[BC] Skirt feeds.....

[Phil Alexander]

Having read the book, the problem I have with it is 
his instance that these antennas require a special 
math and insistence that they are not subject to 
accurate analysis using the NEC. 

It appears to me that the reason for this insistence is 
the NEC results do not coincide with his pre-conceptions.

Before the development of the NEC unique purposed math
theories were the best we could do. Since its development
the NEC has been proven in some of the most complex radiation applications, especially military designs such as stealth
aircraft and ships to space vehicles. The NEC has been
improved through four major major revisions over 40 years 
since its inception. 

IMHO saying there is something unique in the operation of 
skirted unipoles that prevents their correct analysis with
the NEC and requires using a unique math theory is laughable. 
In my own experience modeling skirt/shunt excited unipoles
works well provided the rules I have outlined earlier in this
thread are observed. However, the NEC model does not seem to
support some of the alternative configuration and design ideas 
that have been described as successful in some cases although
empirical proof of claims of success is generally lacking.

Phil Alexander, CSRE, AMD

-----Original Message-----
>From: Poetter Bruehl <pbruehl at gmail.com>
>
>In one text what you describe is called an inverted unipole.
>
>Folded unipole antennas: theory and applications
>
> By Jeremy K. Raines
> 
>This book has a lot of useful information.