Richard Clark wrote:

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 typical radiation pattern which would ordinarily illuminate an
antenna does not have an array of 'holes' in it - symmetrical or
otherwise. Further, you can't expect to compare the performance of two
different antennas when the field you're exposing them to is malformed
and non-uniform. The result would be convoluted (as you have shown).

This leaky bucket is not fixed by
placing it outside of the "null" (ironically it was very near in a
peak);

It is fixed by creating a uniform field. As I said before, integrating
the results from a large number of individual point sources (rather than
superposing the fields from a large array of point sources) would not
produce an interference pattern.

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.

This is apparently incorrect, as both antennas should produce the same
result.

One wouldn't have to do as much handwaving and fast talking if the field
was uniform, Richard.

73, ac6xg