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

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

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

But the question is why?

Because except for some very specialized applications there is
nothing to be gained by using anything other than horizontal
or vertical elements and it is the simplest way to make things.

Have you ever heard of a helix?

snip crap

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Art wrote:
"---yet I am not finding any documented proof other than emperical
work."

As usual, Terman has answers. See page 882 of his 1955 opus: "Effect of
Ground on the Directional Pattern of Ungrounded Antennas - Image
Antennas."

It`s in the book; math, diagrams, tables, as needed to imagine what
happens.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

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

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