> CH: Then why do all the measured plots from the massive
Litva and Rook 1976
> report and all the Rome AFB data from the 70's all show
patterns that match
> what I said? Do you have references to measured, published
data that we can
> look at? Sure, we "know more", but can you be more
specific?
I'm not disageeing with you.
What I am saying is it doesn't matter how the wave angle
tilts when the antenna has a big wide response null in the
direction of arrival and everything close to that direction.
IMO the "tilt from the sky" argument used by many to justify
placing a useless-at-best harmful-at-worse wire below the
antenna is a moot point when conductive ground below the
antenna would cause a reduction of FS at any elevation angle
in line with the azimuth of the wire.
An "X" shape is not a good Beverage pattern, and the pattern
is what is important.
> That's certainly a basic tenet in any text on travelling
wave antennas that
> I have ever seen, and have never seen anything saying that
it responds only
> due to lossy ground.
I agree with you.
I'm disagreeing with the Handbook that promotes a few things
that make no sense at all.
I wonder if the author even tested the "improvement" being
discussed.
73 Tom
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|