Re: Antenna Theory
- From: wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. B. Wood)
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:58:32 -0400
In article <uvfgg2dibleahhu8vgadqjb6qf30ssu4rf@xxxxxxx>, Richard Clark
<kb7qhc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This leaves us with one question: "What do you expect to achieve
here?"
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Hello, and if you're a good enough salesman and have at least one
university professor to explanation your "interpretation" of
electromagnetic theory, you could rename the antenna "Son of CFA" ;-) At
some point, however, a prospective customer is going to require some
verifiable test data.
All kidding aside, the challenge is the use of technique(s) that allows
for the direct or indirect measurement of radiation resistance and loss
(structure including any earth loss in the vicinity of the feedpoint)
resistance over the operating frequency range. A measurement of the real
(resistive) part of the antenna feedpoint impedance can only provide the
sum of both types of resistance. We know how much power is being
dissipated (heat + radiated) but that's all we can know from this one
measurement.
There is also the shape of the radiation pattern...but that is another
matter. Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,
John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
.
- References:
- Re: Antenna Theory
- From: n3ox.dan@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Antenna Theory
- From: Felix
- Re: Antenna Theory
- From: Richard Clark
- Re: Antenna Theory
- Prev by Date: Re: Make your own hardline?
- Next by Date: Odd Question
- Previous by thread: Re: Antenna Theory
- Next by thread: Re: Antenna Theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading