|
Why?
Art wrote:
"I have mentioned 3 degrees but that was only by eye on print out for a single element." I have set the vertical angle of many highly directional dish feed horns using a bubble level when the path was long. The best setting will be horizontal so that the signal skims the earth when there are no obstructions. Never did subsequent adjustment of elevation angle for best signal ever alter the bubble setting by one iota. Why vertical or horizontal? To get the antennas parallel to each other. That`s why. All electrical charges exert forces on one another. At great distances, the forces become vanishingly small. Even so, every effective antenna is coupled to other conducting matter in its rdiation path to do work in maintaining periodic motion of charges, however faint, throughout the universe. Energy transferred by an antenna to the universe is said to be radiated. Radiation reflected by the ionosphere surrounding the earth is found to be scrambled in its polarization (the direction of its E-field). Energy directly communicated between line-of-sight antennas is most effective when the transmitting and receiving antenna conductors are parallel. Conversely, when they are cross-polarized, loss may exceed 20 dB. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Why?
On 5 Apr, 14:12, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote: "I have mentioned 3 degrees but that was only by eye on print out for a single element." I have set the vertical angle of many highly directional dish feed horns using a bubble level when the path was long. The best setting will be horizontal so that the signal skims the earth when there are no obstructions. Never did subsequent adjustment of elevation angle for best signal ever alter the bubble setting by one iota. Why vertical or horizontal? To get the antennas parallel to each other. That`s why. All electrical charges exert forces on one another. At great distances, the forces become vanishingly small. Even so, every effective antenna is coupled to other conducting matter in its rdiation path to do work in maintaining periodic motion of charges, however faint, throughout the universe. Energy transferred by an antenna to the universe is said to be radiated. Radiation reflected by the ionosphere surrounding the earth is found to be scrambled in its polarization (the direction of its E-field). Energy directly communicated between line-of-sight antennas is most effective when the transmitting and receiving antenna conductors are parallel. Conversely, when they are cross-polarized, loss may exceed 20 dB. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI No Richard, you are out of date.I'm sure that more about antennas is taught these days that has never showed up in Terman. On the tipping thing many towers have multiple beamms on them and when one is added then owners have to reset their antennas. Now ofcourse one can now move them remotely until max polarity is observed. As far as parallel is concerned, anytime you introduce reactance to the resonance to an individual element you lose out on efficiency if polarity is a concern qand in Termans time polarity was not that much of a concern. I truly believe that most auguments on this newsgroup is because teachings of yesteryear do not match up to present day teachings. With weather forcasters they now direct R.F at a front first with horizontal polarization and then with vertical polarization and then merge the reflected pictures, thus it is imperitivethat polarization is dead on for 3 D analysis of the weather front. Lots of things are done these days that wasn't even thought about as little as 20 years ago such that you must read iee antenna findings every month to keep up. Art |
Why?
On 5 Apr 2007 15:04:13 -0700, "art" wrote:
On 5 Apr, 14:12, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Art wrote: "I have mentioned 3 degrees but that was only by eye on print out for a single element." I have set the vertical angle of many highly directional dish feed horns using a bubble level when the path was long. The best setting will be horizontal so that the signal skims the earth when there are no obstructions. Never did subsequent adjustment of elevation angle for best signal ever alter the bubble setting by one iota. Why vertical or horizontal? To get the antennas parallel to each other. That`s why. All electrical charges exert forces on one another. At great distances, the forces become vanishingly small. Even so, every effective antenna is coupled to other conducting matter in its rdiation path to do work in maintaining periodic motion of charges, however faint, throughout the universe. Energy transferred by an antenna to the universe is said to be radiated. Radiation reflected by the ionosphere surrounding the earth is found to be scrambled in its polarization (the direction of its E-field). Energy directly communicated between line-of-sight antennas is most effective when the transmitting and receiving antenna conductors are parallel. Conversely, when they are cross-polarized, loss may exceed 20 dB. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI No Richard, you are out of date.I'm sure that more about antennas is taught these days that has never showed up in Terman. On the tipping thing many towers have multiple beamms on them and when one is added then owners have to reset their antennas. Now ofcourse one can now move them remotely until max polarity is observed. As far as parallel is concerned, anytime you introduce reactance to the resonance to an individual element you lose out on efficiency if polarity is a concern qand in Termans time polarity was not that much of a concern. I truly believe that most auguments on this newsgroup is because teachings of yesteryear do not match up to present day teachings. With weather forcasters they now direct R.F at a front first with horizontal polarization and then with vertical polarization and then merge the reflected pictures, thus it is imperitivethat polarization is dead on for 3 D analysis of the weather front. Lots of things are done these days that wasn't even thought about as little as 20 years ago such that you must read iee antenna findings every month to keep up. Art Art, you still haven't explained what 'polarity' gain is. And what is maximum polarity? I learned polarity as being plus or minus. Are there other 'polarities'? Walt, W2DU |
Why?
|
Why?
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:20:51 GMT, Walter Maxwell
wrote: Are there other 'polarities'? Art and AntiArt? Hi Walt, I hope your procedure went well. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Why?
On 5 Apr, 15:20, Walter Maxwell wrote:
On 5 Apr 2007 15:04:13 -0700, "art" wrote: On 5 Apr, 14:12, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Art wrote: "I have mentioned 3 degrees but that was only by eye on print out for a single element." I have set the vertical angle of many highly directional dish feed horns using a bubble level when the path was long. The best setting will be horizontal so that the signal skims the earth when there are no obstructions. Never did subsequent adjustment of elevation angle for best signal ever alter the bubble setting by one iota. Why vertical or horizontal? To get the antennas parallel to each other. That`s why. All electrical charges exert forces on one another. At great distances, the forces become vanishingly small. Even so, every effective antenna is coupled to other conducting matter in its rdiation path to do work in maintaining periodic motion of charges, however faint, throughout the universe. Energy transferred by an antenna to the universe is said to be radiated. Radiation reflected by the ionosphere surrounding the earth is found to be scrambled in its polarization (the direction of its E-field). Energy directly communicated between line-of-sight antennas is most effective when the transmitting and receiving antenna conductors are parallel. Conversely, when they are cross-polarized, loss may exceed 20 dB. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI No Richard, you are out of date.I'm sure that more about antennas is taught these days that has never showed up in Terman. On the tipping thing many towers have multiple beamms on them and when one is added then owners have to reset their antennas. Now ofcourse one can now move them remotely until max polarity is observed. As far as parallel is concerned, anytime you introduce reactance to the resonance to an individual element you lose out on efficiency if polarity is a concern qand in Termans time polarity was not that much of a concern. I truly believe that most auguments on this newsgroup is because teachings of yesteryear do not match up to present day teachings. With weather forcasters they now direct R.F at a front first with horizontal polarization and then with vertical polarization and then merge the reflected pictures, thus it is imperitivethat polarization is dead on for 3 D analysis of the weather front. Lots of things are done these days that wasn't even thought about as little as 20 years ago such that you must read iee antenna findings every month to keep up. Art Art, you still haven't explained what 'polarity' gain is. And what is maximum polarity? I learned polarity as being plus or minus. Are there other 'polarities'? Walt, W2DU- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Walt, if you are looking for maximum horizontal or any other polarity it can only be obtained by removal of reception of other polarities, this maximum is obtained by having the radiator at 90 degree multiples with respect to earth. You can prove this to your self anytime by calculating max horizontal gain by progressively tipping a dipole while keeping it resonant until the maximum is reached. If your concern is for total gain without regard to polarity mix then the vertical position total gain will equal the total gain of the tipped dipole. The difference is that one arrangement has a mixture of polarities where-as the tipped antenna will only provide a single polarity. If another element or anything else is added near enough to add reactance then the prior antenna must be adjusted to remove it, thus the reason for remote adjustment which is much cheaper to maintain rather than regular trips up a tower by maintanance men. Hopefully Walter this will bring you up to date. I have no reason for a 300 posting thread as I do not intend to write rev 3 of Reflections or anything else. Regards Art |
Why?
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:27:05 -0700, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:20:51 GMT, Walter Maxwell wrote: Are there other 'polarities'? Art and AntiArt? Hi Walt, I hope your procedure went well. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Sorry Richard, my surgery had to be postponed a second time, first, to wait after my cataract surgery, and second, just before the procedure was to be performed, my dentist discovered an infected tooth. One of its roots was cracked, and I spent one heluva night last night after having the root removed. Consequently, my spinal surgery has been moved to April 18. This is gettin' ridiculous! But thanks for your concern. Walt |
Why?
On 5 Apr 2007 16:13:12 -0700, "art" wrote:
On 5 Apr, 15:20, Walter Maxwell wrote: On 5 Apr 2007 15:04:13 -0700, "art" wrote: On 5 Apr, 14:12, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Art wrote: "I have mentioned 3 degrees but that was only by eye on print out for a single element." I have set the vertical angle of many highly directional dish feed horns using a bubble level when the path was long. The best setting will be horizontal so that the signal skims the earth when there are no obstructions. Never did subsequent adjustment of elevation angle for best signal ever alter the bubble setting by one iota. Why vertical or horizontal? To get the antennas parallel to each other. That`s why. All electrical charges exert forces on one another. At great distances, the forces become vanishingly small. Even so, every effective antenna is coupled to other conducting matter in its rdiation path to do work in maintaining periodic motion of charges, however faint, throughout the universe. Energy transferred by an antenna to the universe is said to be radiated. Radiation reflected by the ionosphere surrounding the earth is found to be scrambled in its polarization (the direction of its E-field). Energy directly communicated between line-of-sight antennas is most effective when the transmitting and receiving antenna conductors are parallel. Conversely, when they are cross-polarized, loss may exceed 20 dB. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI No Richard, you are out of date.I'm sure that more about antennas is taught these days that has never showed up in Terman. On the tipping thing many towers have multiple beamms on them and when one is added then owners have to reset their antennas. Now ofcourse one can now move them remotely until max polarity is observed. As far as parallel is concerned, anytime you introduce reactance to the resonance to an individual element you lose out on efficiency if polarity is a concern qand in Termans time polarity was not that much of a concern. I truly believe that most auguments on this newsgroup is because teachings of yesteryear do not match up to present day teachings. With weather forcasters they now direct R.F at a front first with horizontal polarization and then with vertical polarization and then merge the reflected pictures, thus it is imperitivethat polarization is dead on for 3 D analysis of the weather front. Lots of things are done these days that wasn't even thought about as little as 20 years ago such that you must read iee antenna findings every month to keep up. Art Art, you still haven't explained what 'polarity' gain is. And what is maximum polarity? I learned polarity as being plus or minus. Are there other 'polarities'? Walt, W2DU- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Walt, if you are looking for maximum horizontal or any other polarity it can only be obtained by removal of reception of other polarities, this maximum is obtained by having the radiator at 90 degree multiples with respect to earth. You can prove this to your self anytime by calculating max horizontal gain by progressively tipping a dipole while keeping it resonant until the maximum is reached. If your concern is for total gain without regard to polarity mix then the vertical position total gain will equal the total gain of the tipped dipole. The difference is that one arrangement has a mixture of polarities where-as the tipped antenna will only provide a single polarity. If another element or anything else is added near enough to add reactance then the prior antenna must be adjusted to remove it, thus the reason for remote adjustment which is much cheaper to maintain rather than regular trips up a tower by maintanance men. Hopefully Walter this will bring you up to date. I have no reason for a 300 posting thread as I do not intend to write rev 3 of Reflections or anything else. Regards Art Art, using correct terminology is essential in preventing misunderstandings, as you have done with 'polarity'. You have confused 'polarity' with 'polarization'--the two are not synonomous, but are distinctly different. Sorry, Art, your misuse of this term has been confusing, rather than enlightening. Are you blaming me for the more than 300 postings on this thread? Walt |
Why?
On 5 Apr, 17:12, Walter Maxwell wrote:
On 5 Apr 2007 16:13:12 -0700, "art" wrote: On 5 Apr, 15:20, Walter Maxwell wrote: On 5 Apr 2007 15:04:13 -0700, "art" wrote: On 5 Apr, 14:12, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Art wrote: "I have mentioned 3 degrees but that was only by eye on print out for a single element." I have set the vertical angle of many highly directional dish feed horns using a bubble level when the path was long. The best setting will be horizontal so that the signal skims the earth when there are no obstructions. Never did subsequent adjustment of elevation angle for best signal ever alter the bubble setting by one iota. Why vertical or horizontal? To get the antennas parallel to each other. That`s why. All electrical charges exert forces on one another. At great distances, the forces become vanishingly small. Even so, every effective antenna is coupled to other conducting matter in its rdiation path to do work in maintaining periodic motion of charges, however faint, throughout the universe. Energy transferred by an antenna to the universe is said to be radiated. Radiation reflected by the ionosphere surrounding the earth is found to be scrambled in its polarization (the direction of its E-field). Energy directly communicated between line-of-sight antennas is most effective when the transmitting and receiving antenna conductors are parallel. Conversely, when they are cross-polarized, loss may exceed 20 dB. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI No Richard, you are out of date.I'm sure that more about antennas is taught these days that has never showed up in Terman. On the tipping thing many towers have multiple beamms on them and when one is added then owners have to reset their antennas. Now ofcourse one can now move them remotely until max polarity is observed. As far as parallel is concerned, anytime you introduce reactance to the resonance to an individual element you lose out on efficiency if polarity is a concern qand in Termans time polarity was not that much of a concern. I truly believe that most auguments on this newsgroup is because teachings of yesteryear do not match up to present day teachings. With weather forcasters they now direct R.F at a front first with horizontal polarization and then with vertical polarization and then merge the reflected pictures, thus it is imperitivethat polarization is dead on for 3 D analysis of the weather front. Lots of things are done these days that wasn't even thought about as little as 20 years ago such that you must read iee antenna findings every month to keep up. Art Art, you still haven't explained what 'polarity' gain is. And what is maximum polarity? I learned polarity as being plus or minus. Are there other 'polarities'? Walt, W2DU- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Walt, if you are looking for maximum horizontal or any other polarity it can only be obtained by removal of reception of other polarities, this maximum is obtained by having the radiator at 90 degree multiples with respect to earth. You can prove this to your self anytime by calculating max horizontal gain by progressively tipping a dipole while keeping it resonant until the maximum is reached. If your concern is for total gain without regard to polarity mix then the vertical position total gain will equal the total gain of the tipped dipole. The difference is that one arrangement has a mixture of polarities where-as the tipped antenna will only provide a single polarity. If another element or anything else is added near enough to add reactance then the prior antenna must be adjusted to remove it, thus the reason for remote adjustment which is much cheaper to maintain rather than regular trips up a tower by maintanance men. Hopefully Walter this will bring you up to date. I have no reason for a 300 posting thread as I do not intend to write rev 3 of Reflections or anything else. Regards Art Art, using correct terminology is essential in preventing misunderstandings, as you have done with 'polarity'. You have confused 'polarity' with 'polarization'--the two are not synonomous, but are distinctly different. Sorry, Art, your misuse of this term has been confusing, rather than enlightening. Are you blaming me for the more than 300 postings on this thread? Walt- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Walt Now why would I blame you for over 300 postings? Obviously you have created some confusion which is natural for our hobby since we are an old group which gives justification to "there is no fool like an old fool" Nothing personal. Lets face it we oversell experience when in a lot of cases it is the same experience over and over again. Anybody here who remembers the Sputnik probably would not be able to get a degree today or even the same job. On this tilt thing if you look at patents in the 6 million plus area most would not understand what they were referring to, whereas the present day student understands thing fully since he grew up with digital transmissions. Heck most of us retired before the last ten years which is becoming the heydays of antenna research. Yes, as I get older I make the same mistakes as all old people do and you make provision for other old people unless you think your self as perfect as would a younger person who just got his degree and was up to date. The difference ofcourse is the young student wants to prove things to himself until he gets behind technically when he then asks for proof from others. If I look back at the past arguments on my threads many pull out the 50 year old books that we have stored away. The modern student will look up Google and even if he is a few years out of school would have checked the computor for reference to "adjusting antennas" or "tilting antennas"to get up to date where as the old timer thinks he is still back in the old days so his knoweledge is up to date and cannot adapt to the present situation he there is no reference to that in my books.Odd thing I saw the other day was a book by Terman and would you believe it nowhere in the book does the words of "maxwell" or Gauss" show up so they must be imaginary also. Yup, Walt as you get older you will find that a lot more people are mixed up except you and need to be told so until the time come that more people are saying it to you forcing you to be more tolerant. Frankly a lot of people on this net need to get up to speed with respect to radiation such as tipped antennas e.t.c instead of discarding information in favour of the opportunity to mock while the younger more knowledgable members give a quiet smile to themselves. Walt were you aware of the reasons for tipping? I doubt it because you probably can remember the Sputnik when the standards of education was lower and Google was not around. Never heard you come forward with respect to the Gaussian and Maxwell argument either before or after the young M.I.T guy put every body straight or did you know it anyway but just didn't want to correct people then? Art |
Why?
On 5 Apr 2007 18:04:15 -0700, "art" wrote:
On 5 Apr, 17:12, Walter Maxwell wrote: On 5 Apr 2007 16:13:12 -0700, "art" wrote: snip Walt, W2DU- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Walt, if you are looking for maximum horizontal or any other polarity it can only be obtained by removal of reception of other polarities, this maximum is obtained by having the radiator at 90 degree multiples with respect to earth. You can prove this to your self anytime by calculating max horizontal gain by progressively tipping a dipole while keeping it resonant until the maximum is reached. If your concern is for total gain without regard to polarity mix then the vertical position total gain will equal the total gain of the tipped dipole. The difference is that one arrangement has a mixture of polarities where-as the tipped antenna will only provide a single polarity. If another element or anything else is added near enough to add reactance then the prior antenna must be adjusted to remove it, thus the reason for remote adjustment which is much cheaper to maintain rather than regular trips up a tower by maintanance men. Hopefully Walter this will bring you up to date. I have no reason for a 300 posting thread as I do not intend to write rev 3 of Reflections or anything else. Regards Art Art, using correct terminology is essential in preventing misunderstandings, as you have done with 'polarity'. You have confused 'polarity' with 'polarization'--the two are not synonomous, but are distinctly different. Sorry, Art, your misuse of this term has been confusing, rather than enlightening. Are you blaming me for the more than 300 postings on this thread? Walt- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Walt Now why would I blame you for over 300 postings? Obviously you have created some confusion which is natural for our hobby since we are an old group which gives justification to "there is no fool like an old fool" Nothing personal. Lets face it we oversell experience when in a lot of cases it is the same experience over and over again. Anybody here who remembers the Sputnik probably would not be able to get a degree today or even the same job. On this tilt thing if you look at patents in the 6 million plus area most would not understand what they were referring to, whereas the present day student understands thing fully since he grew up with digital transmissions. Heck most of us retired before the last ten years which is becoming the heydays of antenna research. Yes, as I get older I make the same mistakes as all old people do and you make provision for other old people unless you think your self as perfect as would a younger person who just got his degree and was up to date. The difference ofcourse is the young student wants to prove things to himself until he gets behind technically when he then asks for proof from others. If I look back at the past arguments on my threads many pull out the 50 year old books that we have stored away. The modern student will look up Google and even if he is a few years out of school would have checked the computor for reference to "adjusting antennas" or "tilting antennas"to get up to date where as the old timer thinks he is still back in the old days so his knoweledge is up to date and cannot adapt to the present situation he there is no reference to that in my books.Odd thing I saw the other day was a book by Terman and would you believe it nowhere in the book does the words of "maxwell" or Gauss" show up so they must be imaginary also. Yup, Walt as you get older you will find that a lot more people are mixed up except you and need to be told so until the time come that more people are saying it to you forcing you to be more tolerant. Frankly a lot of people on this net need to get up to speed with respect to radiation such as tipped antennas e.t.c instead of discarding information in favour of the opportunity to mock while the younger more knowledgable members give a quiet smile to themselves. Walt were you aware of the reasons for tipping? I doubt it because you probably can remember the Sputnik when the standards of education was lower and Google was not around. Never heard you come forward with respect to the Gaussian and Maxwell argument either before or after the young M.I.T guy put every body straight or did you know it anyway but just didn't want to correct people then? Art Art, you say I have created confusion? Over what? Confusion? How about responding to your misuse of the term 'polarity'? Now that's confusion. And you say that some MIT guy put everybody straight? Just what is it the everybody needed straightening about that the MIT guy is supposed to have done? And are you implying that Terman, Kraus, Johnson, et al are wrong, and that we need 'straightening out' because we learned it wrong from these masters of 50 years ago? And you're also saying that our educational standards are better now? Art, what have you been smoking? And are you also saying that the new graduate with no hands-on experience outweighs a graduate of 30 years ago with experience gained during those 30 years? What planet are you from, Art, certainly not Earth. Think about it, Walt, W2DU |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com