Richard,

It's not clear what aspect of your sources is "Rnd", but the fact that
they are monochromatic is still problematic.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Very nice work. Dissapointingly ambiguous results.

Thank you.

ac6xg

Richard Clark wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:13:53 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

use an array of non-coherent sources



EZNEC+ ver. 4.0

Dipole in Ring of Rnd Sources 11/3/2005 5:39:03 PM

--------------- LOAD DATA ---------------

Frequency = 70 MHz

Load 1 Voltage = 0.002611 V. at -33.23 deg.
Current = 3.627E-05 A. at -33.23 deg.
Impedance = 72 + J 0 ohms
Power = 9.47E-08 watts

Total applied power = 1364 watts

Total load power = 9.47E-08 watts
Total load loss = 0.0 dB

then moved quarterwave:

EZNEC+ ver. 4.0

Dipole in Ring of Rnd Sources 11/3/2005 5:41:17 PM

--------------- LOAD DATA ---------------

Frequency = 70 MHz

Load 1 Voltage = 0.00676 V. at -110.1 deg.
Current = 9.389E-05 A. at -110.1 deg.
Impedance = 72 + J 0 ohms
Power = 6.348E-07 watts

Total applied power = 1364 watts

Total load power = 6.348E-07 watts
Total load loss = 0.0 dB

then moved backwards a quarterwave

EZNEC+ ver. 4.0

Dipole in Ring of Rnd Sources 11/3/2005 5:44:52 PM

--------------- LOAD DATA ---------------

Frequency = 70 MHz

Load 1 Voltage = 0.004604 V. at 29.97 deg.
Current = 6.395E-05 A. at 29.97 deg.
Impedance = 72 + J 0 ohms
Power = 2.944E-07 watts

Total applied power = 1364 watts

Total load power = 2.944E-07 watts
Total load loss = 0.0 dB

EZNEC+ ver. 4.0

Yagi in Ring of Rnd Sources 11/3/2005 5:48:14 PM

--------------- LOAD DATA ---------------

Frequency = 70 MHz

Load 1 Voltage = 0.07004 V. at 66.62 deg.
Current = 0.005837 A. at 66.62 deg.
Impedance = 12 + J 0 ohms
Power = 0.0004088 watts

Total applied power = 1364 watts

Total load power = 0.0004088 watts
Total load loss = 0.0 dB

moved back halfwave:

EZNEC+ ver. 4.0

Yagi in Ring of Rnd Sources 11/3/2005 5:51:43 PM

--------------- LOAD DATA ---------------

Frequency = 70 MHz

Load 1 Voltage = 0.09133 V. at -53.63 deg.
Current = 0.007611 A. at -53.63 deg.
Impedance = 12 + J 0 ohms
Power = 0.0006952 watts

Total applied power = 1364 watts

Total load power = 0.0006952 watts
Total load loss = 0.0 dB


(and really see what's going on)



Hmmm, at least 1000 times more response... so what's going on? (aside
from a possibly poor implementation of random). Trying to refine the
sources table with tighter random assignments is positively brutal
under EZNEC's primitive (read no) handling of columnar data.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:32:07 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

It's not clear what aspect of your sources is "Rnd", but the fact that
they are monochromatic is still problematic.

Hi Jim,

You lost me on that curve. Monochromatic. The sources exhibit an
even distribution of varying phase in a random order. That was
tedious to accomplish, but achievable - in a group of 360 possible
degrees of phase, you eventually cover the field. On the other hand,
if you are suggesting that there needs to be an equally random
distribution of frequencies then that has its obvious issues of
practicability. What is the lowest frequency and what is the highest
frequency? That question has all the hallmarks of which infinity is
the biggest?

Anyway, I would surmise that if I could achieve both random phase and
frequency distribution, then the difference between a simple dipole's
response and that of a yagi antenna would be trivial. This would be a
given seeing that the parasitic elements would be virtually invisible,
rendering the "driven" element un-differentiable from the simple
dipole.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:


Anyway, I would surmise that if I could achieve both random phase and
frequency distribution, then the difference between a simple dipole's
response and that of a yagi antenna would be trivial.

Trivial would be a nice change.

This would be a
given seeing that the parasitic elements would be virtually invisible,
rendering the "driven" element un-differentiable from the simple
dipole.

i.e. what Roy said. But I think there's still more to it. I tried to
give the other Richard a hint about it but it didn't resonate.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
i.e. what Roy said. But I think there's still more to it. I tried to
give the other Richard a hint about it but it didn't resonate.

Then obviously your XC didn't equal your XL.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

i.e. what Roy said. But I think there's still more to it. I tried to
give the other Richard a hint about it but it didn't resonate.


Then obviously your XC didn't equal your XL.

Probably just a difference in wavelength.

ac6xg

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:42:43 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:
This would be a
given seeing that the parasitic elements would be virtually invisible,
rendering the "driven" element un-differentiable from the simple
dipole.

i.e. what Roy said.

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:11:09 -0800, Roy Lewallen among many things wrote:

I have to admit, I was looking at this a[s] more of a problem of equal
signals arriving from all directions

Hi Jim,

I also approached the problem the same way, this is in glaring
contrast to what I've written in the past two posts which are vastly
divergent from this sense of "equal signals."

As I originally presented data from the model of "equal signals
arriving from all directions" it presented that a dipole's response
was separable from that of a yagi, and showed more response which
contradicts some correspondents, and aligns with others.

Such an outcome stands to reason, the yagi cannot see all sources, the
dipole can. If I illuminated the yagi from each source in turn (all
others off) and correlated the response to the source's angle, the
composite would simply reveal the characteristic yagi response lobe
and the sum of those powers MUST fall below the total power available
to the dipole.

The one over-riding difference between all these scenarios and the
expectations of the yagi is that the yagi is not illuminated with a
plane field, but with a radial field. The composite front of many
sources presents a complex antenna (the yagi) with the appearance of a
wave of extremely high curvature impinging upon it. The mechanics of
gain/directivity are not going to function in the same manner to that
yagi for both fashions of applying the power. Hence the yagi fails to
exhibit a higher response than the simple dipole.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:42:43 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

This would be a
given seeing that the parasitic elements would be virtually invisible,
rendering the "driven" element un-differentiable from the simple
dipole.

i.e. what Roy said.


On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:11:09 -0800, Roy Lewallen among many things wrote:


I have to admit, I was looking at this a[s] more of a problem of equal
signals arriving from all directions


Hi Jim,

I also approached the problem the same way, this is in glaring
contrast to what I've written in the past two posts which are vastly
divergent from this sense of "equal signals."

As I originally presented data from the model of "equal signals
arriving from all directions" it presented that a dipole's response
was separable from that of a yagi, and showed more response which
contradicts some correspondents, and aligns with others.

Such an outcome stands to reason, the yagi cannot see all sources, the
dipole can. If I illuminated the yagi from each source in turn (all
others off) and correlated the response to the source's angle, the
composite would simply reveal the characteristic yagi response lobe
and the sum of those powers MUST fall below the total power available
to the dipole.

The one over-riding difference between all these scenarios and the
expectations of the yagi is that the yagi is not illuminated with a
plane field, but with a radial field. The composite front of many
sources presents a complex antenna (the yagi) with the appearance of a
wave of extremely high curvature impinging upon it. The mechanics of
gain/directivity are not going to function in the same manner to that
yagi for both fashions of applying the power. Hence the yagi fails to
exhibit a higher response than the simple dipole.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Let me thank you again for the work you've put in on this. The thing
is, the idea of squeezing a dipole field pattern into the shape of a
Yagi pattern for example, pretty much dictates that with the proper
field geometry, we should be able to realize equal amounts of energy in
both antennas. I think that's the correct answer. I'm just trying to
see a way to get to it. Another approach might be to integrate the
results from a large number of point sources.

73, AC6XG

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:39:18 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Another approach might be to integrate the
results from a large number of point sources.

Hi Jim,

I just did that - literally.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
. . .
Such an outcome stands to reason, the yagi cannot see all sources, the
dipole can. If I illuminated the yagi from each source in turn (all
others off) and correlated the response to the source's angle, the
composite would simply reveal the characteristic yagi response lobe
and the sum of those powers MUST fall below the total power available
to the dipole.


Yet if you provide the same power to the dipole and the Yagi and
integrate the total field from each, the total field powers from both
are the same.

So is reciprocity invalid?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:45:39 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
. . .
Such an outcome stands to reason, the yagi cannot see all sources, the
dipole can. If I illuminated the yagi from each source in turn (all
others off) and correlated the response to the source's angle, the
composite would simply reveal the characteristic yagi response lobe
and the sum of those powers MUST fall below the total power available
to the dipole.


Yet if you provide the same power to the dipole and the Yagi and
integrate the total field from each, the total field powers from both
are the same.

So is reciprocity invalid?

Hi Roy,

No, the presumption:
that this specific problem supports that reciprocity
is invalid.

Feel free to exhibit that the sum of powers, from identical remote
sources, located in a locus of points equidistant from a given point,
applied to
1. a dipole;
2. a yagi
demonstrate identically recovered power.

This is not the same as applying the same power to both and
integrating at a locus of points equidistant from a given point.

I could, of course, be wrong. I will investigate further if you have
any constructive suggestions such as Jim offered. I think it would be
instructive to be able to confirm it through available tools.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC