Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 5th 07, 07:32 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 233
Default 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
  #2   Report Post  
Old April 5th 07, 08:04 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
art art is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,188
Default 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

  #3   Report Post  
Old April 5th 07, 11:12 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 588
Default 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


  #4   Report Post  
Old April 6th 07, 12:04 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
art art is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,188
Default 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

  #5   Report Post  
Old April 6th 07, 12:20 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 233
Default 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


  #6   Report Post  
Old April 6th 07, 12:27 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,951
Default 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
  #7   Report Post  
Old April 6th 07, 02:05 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 233
Default 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
  #8   Report Post  
Old April 6th 07, 01:13 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
art art is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,188
Default 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

  #9   Report Post  
Old April 6th 07, 02:12 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 233
Default 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
  #10   Report Post  
Old April 5th 07, 08:05 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,898
Default 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.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017