Why?
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 |
Why?
"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. |
Why?
"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 |
Why?
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 |
Why?
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 |
Why?
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 |
Why?
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. |
Why?
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 |
Why?
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 |
Why?
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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com