Why?
 

On 27 Mar, 12:22, "Wimpie" wrote:
On 27 mar, 19:47, "art" wrote:





On 27 Mar, 10:20, (Richard Harrison) wrote:

Jim Pennino wrote:

"Have you ever heard of a helix?"

Most would likely enjoy Kraus` story of his invention of the axial-mode
helix in his 3rd edition of "Antennas". This is a choice book!

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

I have his second edition and I find no mention of radiation from the
beginning where current is applied onwards. Have you found anything
that can
contribute other than empirical grounds? You have avoided the question
so far

Hello Art,

Radiation from accelerating charge is fully understood (from theory
and verified practically), hence antenna theory. When you take the
complete formula for fields (near and far) generated by a short wire
segment (hertzian dipole), you can calculate the far and near field
(magnitude, orientation, phase, etc) from every construction. The only
problem is that you have to know the current distribution in your
construction.

It is not of interest whether the charge is excited by just a voltage
source or EM radiation (like in reflection of waves on conductors and
dielectrics). This is done in many FEM programs.

Of course in many practical circumstances it is easier to use the
"laws" from other people (that are derived from basic theory). One of
the results are the Fresnel formulas for reflection.

When you know the properties of the soil at the operating frequency,
you can calculate the complex surface impedance and hence the complex
reflection coefficient.

Just mentioning words as "curl", "vector", "Gaussian" etc, doesn't
make sense without further information.

Best Regards,

Wim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wim
Earlier I explained that the gaussian law can be expanded to provide a
link to a radiator. The mathematics has been provenon this newsgroup.
Unfortunately only one person accepted that proof. Using this new
aproach,thesis or what have you provided for the generation of arrays
where all radiator were resonant which provides specific advantages.
It also provides for multiple arrangements of elements for maximum
gain by virtue of the condition that equilibrium must be maintained in
the enclosed volume of a standard Gaussian field which means that more
than one arrangement of a given number of radiating elements can be
arrived at for maximum gain.
Thus not only was the theory proved by mathematics in accordance with
known laws it has also been overchecked by the use of the equilibrium
condition which was imposed as well as all being confirmed by accepted
computor programs. Since all new theorem are immediately rejected by
the vast majority of this group but with one exception from down under
you surely can understand the futility of convincing people until they
see it written in a book because of their lack of individual thought.
One thing I have proved to my satisfaction that many who perceived
themselves as experts have shown quite clearly that they have over
estimated their abilities.
When my work is published it will not only be seen that many were
unable to think on the basis of there own knoweledge but also their
knowledge of Electrical laws were flawed. That was my intention to
prove when I introduced extension of known laws on this newsgroup plus
the exposure to all of the residing pseudo experts. Time will tell
that I have suceeded
in my mission
Regards
Art

Why?
 

Art wrote:
"Earlier I explained that Gaussian law can be expanded to provide a link
to a radiator."

I am one who missed Art`s explanation. I am curious as Gauss and
antennas have not been directly related in my mind.

Wikipedia says:
"The total of electric flux out of a closed surface is equal to the
charge divided by the permittivity."

J.C. Maxwell may have found Gauss useful, but why do I need him in
amateur antenna wotk?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Why?
 

On 2 Apr, 09:43, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"Earlier I explained that Gaussian law can be expanded to provide a link
to a radiator."

I am one who missed Art`s explanation. I am curious as Gauss and
antennas have not been directly related in my mind.

Wikipedia says:
"The total of electric flux out of a closed surface is equal to the
charge divided by the permittivity."

J.C. Maxwell may have found Gauss useful, but why do I need him in
amateur antenna wotk?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

If you add time to both sides of the Gaussian law you have the
connection
which is more specific than that stated in Maxwell laws .Specific
means the shape of the radiating cluster in question upto and
including resulting radiation desirables. A quick search on "Gaussian"
will bring you upto date
All have been extensively stated.
Art
Art

Why?
 

Richard Harrison wrote:

[snip]

Terman says on page 883:
"For purposes of calculation, it is convenient to consider


Richard,

Great quote!

If people listened to the words of the master, there would be far fewer
arguments on RRAA.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Why?
 

On 26 Mar, 19:27, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I searched thru Google and I see there is a lot of work going on with
respect to tilting in the GHz area. Apparently some antennas come
equiped with remote mechanical as well as digital type switchers. I
found one commercial vertical antenna that was FIXED at a 3 degree
tilt which is about what I found with a high frequency version for max
vertical gain. Seems like the majority are going for mechanical
tilting as digital delay style tilting is having an adverse action on
the beam itself. I cannot find any literature that supplies technical
backup so I suspect they are the result of emperical work and not
mathematically as I have.It does seem that
many are using tilt angle for accuracy in TOA for various reasons.
By the way I have found that with cluster form this tilt angle is
progressive with respect to close spaced elements in both horizontal
and vertical forms. Seems like the commercials are spending a lot of
money with repect to tipping for WiFI which requires extreme accurracy
between nodes and where inaccurracy becomes progressive in
deteriation. All very fascinating at least for non amateurs.
Art

Why?
 

On 4 Apr 2007 16:38:23 -0700, "art" wrote:

All very fascinating at least for non amateurs.

We've been doing it for years on repeaters. It's called "down tilt"

eBay has kits for sale as does:
www.hotflashesatthetower.com (Andrew Antenna Down Tilt Mounting Kit
602030A. US $9.99)

Proving anything can be patented, that was done 10 years ago:
5798675 Continuously variable phase-shifter for electrically
down-tilting an antenna

and on and on and on....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Why?
 

On 26 Mar, 21:49, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"Any thoughts as to why it sgould be so and the scientific facts to
support it?"

We have plumb lines and bubble levels which allow easy determination of
vertical and horizontal directions.

We often inhabit a nearly horizontal plane

If we are as likely as not to communicate with any particular direction,
an omidirectional vertical antenna makes sense. An inclined wire would
favor some direction to the detriment of another. Sure a slopimg wire
works but doesn`t reach maximum height or length as effectively as a
vertical or horizontal wire would.

Why a straight dipole and not a V-shaped element? The V-shape corrupts
the nulls at the ends of the straight wire.

Vertical and horizontal antennas are not solely accidents of history.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard,
It is well known that near maximum "overall" polarity gain can be
obtained by placing a vertical at right angles with respect to earth.
Now -a -days maximum gain is required of a certain polarity which
requires a specific accuracy of less than 1 degree . So yes, in your
working years straight up is good enough but these days of WiFi and
all that concentration is applied for purity of polarity which
requires a resonance at around 3 degrees to the vertical. This can be
determined arithematically according to known laws. Ofcourse as one
moves higher this offset angle changes. This same phenomina or tilt
angle applies for all polarities where maximum gain is required for
purity of polarization.The days have gone where just putting up a wire
satisfies all.
Regards
Art

Why?
 

On 5 Apr 2007 10:05:43 -0700, "art" wrote:

On 26 Mar, 21:49, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"Any thoughts as to why it sgould be so and the scientific facts to
support it?"

We have plumb lines and bubble levels which allow easy determination of
vertical and horizontal directions.

We often inhabit a nearly horizontal plane

If we are as likely as not to communicate with any particular direction,
an omidirectional vertical antenna makes sense. An inclined wire would
favor some direction to the detriment of another. Sure a slopimg wire
works but doesn`t reach maximum height or length as effectively as a
vertical or horizontal wire would.

Why a straight dipole and not a V-shaped element? The V-shape corrupts
the nulls at the ends of the straight wire.

Vertical and horizontal antennas are not solely accidents of history.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard,
It is well known that near maximum "overall" polarity gain can be
obtained by placing a vertical at right angles with respect to earth.
Now -a -days maximum gain is required of a certain polarity which
requires a specific accuracy of less than 1 degree . So yes, in your
working years straight up is good enough but these days of WiFi and
all that concentration is applied for purity of polarity which
requires a resonance at around 3 degrees to the vertical. This can be
determined arithematically according to known laws. Ofcourse as one
moves higher this offset angle changes. This same phenomina or tilt
angle applies for all polarities where maximum gain is required for
purity of polarization.The days have gone where just putting up a wire
satisfies all.
Regards
Art

Educate me, Art, what is 'polarity' gain?

Walt

Why?
 

On 5 Apr, 10:32, Walter Maxwell wrote:
On 5 Apr 2007 10:05:43 -0700, "art" wrote:





On 26 Mar, 21:49, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"Any thoughts as to why it sgould be so and the scientific facts to
support it?"

We have plumb lines and bubble levels which allow easy determination of
vertical and horizontal directions.

We often inhabit a nearly horizontal plane

If we are as likely as not to communicate with any particular direction,
an omidirectional vertical antenna makes sense. An inclined wire would
favor some direction to the detriment of another. Sure a slopimg wire
works but doesn`t reach maximum height or length as effectively as a
vertical or horizontal wire would.

Why a straight dipole and not a V-shaped element? The V-shape corrupts
the nulls at the ends of the straight wire.

Vertical and horizontal antennas are not solely accidents of history.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard,
It is well known that near maximum "overall" polarity gain can be
obtained by placing a vertical at right angles with respect to earth.
Now -a -days maximum gain is required of a certain polarity which
requires a specific accuracy of less than 1 degree . So yes, in your
working years straight up is good enough but these days of WiFi and
all that concentration is applied for purity of polarity which
requires a resonance at around 3 degrees to the vertical. This can be
determined arithematically according to known laws. Ofcourse as one
moves higher this offset angle changes. This same phenomina or tilt
angle applies for all polarities where maximum gain is required for
purity of polarization.The days have gone where just putting up a wire
satisfies all.
Regards
Art

Educate me, Art, what is 'polarity' gain?

Walt- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Walter
Gain is the total radiation at a particular angle which can be the
summation of all polarities such as in the case of vertical and
horizontal antennas.
If one want's maximum gain with a particular polarization in mind then
resonance is to be found at an angle other than 90 degree multiples to
the earths surface. This is why I have made the point for years that
the yagi has put antennas back nearly 100 years. In amateur work it is
not so important tho it does explain why the augument rages between a
yagi and a quad with the latter providing a much larger arrival area
that allow people to hear more. On top of that the yagi becomes less
efficient as one adds elements which means progressive polarity
inaccuracy for each added element not only for a particular polarity
but also for the increase in reactance for the array as a whole. I
have mentioned 3 degrees but that was only by the eye on print out for
a single element. I never did associate the tip angle with respect to
frequency and height tho I am sure this can be done via Matlab for
both a single element or an arrangement of elements.
One day they will put this in a book, hopefully the ARRL editions, so
the derogatory statements from the older education type guys will
cease but I am to old to see that day
Regards
Art

Why?
 

Walter Maxwell wrote:
On 5 Apr 2007 10:05:43 -0700, "art" wrote:

On 26 Mar, 21:49, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"Any thoughts as to why it sgould be so and the scientific facts to
support it?"

We have plumb lines and bubble levels which allow easy determination of
vertical and horizontal directions.

We often inhabit a nearly horizontal plane

If we are as likely as not to communicate with any particular direction,
an omidirectional vertical antenna makes sense. An inclined wire would
favor some direction to the detriment of another. Sure a slopimg wire
works but doesn`t reach maximum height or length as effectively as a
vertical or horizontal wire would.

Why a straight dipole and not a V-shaped element? The V-shape corrupts
the nulls at the ends of the straight wire.

Vertical and horizontal antennas are not solely accidents of history.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard,
It is well known that near maximum "overall" polarity gain can be
obtained by placing a vertical at right angles with respect to earth.
Now -a -days maximum gain is required of a certain polarity which
requires a specific accuracy of less than 1 degree . So yes, in your
working years straight up is good enough but these days of WiFi and
all that concentration is applied for purity of polarity which
requires a resonance at around 3 degrees to the vertical. This can be
determined arithematically according to known laws. Ofcourse as one
moves higher this offset angle changes. This same phenomina or tilt
angle applies for all polarities where maximum gain is required for
purity of polarization.The days have gone where just putting up a wire
satisfies all.
Regards
Art

Educate me, Art, what is 'polarity' gain?

That's when you go to a Polish wedding and put on weight from eating
kielbasa.

This is related to the "purity of polarization" which is a measure
of the quality of the kielbasa served and the Polish music played
at the wedding.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.