RE: NEC-LIST: Q of multiply-resonant antenna structures.

Doug

Maybe that means the 2.pi.(...)/(energy lost per cycle) is really a better
definition even though it is not so slick.

Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: D. B. Miron [mailto:dbmiron_at_paulbunyan.net]
Sent: 06 January 2003 15:08
To: NEC-LIST
Subject: Re: NEC-LIST: Q of multiply-resonant antenna structures.

Jefferies and Boswell are right. Energy lost per radian should be a smaller
number than energy lost per cycle, so the 2*pi factor isn't necessary.
However, the thing that bothers me about energy lost per radian is, which
radian? The expression implies integrating power over a radian argument
change, whereas the energy lost per cycle implies integrating power over a
complete cycle. Perhaps if the phrase is "average energy lost per radian" I
would feel better about it.

Doug Miron

***************************************************************************

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.

***************************************************************************

-- 
The NEC-List mailing list <nec-list_at_gweep.ca>
http://www.gweep.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/nec-list