On 5 Dec, 10:51, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"The resultant vector of all vectors involved with radiation can NEVER
be at right angles to the axis of the radiator. PERIOD."

I`ve already defended the radial mode helix, but think of almost any
simple antenna. Doesn`t the half-wave dipole dradiate principally at
right angles to its axis?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

It doesw radiate at right angles of the axis but for maximumum
radiation of a particular TYPE then the resultant maximum radiation
vector is between ten and fifteen degrees from the ninety angle.
The total radiation is the same at right angles as to that when tilted
10 degrees or more from that angle.
If you play with the angles on any computor program including EZNEC
I suppose, using a wavelength radiator, this is readily seen
Remember, do not stray from the term "RESULTANT VECTOR" which
is the subject of discussion.End of discussion
Art
Art

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

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

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 surely know that there are magnetic vectors, electric vectors
and ofcourse curl. You don't need to know the vector units
to see that the resultant vector cannot be on the same axis
as the radiator!
Ofcourse the total amount of radiation does not change with tipping
the radiator a few degrees, but what type of radiation with
respect to polarisation that make up total radiation surely DOES.
Now Terman did not mention that as he surely would have if
it were true!
Hoping you do not have a relapse with respect to my postings
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:51:57 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

You surely know that there are magnetic vectors, electric vectors
and ofcourse curl. You don't need to know the vector units
to see that the resultant vector cannot be on the same axis
as the radiator!

Still and all, what is the unit for the Resultant Vector?

What operation did you perform that it is the result of?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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 Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:21:39 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

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

What is the vector's unit?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"art" wrote
It doesw radiate at right angles of the axis but for maximumum
radiation of a particular TYPE then the resultant maximum radiation
vector is between ten and fifteen degrees from the ninety angle.
The total radiation is the same at right angles as to that when tilted
10 degrees or more from that angle.
If you play with the angles on any computor program including
EZNEC I suppose, using a wavelength radiator, this is readily seen
______________

Below is table of free-space field values for the radiation of a vertical,
full-wave, center-fed dipole, from the horizontal plane to +/- 60 degrees of
elevation, using the "resultant maximum radiation vector."

Note that an elevation angle of zero degrees is at right angles to this
radiator.

Please explain how this validates the theory stated in your quote above.

RF

EZNEC Demo ver. 4.0

Art's Tilt Theory of Radiation 12/5/2007 2:56:18 PM

--------------- FAR FIELD PATTERN DATA ---------------

Frequency = 1 MHz

Field in mV/m for 1 kW at 1 km

Elevation Pattern Azimuth angle = 0 deg.
Deg V Fld
0 - 270.51
5 - 266.37
10 - 254.31
15 - 235.32
20 - 210.94
25 - 182.99
30 - 153.43
35 - 124.07
40 - 96.47
45 - 71.82
50 - 50.87
55 - 34.00
60 - 21.24

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, 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