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

"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

yes, there are many... but none that you will want to hear.

"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

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

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

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

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 -

Heh Jimmie,
I was looking at a book that showed the scanning lines of a tv.
It also showed aperture as being bisected equally by these same
scanning lines.
Since aperture is directly related to gain one could probably state
that the
angle of the scan lines on a TV is directly related to the tipping
angle for radiation. Both are magnetically related ie angle of release
of an electron so you may get a better answer from a T.V. technician
with respect to angles than ham radio operators. Isn't science great
when your brain is nimble and curious!
Art

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
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 -

Heh Jimmie,
I was looking at a book that showed the scanning lines of a tv.
It also showed aperture as being bisected equally by these same
scanning lines.
Since aperture is directly related to gain one could probably state
that the
angle of the scan lines on a TV is directly related to the tipping
angle for radiation. Both are magnetically related ie angle of release
of an electron so you may get a better answer from a T.V. technician
with respect to angles than ham radio operators. Isn't science great
when your brain is nimble and curious!
Art

It must be wonderful to wake up ina new world every morning.

Jimme

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

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

But the question is why?
If you read thru the antenna handbooks they use vectors extensively
but when it gets to take off angle there is no vectorial explanation
of what determines TOA. I would like to see a vectorial explanation
for TOA starting off with the two vectors eminating from the radiator
which are relavent to the radiator angle with respect to earth. I also
would like to see vectors that emulate propagation advantages
following earths magnetic lines as apposed to those at right angles
but as yet I have not tracked any down in the books. You refer to
horizontal anternnas as not being "accidental" suggesting mathematical
analysis
yet I am not finding any documented proof other than emperical work.
Time and time again this group will provide long threads regarding the
mathematics of SWR, virtual this and that, tower wind loading,
frequency,
dielectrics yet when it comes to the very basics of a current passing
along a conducor as a vector or just plain mathematics every bodies
eyes just go blank. Is this something that is to hard to demonstrate
or something hams don't care about until it is written in a book which
we can then regurgitate?
Art