|
Ham radio herd mentality
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 |
Ham radio herd mentality
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 |
Ham radio herd mentality
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 |
Ham radio herd mentality
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 |
Ham radio herd mentality
"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 |
Ham radio herd mentality
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. |
Ham radio herd mentality
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 |
Ham radio herd mentality
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 |
Ham radio herd mentality
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:07:29 -0800, 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! The Real "Ham radio herd mentality" is also demonstrated by the number of hookees swept up by these trolls. |
Ham radio herd mentality
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 |
Ham radio herd mentality
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 |
Ham radio herd mentality
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 |
Ham radio herd mentality
On Nov 7, 10:26 am, Spam Trap wrote:
The Real "Ham radio herd mentality" is also demonstrated by the number of hookees swept up by these trolls. Yea, but you are missing the boat. These guys are our amusement. It would get way too boring if we didn't have "Heckle and Jeckle" to give us our daily dose of "radio mentality"... IE: the perverted load antenna = a full size monopole... That's a good one...lol..lol..lol.. Keep em coming! MK |
Ham radio herd mentality
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 |
Ham radio herd mentality
On 7 Nov, 10:04, Richard Clark wrote:
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 ofRr = 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 Get to mathematics. Prove me wrong by your own hand. Nobody has yet and nobody can. Words don't trump mathematics |
Ham radio herd mentality
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:33:10 -0800, art wrote:
Words don't trump mathematics And yet you haven't produced a lick of equations, or solutions. Do you still maintain mass and bluffing shows the error of Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)² ? You asked for a simple, one-sentence equation you could prove wrong with mathematics. Feel free to fill in the variables and show how the solution is wrong. [Hint: the same formula can even be found in a book you own, page 12 of chapter 2, of J&J, if you haven't colored over it on the page.] Note, that if you prove this wrong by your mathematics as you said you would, you simultaneously impeach your only reference book that you have used to prove your theory. Quite a paradox isn't it? I don't think Johnson and Jasik ever show that mass and bluffing like yours proves the error of their own work. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Ham radio herd mentality
"art" wrote in message oups.com... 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 A herd is by definition relatively unstructured. However, there may be one or a few animals which tend to be imitated by the rest of the members of the herd more than others. An animal taking this role is called a "control animal", since its behaviour will predict that of the herd as a whole. It cannot be assumed, however, that the control animal is deliberately taking a leadership role. Control animals are not necessarily, or even usually, those that are socially dominant in conflict situations, though they frequently are. |
Ham radio herd mentality
On 7 Nov, 15:36, "Bob" wrote:
"art" wrote in message oups.com... 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 A herd is by definition relatively unstructured. However, there may be one or a few animals which tend to be imitated by the rest of the members of the herd more than others. An animal taking this role is called a "control animal", since its behaviour will predict that of the herd as a whole. It cannot be assumed, however, that the control animal is deliberately taking a leadership role. Control animals are not necessarily, or even usually, those that are socially dominant in conflict situations, though they frequently are. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Interesting. So in the case of amateur radio it is the ARRL who is the control animal because they are socially dominant. Very good! I always saw it as a group of lemmings where each animal has his nose stuck under the rear of the animal in front, often called brown nosing, in a pecking order. So what's in it for ARRL to keep angled radiators a secret by , keeping it out of the handbook, did they copy write it so they can take the secret to their graves? Best regards Art |
Ham radio herd mentality
Art wrote:
"Most hams who strive for maximum radiation that is horizontally polarized place the radiator parallel to the earth`s surface." Reflection from the ionosphere nakes unpredictable changes in polarization. Nevertheless, the angle of arrival equals the angle of reflection at the ionosphere. Experience shows best results on a transmission path happen when the antennas at both ends of the path are complimentary. See E.A. Laport, "Radio Antenna Engineering" page 215, "High Frequency Antennas". Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Ham radio herd mentality
On 9 Nov, 15:12, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote: "Most hams who strive for maximum radiation that is horizontally polarized place the radiator parallel to the earth`s surface." Reflection from the ionosphere nakes unpredictable changes in polarization. Nevertheless, the angle of arrival equals the angle of reflection at the ionosphere. Experience shows best results on a transmission path happen when the antennas at both ends of the path are complimentary. See E.A. Laport, "Radio Antenna Engineering" page 215, "High Frequency Antennas". Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI I have no problem with what you state when dealing with skip, But not all antennas use the skip phenomina such as satellite antennas,MRO antennas or those used for weather conditions and wind shear nd ofcourse any helical design antenna .. What I was pointing out that if one was looking for maximum gain of a specific structure then the tipping angle comes into play. If you are looking for "max gain" without reference to what type of structure of polarization then yes, go ahead and do the standard axis parallel to the ground method if you wish. I believe that most radio hams recognise that a vertical polarised antenna is not the best type to use when commnicating over ground with horizontally polarised antennas and I suspect that even CBers are aware of that to. Art |
Ham radio herd mentality
Art wrote:
"I believe that most hams recognise that a vertical polarised antenna is not the best type to use when communicating over ground with horizontally polarised antennas and I suspect that even CBers are aware of that too." Crosspolarization creates an extreme loss if the ionosphere isn`t in the path constantly mixing the polarization. For several years I worked in what was then the world`s largest shortwave broadcasting plant. All our antennas for many bands and target areas were horizontally polarized. I`ve visited many commercial shortwave plants and it`s the same story. Horizontal polarization predominates. Our antennas were designed for operation over 1-hop or 2-hop paths. They could be received with any piece of wire in any attitude but would likely work best with a rhombic or curtain that exactly matched the transmitting antenna but on the receiving end of the path. Those worked very well indeed on the program relay circuits. C.B. is supposed to be a line-of-sight service. As mobile stations which may at any moment be located on any azimuth are involved, vertical antennas which don`t discriminate against any azimuth are likely the best choice for base and mobile stations which work together. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com