On Sep 6, 5:53*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Sep 6, 5:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 6, 1:16*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Sep 5, 7:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 5, 6:02*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Sep 5, 6:37*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 3:17 pm, "christofire" wrote: "Szczepan Białek" wrote in message
-- snip --
If you want to discover what radiates I suggest you read one of the
normal text books on the subject, like Kraus 'Antennas', and stop
making
up your own versions!
To discower what radiates will be better to do experiments with tipping
of
monopole antenas.
* Where do you get this stuff from? Please visit a library - you could do
yourself a lot of good.
Chris
Chris, what I believe he is referring to is that computer programs
support a tipped vertical over one at right angles to earth. Computer
programs are supposed to be based on Maxwell's formula. Is this an
error and how do we fix it. If it is not an error then it supports the
presence of the Coriolis force in collusion with gravity. and not
gravity alone.
* I don't doubt that it is possible to obtain results from a computer
program that appear to contradict conventional theory. *Interpretation of
what comes out is always the responsibility of the operator so, whilst
anyone can enter parameter values and hit 'go', not everyone will interpret
the results correctly. *In this respect it must help greatly to have a clear
understanding of the basic principles of how antennas radiate and how the
modelling programs operate; in most cases how the moment method works. *My
recommendation, as before, is to read an edition of 'Antennas' by Kraus (or
an equivalent), cover to cover, before trying to make sense of the output of
any antenna modelling program. *Of course, I realise that some who 'publish'
here feel this would be beneath them, or too hard ... but, really, it is
neither.
My own take on the effect of tilting a vertical antenna is that if its
length is an appreciable fraction of a wavelength then tilting it will
distort its radiation pattern and will upset the uniformity of its
polarisation, which will impose a further effective radiation pattern. *If
this results in a bit of gain in one particular direction with respect to a
particular polarisation then fine, and this may be of some use in amateur
radio service although it isn't how vertical monopoles are most often used
(i.e. their omni-directional pattern is their strength and there are many
other, better ways, to obtain directional patterns).
However, the theory on which all the well-known modelling programs is based
is the simple stuff described by Kraus, et al, and probably in most cases
follows from the original work that led to NEC
(http://www.nec2.org/other/nec2prt1.pdf). *It takes _no_ account of the
Coriolis force or gravity (outside of its impact on the speed of light). *If
such a program produces output that the operator interprets as depending on
the Coriolis force then, logically, this must be a mistake on the part of
the operator - wouldn't you agree? *However, if you believe the theory on
which the program is based is in error then maybe you shouldn't use it.
More to the point, it is common knoweledge that there is no full
understanding of radiation available anywhere. Thus he is asking probing
questions to fill in the
gaps.
* There is sufficient understanding of radiation and antennas out there, as
widely documented, to have enabled practical radio, radar, and suchlike for
more than a century. *I understand that part of the point of amateur radio
is to encourage experimentation, but I don't understand why experimenters
should wish to shun the accepted, conventional theory and try to come up
with their own, perhaps paraphysical, versions - especially when those
people don't exhibit much understanding of the basics. *Maybe they treat the
subject a bit like art (no pun intended) instead of the science that it
should be.
Personaly I am not willing yet to say antenna programs are at fault
until more explanations come about. Can you explain what he is
commenting upon.?
* It's possible he is being deliberately provocative.
Chris
It is conceivable that the Coriolis effect may act upon EM radiation.
But given the speed of propagation of the radiowaves the effect would
truly be miniscule. I Art thinks the rotation of the earth has any
significant effect on EM propagation he should show some reference. Im
not going to hold my breath until that happens.
Jimmie
I have always followed the particle approach over the EM route. *The
reason I have followed this path is that Gauss's law dictates it and
computer programs support it. There has been no move to doubt programs
so I assume they are according to Maxwell and the errors are else
where. So let's go back and leave these assertions that have been
erroniously pointed at me and look at the Gaussian/ Maxwell
observation which I have pursued. I have posted the original statement
and look for those who have expertise in the area to post their views
and why. So Jimmie you have been prolific with your thoughts and
insults, allow us to view the mechanics of what ever decision you make
whether it is a repeat of David or one that shows your own method of
thinking.
Thanks in advance
Art
Dave has posted his reasons why he feels my assertion is false- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Art, it would be nice if you posted reason to why you think your
assertions are true instead of just posting random assertions. Why
should I waste my effort trying to explain why you are wrong when you
refuse to make any effort to show why you are right.
Jimmie
If you have the academic background then post at the point of the
problem. If not enjoy the Sun- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No problem and no point.
Jimmie
Well Jimmie it is very interesting so far. Two academics who came
forwards
presented a real clue on our differences which allows us to
concentrate on a single factor.
The point that they are making is that this is a rare exception to the
ability of turning a static field into a dynamic field ! This is the
single point of disagreement on the validity of the starting of the
trail that I undertook. Those two are comfortable with the
understanding of Gauss and Maxwell where others were unsure. So the
task is now simple which allows others to join in. What in this
situation makes it different to other situations that does not allow a
transformation to a dynamic field which is the norm of Classical
Physics.
Short, clear, and to the point which is all inclusive to the
discussion. It wipes out all the side talk and accusation of arragance
and the use of the term babble when one cannot understand points
made . I am real happy these two came forward because it essentially
has high lighted our differences upon which we can concentrate on.
What in terms of Classical Physics that is placed forward by these two
prevents the change over to a dynamic field? Maybe they will tell us
or maybe it is for the individual to identify which and what is
correct and why.
Progress at last!
After all these years after discussion between suedo experts shooting
from the hip and hitting themselves in the foot.