On Sep 14, 1:05*pm, "Frank" wrote:
It is noted that the tilted monopole has
a slight gain opposite to the direction of tilt.

Hi Frank,

The numbers hint of mixed polarization results which would come as no
surprise from tilting which tosses in a horizontal component that was
effectively suppressed by a true vertical.

The hint is the collapse of the overhead null, and the marginal
differences close to the horizon.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,

There is some horizontal polarization. *The peak
level is about 20 db below the vertically polarized signal.
Certainly sufficient to effect the overhead null.

Hi Art,

The program is Nittany Scientific's implementation of
NEC 4.1. *I must confess I do not understand your
response. *The weak nuclear force about 10^(-9) less
than the strong nuclear force, and its range is limited
to distances smaller than an atomic nucleus, so I
cannot see how it can effect the radiation characteristics
of an antenna. *Are you saying you do not think my model
is valid? *The results certainly indicate that tilting a
monopole by 15 degrees is pointless -- other than a
marginal improvement in high-angle performance in
one direction.

73,

Frank

No Frank I do not deal in baiting. Marginal improvement is not
meaningles in any stretch of the word
I have always kept equilibrium at the center of my discussions
which is exactly what all the masters did. It was the concentration
on equilibrium that provided me with the path and mathematics of the
weak force
a vector put in place by all the masters such that the addition of all
forces finished at zero.
Thus the masters knew all about it, included it in their calculations
as Maxwell did.
You can do the same thing by measuring the tilt vector.
For myself I was looking for a way to make small antennas that was
efficient
thus accurracy is important in my work which means inclusion of all
forces
such that my work was not built on sand. My work revealed the design
of SMALL
efficient antennas where there is a need for today. The weak force is
a side product that supplies
the missing partr for the Universal law theory which was not my
primary project.
I then used a computor program designed around Maxwell to examine the
new antennas
which it does in great style according to my expectations as well as
testing a
configuration for zero radiation which I found quite convincing All
this work represented
a lot of work, study and effort over the years so flippant remarks
from loose tongues has
no effect on me unless accompanied byknown statictics. If you are
beginning a path of baiting
it would be a surprise to me so I am delaying such thoughts.
Have a happy day
Regards
Art
in mind and a full wavelength is in equilibrium where as a half wave
is not

On Sep 14, 1:55*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:05*pm, "Frank" wrote:



It is noted that the tilted monopole has
a slight gain opposite to the direction of tilt.

Hi Frank,

The numbers hint of mixed polarization results which would come as no
surprise from tilting which tosses in a horizontal component that was
effectively suppressed by a true vertical.

The hint is the collapse of the overhead null, and the marginal
differences close to the horizon.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,

There is some horizontal polarization. *The peak
level is about 20 db below the vertically polarized signal.
Certainly sufficient to effect the overhead null.

Hi Art,

The program is Nittany Scientific's implementation of
NEC 4.1. *I must confess I do not understand your
response. *The weak nuclear force about 10^(-9) less
than the strong nuclear force, and its range is limited
to distances smaller than an atomic nucleus, so I
cannot see how it can effect the radiation characteristics
of an antenna. *Are you saying you do not think my model
is valid? *The results certainly indicate that tilting a
monopole by 15 degrees is pointless -- other than a
marginal improvement in high-angle performance in
one direction.

73,

Frank

No Frank I do not deal in baiting. Marginal improvement is not
meaningles in any stretch of the word
*I have always kept equilibrium at the center of my discussions
*which is exactly what all the masters did. It was the concentration
*on equilibrium that provided me with the path and mathematics of the
weak force
a vector put in place by all the masters such that the addition of all
forces finished at zero.
Thus the masters knew all about it, included it in their calculations
as Maxwell did.
You can do the same thing by measuring the tilt vector.
*For myself I was looking for a way to make small antennas that was
efficient
thus accurracy is important in my work which means inclusion of all
forces
such that my work was not built on sand. My work revealed the design
of SMALL
efficient antennas where there is a need for today. The weak force is
a side product that supplies
the missing partr for the Universal law theory which was not my
primary project.
I then used a computor program designed around Maxwell to examine the
new antennas
which it does in great style according to my expectations as well as
testing a
configuration for zero radiation which I found quite convincing All
this work represented
a lot of work, study and effort over the years so flippant remarks
from loose tongues has
no effect on me unless accompanied byknown statictics. If you are
beginning a path of baiting
it would be a surprise to me so I am delaying such thoughts.
Have a happy day
Regards
Art
*in mind and a full wavelength is in equilibrium where as a half wave
is not

OOps I did not answer your nuclear question.
A static particle is just that a nearly depleted container of energy
with mass.
The arbitrary border around the sun is there as a line of equilibrium
where the inner forces are balanced
by the external forces. The sun burns so it produces by-products where
the energy that the burning removes
leaves only a half life of neuclear energy the accumulation of which
expands the arbritary bounday where physics demand
that an equalization of force must be established and allows the bye
products to escape. These particles have little direction in their
future travels
because of lack of spin needed for straight line trajectory. They can
how ever receive energy by the entrance to a magnetic field but again
without spin
it is determined to be static and thus come to rest on a material that
will not absorb it into its own atomic structure. Earth is a structure
where than 95 %
of the structure will not absorbe the static particle. Now you
mentioned full life of a nuclear particle and that to is released by
the Sun in the same manner as other particles in what is known as a
solar flare. Because of the considerable retained energy they can be
very destructive when landing on a electrical network to release their
energy prior to taking on a static form. There are many other
particles emitted by the sun which collect in bunches where some of
the particles have color which is a very strong binding force where
its binding force is let loose by the impact of the Earths magnetic
fieldn where the energy emmissions are readily vissible many miles
south of the poles where the released particles fasten on to the
minute droplets of moisture ever present in out atmosphere. Long
answer some of which is at yet unproved and that is where CERN comes
in. What fascinates me there is the ease that particles are "lost" to
moisture droplets and the thinking that a vacuum and a low kelvin
temperature will allow a continued trajectory but they have a lot of
clever people working on that.
Regards.......It has stopped raining
Art