Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 30, 10:47 am, art wrote:
On 29 May, 19:47, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Matt Brenenman wrote: "When I think of how a field induces a voltage, I think of voltage as being proportional to norm of the field." OK. Terman wrote on page 2 of his 1955 opus: "The strength of the wave measures in terms of microvolts per meter of stress in space is also exactly the same voltage that the magnetic flux of the wave induces in a conductor 1 m long when sweeping across this conductor with the velocity of light." Since Matt mentions circular polarization, one of the problems on page 50 in Kraus` 3rd edition of "Antennas" is notable. It states: "1-16-2 More power in C.P. Show that the average Poynting vector of a circularly polarized wave is twice that of a linearly polarized wave if the maximum electric field E is the same for both waves. This means that the medium can handle twice as much power before breakdown with circular polarization (CP) than with linear polarization (LP)." Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Richard, I am trying to decipher the above so my comments may well not be relavent to what you are actually saying. It is a given that far field circular polarisation results in a 3 db loss with respect to radiation compared to other polarisations. But one cannot from this assume that radiation from a radiator changes with respect to the designed polarization. When current is applied to a radiator in a time varient condition the vectors involved cannot change. The three phases of radiation are current application and electron emmission,formation of the near field and finally formation of the far field. I fail to see how vectors formed in the initial stage which can be seen as a Poyntings explanation changes or depends upon future formations of the ensueing radiation waves. Since the poster is interested in mathematicalanalysis of radiation he must obviously realise that the Laws of Conservation must be held and it woulkd appear that some confusion has been injected into his problem. Art Thank you for the responses. I've been to an out of town symposium the last week, and I haven't had time yet to sit down and think about them much. I'll look at the texts suggested and then perhaps I can make a considered reply ;). Thank you once again, M |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Anyone tried the Durham hi gain 800 antenna | Scanner | |||
High-Gain AM Car Antenna? | Shortwave | |||
Determining antenna resonance with a grid dip meter | Antenna | |||
Antenna gain question | Homebrew | |||
QST & Antenna Gain | Antenna |