Circular polarization... does it have to be synchronous??
On Dec 6, 12:46*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
You can have diversity with respect to all polarizations except
circular where you only have the choice of one.
why can't you do lhcp and rhcp diversity?
If you believe that antenna programs
are utter idiocy then that will be inline with your general attitude.
I am sure that some have taken up my suggestion to check for
themselves instead of resorting to knee jerk reactions with out foundation.
on the contrary, i believe antenna programs and understand how they work, at
one time i wrote one of my own that did well on designing phased vertical
arrays... and not a single reference to the weak force in it at all! *nor
will you find any of the existing antenna modeling programs that use the
weak force. *which kind of contradicts your whole rant, you say you believe
in the modeling programs and that they give results that agree with your
corrupted weak force model, and yet they don't use the weak force at all....
never have, and never will. *nor can you state where the weak force is
included in Maxwell's equations, which of course all the modeling programs
are based on. *so that just leaves you hanging by your magical equilibrium
levitating diamagnetic neutrinos... which you still haven't explained how
they work with my ferromagnetic radiators.
I explained ferro magnetism and antennas a long time ago where the
weak force becomes swamped
You should be able to come to your own conclusions when evatuating
the effect on the Tank Circuit
With respect to the weak force action it was that addition to Maxwells
laws that provided equilibrium.
Kraus gave an example of it when he empirically created pitch angle
with respect to other parameters
without a full understanding of what created it. In this Universe
there is no such thing as a straight line tho a helicoptor can
simulate it with two rotors at right angles to create equilibrium the
same as a gyroscope or a Sedgeman.
The Universe is contained within an arbitrary border in equilibrium,
you can't get away from that.
The pitch angle that Kraus uses is a creation of the weak force which
thus forbids parallelism
in antenna arrays. If your antenna that you are bragging about
contains parallelism between elements and or the ground surface
then you are NOT obtaining maximum radiation but in fact you are
increasing your losses. You really have a long way to go with respect
to antennas
and the answers you search for are not to be found in Snakesphere that
is muddied to prevent understanding.
As far as antenna programs not using the weak force, that is stupid as
it is what is termed as the "displacement" current a guess arrived at
based on the units required
But rarely do hams use computer programs as initially designed around
Maxwell but instead use a modification of such in following Yagi and
Uda
planar design which is an aproximation. All you have to do is to
provide a one liner to a optimiser to realise you are stating a load
of crap and have reached a point where you cannot handle the truth as
it reveals exactly who and what you are. Some day a knoweledgable
person will arrive on this group and ram a computer sample down your
throat and expose you and the others as just talking heads. Most of
you are like a high school student who wondered into a post graduate
lecture room where all appeared as a torrent of babble until the time
you grew up, if you ever did.
Have a great week end
Art
|