"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 6 Apr, 08:48, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"Frankly a lot of people on this net need to get up to speed with
respect to radiation such as tipped antennas ---."

Yesterday`s response seems to have been gobbled in cyber space.

Not all my reference books are over 50 years old. One of my best was
published in 2003 although its principal author was born in 1910. He is
J.D. Kraus, but he had numerous and likely younger collaborators, 6 of
whom are listed as co-authors. The title: "Antennas For All
Applications. 3rd edition".

On page 297 is found an item which illustrates what happens when you tip
an antenna. It is titled: "Antenna Rotation Experiments":
"Consider the radio circuit shown in Fig. 8-74a in which one antenna is
circularly polarized (a turnstile?) and the other is linearly polarized.
If one of the antennas is rotated about its axis a frequency f (r/s),
the received signal is shifted to F + or - f, where F is the transmitter
frequency."

Fig. 8-74 notes:
"Antenna rotation produces amplitude modulation."

Of course it does. When the linear antenna is aligned parallel to one
axis of the CP antenna, the signal is maximum. When the linear antenna
is most misaligned with either axis of the CP antenna, signal is a
minimum. The example demonstrates why polarization alignment, not
tipping or tilt, is usually important.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard, I couldn't find my Kraus book so I will have to let your
comment go.
I did look in the Jasik book on parasitic elements.
It said"A parrasitic element properly tuned will operate in phase-and-
field relationships
approximating those computed.In multi element arrays, independent
control and phase and amplitude is required and parasitics should be
avoided. However, they may be employed in antennas
designed primarily for power gain" To me this describes a yagi with
parasitic elements designed for power gain regardless of the mix of
polarisation. The Gauss system which does not use parasitics and
therefore pursues the independent control AND PHASE AND AMPLITUDE.
A yagi in a 90 degree multiple of earth does operate in a field
relationship because of its multi phase radiation where as the
gaussion tilts to remove unwanted phase and keeps only the required
phase. This is extremely important in cell transmittions since
channels are only of use when the polarisation is correct and any area
that does not comprise of the correct polarisation results in a
dropped call.
In my last post I mentioned the slope between scanning lines on a T.V.
as a reference line for true polarity. Any comment with respect to the
veracity of that statement since I see a direct corrorally between
that and radiation tilt angles?
Best regards
Art


Perhaps you should actually make an effort to explain why you see the
relationships you see. I can think of no reason why anyone should be
expected to go into great detail to explain your fallacies while you use
almost no effort to explain why you think you are right.

Jimmie

On 8 Apr, 17:52, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 6 Apr, 08:48, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"Frankly a lot of people on this net need to get up to speed with
respect to radiation such as tipped antennas ---."

Yesterday`s response seems to have been gobbled in cyber space.

Not all my reference books are over 50 years old. One of my best was
published in 2003 although its principal author was born in 1910. He is
J.D. Kraus, but he had numerous and likely younger collaborators, 6 of
whom are listed as co-authors. The title: "Antennas For All
Applications. 3rd edition".

On page 297 is found an item which illustrates what happens when you tip
an antenna. It is titled: "Antenna Rotation Experiments":
"Consider the radio circuit shown in Fig. 8-74a in which one antenna is
circularly polarized (a turnstile?) and the other is linearly polarized.
If one of the antennas is rotated about its axis a frequency f (r/s),
the received signal is shifted to F + or - f, where F is the transmitter
frequency."

Fig. 8-74 notes:
"Antenna rotation produces amplitude modulation."

Of course it does. When the linear antenna is aligned parallel to one
axis of the CP antenna, the signal is maximum. When the linear antenna
is most misaligned with either axis of the CP antenna, signal is a
minimum. The example demonstrates why polarization alignment, not
tipping or tilt, is usually important.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard, I couldn't find my Kraus book so I will have to let your
comment go.
I did look in the Jasik book on parasitic elements.
It said"A parrasitic element properly tuned will operate in phase-and-
field relationships
approximating those computed.In multi element arrays, independent
control and phase and amplitude is required and parasitics should be
avoided. However, they may be employed in antennas
designed primarily for power gain" To me this describes a yagi with
parasitic elements designed for power gain regardless of the mix of
polarisation. The Gauss system which does not use parasitics and
therefore pursues the independent control AND PHASE AND AMPLITUDE.
A yagi in a 90 degree multiple of earth does operate in a field
relationship because of its multi phase radiation where as the
gaussion tilts to remove unwanted phase and keeps only the required
phase. This is extremely important in cell transmittions since
channels are only of use when the polarisation is correct and any area
that does not comprise of the correct polarisation results in a
dropped call.
In my last post I mentioned the slope between scanning lines on a T.V.
as a reference line for true polarity. Any comment with respect to the
veracity of that statement since I see a direct corrorally between
that and radiation tilt angles?
Best regards
Art

Perhaps you should actually make an effort to explain why you see the
relationships you see. I can think of no reason why anyone should be
expected to go into great detail to explain your fallacies while you use
almost no effort to explain why you think you are right.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jimmie
As I said earlier the crt picture was in a Terman book. The picture
showed a series of scan lines across the screen at a slight angle.
Drawn at right angles to the sloping lines was a square i.e. bisected
by the scan line. It was stated that the square represented aperture.
Thus both the scan line and the aperture was tilted away from 90
degrees to the earth.
As I said earlier for purity of polarization a vertical dipole would
have to be tilted approx 3 degrees. All this is a repeat of my last
post which I consider an effort to rebutt what you call a "fallacy".
I see similarities with what I stated earlier with respect to
antennas. I never said I was correct to compare these analogies, I
just put them forward for thought knowing that when the sets are
assembled they are positioned to the north with the crt in a fixed
position and the yoke is then manipulated to its best angle tho it has
been known for T.V. pictures to be skewed by 3 degrees or so. Yup, I
did make some effort don't you think?
Art

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 8 Apr, 17:52, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 6 Apr, 08:48, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"Frankly a lot of people on this net need to get up to speed with
respect to radiation such as tipped antennas ---."

Yesterday`s response seems to have been gobbled in cyber space.

Not all my reference books are over 50 years old. One of my best was
published in 2003 although its principal author was born in 1910. He
is
J.D. Kraus, but he had numerous and likely younger collaborators, 6 of
whom are listed as co-authors. The title: "Antennas For All
Applications. 3rd edition".

On page 297 is found an item which illustrates what happens when you
tip
an antenna. It is titled: "Antenna Rotation Experiments":
"Consider the radio circuit shown in Fig. 8-74a in which one antenna
is
circularly polarized (a turnstile?) and the other is linearly
polarized.
If one of the antennas is rotated about its axis a frequency f (r/s),
the received signal is shifted to F + or - f, where F is the
transmitter
frequency."

Fig. 8-74 notes:
"Antenna rotation produces amplitude modulation."

Of course it does. When the linear antenna is aligned parallel to one
axis of the CP antenna, the signal is maximum. When the linear antenna
is most misaligned with either axis of the CP antenna, signal is a
minimum. The example demonstrates why polarization alignment, not
tipping or tilt, is usually important.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard, I couldn't find my Kraus book so I will have to let your
comment go.
I did look in the Jasik book on parasitic elements.
It said"A parrasitic element properly tuned will operate in phase-and-
field relationships
approximating those computed.In multi element arrays, independent
control and phase and amplitude is required and parasitics should be
avoided. However, they may be employed in antennas
designed primarily for power gain" To me this describes a yagi with
parasitic elements designed for power gain regardless of the mix of
polarisation. The Gauss system which does not use parasitics and
therefore pursues the independent control AND PHASE AND AMPLITUDE.
A yagi in a 90 degree multiple of earth does operate in a field
relationship because of its multi phase radiation where as the
gaussion tilts to remove unwanted phase and keeps only the required
phase. This is extremely important in cell transmittions since
channels are only of use when the polarisation is correct and any area
that does not comprise of the correct polarisation results in a
dropped call.
In my last post I mentioned the slope between scanning lines on a T.V.
as a reference line for true polarity. Any comment with respect to the
veracity of that statement since I see a direct corrorally between
that and radiation tilt angles?
Best regards
Art

Perhaps you should actually make an effort to explain why you see the
relationships you see. I can think of no reason why anyone should be
expected to go into great detail to explain your fallacies while you use
almost no effort to explain why you think you are right.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jimmie
As I said earlier the crt picture was in a Terman book. The picture
showed a series of scan lines across the screen at a slight angle.
Drawn at right angles to the sloping lines was a square i.e. bisected
by the scan line. It was stated that the square represented aperture.
Thus both the scan line and the aperture was tilted away from 90
degrees to the earth.
As I said earlier for purity of polarization a vertical dipole would
have to be tilted approx 3 degrees. All this is a repeat of my last
post which I consider an effort to rebutt what you call a "fallacy".
I see similarities with what I stated earlier with respect to
antennas. I never said I was correct to compare these analogies, I
just put them forward for thought knowing that when the sets are
assembled they are positioned to the north with the crt in a fixed
position and the yoke is then manipulated to its best angle tho it has
been known for T.V. pictures to be skewed by 3 degrees or so. Yup, I
did make some effort don't you think?
Art


Not much, just leaps from one thought to another without explanaion.

Jimmie

Art wrote:
"The picture showed a seies of scan lnes across the screen at a slight
angle."

Yes. I think that is right but I learned about TV back in 1948 and
haven`t thought about it much since. As I recall, the designers of the
U.S. TV system decided to construct a picture consisting of two
interlaced fields. The first starts at the center of the screen at the
very top of the picture, sweeping to the right on a slight downward
slope, then retracing quickly to the lefthand edge of the picture. There
the next parallel but slightly lower line of field or frame starts being
written.

As I see it, the tilt or slope is strictly an arbitrary decision of the
designer but conformity is required of the standard to work within the
original system.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
Art wrote:
"The picture showed a seies of scan lnes across the screen at a slight
angle."

Yes. I think that is right but I learned about TV back in 1948 and
haven`t thought about it much since. As I recall, the designers of the
U.S. TV system decided to construct a picture consisting of two
interlaced fields. The first starts at the center of the screen at the
very top of the picture, sweeping to the right on a slight downward
slope, then retracing quickly to the lefthand edge of the picture. There
the next parallel but slightly lower line of field or frame starts being
written.

As I see it, the tilt or slope is strictly an arbitrary decision of the
designer but conformity is required of the standard to work within the
original system.

The tilt of the horizontal scan lines is simply a consequence of the
linear vertical deflection ramp being applied to the yoke at the same
time as the horizontal deflection.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On 9 Apr, 10:13, Roy Lewallen wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
Art wrote:
"The picture showed a seies of scan lnes across the screen at a slight
angle."

Yes. I think that is right but I learned about TV back in 1948 and
haven`t thought about it much since. As I recall, the designers of the
U.S. TV system decided to construct a picture consisting of two
interlaced fields. The first starts at the center of the screen at the
very top of the picture, sweeping to the right on a slight downward
slope, then retracing quickly to the lefthand edge of the picture. There
the next parallel but slightly lower line of field or frame starts being
written.

As I see it, the tilt or slope is strictly an arbitrary decision of the
designer but conformity is required of the standard to work within the
original system.

The tilt of the horizontal scan lines is simply a consequence of the
linear vertical deflection ramp being applied to the yoke at the same
time as the horizontal deflection.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I saw that as analagous to a horizontal beam i.e current with magnetic
electrons at right angles
in a time varying field, the resultant vector being at an angle with
respect to the horizontal sweepof the deflection signal. Either way,
since all vectors do not move in the same direction
the resultant vector cannot align with any existing vector.In this
case it presents an oportunity for the designer to have maximum
brilliance together with ramp. Who says you can't have your cake and
eat it to!
Art

On 8 Apr, 17:52, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 6 Apr, 08:48, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"Frankly a lot of people on this net need to get up to speed with
respect to radiation such as tipped antennas ---."

Yesterday`s response seems to have been gobbled in cyber space.

Not all my reference books are over 50 years old. One of my best was
published in 2003 although its principal author was born in 1910. He is
J.D. Kraus, but he had numerous and likely younger collaborators, 6 of
whom are listed as co-authors. The title: "Antennas For All
Applications. 3rd edition".

On page 297 is found an item which illustrates what happens when you tip
an antenna. It is titled: "Antenna Rotation Experiments":
"Consider the radio circuit shown in Fig. 8-74a in which one antenna is
circularly polarized (a turnstile?) and the other is linearly polarized.
If one of the antennas is rotated about its axis a frequency f (r/s),
the received signal is shifted to F + or - f, where F is the transmitter
frequency."

Fig. 8-74 notes:
"Antenna rotation produces amplitude modulation."

Of course it does. When the linear antenna is aligned parallel to one
axis of the CP antenna, the signal is maximum. When the linear antenna
is most misaligned with either axis of the CP antenna, signal is a
minimum. The example demonstrates why polarization alignment, not
tipping or tilt, is usually important.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard, I couldn't find my Kraus book so I will have to let your
comment go.
I did look in the Jasik book on parasitic elements.
It said"A parrasitic element properly tuned will operate in phase-and-
field relationships
approximating those computed.In multi element arrays, independent
control and phase and amplitude is required and parasitics should be
avoided. However, they may be employed in antennas
designed primarily for power gain" To me this describes a yagi with
parasitic elements designed for power gain regardless of the mix of
polarisation. The Gauss system which does not use parasitics and
therefore pursues the independent control AND PHASE AND AMPLITUDE.
A yagi in a 90 degree multiple of earth does operate in a field
relationship because of its multi phase radiation where as the
gaussion tilts to remove unwanted phase and keeps only the required
phase. This is extremely important in cell transmittions since
channels are only of use when the polarisation is correct and any area
that does not comprise of the correct polarisation results in a
dropped call.
In my last post I mentioned the slope between scanning lines on a T.V.
as a reference line for true polarity. Any comment with respect to the
veracity of that statement since I see a direct corrorally between
that and radiation tilt angles?
Best regards
Art

Perhaps you should actually make an effort to explain why you see the
relationships you see. I can think of no reason why anyone should be
expected to go into great detail to explain your fallacies while you use
almost no effort to explain why you think you are right.
such that the horizontal vecot
Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think I will try one more time with respect to tilt angle.
ARRL publications suggest that a vertical dipole only radiates a
vertically polarized radiation
Amatures read these publication and follow suit on their thinking, if
they can think that is,anything else must be wrong.
Well Jimmie you must surely know that only one electron stream travels
at the same angle as the dipole, any thing else does not. Therefore
the resultant vector angle cannot be parallel to the radiating member
and thus will radiate some horizontal radiation. To remove vertical
radiation you must tip the vertical dipole until the horizontal vector
is removed. All very simple.
Still to difficult for you? Well try this. Use your antenna program to
determine the horizontal
radiation and vertical radiation of a vertical dipole. Now model a
tipped dipole until the horizontal radiation is removed leaving only
vertical radiation and "Bingo" you should now understand and possibly
other amateurs will now question what they read in books. Tho I doubt
that since learners seem to only to be able to regurgitate rather than
activate their brain.
If you are still not comfortable read Maxwells laws and activate your
own brain and follow the leads given. There is no way I can activate
your brain or any of the pseudo experts brains on line.
Art
Art

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 8 Apr, 17:52, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 6 Apr, 08:48, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"Frankly a lot of people on this net need to get up to speed with
respect to radiation such as tipped antennas ---."

Yesterday`s response seems to have been gobbled in cyber space.

Not all my reference books are over 50 years old. One of my best was
published in 2003 although its principal author was born in 1910. He
is
J.D. Kraus, but he had numerous and likely younger collaborators, 6 of
whom are listed as co-authors. The title: "Antennas For All
Applications. 3rd edition".

On page 297 is found an item which illustrates what happens when you
tip
an antenna. It is titled: "Antenna Rotation Experiments":
"Consider the radio circuit shown in Fig. 8-74a in which one antenna
is
circularly polarized (a turnstile?) and the other is linearly
polarized.
If one of the antennas is rotated about its axis a frequency f (r/s),
the received signal is shifted to F + or - f, where F is the
transmitter
frequency."

Fig. 8-74 notes:
"Antenna rotation produces amplitude modulation."

Of course it does. When the linear antenna is aligned parallel to one
axis of the CP antenna, the signal is maximum. When the linear antenna
is most misaligned with either axis of the CP antenna, signal is a
minimum. The example demonstrates why polarization alignment, not
tipping or tilt, is usually important.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard, I couldn't find my Kraus book so I will have to let your
comment go.
I did look in the Jasik book on parasitic elements.
It said"A parrasitic element properly tuned will operate in phase-and-
field relationships
approximating those computed.In multi element arrays, independent
control and phase and amplitude is required and parasitics should be
avoided. However, they may be employed in antennas
designed primarily for power gain" To me this describes a yagi with
parasitic elements designed for power gain regardless of the mix of
polarisation. The Gauss system which does not use parasitics and
therefore pursues the independent control AND PHASE AND AMPLITUDE.
A yagi in a 90 degree multiple of earth does operate in a field
relationship because of its multi phase radiation where as the
gaussion tilts to remove unwanted phase and keeps only the required
phase. This is extremely important in cell transmittions since
channels are only of use when the polarisation is correct and any area
that does not comprise of the correct polarisation results in a
dropped call.
In my last post I mentioned the slope between scanning lines on a T.V.
as a reference line for true polarity. Any comment with respect to the
veracity of that statement since I see a direct corrorally between
that and radiation tilt angles?
Best regards
Art

Perhaps you should actually make an effort to explain why you see the
relationships you see. I can think of no reason why anyone should be
expected to go into great detail to explain your fallacies while you use
almost no effort to explain why you think you are right.
such that the horizontal vecot
Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think I will try one more time with respect to tilt angle.
ARRL publications suggest that a vertical dipole only radiates a
vertically polarized radiation
Amatures read these publication and follow suit on their thinking, if
they can think that is,anything else must be wrong.
Well Jimmie you must surely know that only one electron stream travels
at the same angle as the dipole, any thing else does not. Therefore
the resultant vector angle cannot be parallel to the radiating member
and thus will radiate some horizontal radiation. To remove vertical
radiation you must tip the vertical dipole until the horizontal vector
is removed. All very simple.
Still to difficult for you? Well try this. Use your antenna program to
determine the horizontal
radiation and vertical radiation of a vertical dipole. Now model a
tipped dipole until the horizontal radiation is removed leaving only
vertical radiation and "Bingo" you should now understand and possibly
other amateurs will now question what they read in books. Tho I doubt
that since learners seem to only to be able to regurgitate rather than
activate their brain.
If you are still not comfortable read Maxwells laws and activate your
own brain and follow the leads given. There is no way I can activate
your brain or any of the pseudo experts brains on line.

I have read Maxwells laws and are familar with them, I have been since high
school and nothing in them indcates what you say is feasable.

My antenna program indicates that all of the signal in a vertically mounted
antenna is vertically polarized. I have racked my mind to see how you could
come up with another conclusion and must assume you are confusing take off
angle with polarization.

How do you get the idea that only one electron stream flows vertcally,
obviously your understanding of how electrons flow in a conductor is flawed.
The part of their movement that is responsible for current flow is more of a
vibration than a flow, definately not forming streams. Since your theory is
based on these misaligned streams which dont exist then your theory does not
exist either.

If we assume your understanding of electron flow is correct then there will
be a very huge number of of streams traving at various angles the length of
the antenna. If the radiator is sufficentlyly small in cross sectional area
this angle will be limited to a being very small angle, we will asume your
three degees, much smaller is more realistic. Now to maitain an omni pattern
wich direction due you propose to tilt it. If yor theory has any validity at
all at best you will correct it in just one direction fora relatively small
number of streams and make it worse in all others.

Again assuming there is some validity to what you say the polarization of an
antenna mounted vertically to the earth at point a will have exactly the
same polarity as one mounted somewhere else at point B reguardless of what
you believe is the final polarity of these antennas they will be identical
and this identicalness of polarity is the best arrangement for two antennas
transmitting and receiving one anothers signal.

Jimmie

Art
Art