On 7 Nov, 07:07, John Smith wrote:
art wrote:
Most hams who strive for maximum radiation that is horizontally
polarised place the radiator parallel to the earths surface.
That is an example of herd mentallity.
When the vectors of radiation fields and "curl" are summated
the resulting vector is NOT along the axis of the radiator.
For maximum horisontally polarised radiation it is this
vector that must be parallel to the earths surface.
By the way Maxwell confirms this but hams chose
to ignore it.
Yup, herd mentallity!
Art

Well, that AND the fact that a 160m antenna can be difficult to
vertically polarize!

Regards,
JS

No it isn't. You slow the wave by
winding helices. Buy a tesla coil
(secondary coil) feed the end wires
and start radiating
Art

art wrote:
On 7 Nov, 07:07, John Smith wrote:
art wrote:
Most hams who strive for maximum radiation that is horizontally
polarised place the radiator parallel to the earths surface.
That is an example of herd mentallity.
When the vectors of radiation fields and "curl" are summated
the resulting vector is NOT along the axis of the radiator.
For maximum horisontally polarised radiation it is this
vector that must be parallel to the earths surface.
By the way Maxwell confirms this but hams chose
to ignore it.
Yup, herd mentallity!
Art
Well, that AND the fact that a 160m antenna can be difficult to
vertically polarize!

Regards,
JS

No it isn't. You slow the wave by
winding helices. Buy a tesla coil
(secondary coil) feed the end wires
and start radiating
Art


Even a vertical DLM antenna can be a challenge, depending on any certain
individuals property/lot, neighbors and other factors ...

At 20m on down this becomes MUCH more practical ...

And, most physically short antennas introduce degraded performance--the
DLM being a notable exception.

Regards,
JS

"John Smith" wrote
And, most physically short antennas introduce degraded performance
--the DLM being a notable exception.
_____________

Just to note that the URI test report showed the standard DLM on 3.5 MHz to
have about 2.33 dB less gain than the Navy's reference monopole. That means
that its groundwave field was found to be about 59% that of the reference
monopole.

Some might consider the performance of that DLM antenna to be "degraded,"
compared to a standard 1/4-wave monopole using the same r-f ground.

RF

Correcting myself...

That means that its *radiated power* was found to be about 59% that
of the reference monopole.

Showing my work:

[ 1/(10^(2.33/20)) ]^2 = 0.585, approx

RF

A herd of two:

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:16:44 -0800, art wrote:

On 7 Nov, 07:07, John Smith wrote:
a 160m antenna can be difficult to vertically polarize!

No it isn't.

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:23:03 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

Even a vertical DLM antenna can be a challenge
....
the DLM being a notable exception.

You two crack me up. Do you guys butter your toast on both sides so
when it falls to the ground only one side gets fuzzy? At least the
fuzzy side doesn't degrade masticating efficiency by sticking to the
roof of your mouth.

Richard Clark wrote:

...
You two crack me up. Do you guys butter your toast on both sides so
when it falls to the ground only one side gets fuzzy? At least the
fuzzy side doesn't degrade masticating efficiency by sticking to the
roof of your mouth.

As Richard Fry has pointed out, the Navys' data is available to all ...

Regards,
JS

On 7 Nov, 07:46, Richard Clark wrote:
A herd of two:

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:16:44 -0800, art wrote:
On 7 Nov, 07:07, John Smith wrote:
a 160m antenna can be difficult to vertically polarize!

No it isn't.

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:23:03 -0800, John Smith



wrote:
Even a vertical DLM antenna can be a challenge
...
the DLM being a notable exception.

You two crack me up. Do you guys butter your toast on both sides so
when it falls to the ground only one side gets fuzzy? At least the
fuzzy side doesn't degrade masticating efficiency by sticking to the
roof of your mouth.

You crack me up too
I was just reading all your posts to John E Davis on the
gauss statics law all over again.
All handwaving about mathematics but you presented
nothing that over rides his math.
No math or is it no mass?
You got your adults degree based on your journeys in the Navy
but that didn't provide you with a mathematics regimen
to fault Davis did it?
You never wrote anything that wasn't "fuzzy"
Whant to prove my initial post in error
or return to your fuzzy logic suitably scrambled
so that it cannot be deciferred?
Try proving my initial post on this thread is in error
but then you can't so you will resort to handwaving.
Yes, Krauss, Maxwell Gauss and many many others support it
but you, you are not equipped to oppose

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:18:26 -0800, art wrote:

Try proving my initial post on this thread is in error

In one sentence with fewer words than? :
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:04:38 -0800, art wrote:
Shorten your post and just type one line. I Richard, can show the error of your mathematics
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²

On 7 Nov, 08:57, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:18:26 -0800, art wrote:
Try proving my initial post on this thread is in error

In one sentence with fewer words than? :



On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:04:38 -0800, art wrote:
Shorten your post and just type one line. I Richard, can show the error of your mathematics
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly, bluffing again no mass

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:41:47 -0800, art wrote:

On 7 Nov, 08:57, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:18:26 -0800, art wrote:
Try proving my initial post on this thread is in error

In one sentence with fewer words than? :
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:04:38 -0800, art wrote:
Shorten your post and just type one line. I Richard, can show the error of your mathematics
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²

Exactly, bluffing again no mass

So no mass and bluffing shows the error of
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²
?

No one doubts that from you Arthur. Do you know what mathematics is?

To this point, your theories lack equations, and lacking equations
they lack results. You often fail to provide the minimum enumerated
characteristics of
1. frequency;
2. wavelength;
3. angle;
4. gain;
5. resistance;
6. reactance;
7. Q;
8. voltage;
9. current.
Yet and all, you claim to have a theory of RF that lacks values for
each and everyone of these specifics that are rudderless in your brand
of math without equations. True, you line up all these words in all
the possible combinations and permutations (and sometimes even spell
them right), but not always in coherent sentences and rarely
punctuated correctly. Enlarge your word palette and you may one day
script "Hamlet" through the same random process.

However, I am glad to see you still read my comments! So that
inspires me to happily slog on through your murky postings. ;-)

Forge on for Queen and Country!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC