:08 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

I think what you're seeing is the 3-D interference pattern generated by
your sources.

Hi Jim,

3D in two-space? No.

I'm not sure that really tells us very much about the antennas themselves.
You'd need to surround each of the antennas with a
uniform field in order to compare them. By uniform, I mean the field
intensity toward the antenna is the same in any direction.

The problem has symmetry on its side, additional source add to the
dipole in equal measure to the yagi. Adding more power does not
create the missing power already lost.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:16:08 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:


I think what you're seeing is the 3-D interference pattern generated by
your sources.


Hi Jim,

3D in two-space? No.

It was you who claimed to have modeled the antenna in three-space, was
it not? Either way, in three-space or two, you have an interference
pattern. That is the point.

I'm not sure that really tells us very much about the antennas themselves.
You'd need to surround each of the antennas with a
uniform field in order to compare them. By uniform, I mean the field
intensity toward the antenna is the same in any direction.


The problem has symmetry on its side, additional source add to the
dipole in equal measure to the yagi. Adding more power does not
create the missing power already lost.

It would be silly to expect it to. How much power should you expect to
measure with your instruments positioned in an interference null? This
is the nature of your "leaky bucket".

73, ac6xg