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

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

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

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.

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

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

"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

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

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

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