|
Radiation lobes
Presumably the nulls between lobes on a radiation pattern
are a result of radiation cancellation. IF this is true then it means we have not harnessed all the radiation available. What are your thoughts about that Dave? Can you relate the number of nulls in a radiation pattern with the number of elements in a planar array? You are the expert aren't you? Art |
Radiation lobes
Art, with your knowledge of antenna theory I'm surprised you'd ask this
question. You should know that whenever energy is taken from one direction it is directed in another--none is lost due to cancellation. If you integrate all the energy radiated in all directions from a given antenna system (neglecting losses due to attenuation) it will be the same whatever the arrangement of the radiating system when fed with the same power. Walt, W2DU "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Presumably the nulls between lobes on a radiation pattern are a result of radiation cancellation. IF this is true then it means we have not harnessed all the radiation available. What are your thoughts about that Dave? Can you relate the number of nulls in a radiation pattern with the number of elements in a planar array? You are the expert aren't you? Art |
Radiation lobes
Art Unwin wrote:
Presumably the nulls between lobes on a radiation pattern are a result of radiation cancellation. Radiation cancellation = destructive interference. |destructive interference| = |constructive interference| constructive interference = gain -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein |
Radiation lobes
On Sep 23, 9:56*pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
Art, with your knowledge of antenna theory I'm surprised you'd ask this question. You should know that whenever energy is taken from one direction it is directed in another--none is lost due to cancellation. If you integrate all the energy radiated in all directions from a given antenna system (neglecting losses due to attenuation) it will be the same whatever the arrangement of the radiating system when fed with the same power. Walt, W2DU "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Presumably the nulls between lobes on a radiation pattern are a result of radiation cancellation. IF this is true then it means we have not harnessed all the radiation available. What are your thoughts about that Dave? Can you relate the number of nulls in a radiation pattern with the number *of elements in a planar array? You are the expert aren't you? Art David has a habit of turning everything upside down and in the absence of comment usually reserved for me I have to assume that David is correct in every thing he states because of the silence of others. So I ask a question which is upside down on the assumption that David will turn it around. You must remember that I see electrons of the same polarity which cannot collide so you shouldn't be surprized at any thing I say. Reading today a book on gravity I read a statement that if a moving particle has a magnetic field then one can apply the title of radiation as both a particle and a wave! No wonder everybody is screwed up on this group. As far as cancellation is concerned that refers to direction where another vector at right angles takes it's place per Newton. There is a big difference between cancellation and destruction the latter does not exist per Newton. You can put that in a book and call it revision 2. |
Radiation lobes
On Sep 23, 10:10*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: Presumably the nulls between lobes on a radiation pattern are a result of radiation cancellation. Radiation cancellation = destructive interference. |destructive interference| = |constructive interference| constructive interference = gain -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein Cecil I do not view Newtons law that way at all First of all," energy cannot be created or destroyed " which puts" destructive" as an obsolete word When Newton espoused his action and reaction law he had equilibrium very much in mind His law refers to an "action" as opposed to a "force" so when he refered to an action it was to the neutralization of force which in his thinking was stabalization or equilibrium . He then went on to talk about an equal and opposite reaction. He was referring to a similar action at right angles to the line of the first action. Thus, if you pull a piece of rubber thinning or "necking" occurrs because of the "reaction" required for stabalization. In a helicoptor you have a big rotor on top that is an "action", the reaction that Newton talks about is the other action needed for stabalization which is the rear rotor that is at right angles to the main rotator. Newton looked at things as three dimensional and not as a single plain of freedom as with two colliding forces. He was very specific in stating "action" and not the term "forces" the same fashion as Maxwell and others refer to a static field and a dynamic field. From my mind destructive interference refers to a frictional action that is visible to the eye. It is these mangling of words in the different sciences that allow people to thinks that all sciences have their own laws without connection to a Universal Law which by necessity must be founded on equilibrium. In our Universe you cannot have a immovable contact unless there is a interlocking or frictional force. In other words, two forces cannot travel in a straight line towards each other. Both force paths are curvacious with respect to the Universe such that the impact is always one of deflection. But then Cecil you knew all that didn't you ! Different subject Einstein viewed ether as unthinkable because of equilibrium which is the foundation of boundary theory where all forces within the boundary equals the forces outside the arbritary boundary. Einstein realized that if the forces were not equal or in equilibrium the field must change from a static to a dynamic field where implosion is the only way to re establish equilibrium. Plain common sence don't you think? Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ Best regards Art |
Radiation lobes
Cecil Moore wrote:
... Radiation cancellation = destructive interference. |destructive interference| = |constructive interference| constructive interference = gain Waves either add in force (hammering power), or subtract (hammers against the "next hammer blow" coming) ... What would be a "simplistic model" to convey what is in "your minds eye?" And, hope the above few words projects the "correct picture." Regards, JS |
Radiation lobes
"Art Unwin" wrote
Presumably the nulls between lobes on a radiation pattern are a result of radiation cancellation. IF this is true then it means we have not harnessed all the radiation available. __________ It is true, but that doesn't mean or prove that any of the TOTAL radiation has been "lost." It has merely been re-directed to produce some maximum value in one or more directions, and some minimum value in others. Think of squeezing an inflated balloon. No matter what is its final shape, the volume of air inside the balloon remains constant. Below is a link showing this, as applies to an antenna. The area within the directional pattern is the same as if the pattern was omnidirectional. http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...atternGain.gif RF |
Radiation lobes
Art Unwin wrote:
There is a big difference between cancellation and destruction the latter does not exist per Newton. You can put that in a book and call it revision 2. Maybe these web pages can "shed some light" on this subject.:-) www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/interference/waveinteractions/index.html When field/wave cancellation occurs, the energy must go somewhere. In the absence of a load to dissipate it, the FSU web page says it is "redistributed to regions that permit constructive interference". If the relative phases of the two superposed fields are greater than 90 degrees to 180 degrees apart, the resulting interference is destructive. If the relative phases of the two superposed fields are less than 90 degrees, the resulting interference is constructive. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein |
Radiation lobes
Art Unwin wrote:
First of all," energy cannot be created or destroyed " which puts" destructive" as an obsolete word Many words are used in a non-literal sense. Superposition resulting in destructive interference doesn't mean that energy has been literally destroyed, just that it has been "redistributed to regions that permit constructive interference" (FSU web page). -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein |
Radiation lobes
On Sep 24, 5:45*am, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote Presumably the nulls between lobes on a radiation pattern are a result of radiation cancellation. IF this is true then it means we have not harnessed *all the radiation available. __________ It is true, but that doesn't mean or prove that any of the TOTAL radiation has been "lost." * It has merely been re-directed to produce some maximum value in one or more directions, and some minimum value in others. Think of squeezing an inflated balloon. *No matter what is its final shape, the volume of air inside the balloon remains constant. Below is a link showing this, as applies to an antenna. *The area within the directional pattern is the same as if the pattern was omnidirectional. http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...atternGain.gif RF All quite true ,But my reasoning on harvesting is to provide for maximum return or use. For a Yagi the radio amateur is interested in the main lobe and it's xyz coverage. All the rest is considered "wasted" or providing unwanted interference If I did not create the nulls between lobes my time of use is then doubled instead of wasted. The beam that I am interested in is one that has a single lobe which I can control in terms of elevation and beam depth where I am not knocked out because of radiation nulls, which is the case for all planar arrays. Just another reason to focus on equilibrium for radiation formation. where one can obtain gain with a single lobe but with a usable lobe width and depth and uninterupted propagation.. But then, all is known about antennas and if it were possible as the experts state or we would have been using such antennas years ago !!!!! Or as another person stated we don't need a different type of beam radiation as we already have one!!!! So by all means crush any and all ideas of change |
Radiation lobes
Art wrote:
"So by all means crush any an all ideas of change." In antennas and masers size matters. Diamagnetic materials matter more in masers than in common antennas. Keep searching for a highly focused beam from a tiny spot or speck. When you succeed, patent it and you may become secure in your fame and fortune. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Radiation lobes
On Sep 24, 3:33*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
*But then, all is known about antennas and if it were possible as the experts state or we would have been using such antennas years ago !!!!! This might even include you if you were to actually try using one. But, then the parade would come to an end, as you would see that there is no free lunch. Or as another person stated we don't need a different *type of beam radiation as we already have one!!!! So by all means crush any and all ideas of change I know you hate yagi antennas, but did it ever occur to you that the nulls are an advantage to many operators when receiving. Heck, I bet just as many people use directional antennas for the receive qualities as they do for any directional gain. Whacking about 20 db off a west coast kilowatt can come in mighty handy when you are trying to hear weak DX in Africa. Of course, with an equal opportunity dummy load, the null will be in all directions. So not only are you screwed as far as directional gain vs an efficient antenna, you also lack the directional qualities which many have great use for when receiving. I suspect your invention using this "new science" will be a flop at the box office. Reboot and try again. |
Radiation lobes
On Sep 25, 2:15*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Art wrote: "So by all means crush any an all ideas of change." In antennas and masers size matters. Diamagnetic materials matter more in masers than in common antennas. It was not long ago that we had an antenna design so why should we need another No you have come out with an epistle that size matters. Truely the thoughts of an older woman. Richard by not learning how to use a computer you are living as much in the past as McCain. If you had given a reasion for such a statement you would have my attention but you give nothing and so I have nothing to add Keep searching for a highly focused beam from a tiny spot or speck. When you succeed, patent it and you may become secure in your fame and fortune. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Radiation lobes
Art Unwin wrote:
... It was not long ago that we had an antenna design so why should we need another No you have come out with an epistle that size matters. Truely the thoughts of an older woman. ... Actually, I suspect that what you say may hold deeper truths than some realize, perhaps even than you realize ... If the ether exists in a form some have imagined, if it is possible to couple efficiently to this ether, then a one-inch antenna should be on the same level of effectiveness as a one-hundred foot one. The "if(s)" is the problem ... and directly relates to that little problem of proof which has been requested ... Regards, JS |
Radiation lobes
On Sep 25, 5:46*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: ... It was not long ago that we had an antenna design so why should we need another No you have come out with an epistle that size matters. Truely the thoughts of an older woman. * ... Actually, I suspect that what you say may hold deeper truths than some realize, perhaps even than you realize ... If the ether exists in a form some have imagined, if it is possible to couple efficiently to this ether, then a one-inch antenna should be on the same level of effectiveness as a one-hundred foot one. The "if(s)" is the problem ... and directly relates to that little problem of proof which has been requested ... Regards, JS If one is in continual denial why would one want his aproval? If ones reputation is based on the number of senior moments he has each day why would one need his aproval? If one is in continual denial then truth has no meaning and thus he is errelavent. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com