m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

I don't know if gain is the right word. Is 'least loss' more appropriate?


Gain would be appropriate when comparing one antenna to another, or to an
isotropic source.

There may be something that resembles an isotropic source, but these guys claim
an appropriate antenna is just hypothetical.

http://radioworks.com/nhpant.html

The idea of 'gain' is still troubling, though. I can see a tuned circuit
building up energy if there were no resistance in the circuit. With the
minuscule voltages available in many shortwave radio signals, there isn't much
to spare. Getting the antenna to lose as little as possible is an easier concept.

For you perhaps... You simply need to get a good antenna book.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"m II" wrote in message
news:wwake.10087$wr.2387@clgrps12...
dxAce wrote:

I don't know if gain is the right word. Is 'least loss' more
appropriate?


Gain would be appropriate when comparing one antenna to another, or to
an
isotropic source.


There may be something that resembles an isotropic source, but these guys
claim
an appropriate antenna is just hypothetical.

http://radioworks.com/nhpant.html


The idea of 'gain' is still troubling, though. I can see a tuned circuit
building up energy if there were no resistance in the circuit. With the
minuscule voltages available in many shortwave radio signals, there isn't
much
to spare. Getting the antenna to lose as little as possible is an easier
concept.

I'll have to do some research on this.




mike

Good thing you particpate in a radio group. LOL

Doesn't know what antennae gain is ROFLMGDAO g

AJ