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

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

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

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:05:02 GMT, wrote:

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.

Now that is what I can understand, Joe.

Walt

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

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

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

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

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

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