Art Unwin wrote:
If Kraus said "The radiation is perpendicular to the accelleration"
then the book is worthless.

Balanis says, speaking of an infinitesimal dipole:
"Integrating the complex Poynting vector over a closed
sphere, ... results in the power (real and imaginary)
directed in the radial direction. Any transverse
components of power density, ... will not be captured by
the integration even though they are part of the overall
power."

Apparently, Kraus' assertion is a result of the integration
math and does not necessarily correspond to reality.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

John KD5YI wrote:
It is laughable to think anybody would consider you an authority on the
subject, much less a greater authority than Kraus or any other
contributor to this group. You really should get some psychiatric help
to quell those delusions of grandeur you have.

John, to be fair, in another posting, I quoted Balanis
as saying: "Any transverse components of power density
will not be captured by the [Poynting] integration even
though they are part of the overall power." Balanis seems
to imply that it is possible for transverse radiation
components to exist but get lost inside the math model.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Art Unwin wrote:
By the way John, read the book and determine why he points to a pitch
angle for best results
Thus pitch angle is not at right angles so perhaps you can explain
that.

Art, don't know if you have Balanis or not, but on page 134
of "Antenna Theory", 2nd edition, his example of a radiation
vector from an infinitesimal dipole is not perpendicular to
the dipole direction.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mar 11, 10:50 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
By the way John, read the book and determine why he points to a pitch
angle for best results
Thus pitch angle is not at right angles so perhaps you can explain
that.

Art, don't know if you have Balanis or not, but on page 134
of "Antenna Theory", 2nd edition, his example of a radiation
vector from an infinitesimal dipole is not perpendicular to
the dipole direction.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I haven't got that book but it doesn,t matter. The group will chose to
believe the
books that put it at parallel to the radiator axis. It is easier to
belittle the truth rather than put a radiator at say 12 degrees
to the earth surface and compute for max horizontal radiation. Repeat
but make the radiator parallel.
If the program agrees with you then buy it for future proof. I said
this before Cecil
but this group were frightened to explore for themselves and chose to
belittle instead.
Many were educated by remembering,few checked things out for
themselves.
Same goes for small antennas, they confuse small antennas with
electrically small antennas
big difference. Academia referrs to small electrical antennas when
discussing the subject,
My antenna is NOT electrically small. Period.
Regards
Art

I listen to the "little guy against the establishment, and I would be
willing to grant that some "establishment types" can be a little stodgy,
and sometimes "illiberal".

Bot only if those on the other side will quit pulling out the "noble and
plucky inventor", who works to advance science against establishment
ridicule.


A wiser man than myself who was himself ridiculed by some in the
"establishment" once said.....


But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all
who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed
at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown.
- Carl Sagan -


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Delaying any judgment on the antenna at hand, but starting to think that
it is looking like a tuned circuit on the end of some coax.......

In the absence of any real info, we are left guessing.

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
John KD5YI wrote:
It is laughable to think anybody would consider you an authority on the
subject, much less a greater authority than Kraus or any other
contributor to this group. You really should get some psychiatric help to
quell those delusions of grandeur you have.

John, to be fair, in another posting, I quoted Balanis
as saying: "Any transverse components of power density
will not be captured by the [Poynting] integration even
though they are part of the overall power." Balanis seems
to imply that it is possible for transverse radiation
components to exist but get lost inside the math model.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com


Cecil,

I did nothing more than supply a quotation from a respected authority on the
subject. I did not support the authority. Art dismissed the quotation
without so much as a single reference to any other authority. He did not
provide any supporting math or technical papers. Isn't this like saying "It
is so (or not so) because I said so. Take my word for it."

And he did not answer a single question I asked. Hmmmmmm.

At least you supplied another viewpoint from an authority, although you go
on to reduce my confidence in the quote with "seems to imply" and "it is
possible" (but not certain).

73,
John

On Mar 11, 12:37 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
I listen to the "little guy against the establishment, and I would be
willing to grant that some "establishment types" can be a little stodgy,
and sometimes "illiberal".

Bot only if those on the other side will quit pulling out the "noble and
plucky inventor", who works to advance science against establishment
ridicule.

A wiser man than myself who was himself ridiculed by some in the
"establishment" once said.....

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all
who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed
at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown.
- Carl Sagan -

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Delaying any judgment on the antenna at hand, but starting to think that
it is looking like a tuned circuit on the end of some coax.......

In the absence of any real info, we are left guessing.

15 years ago I stated that radiation is in the form of pulses,all
laughed
Since then I have itemised the steps to make the small antenna, all
laughed.
The info is in the archives many many times but to my knoweledge
nobody
has tried it for themselves preferring to memorise what the books say.
Yes it does look like a tuned circuit on the end of a coax but what if
it is?
Can you comment on the tilt angle of a radiator to ground to achieve
max
horizontal polarisation? Are you equipped to ascertain the answer for
yourself?
If so then do it and explain it to all, real proof you say. Hams can't
handle theb truth
When the results come out it will prove nothing to this group as they
then will
revert to attack the method of testing or the tester himself. I
already have read
one comment that has attacked the volunteer tester and that is with
just about
zero knoweledge about antennas. How many have come forward to explain
to
others what Gauss meant by equilibrium? How many have asked what
equilibrium means?
If anybody read the instructions on how to make it in the archives and
followed them
then you wouldn't be left guessing
Art

John KD5YI wrote:
At least you supplied another viewpoint from an authority, although you go
on to reduce my confidence in the quote with "seems to imply" and "it is
possible" (but not certain).

Those are my guarded words, not Balanis'. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mar 11, 1:06 pm, "John KD5YI" wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message

...

John KD5YI wrote:
It is laughable to think anybody would consider you an authority on the
subject, much less a greater authority than Kraus or any other
contributor to this group. You really should get some psychiatric help to
quell those delusions of grandeur you have.

John, to be fair, in another posting, I quoted Balanis
as saying: "Any transverse components of power density
will not be captured by the [Poynting] integration even
though they are part of the overall power." Balanis seems
to imply that it is possible for transverse radiation
components to exist but get lost inside the math model.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil,

I did nothing more than supply a quotation from a respected authority on the
subject. I did not support the authority. Art dismissed the quotation
without so much as a single reference to any other authority. He did not
provide any supporting math or technical papers. Isn't this like saying "It
is so (or not so) because I said so. Take my word for it."

And he did not answer a single question I asked. Hmmmmmm.

At least you supplied another viewpoint from an authority, although you go
on to reduce my confidence in the quote with "seems to imply" and "it is
possible" (but not certain).

73,
John

John, Roy's program is very old and basic, but it is free to use.
This radiation question is also very basic. So for once do something
for yourself
review your results and tell all what is correct or what not is
correct and that includes
Roy's program i.e. is it reliable if it does not concurr with the
books.?
This question can be resolved very easily and very quickly tho Roy has
never talked about it.
People on this group consistently avoid testing this out for
themselves possibly
because they also distrust NEC programs. If that is the case view the
following:
You have two vec tors that represent electrical field and magnetic
fields each at 90
degrees to each other which provides a resultant vector at 45 degrees.
Now we must consider
the remainig vector that is named "curl". Now something you can guess
at.
At what angle must the "curl" vector with reference to the axis of the
radiator be placed to verify
the statement of 90 degree radiation as stated in books? Do the books
confirm that resultant angle
via mathematics? Note this also inplies that the magnitude of the
resultant vector for the
fields is equal to the magn itude of the "curl " vector. Do the books
point this out also?
Do the work yourself and learn by it
Art

Art wrote:
"Can you comment on the tilt angle of the radiator to the ground to
achieve max horizontal polarization?"

Vertical radiators over the earth are optimally exactly vertical. Were
it not so, broadcasters would use tillted towers.

An excercise I`ve performed countless times is microwave path
establishment and optimization. I`ve bolted the tiny dipole feed into
the dish selecting horizontal polarization over vertical polarization in
most cases.

To establish a path, I set the azimuth using a transit and Coast and
Geodetic Survey maps to aim the dish on path. To aim for the horizon as
needed for a long path, I simply use a bubble level on the feed horn.

As soon as the signal appears, optimizarion begins by refining azimuth,
elevation, and polarization for maximum limiter current in the receiver.
Never have I seen any adjustment other than azimuth make any change in
the signal received. Parallel antennas at both ends of the path are
optimum. The same is true with vertical polarization for what is
essentially free-space propagation except for the grazing near the
middle of the path.

Tilt as Art implies it is a myth.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI