Timeline for Interpretation of NASA design
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2, 2016 at 15:35 | comment | added | Phil Frost - W8II | I think the section you quote only applies to one of the later designs at the end. In that design, they are feeding the two monopoles in a balanced configuration, like they are two halves of a dipole. | |
| Dec 2, 2016 at 15:11 | history | edited | Kevin Reid AG6YO♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 94 characters in body
|
| Dec 2, 2016 at 15:11 | comment | added | Kevin Reid AG6YO♦ | @AndrejaKo Ah, I had not thought of that interpretation. That makes some sense and doesn't affect the rest. | |
| Dec 2, 2016 at 11:40 | comment | added | AndrejaKo | I'm not so sure about the typographic error assumption. There are no Omegas in the document and all impedance are referred to by measurement unit of ohm. This could very well be just normal complex impedance, written in polar format. | |
| Dec 2, 2016 at 6:27 | comment | added | Kevin Reid AG6YO♦ | I can only think that they are intending to convey the idea of the monopoles not having co-located feed points as a dipole does. But that is more reason to doubt my description, because what I described doesn't have any impedance dependent on being-a-pair. | |
| Dec 2, 2016 at 6:03 | comment | added | Kontakt | "near quarterwave monopole, fed as one half of an opposed pair of antennas" Is a direct description of a dipole, unless I'm misunderstanding? | |
| Dec 2, 2016 at 5:28 | history | answered | Kevin Reid AG6YO♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |