On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:14:48 -0400, Walter Maxwell
wrote:
We're not talking about nulls in bridges, we're talking about energy
controlled in desired directions, reduced in some directions, with the
energy lost in one direction adding to that in another; but you know
this.
Hi Walt,
What is being discussed is energy. Energy is wholly transparent to
application. The laws for its conservation don't care if you are
shooting marbles or colliding stars. Physics eventually devolves to
very few units of measure and the books balance on both sides of the
event.
in that direction and an increased
amount of energy in the opposite, or forward direction, achieving gain
in that direction?
Linear systems do not exhibit "gain." The combination of forces are
due to the total field in comparison to the region of interest.
Well, Richard, there is no non-linearity in the formation of antenna
radiation patterns. Are you saying there is no 'gain' when energy is
taken from one direction and pushed into another? With respect to
radiation patterns, 'gain' is relative, and not consideredas an
increase in power. But you know that too.
And we both know no energy is created or lost without an atom being
ripped apart. The appeal to antenna "gain" is simply the choice of
where your attention is focused. Energy is neither lost nor created,
nor increased, nor decreased, the concomitant power that results of a
load being exposed to several sources of energy has a resultant. That
resultant expressed in the gain charts presumes there is a continuum
of loads throughout the circle/sphere of the lobes being described.
It is by similar simplifications that we have contributors here who
offer that the radials of elevated ground planes do not radiate
energy. Their contribution to producing a power at a remote load may
cancel such that no power is evident, but this does not negate the
radiation nor the energy present.
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
My comments are totally unrelated to elevated ground planes. I'm only
trying to prove to Jim that wave interference DOES cause energy to
shift direction without any aid of a physical entity. The only cause
of the change in direction of energy radiated from an array of dipoles
is wave interference, the interference between the waves emanting from
the different dipoles.
Elevated ground planes, if they do not fit into the discussion, reveal
that discussion cannot support their characteristics. This is
expressly a failure of that discussion.
Elevated ground planes radiate from the entire structure. What they
radiate is energy. The net sum of those energies, at a distance,
combined into a load, reveal that the contribution of the radials
nullifies in horizontal polarity, and because the relative height
(thickness) of the radials is so small in proportion to the main
vertical element, make very little contribution to the vertical
polarity. Yet and all, every radial element is blasting away in
proportion to its current and radiation resistance. The radials are
pouring energy into the Ęther with every effort as the main vertical
element. Reduce this to the barest minimum of two radials and the
results are identical, however, lop off to one radial element, and the
energy balance upsets the apple cart and a horizontal component,
formerly offset by equal opposing energies, appears. That last radial
element had always been radiating energy, it is still radiating
energy.
Optics has been maligned through very poor examples here, but if two
beams of light intersect we have wave interference ONLY if a load is
present at that intersection. A load is a necessarily physical
correlative. Otherwise, these energies have absolutely no
interaction, barring a non-linear medium.
It then follows that waves do not mix freely in and of themselves and
hence they are not causative agents. This has been illustrated by The
Extreme Failure of Poor Concepts in Discussing Thin Layer Reflections.
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
|