Then the simulation must surely be wrong.!
I spent a long time reading a 160/80 m antenna book by ON4 ?? before
realising that the performance of various antenna configurations confidently
reported as if they actually existed, were in fact only the result of
computer simulations.
We must beware of believing implicitly the result of a computer-simulated
result which flies in the face of all reason.
That you can get vertically radiated horizontally polarised radiation for
_nothing_ using the simulation program has to tell you something about its
limitations .
Both the book and the programs are very good indicators but not _absolute
truths_
Bryan G3GVB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dick Rollema" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: 03 January 2004 11:30
Subject: RE: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial
Bu the point raised by Bob, ZL2CA, was that the current in the single wire
topload of the "L" would generate a horizontally polarised field. In the
"T" the currents in the two topload wires flow in opposite directions so
the horizontally polarised fields caused by these currents would at least
partially cancel each other.
The horizontally polarised field is radiated as a sky wave and the power
in
it detracts from that in the vertically polarised field of the ground
wave.
If the above reasoning were correct it could be expected that the "T"
would
produce a stronger ground wave than the "L" because less power disappears
in the horizontally polarised sky wave.
****The simulation has shown that this is not the case.****
| 