Tilted radiator
 

A sloper antenna when resonant produces more gain
than a vertical dipole resonant at the same frequency.
True or false? prove it

Tilted radiator
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
A sloper antenna when resonant produces more gain
than a vertical dipole resonant at the same frequency.
True or false? prove it

run it through your neutrino based weak force enabled optimizer program and
see what you get!

Tilted radiator
 

On Sep 12, 7:12*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

A sloper antenna when resonant produces more gain
than a vertical dipole resonant at the same frequency.
True or false? prove it

run it through your neutrino based weak force enabled optimizer program and
see what you get!

a tilted radiator

Tilted radiator
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
A sloper antenna when resonant produces more gain
than a vertical dipole resonant at the same frequency.
True or false? prove it

Model parameters for sloping dipole: 60 ft at one end
13.3 ft at the other (45 deg slope). Horizontal dipole
at 60 ft. Length of both antennas 66 ft. Sloping dipole
resonant at 7.225 MHz, same length horizontal 7.3 MHz.
Average ground parameters: conductivity 5 mS/m, and
relative permittivity 13. Horizontal dipole maximum
gain off the sides (As expected). Sloping antenna
double lobed pattern with maximum gain at 80 degrees
either side of lowest end. Softwa Nittany's GNEC.

Simulation results:

EL. angle Sloping dipole Horizontal dipole
(deg.) Gain (dbi) Gain (dbi)
10 -1.5 +1.2
20 +1.4 +6
30 +2.4 +7
40 +2.7 +6.4
50 +2.7 +4.7
70 +2 -0.6
90 +1.5 -3.5

73, Frank

Tilted radiator
 

Simulation results:

EL. angle Sloping dipole Horizontal dipole
(deg.) Gain (dbi) Gain (dbi)
10 -1.5 +1.2
20 +1.4 +6
30 +2.4 +7
40 +2.7 +6.4
50 +2.7 +4.7
70 +2 -0.6
90 +1.5 -3.5

73, Frank

PS. Finite ground (Sommerfeld/Norton method).

Tilted radiator
 

On Sep 12, 7:55*pm, "Frank" wrote:
Simulation results:

EL. angle * *Sloping dipole *Horizontal dipole
(deg.) * * * * * *Gain (dbi) * *Gain (dbi)
10 * * * * * * * * *-1.5 * * * * * * +1.2
20 * * * * * * * * *+1.4 * * * * * * +6
30 * * * * * * * * *+2.4 * * * * * * +7
40 * * * * * * * * *+2.7 * * * * * * +6.4
50 * * * * * * * * *+2.7 * * * * * * +4.7
70 * * * * * * * * *+2 * * * * * * * *-0.6
90 * * * * * * * * *+1.5 * * * * * * -3.5

73, *Frank

PS. *Finite ground (Sommerfeld/Norton method).

FINE FRANK DAVE WILL SUPPLY THE ARRANGEMENT THAT GIVES MAXIMUM GAIN
as well as being resonant. Yours are not resonant as I assume you
would have supplied the info
The navy would not change to a antenna that was not resonant.
Art

Tilted radiator
 

FINE FRANK DAVE WILL SUPPLY THE ARRANGEMENT THAT GIVES MAXIMUM GAIN
as well as being resonant. Yours are not resonant as I assume you
would have supplied the info
The navy would not change to a antenna that was not resonant.
Art

The antenna is resonant.

Input impedance: 84.8 + j 1.3 at 7.25 MHz.

Not that I regard resonance as having any significance other than
the input impedance is resistive.

Frank

Tilted radiator
 

On Sep 12, 8:41*pm, "Frank" wrote:
FINE FRANK DAVE WILL SUPPLY THE ARRANGEMENT THAT GIVES MAXIMUM GAIN
as well as being resonant. Yours are not resonant as I assume you
would have supplied the info
The navy would not change to a antenna that was not resonant.
Art

The antenna is resonant.

Input impedance: 84.8 + j 1.3 *at 7.25 MHz.

Not that I regard resonance as having any significance other than
the input impedance is resistive.

Frank

Correct, as long as it is resistive. So what angle did the Navy tip
their antennas to achieve maximum gain?
They were not satisfied with the vertical antennas performance and
wanted something better.
So the question is what needs to be done to provide better performance
ie gain?
Yup they experimented in each and every way and fell upon.....what?
Even tho they cannot explain it.
David can tell you in less than 5 minuits which is the time the
program requires to provide the answer.
Art Unwin KB9MZ......xg

Tilted radiator
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 7:55 pm, "Frank" wrote:
The navy would not change to a antenna that was not resonant.

sure they would, there is no reason to have a resonant antenna... a
non-resonant one radiates just fine when you have the power to get the
current into it. its all in the driving and matching networks.

Tilted radiator
 

On Sep 12, 7:47*pm, "Frank" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

A sloper antenna when resonant produces more gain
than a vertical dipole resonant at the same frequency.
True or false? prove it

Model parameters for sloping dipole: 60 ft at one end
13.3 ft at the other (45 deg slope). *Horizontal dipole
at 60 ft. *Length of both antennas 66 ft. *Sloping dipole
resonant at 7.225 MHz, same length horizontal 7.3 MHz.
Average ground parameters: conductivity 5 mS/m, and
relative permittivity 13. *Horizontal dipole maximum
gain off the sides (As expected). *Sloping antenna
double lobed pattern with maximum gain at 80 degrees
either side of lowest end. *Softwa Nittany's GNEC.

Simulation results:
..... snip ....

The original question said VERTICAL dipole , but you modeled a
HORIZONTAL dipole? Or was one of these just a typo?

FWIW, I modeled your horizontal dipole in EZNEC and came up with
slightly DIFFERENT results:
Resonant frequency about 7.335 Mhz
Resistance about 81 ohms
Max gain about 6.54 dBi at 30 degrees
I am INexperienced in using EZNEC and wonder if I'm doing something
wrong?

--Myron, W0PBV.

Tilted radiator
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 7:55 pm, "Frank" wrote:
The navy would not change to a antenna that was not resonant.

sure they would, there is no reason to have a resonant antenna... a
non-resonant one radiates just fine when you have the power to get the
current into it. its all in the driving and matching networks.


the other one that art has never answered is that if it takes his magical
mystery particles settling on diamagnetic materials and then hopping around
against gravity because of the weak force, why do my ferromagnetic antennas
radiate so well? according to him they shouldn't have the magical mystery
particles so shouldn't be able to radiate because all the current would be
stuck on the inside of the conductors going back to the source instead of
hopping up and down in joy with all those particles... come on art, explain
that one in terms of your neutrino based weak force optimizer that you
pulled off the shelf that was written by someone who ignored the weak force
and neutrinos.

Tilted radiator
 

The original question said VERTICAL dipole , but you modeled a
HORIZONTAL dipole? Or was one of these just a typo?

FWIW, I modeled your horizontal dipole in EZNEC and came up with
slightly DIFFERENT results:
Resonant frequency about 7.335 Mhz
Resistance about 81 ohms
Max gain about 6.54 dBi at 30 degrees
I am INexperienced in using EZNEC and wonder if I'm doing something
wrong?

--Myron, W0PBV.

No, you are correct. I must have been asleep. Funny that nobody
else noticed my error. The difference in your results are probably
due to the fact that EZNEC does not use the Sommerfeld/Norton
ground model which produces more accurate results when the
radiator is near to the ground.

Frank VE6CB

Tilted radiator
 

On Sep 13, 10:42*am, "Frank" wrote:
The original question said VERTICAL dipole , but you modeled a
HORIZONTAL dipole? *Or was one of these just a typo?

FWIW, I modeled your horizontal dipole in EZNEC and came up with
slightly DIFFERENT results:
* Resonant frequency about 7.335 Mhz
* Resistance about 81 ohms
* Max gain about 6.54 dBi at 30 degrees
I am INexperienced in using EZNEC and wonder if I'm doing something
wrong?

--Myron, W0PBV.

No, you are correct. *I must have been asleep. *Funny that nobody
else noticed my error. *The difference in your results are probably
due to the fact that EZNEC does not use the Sommerfeld/Norton
ground model which produces more accurate results when the
radiator is near to the ground.

Frank VE6CB

well done

Tilted radiator
 

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:42:00 GMT, "Frank"
wrote:

No, you are correct. I must have been asleep. Funny that nobody
else noticed my error. The difference in your results are probably
due to the fact that EZNEC does not use the Sommerfeld/Norton
ground model which produces more accurate results when the
radiator is near to the ground.

Hi Frank,

It was noticed, but certainly not by Authur. I don't hold out any
hope of ever seeing him do half the work to show numbers to prove his
concept.

However, you are still asleep. EZNEC does offer you the choice of
Sommerfeld/Norton grounds, and you even get to define the
characteristics of that ground. This, too, is something that Authur
has no competence with, or let's just say he has refused to share
actual data there too.

As for the Navy using tilted antennas (suggested by an unnamed
admiral, Authur's usual anonymous authorities).... Well, I have been
invited aboard fighting ships in the last year. I have inspected
their AEGIS radars systems. I have taken pictures of their antennas.
If any one is interested, I could post some at my web site that are
absolutely beyond many correspondent's experience. They are not
tilted (an absurdity) unless a hurricane force wave slapped them into
the hull (not obviously evident by any evidence however).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Tilted radiator
 

Hi Frank,

It was noticed, but certainly not by Authur. I don't hold out any
hope of ever seeing him do half the work to show numbers to prove his
concept.

However, you are still asleep. EZNEC does offer you the choice of
Sommerfeld/Norton grounds, and you even get to define the
characteristics of that ground. This, too, is something that Authur
has no competence with, or let's just say he has refused to share
actual data there too.

As for the Navy using tilted antennas (suggested by an unnamed
admiral, Authur's usual anonymous authorities).... Well, I have been
invited aboard fighting ships in the last year. I have inspected
their AEGIS radars systems. I have taken pictures of their antennas.
If any one is interested, I could post some at my web site that are
absolutely beyond many correspondent's experience. They are not
tilted (an absurdity) unless a hurricane force wave slapped them into
the hull (not obviously evident by any evidence however).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Thanks for the info Richard. Obviously any NEC based program
will have the Sommerfeld/Norton option. As for Navy antennas;
I have seen that they can be tilted, but only so they do not
get shot to pieces by the ships weapons. I too wondered "What
admiral, and in which port".

73, Frank, VE6CB

Tilted radiator
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 7:55 pm, "Frank" wrote:
The navy would not change to a antenna that was not resonant.

sure they would, there is no reason to have a resonant antenna... a
non-resonant one radiates just fine when you have the power to get the
current into it. its all in the driving and matching networks.


the other one that art has never answered is that if it takes his magical
mystery particles settling on diamagnetic materials and then hopping
around against gravity because of the weak force, why do my ferromagnetic
antennas radiate so well? according to him they shouldn't have the
magical mystery particles so shouldn't be able to radiate because all the
current would be stuck on the inside of the conductors going back to the
source instead of hopping up and down in joy with all those particles...
come on art, explain that one in terms of your neutrino based weak force
optimizer that you pulled off the shelf that was written by someone who
ignored the weak force and neutrinos.


come on art! wx was nice today, but expecting more rain tomorrow, come up
with something good to keep us amused!

Tilted radiator
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
A sloper antenna when resonant produces more gain
than a vertical dipole resonant at the same frequency.
True or false? prove it

Gain in which direction? True AND False - Prove otherwise.

Tilted radiator
 

NOTE: This is a repost from my sent file. It didn't appear
20 hours or so after I sent it. Sorry if it's a dupe to anybody.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Art Unwin" wrote in message
news:7ce5bd71-d583-433d-88f0-

snip

The navy would not change to a antenna that was not resonant.

Perhaps you are speaking of another country's Navy with which you are
well-acquainted.

Having been intimately involved with US Navy electronics for over 45 years
(active duty 1962 -1982; civilian support in multiple capacities 1982 -
2007) I can tell you that our Navy has numerous shipboard and
shore-establishment antennas that are not resonant. Since flexibility in
frequency selection confers a tactical advantage, broadbanding is far more
important. Tuners and couplers of several designs allow non-resonant
antennas to work well.

The closest the Navy gets to resonant antennas is in some special
fixed-frequency applications, like IFF. Of course, antennas are sized for
the application and will probably exhibit resonance within their band of
operation, but that's not the design goal.

Tilted radiator
 

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...


As for the Navy using tilted antennas (suggested by an unnamed
admiral, Authur's usual anonymous authorities).... Well, I have been
invited aboard fighting ships in the last year. I have inspected
their AEGIS radars systems. I have taken pictures of their antennas.
If any one is interested, I could post some at my web site that are
absolutely beyond many correspondent's experience. They are not
tilted (an absurdity) unless a hurricane force wave slapped them into
the hull (not obviously evident by any evidence however).

Absurdity or no, a "stealthing" technique for the Arleigh Burke class
of destroyers involves sharply limiting the radar cross-section by not
installing vertical structures, including most, if not all, the antennas.

See this picture, which is typical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...iterranean.jpg

You can clearly see two pairs of tilted HF whips, one pair amidships and
another pair on the stern. This same stealthing technique is being
employed on the new LPD-17 class.

Some Navy antennas are mounted on tilting mechanisms which allow
them to pivot all the way horizontal, so as not to be a hazard to aircraft.
That's different.

Tilted radiator
 

On Sep 14, 12:23*am, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:
NOTE: *This is a repost from my sent file. *It didn't appear
20 hours or so after I sent it. *Sorry if it's a dupe to anybody.
---------------------------------------------------------------------"Art Unwin" wrote in message

news:7ce5bd71-d583-433d-88f0-

snip

The navy would not change to a antenna that was not resonant.

Perhaps you are speaking of another country's Navy with which you are
well-acquainted.

Having been intimately involved with US Navy electronics for over 45 years
(active duty 1962 -1982; civilian support in multiple capacities 1982 -
2007) *I can tell you that our Navy has numerous shipboard and
shore-establishment antennas that are not resonant. *Since flexibility in
frequency selection confers a tactical advantage, broadbanding is far more
important. *Tuners and couplers of several designs allow non-resonant
antennas to work well.

The closest the Navy gets to resonant antennas is in some special
fixed-frequency applications, like IFF. *Of course, antennas are sized for
the application and will probably exhibit resonance within their band of
operation, but that's not the design goal.

These were shore based installations probably in Hawaii or some
island.
With respect to resonance, moving away from such as well as changing
from 15 degrees
(Frank's 30 degrees divided by two)
would provide a pattern of distinct advantage which the navy is
constantly looking for
For a whip tipped at an angle of 15 degrees can provide a forward
pattern of gain which can be a big deal
I anticipate that the navy will gyrate towards helical design where
the addition of a magnetic field will give a pattern of choice
together with resonance the size of a shoebox to reduce the number of
antennas on board.
Thanks for the info, it certainly was not silly As an aside the 15
degrees is the same as found empirically by Kraus
in the pitch angle of a helical, another example of the inclusion of
the weak force in a system in equilibrium !

Tilted radiator
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the info, it certainly was not silly As an aside the 15
degrees is the same as found empirically by Kraus
in the pitch angle of a helical, another example of the inclusion of
the weak force in a system in equilibrium !

where is that weak force in maxwell's equations????? the world is waiting
to know!

Tilted radiator
 

On Sep 14, 11:30*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Thanks for the info, it certainly was not silly As an aside the 15
degrees is the same as found empirically by Kraus
in the pitch angle of a helical, another example of the inclusion of
the weak force in a system in equilibrium !

where is that weak force in maxwell's equations????? *the world is waiting
to know!

You will never get it from me. You have done nothing for yourself or
anybody else on this group
so why should I do it for you? Why haven't you done the AO program for
the benefit of the group?
I know it will be embarassing to you but no more than your other posts
have done.
Carry on your fight against change and be among friends. Don't do the
AO program which
acknowledges the weak force that way there can be no change, Just
continue to be a talking head !

Tilted radiator
 

On Sep 13, 9:03*pm, "Hal Rosser" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

A sloper antenna when resonant produces more gain
than a vertical dipole resonant at the same frequency.
True or false? prove it

Gain in which direction? True AND False - Prove otherwise.

Sometimes you just have to do it for yourself instead of the use of
free speech
where there is no accountability

Tilted radiator
 

These were shore based installations probably in Hawaii or some
island.
With respect to resonance, moving away from such as well as changing
from 15 degrees
(Frank's 30 degrees divided by two)
would provide a pattern of distinct advantage which the navy is
constantly looking for
For a whip tipped at an angle of 15 degrees can provide a forward
pattern of gain which can be a big deal
I anticipate that the navy will gyrate towards helical design where
the addition of a magnetic field will give a pattern of choice
together with resonance the size of a shoebox to reduce the number of
antennas on board.
Thanks for the info, it certainly was not silly As an aside the 15
degrees is the same as found empirically by Kraus
in the pitch angle of a helical, another example of the inclusion of
the weak force in a system in equilibrium !

My original model was for a dipole tilted 45 degrees. The following
analysis is for a 35 ft ground mounted monopole with thirty-six 40 ft
radials buried 1" below an average ground of: conductivity 5 mS/m,
and relative permittivity 13. It is noted that the tilted monopole has
a slight gain opposite to the direction of tilt. The following comparison
is made in the direction of maximum gain. The F/B ratio is nominally
0.2 db, and the gain 0.2 db at lower angles. The measurement was
made on 7.2 MHz, and the input impedance 45 + j 47 ohms.

Take off Angle Vertical 15 deg tilt
(degrees) Gain (dbi) Gain (dbi)
10 -2.5 -2.3
20 -0.2 0
30 0 +0.3
40 -0.8 -0.3
50 -2.3 -1.5
60 -4.6 -3.3
70 -8.0 -5.9
80 -14.0 -9.3
90 Deep null -13.4


CM Monopole with buried radial system.
CE
GW 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 -0.083 0.0026708
GW 37 39 0 1 -0.083 0 40 -0.083 0.0026708
GR 1 36
GS 0 0 0.304800
GE -1 -1 0
GN 2 0 0 0 13.0000 0.0050
FR 0 1 0 0 7.2 0.01
LD 5 0 0 0 5.8001E7
WG monopole_36.NGF
EN


CM 36 Radial Read NGF
CE
GF 0 monopole_36.NGF
GW 73 35 0 9.0587 33.807 0 0 0 0.002671
GS 0 0 0.304800
GE 0 0 0
EX 0 73 35 0 6349.474358 0.00000
LD 5 0 0 0 5.8001E7
RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 270 1.00000 1.00000
EN

73, Frank

Tilted radiator
 

On Sep 14, 12:22*pm, "Frank" wrote:
These were shore based installations probably in Hawaii or some
island.
With respect to resonance, moving away from such as well as changing
from 15 degrees
(Frank's 30 degrees divided by two)
would provide a pattern of distinct advantage which the navy is
constantly looking for
For a whip tipped at an angle of 15 degrees can provide a forward
pattern of gain which can be a big deal
I anticipate that the navy will gyrate towards helical design where
the addition of a magnetic field will give a pattern of choice
together with resonance the size of a shoebox to reduce the number of
antennas on board.
Thanks for the info, it certainly was not silly As an aside the 15
degrees is the same as found empirically by Kraus
in the pitch angle of a helical, another example of the inclusion of
the weak force in a system in equilibrium !

My original model was for a dipole tilted 45 degrees. *The following
analysis is for a 35 ft ground mounted monopole with thirty-six 40 ft
radials buried 1" below an average ground of: conductivity 5 mS/m,
and relative permittivity 13. *It is noted that the tilted monopole has
a slight gain opposite to the direction of tilt. *The following comparison
is made in the direction of maximum gain. *The F/B ratio is nominally
0.2 db, and the gain 0.2 db at lower angles. *The measurement was
made on 7.2 MHz, and the input impedance 45 + j 47 ohms.

Take off Angle * * * *Vertical * * * * * *15 deg tilt
(degrees) * * * * * * * Gain (dbi) * * * * * Gain (dbi)
10 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-2.5 * * * * * * * * * *-2.3
20 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-0.2 * * * * * * * * * *0
30 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *0 * * * * * * * * * * * +0.3
40 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -0.8 * * * * * * * * *-0.3
50 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-2.3 * * * * * * * * * -1.5
60 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-4.6 * * * * * * * * * -3.3
70 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-8.0 * * * * * * * * * -5.9
80 * * * * * * * * * * * * * -14.0 * * * * * * * * *-9.3
90 * * * * * * * * * *Deep null * * * * * * * * * -13.4

CM Monopole with buried radial system.
CE
GW 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 -0.083 0.0026708
GW 37 39 0 1 -0.083 0 40 -0.083 0.0026708
GR 1 36
GS 0 0 0.304800
GE -1 -1 0
GN 2 0 0 0 13.0000 0.0050
FR 0 1 0 0 7.2 0.01
LD 5 0 0 0 5.8001E7
WG monopole_36.NGF
EN

CM 36 Radial Read NGF
CE
GF 0 monopole_36.NGF
GW 73 35 0 9.0587 33.807 0 0 0 0.002671
GS 0 0 0.304800
GE 0 0 0
EX 0 73 35 0 6349.474358 0.00000
LD 5 0 0 0 5.8001E7
RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 270 1.00000 1.00000
EN

73, *Frank

Frank I am not familiar with your programming but the weak force is
just that....weak
It is for that reason the Yagi coupling of elements provides a good
estimate with easy structure.
For long distance accurracy is not a big deal but for measuring and
for medical applications it is.
Art

Tilted radiator
 

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:53:32 -0700, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:

Absurdity or no, a "stealthing" technique for the Arleigh Burke class
of destroyers involves sharply limiting the radar cross-section by not
installing vertical structures, including most, if not all, the antennas.

See this picture, which is typical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...iterranean.jpg

You can clearly see two pairs of tilted HF whips, one pair amidships and
another pair on the stern. This same stealthing technique is being
employed on the new LPD-17 class.

I would say that they are in the typical sea-swept configuration, not
found on the Fletcher Class Destroyers of my duty, but mixed in with
the designs of, say, the later Barry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USS_Barry.jpg
Where you can nearly see two tilted HF whips, one amidships and
another behind the aft stack (actually both are behind their
respective stacks, as are the stacks sea-swept). The design of
reduced right angles is a staple in the "tripod masts." Obviously,
these 50 year old features were in place for reasons of their own that
were separate from radar silhouette considerations. Further, the
largest silhouette would be broadsides where the whips in ALL these
pictures are at 90 degrees to the beam.

I would also note that the Zumwalt Destroyer Class (as represented in
graphics) lacks any vertical whip antennas at any angle.

However, returning to my own recent shipboard experience and antennas
there, I will later today post a link to a dozen or so pictures. It
will include shots of Guss' Loops. I dare say several of these
pictures will provoke much head scratching (but only to those few
actually interested in antennas here in this forum).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Tilted radiator
 

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:22:37 GMT, "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

Tilted radiator
 

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

Tilted radiator
 

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

Tilted radiator
 

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

Tilted radiator
 

Art Unwin wrote:

...
Sometimes you just have to do it for yourself instead of the use of
free speech
where there is no accountability

We have a few words to describe such, here in America (well, real
Americans do anyway):

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." --
source unknown.

It dates back to about the time of our forefathers drafting of the
constitution, if not well before ...

IMHO, it could not be said better.

Regards,
JS

Tilted radiator
 

"Art Unwin" wrote
These were shore based installations probably in Hawaii or some island.
With respect to resonance, moving away from such as well as changing
from 15 degrees (Frank's 30 degrees divided by two) would provide a pattern
of distinct advantage which the navy is constantly looking for. For a whip
tipped at an angle of 15 degrees can provide a forward pattern of gain which
can be a big deal
__________

Art -

The graphic linked below is the work of George H. Brown of RCA Labs, from a
1936 paper published in the Proceedings of the IRE.

It is a plot of surface wave field intensity vs.monopole height, including
the distance to the "fade zone" where nighttime skywave radiation returns to
earth to via reflection from the ionosphere to interfere with the surface,
or ground wave.

In it please note:

1. Maximum field strength does not occur at electrically resonant heights of
the monopole (that is, where its feed point terminal reactance is zero).

2. The characteristics plotted are not related to azimuth, therefore the
performance of a broadcast monopole will not be enhanced by "tipping." If
it was, AM broadcast stations would have been doing so starting 70 years
ago.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...alMonopole.gif

RF

Tilted radiator
 

On Sep 14, 2:24*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
...
Sometimes you just have to do it for yourself instead of the use of
free speech
where there is no accountability

We have a few words to describe such, here in America (well, real
Americans do anyway):

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." --
source unknown.

It dates back to about the time of our forefathers drafting of the
constitution, if not well before ...

IMHO, it could not be said better.

Regards,
JS

JS I am just trying to explain physics and radiation is simple terms
for the layman
this does lead to mis characterizations in favor of clarity.
There is an example of garbled language submitted earlier today to
give the impression
of greatness in stature. A three dimension field was explained where
it provided gain.
The person went into uneadded information to decribe something like it
was a new revalation of science
where in fact it is totally meaningless with respect to related
context. Sure I am not the best guy in explaining things as with my
spelling
but I see no pleasure of infering the silliness of another person by
inflating my own significance by the use of a loose mouth,
Apparently others do !
When the new patent comes out I expect the same comments that I have
heard in the past
I knew that! everybody knows that. What use is it etc
Look to the past and you will see the outlines of the future
It would thrill me to bits if I was given an example where mathematics
proved me wrong as it would give me a reason to re evaluate things
a process I enjoy but that is not to be
Best regards
I have a old mercedes in storage and my daughter has a need for a car
and has asked for it so I have to replaces the deisel lines as they
have probably swelled and some other things. I think it is a bit of
cheek but then it will be nice to see it on the road again
My present deisel that I drive of the same manufacturer she says she
doesn't like.......Women come from Venus no less
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......xg

Tilted radiator
 

On Sep 14, 3:18*pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wroteThese were shore based installations probably in Hawaii or some island.
With respect to resonance, moving away from such as well as changing

from 15 degrees (Frank's 30 degrees divided by two) would provide a pattern
of distinct advantage which the navy is constantly looking for. *For a whip
tipped at an angle of 15 degrees can provide a forward pattern of gain which
can be a big deal
__________

Art -

The graphic linked below is the work of George H. Brown of RCA Labs, from a
1936 paper published in the Proceedings of the IRE.

It is a plot of surface wave field intensity vs.monopole height, including
the distance to the "fade zone" where nighttime skywave radiation returns to
earth to via reflection from the ionosphere to interfere with the surface,
or ground wave.

In it please note:

1. Maximum field strength does not occur at electrically resonant heights of
the monopole (that is, where its feed point terminal reactance is zero).
I will look at the URL later Now I put the resonance as second to
equilibrium
as with equilibrium the need for a ground plane is negated In general
terms broadcast stations want equal radiation
around the point of installation knowing that the decibel is not
discernable in their audiance ears





2. The characteristics plotted are not related to azimuth, therefore the
performance of a broadcast monopole will not be enhanced by "tipping." *If
it was, AM broadcast stations would have been doing so starting 70 years
ago.
That is what Harrison said. He also said we have one method of
radiation so why do we need another?
Brown had no reason to isolate horizontal propagation from vertical
propagation and because construction
is way more simple relative to Earth there is no reason to reinvent
the wheel. The Yagi method of radiation
is a very good approximation even tho it disregards the weak force as
it deals more with total gain versus the polarity
of the field. Present day science have more demands on radiation than
Brown would realize. My wife nearly died last year because of a slight
misdirection
at the hospital when a needle nicked the liver when the medical people
placed to much reliance on provided measurements that were beyond the
capabilities of the equipment. As science grows so does understanding
and so does use of radiation which has requirements
way beyond a radio station


Regards
Art

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...fVerticalMonop...

RF

Tilted radiator
 

"Art Unwin" wrote
I will look at the URL later.

We all know that already you have looked at it, Art.

Now I put the resonance as second to equilibrium as with
equilibrium the need for a ground plane is negated.

"Now" that possibly you might understand that resonance of antennas is
unimportant? (Let us hope so.)

Also note that none of the Masters which you continually reference has
written anything whatsoever about any "equilibrium" needed for the efficient
radiation of antenna systems, with or without a "ground plane."

2. The characteristics plotted are not related to azimuth, therefore
the performance of a broadcast monopole will not be enhanced by
"tipping." If it was, AM broadcast stations would have been doing
so starting 70 years ago.

Brown had no reason to isolate horizontal propagation from vertical
propagation and because construction is way more simple relative
to Earth there is no reason to reinvent the wheel.

Arthur -- please note that a vertical monopole generates only
vertically-polarized EM waves in the far field. Brown had no need / reason
to investigate or comment on h-pol fields from such radiators, as for the
conditions of his investigations they did not exist.

The Yagi method of radiation is a very good approximation even tho
it disregards the weak force as it deals more with total gain versus
the polarity of the field.

"Polarity" is not synonymous with polarization, Arthur. Please learn and
respect the difference, if you wish your posts to be (somewhat) more
credible.

RF

Tilted radiator
 

On Sep 14, 6:44*pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote

I will look at the URL later.

We all know that already you have looked at it, Art.

Now I put the resonance as second to equilibrium as with
equilibrium the need for a ground plane is negated.

"Now" that possibly you might understand that resonance of antennas is
unimportant? (Let us hope so.)
I will not be the focus of a contrived auguement but I will respond
I never said that resonance was uninportant only that it is second to
equilibrium


Also note that none of the Masters which you continually reference has
written anything whatsoever about any "equilibrium" needed for the efficient
radiation of antenna systems, with or without a "ground plane."
The masters addressed thge Universal sciences of which equilibrium was
a staple
They were on the opposing side of capatalism where diminishing returns
and politics govern everything.

2. The characteristics plotted are not related to azimuth, therefore
the performance of a broadcast monopole will not be enhanced by
"tipping." If *it was, AM broadcast stations would have been doing
so starting 70 years ago.
Brown had no reason to isolate horizontal propagation from vertical
propagation and because construction is way more simple relative
to Earth there is no reason to reinvent the wheel.

Arthur -- please note that a vertical monopole generates only
vertically-polarized EM waves in the far field. *Brown had no need / reason
to investigate or comment on h-pol fields from such radiators, as for the
conditions of his investigations they did not exist.

Exactly, a case of diminishing returns thus no funds for unknown
visits into science
A brordcaster accepts the drop out of listeners at the periphary of
their signals despite
the huge area of desired customers
Now radiation has expanded enormously into wireless operations where
diminishing returns rules the industry
since that industry cannot survive with a multitude of dropped
signals. Now "value" determines the feeding of science in an area that
the masters or George could not possibly have contemplated which
raises such statements of yours where your past is rapidly being
overcome by the desires of the future such that you would question the
need. Nothing personal as you are following solely the path of your
experience which has been satisfactory for you to thus the denial for
change. But again you are welcome to your own opinions as long as they
do not interfere with mine and contempt becomes active.

The Yagi method of radiation is a very good approximation even tho
it disregards the weak force as it deals more with total gain versus
the polarity of the field.

"Polarity" is not synonymous with polarization, Arthur. *Please learn and
respect the difference, if you wish your posts to be (somewhat) more
credible.

Yes that is true and is a fault of mine Those knoweledgable in the
field understand
that error because they are looking for the positives and not the
negatives.
But it does not diminish the value of the intent !. For example Wind
shear has come into prominence
because of tragic air accidents. Present day science relies on the
transmission of a polarised signal
where the reflected signal is analysed for distortion. Problem is that
the initial signal is contaminated
with other polarities such that the returns signal is doubly
distorted thus preventing accurate analysis
of wind shear. A small problem or observation of science for which
there is a immediate need which
can be helped by the observations that some would question the need
or veracity of. Credability is built on the memory
of prior stated positions usually put to memory of print. Credability
is always in question by those resistant to change primarily guided
by what is known with the credability of printed matter since they
take comfort in numbers.
Another point Nasa is very interested in the removal of moon dust or
particles from entering space craft. I read that they had partial
success supplied from the emmission from a capacitor. What they were
really seeing was an example of equilibrium of which I talk about
where they were only using half of the cycle provided by a tank
circuit which is one of equilibrium as with a full wave radiator and
the use of the weak field. So sometimes regardless of the perceived
need of the new or change it is knoweledge that is the real measure of
wealth on this earth since its true value never diminishes.
End of my input hopefully I have responded in a way that you expected
or hoped for.
Art

RF

Tilted radiator
 

"Art Unwin" wrote

End of my input hopefully I have responded
in a way that you expected or hoped for.
Art
____________

"Hoped for" = No.

"Expected" = Yes.

RF

Tilted radiator
 

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:39:51 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

They were on the opposing side of capatalism where diminishing returns
and politics govern everything.

Is this a plagiarism of Marx?

Which one? Groucho, or Harpo?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC