What is there not to be unconvinced about? In that case, being
conductive with presumably little loss, the vertical antenna if driven
simply radiates RF ... or if not driven receives induced currents and
re-radiates them. In the second case re-radiated signal combines with
the original signal to form constructive/destructive zones spatially.
Where's the problem?
Dave AB7E
On 12/28/2011 9:08 AM, Frank wrote:
> Roger Parsons wrote:
>
>> Eddy and others
>>
>> I am a little unconvinced by some of the arguments that have been presented.
>>
>>
> I am a LOT unconvinced. I was waiting for someone to finally figure out
> that the metal pole being discussed could actually be a vertical antenna.
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|