Richard Fry wrote:
"Field in mV/m for 1 kW at 1 km Elevation pattern----"

Richard`s field strengths are consistent with Terman`s formula for
field strength on page 864 of his 1955 opus, equation (23-1):

E = 60pi/d (length/lambda) I cos theta (cos omega) (t-d/c)

Theta is the vertical elevation angle and, of course, at zero degrees
(the horizontal) cos theta =1, and at 90 degrees, cos theta = zero.
This gives the field strength from an elementary vertical doublet as
diagrammed on the next page. Omega is the angular frequency. I is the
uniform current through the element.

Terman says: "The laws governing such radiation are obtained by using
Maxwell`s equations to express the fields associated with the wire; when
this is done there is found to be a component, termed the radiated
field, having a strength rhat varies inversely with distance."

The 1/4-wave vertical along with its image in a perfect ground is shown
on page 887 to have the same elevation pattern.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 5 Dec, 12:35, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 12:18:17 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

do not stray from the term "RESULTANT VECTOR"

It might help to know the vector units;
it might help to know result of what vector operation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard,
You are obviously behind in physics with this succession of questions
like a prosecutor adressing the accused.
You start off with a vector along the axis
of the radiator and by adding a couple more vectors which you feel is
in order with the circumstaces and you come up with the resultant
vector.
Can you think of a appropiate situation where the resultant follows
the
same direction of the initial starting vector? One of the remaining
vectors is at right angles to the axis and the other vector
represents
"curl"
Regards
Art

On 5 Dec, 14:56, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:

"Field in mV/m for 1 kW at 1 km Elevation pattern----"

Richard`s field strengths are consistent with Terman`s formula for
field strength on page 864 of his 1955 opus, equation (23-1):

E = 60pi/d (length/lambda) I cos theta (cos omega) (t-d/c)

Theta is the vertical elevation angle and, of course, at zero degrees
(the horizontal) cos theta =1, and at 90 degrees, cos theta = zero.
This gives the field strength from an elementary vertical doublet as
diagrammed on the next page. Omega is the angular frequency. I is the
uniform current through the element.

Terman says: "The laws governing such radiation are obtained by using
Maxwell`s equations to express the fields associated with the wire; when
this is done there is found to be a component, termed the radiated
field, having a strength rhat varies inversely with distance."

The 1/4-wave vertical along with its image in a perfect ground is shown
on page 887 to have the same elevation pattern.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard,
For goodness sake read the operative word of this side thread.
It is RESULTANT VECTORreferring to the summation of all vectors of a
radiator.
Every thing you are saying has no relavence to this term what so ever.
Prove to the world yourself that maximum horizontal polarised
radiation occurs when the radiator is parallel to the earths surface
and be done with it. You surely are aware of antenna computor
programs,
use them or enquire.
You are surely aware that physics have moved on in the last fifty
years
and you can't bury yourself or bring the past into the present because
of your reluctance to change because of your work years experiences.
You have a antenna computor program expert in this group whose
program
which is based on Maxwellian laws confirm that for maximum horizontal
polarization the radiator is tipped away from the earth's surface with
respect to parallism.
These are not my laws, they are Maxwells.
It is not my program design, it is Roy's.
If you want to disagree with his programs findings take it up with
him,
(he stands by on this newsgroup solely to support EZNEC and welcomes
questions) or any author of NEC2,NEC4 or mininec computor programs,
all of which show the same results.
Put away your Terman bible which represents the past and address
the subject at hand today and throw away your resume of the past.
Remember the subject key word " resultant vector" It is clear,
it means what it says. It is not open to substitutions like
substituting total gain for total horizontally polarized gain.
Why O why do participants such as yourself want to elongate all
threads
by imposing deliberate deviations that reflect the decline of an aged
brain and respective reading skills
Regards
Art
Art

Richard Fry wrote:
The fact that adding a coil to an 11-degree radiator produced the system
reactance a 90-degree, unloaded, linear radiator does not mean that the
coil and its junction to the stinger have supplied the "missing
electrical degrees" to the antenna system. The RADIATOR is still only 11
degrees long, and will have same radiation resistance and relative field
pattern, regardless of the coil. The coil only supplied a non-reactive
condition at the system feedpoint.

I don't know how many times I've said this discussion
about current distribution in a loading coil doesn't
have anything at all to do with the radiation pattern.

The effort spent here in bitter argument about phase shift through a
coil, and missing degrees would be better spent on methods of improving
the radiation resistance of such systems, and reducing the matching and
r-f ground losses that limit their performance.

That may well be true. Please feel to start a thread
with that subject matter.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Richard Harrison wrote:
Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"However, the side that believes that a coil replaces all of the missing
antenna degrees is wrong."

It certainly can!
It radiated very well without any stinger or mast.

My statement assumed a stinger attached to the coil.
Of course, at the self-resonant frequency a coil is
100% antenna and vice versa.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
Glad that W8JI does not wear inquisitor mantle, or you would have fried by
now Cecil :-)

Does it make you want to storm his Bastille? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Art wrote:
"These are not my laws, they are Maxwell`s"
Yes. They are old butthey still work. Art`s discovery of Gaus has not
replaced Maxwell`s equations.

The origin of Maxwell`s equations may be of interest.

Faraday found that voltage induced in a loop is directly proportional to
the rate of change of the magnetic flux which passes through a loop.
Voltage arises more or less all along the contour of the loop.

Faraday`s law is: V = -dphi/dt

Flux passing through the contour is the integral of the flux density.

The rate of change of the total flux is thus the tate of change of the
integral.

In the years 1856-1873, Maxwell rewrote Faraday`s law by substiturions
to equate the electric field with the changing magnetic flux. The
contour of the magnetic field does not require a current carrying wire
around it.

An electric field is present in space so long as a changing magnetic
field is present.

Another discovery was that the magnetomotive force around a current is 4
pi I. It does not depend on shape or distance in the contour.

Displacement flux is created in a dielectric whenever an electric field
is applied. Electric charges can create it, so it is expressed in
coulombs per square meter. Displacement current is proportional to the
rate of change of the dielectric displacement.

Maxwell knew about displacement current and speculated it would poduce
magnetic flux the same as conduction current does. That was the key to
electromagnetic radiation. If an alternating current flows in a wire, an
alternating magnetic field will be produced in the space around the
wire. The alternating magnetic field creates an alternating electric
field in the surrounding space. This alternating electric field creates
an alternating displacement "current" in the dielectric (maybe it should
be called a displacement stress since the dielectric is an insulator) of
space which gives rise to another alternating magnetic field. This
expanding succession of fields continues ad infinitum. Heinrich Hertz
proved in 1888 that Mexwell`s speculations were correct.

The preceding is presented much more elegantly by B. Whitfield Griffith,
Jr. in "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" from which it was
lifted.

Gene Fuller wrote:
* EZNEC does not know or care about "standing waves" and "traveling
waves".

Exactly!!! That's why it is a good tool for such. EZNEC is
not biased. EZNEC reports standing-wave current when only it
exists. EZNEC reports traveling-wave current when only it
exists.

Phase needs to be carefully defined for the case at hand.

In this case, phase is defined by EZNEC. It is the phase of
the total current referenced to the reference phase of the
source.

In summary, if this page is intended to resolve any serious debate, it
does not. This stuff is already fully understood by everyone in the debate.

Of course, you knew all of this all the time and there's
nothing new here. That's why we have been arguing for
three years about it. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Unfortunately, it is rumored that W8JI has talked ON4UN
into changing that in the latest edition. I emailed ON4UN
about it but got no reply.

It has been changed. There is no longer any discussion of "degrees",
only "current".

It is too bad that W8JI has that much political power.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:43:11 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Using what probes?
Toroidal current pickup coils designed by W7EL
with the standard voltage probes.

What size 600 ohm non-inductive resistors?

50 watt devices removed from a military surplus
antenna tuner. I have a number of these devices
if anyone needs them.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com