Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why?
On 26 Mar, 19:27, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I searched thru Google and I see there is a lot of work going on with respect to tilting in the GHz area. Apparently some antennas come equiped with remote mechanical as well as digital type switchers. I found one commercial vertical antenna that was FIXED at a 3 degree tilt which is about what I found with a high frequency version for max vertical gain. Seems like the majority are going for mechanical tilting as digital delay style tilting is having an adverse action on the beam itself. I cannot find any literature that supplies technical backup so I suspect they are the result of emperical work and not mathematically as I have.It does seem that many are using tilt angle for accuracy in TOA for various reasons. By the way I have found that with cluster form this tilt angle is progressive with respect to close spaced elements in both horizontal and vertical forms. Seems like the commercials are spending a lot of money with repect to tipping for WiFI which requires extreme accurracy between nodes and where inaccurracy becomes progressive in deteriation. All very fascinating at least for non amateurs. Art |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why?
On 4 Apr 2007 16:38:23 -0700, "art" wrote:
All very fascinating at least for non amateurs. We've been doing it for years on repeaters. It's called "down tilt" eBay has kits for sale as does: www.hotflashesatthetower.com (Andrew Antenna Down Tilt Mounting Kit 602030A. US $9.99) Proving anything can be patented, that was done 10 years ago: 5798675 Continuously variable phase-shifter for electrically down-tilting an antenna and on and on and on.... 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why?
On 26 Mar, 19:27, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Heh Jimmie, I was looking at a book that showed the scanning lines of a tv. It also showed aperture as being bisected equally by these same scanning lines. Since aperture is directly related to gain one could probably state that the angle of the scan lines on a TV is directly related to the tipping angle for radiation. Both are magnetically related ie angle of release of an electron so you may get a better answer from a T.V. technician with respect to angles than ham radio operators. Isn't science great when your brain is nimble and curious! Art |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why?
"art" wrote in message oups.com... On 26 Mar, 19:27, "Jimmie D" wrote: "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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Heh Jimmie, I was looking at a book that showed the scanning lines of a tv. It also showed aperture as being bisected equally by these same scanning lines. Since aperture is directly related to gain one could probably state that the angle of the scan lines on a TV is directly related to the tipping angle for radiation. Both are magnetically related ie angle of release of an electron so you may get a better answer from a T.V. technician with respect to angles than ham radio operators. Isn't science great when your brain is nimble and curious! Art It must be wonderful to wake up ina new world every morning. Jimme |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|