Sometimes the english language confounds us. In your anaylsis and
defense you said "anything but straight up", "majority....straight up".
It is either one or the other, can't be both. It is not the idea,
engineering, understanding of antennas et all but the language that is
tripping you up. A nit, yes but to engineers precision can be
everything. 73 bob de w9ge
>
>
>
>>At 05:55 PM 6/16/2006, Bill Coleman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Horizontal antennas, like dipoles, make great antennas, but they are
>>>affected by proximity to the ground. They have to be at least 1/4
>>>wave above ground before the radiation pattern is anything but
>>>straight up.
>>>
>>>
>>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>>
>>So you are saying that a dipole at less than 1/4 wavelength high
>>has *only* straight up radiation?
>>
>>
>
>To make sure I have my facts straight, I've gone and modeled
>
>It's pretty evident from modelling that my statement above is true --
>you have to get a horizontal antenna higher that 1/4 wave above
>ground before the majority of your signal isn't going straight up.
>
>Did I say that there's no radiation or pattern in other directions?
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|