[Antennas] Re: Hairpin monopoles

[Chris BONDE]

At 08:02 AM 2003-05-07 -0500, Roy Koeppe wrote:
>Oh, oh, regarding,
>
>"It's not a matter of what I think - it's a simple fact. The resistive
>component of the antenna's input impedance (the radiation resistance) is
>generally higher than a conventional, non-folded radiator."
>
>. Actually, most folded monopoles have a slightly LOWER
>radiation resistance than their single conductor counterparts. This
>obeys the law about "the thinner the conductor, the higher the radiation
>resistance, for the same self-resonant element." Fat elements are
>physically shorter than thinner ones for the same resonant frequency,
>hence have a lower radiation resistance.
>
>73,     Roy      K6XK/0

This seems to me to be a little out.  To me the size of the conductor is 
not what changes the impedance, it is the number thereof, ie the 
transformer effect.  The radiation resistance is just a method of 
explaination.  Has anyone really measured radiation resistance?  From what 
I understand it is used to explain what happens or whatever the missing 
part is in the equation.

Now I have not studied antennas systems that much lately, but when I was, 
radiation resistance seemed to offer the most resistance in understanding ( 
after Poynting vector)

Chris opr VE7HCB