Re: Length & number of radials
- From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" <nq5h@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:38:51 -0500
I'm often confronted with problems as a physicist where one can only get a
handle on upper and lower bounds.
Lower bound:
I'd say the minimum number and length of radials is 3 (must define a plane)
and 1/4 wavelength (satisfies boundary conditions).
Upper (infinite *** of copper)
As Walt and Reg have debated, the "Cleese extreme" (to steal from Reg's
post) is trying to duplicate the "infinite perfectly conducting plane" of
our elementary physics books.
Cheers and beers
H.
73, NQ5H
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Length & number of radials
- From: Wayne
- Re: Length & number of radials
- From: Reg Edwards
- Re: Length & number of radials
- References:
- Length & number of radials
- From: Reg Edwards
- Re: Length & number of radials
- From: n3ox.dan@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Length & number of radials
- From: Reg Edwards
- Re: Length & number of radials
- From: hasan schiers
- Re: Length & number of radials
- From: Reg Edwards
- Re: Length & number of radials
- From: hasan schiers
- Re: Length & number of radials
- From: Reg Edwards
- Re: Length & number of radials
- From: hasan schiers
- Re: Length & number of radials
- From: Walter Maxwell
- Re: Length & number of radials
- From: Richard Fry
- Re: Length & number of radials
- From: Reg Edwards
- Length & number of radials
- Prev by Date: Re: Length & number of radials
- Next by Date: Re: AM car radio reception
- Previous by thread: Re: Length & number of radials
- Next by thread: Re: Length & number of radials
- Index(es):
Loading