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

Art scoffs at Kraus and Art scoffs at experience with antenna
orientation for best reception. So that readers aren`t mislead, olease
refer to page one of Terman`s 1955 opus:

"---radio waves. travel with the velocity of light and consist of
magnetic and electric fields at right angles to each other and also at
right angles to the direction of travel." Then check page 923:

"--- E is the field strength of the wave in volts per meter, Psi is the
angle between the plane of polarization and the wire in which the
voltage is induced" ---It will be observed that the quantity E cos Psi
cos theta is the component of the field strength which has a wavefront
parallel to the antenna and is polarized in the same plane as the
antenna."

He who scoffs at Terman is at great peril.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Mar 25, 12:36 pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"If Kraus said "The radiation is perpendicular to the acceleration" then
the book is worthless."

Art scoffs at Kraus and Art scoffs at experience with antenna
orientation for best reception. So that readers aren`t mislead, olease
refer to page one of Terman`s 1955 opus:

"---radio waves. travel with the velocity of light and consist of
magnetic and electric fields at right angles to each other and also at
right angles to the direction of travel." Then check page 923:

"--- E is the field strength of the wave in volts per meter, Psi is the
angle between the plane of polarization and the wire in which the
voltage is induced" ---It will be observed that the quantity E cos Psi
cos theta is the component of the field strength which has a wavefront
parallel to the antenna and is polarized in the same plane as the
antenna."

He who scoffs at Terman is at great peril.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

But ham radio and the Navy have proved him wrong with the T2FD
testing !
Computor programs designed around Maxwell's laws also prove him wrong.
I suggest you study the under pinnings, if any, by Terman of that
particular point
and then share the "proof" with all of us. Again, you have two vectors
for the
electric and magnetic field at right angles to each other. Using your
own brain
please tell as where the curl vector MUST be to prove your case.
Ofcourse you can
read a lot of books and select a diagram of the vectors involved that
solidifies your position
but I don't think you will find one anywhere. Your HIT and MYTH
aproaches just doesn't work out.

Art wrote:
"But ham radio and the Navy have proved him (Terman) wrong with T2FD
testing."

Art has likely tried a VHF or UHF antenna by rotation within a linearly
polarized wavefront. If so, he has experienced cross-polarization and
noted about 20 dB loss when cross-polarized in the field.

My WW-2 navy ship used a Marconi (inverted L) antenna for HF
communications with a Collins TCS. A signal reflected by the ionosphere
gains random polarization in the process. The vertically polarized
Marconi does well with a ground wave over short distances even at HF
over sea water. We had no slopers. The VHF and UHF antennas were all
vertical whips to cover all azimuths. Art`s inclined antenna is in
general a myth.

For rntertainment, we had a broadcast receiver called the RBO. It too
used a Marconi antenna as all medium wave broadcasts are launched from
vertical antennas. It worked well as would be expected of a broadcast
receiver.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
He who scoffs at Terman is at great peril.

If radiation was *only* perpendicular to the antenna,
wouldn't the beam width be fixed to the length of
the antenna? Wouldn't cloverleaf patterns be
impossible? What am I missing?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mar 25, 1:31 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
He who scoffs at Terman is at great peril.

If radiation was *only* perpendicular to the antenna,
wouldn't the beam width be fixed to the length of
the antenna? Wouldn't cloverleaf patterns be
impossible? What am I missing?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, he is not interested in finding the new,
he is more comfortable of staying with the old
people of his era. He doesn,t need proof and
doesn.t know how to handle it. Terman is the one thing left in life
he has, maybe we should leave him alone for eventual sainthood
ceremonies for Terman when they get to the milky way.
If he is looking for the Proof at the present time then we may
never hear from him again. No one has come to his aid with
a computor analysis realising that he is firmly set in his ways.
Heck, he won't even try our a computor and probably doesn't
have a new fangled television

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:43:49 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

a new fangled television

TV as the hallmark of the new age?

More like a silver plated drool cup in the age of the Internet.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Art Unwin wrote:
Cecil, he is not interested in finding the new,
he is more comfortable of staying with the old
people of his era.

I'm just trying to understand what Terman said.
Did he say that all of the radiation is perpendicular
to the radiating element or that most of the
radiation is perpendicular to the radiating element
or that none of the radiation is off the ends
of the element?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
"What am I missing?"

Radio waves spread during propagation. Huygens` principle is a cause.

Huygens says:
Each point on a primary wave front can be considered as a new source of
a secondary spherical wave and that a secondary spherical wave front can
be constructed as the envelope of these secondary waves. This is
illustrated in Fig. 5-37 on page 144 of the 3rd edition of Kraus`
"Antennas".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
"What am I missing?"

Radio waves spread during propagation. Huygens` principle is a cause.

But the Method Of Moments used by NEC for antenna
radiation patterns calculates the interference at
a point in space based on radiation from different
elementary dipole sections of the antenna. For
instance, when the antenna is two wavelengths long
there is no more broadside radiation than there is
radiation off the ends.

In "Antenna Theory" by Balanis, in Chapter 8, page
407, on Moment Method, he illustrates the method
using radiation angles less than 45 degrees to
the radiating element.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
"But the Method Of Moments used by NEC for antenna radiation patterns
calculates the interference at a point in space based on radiation from
different elementary dipole sections of the antenna."

Completely logical and it works. Interference or vector sum?

Terman illustrates radiation from an elementary doublet (dipole) , and
it is mostly at right angles to the antenna axis, on page 865 of his
1955 opus. On page 866 he shows an actual antenna consisting of numerous
elementary doublets and on page 867 he says:
"The result is that the fields radiated from different elementary
sections of a long wire add vectorially to give a sum that depends on
direction."

Kraus devotes Chapter 14 in the 3rd edition of "Antennas" to: "The
Cylindrical Antenna and the Moment Method (MM)."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI