On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:08:00 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Hi Jim,

Either way, in three-space or two, you have an interference
pattern. That is the point.

The point being what? The observation of the pattern is simply that,
an observation. That a pattern exists is also hardly a revolutionary
concept. That it is the product of many sources does not preclude the
results as physics allows a wave to be viewed as a continuum of
sources along its length.

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".

When two designs inhabit the same null, as you put it (which is a
mistaken attribution because there are regions with two orders
magnitude less power resolved by the same designs), and one exhibits
more response than the other (regardless of its subsequent
repositioning and that was performed to the degree of 1/80th wave
increments); then it stands to reason one design is inferior to the
other in the capture of a continuum of radiation encompassing them.

This is all displayed in the data offered.

The yagi is that inferior design. This leaky bucket is not fixed by
placing it outside of the "null" (ironically it was very near in a
peak); hence an interference pattern is immaterial to the loss of
power as both designs suffer the same pattern - and equally I might
point out, if other arguments are consistently applied that equal
powers should be exhibited.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC