On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:27:13 -0400, "Jimmie D"
wrote:


"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
Antennas seemed to have evolved into structures that
are parallel or at right angles to the earths surface
Why is this or is it asthetics that is driving this thinking?
My research on the subject evolves around the vector formation
of radiation and where the addition of the vectors involved
which creats radiation is at an angle to the radiator..
This suggests that for best radiative advantage it is
this vector that should be parallel to the earths surface
and not the physical radiator. This appears to be born out
by following my Gaussian approach to radiator design.
So the question of habitual arrangement of antenna arrays
parallel or at right angles to the earths surface as
being the best arrangement needs some sort of validation.
Any thoughts as to why it should be so and the scientific
facts that support it?
Art


What angle did you derive was the best angle to mount an anenna? Please show
experimental data to backup your conclusions.

Jimmie


Oh, and don't forget to correlate that angle to include the effects of
local objects, terrain, and other variables so that everyone can
construct THIER antennas to match the ascetic ideal of similarly
aligned angles of radiation

--

Raymond Sirois - KU2S
http://www.hamxam.org
10-10 #70270