Search results

Hello Homer, Oke tnx for answer. Understood and in consideration :-) Kind regards, H.

I believe it is a correct assumption that Henry has rested his case for the antenna on a conclusion the matter is settled without proper testing in the far field distant horizon If I may ask...based on ? Or could it be that I actually have tested several on 2 meters for example ? A band with...

Oke.... The 30 Km thing: Well, antenna radiation always becomes weaker as soon as we have more distance. (not talking about skip conditions of course) That can be found from the "friss formula". (google.....friss transmission equation or so) What it comes down to... A signal will get weaker...

@ Homer: If I offende you in anyway...i am sorry...it was never intended that way for you. Thank you for the questions... 1.) "is this a 1/2 wave, or is it a 3/4 wave? Hmm...always difficult to give a yes or no answer... well its a 3/4 wave. 2.) If it is a 1/2 wave why does no other 1/2 wave...

Ah Donald...ah you have a point ! you are right..(how does that feel ;-)) The Name Dominator is indeed there... I did indeed mention it. That was uploaded during this thread (REMEMBER?) To show surface currents. NOW MY CLAIM WAS: I didnt mention it in my article. Please link to it again... as...

Yes Jeff, I am asking the same as Donald... Please do... As it could help explain: 1- Yes his quote of mine ...is one I wrote... But you have to see it in the correct context. It was because i did not want to put him in a bad spotlight, this has never been my intention. He has done that all...

Having had another look at the entire thread. Im not happy it has turned into this direction. My only goal was to provide an insight to the claims made. I think I have done that. Although i asked to provide some facts instead of personal attacks I realise there wont be any. I also realise some...

Oke... If you would allow me.... Thats it for today...23.45 wife calls...off to bed. And was allready doing other things...(sorry have more mail) If there are tomorrow again 2 or 3 pages.. with all due respect it does cost some time, any urgent questions pse via pm. I will start with Homber...

I just don't understand the Eznec Pro/4 models results, because my version of Eznec shows 2.49 dbi @ 3* degrees above the horizon, and that is not close to what Henry reports, so logically I question my model, because it is the odd one out. Ah marconi... I think you missed my conclusion...in...

Marconi, Please understand I have said many times before that I never removed any data from the CST image. It was provided to me exactly as you see and the gain has been quoted as 2dbd from the same source. The ONLY thing I did was add the company watermark to prevent misuse. No, you havnt...

Homber said: If the report is not using the NV4k for the models presented, then it may be rightly said that the article is a collection of theories and does not reference the subject of discussion. No homer it actually is. And while one might consider it a collection of theories... It is...

@ all... As I previous mentioned: A general answer concering the ghz 24 model. The model is there for "modelling" purposes. It was only attached so people can work "around" it to get a good model. Its meant to be a working model. DB allready has discovered the value of it that is why it was...

Owh guys... A lot of things going...on :-) Ehm...hold on its allready 22.32 just returned from diner had a lovely day. Let me see if i can adress to one or two before were of to bed. Shockwave: You think you answered my questions but you didn't even describe your test equipment after...

In case you fail to notice, I asked something to work with.... not your defensive position...i know your oke with words....facts. Kind regards, H.

Donald, Again…as I have often mentioned I really would like this to be true. But I need something to work with instead of dealing with “issues” As im forced each time to “deal” with your antenna theory You said that only downward tilt was possible with more than one active element You said...

@ Homer, Thank you for your respons. The aim of the article was indeed to provide insight in the antenna but for most the claims made and to tell what is and is not true. Perhaps it is not for all to understand, but it is true. It is antenna theory backed up by CST and Feko etc., and the...

..almost in bed...then i was thinking you guys wanted me to be clear.. And im not sure if i should mention it or not.. But say we have someone without modelling knowledge Who claims each time eznec isnt capable and i only have seen one or two models that are correct. If i posted just that plot...

Just to "tell"...a question through the mail... Now, if one models in eznec a coaxial Jpole... The calculation is correct. To the eye of the not knowing viewer.... One would say...but hey i see current from the bottom radiator and they are in phase ! NO...the bottom single line is...

@ Donald.. What i meant to say... Most field strength measuring devices measure the electric field. Would it be possible that the correct formulas to translate them into antenna gain havnt been applied ? As that is something i have seen happen... Kind regards, H> edit: Marconi...if your...

CMC or a 1/4 wave in extra height have already been shown in the field to not have the effects you claim Or you sure about my claim ? My claim is those can actually be responsible for causing more difference in signal strength. And i said...that the S4 seems to be doing oke in handling them...