Peter O. Brackett wrote:
. . .
It is commonly understood that polarization of electromagnetic waves may
be either linear or circular.

Then some education is in order. Electromagnetic waves are elliptically
polarized. The two extreme special cases of this are linear and circular
(with axial ratio of zero -- or infinite depending on your choice of
definition -- and one respectively). There are an infinite number of
other possible elliptical polarizations with different axial ratios.

Linear Polarization (LP):

Of course waves that are linearly polarized may have any arbitrary
orientation angle (theta) with respect to a reference frame such as the
earth's surface. For example most common linear amateur antennas
produce and/or respond to waves of linear polarization, and these
antennas produce either either horizonally or vertically polarized waves
depending upon the orientation of the (linear) antenna with respect to
the earth's surface (ground).

Of course linear polarization can have any orientation, not just
vertical or horizontal. And even those terms lose meaning when away from
the Earth. However, it's often convenient to mathematically separate
waves into two superposed components of horizontal and vertical
polarization.

As examples; a 1/2 wave length dipole for 10 meters hung at 30 feet
between two trees of equal height produces a largely horizonally
polarized wave and, a 2 meter 1/4 wave dipole mounted in the center of
the roof of an automobile produces a largely vertically polarized wave.

The polarization of the dipole signal will be purely horizontal only
directly broadside. The signal off the ends are purely vertically
polarized, and in other directions neither horizontal nor vertical.

Of course as electromagnetic waves are propagated throughout an
environment are never purely orientated and usually contain an ensemble
of many orientations, because the waves are reflected from the ground,
trees, buildings, mountains, bridges, moving vehicles, and sometimes
propogated through moving and anisotropic media such as the ionosphere,
etc... and so the multiple reflection surfaces at various angles to the
earth's surface and/or refractions and Faraday rotations will conspire
to "mix up" the original orientation of the E vector of a purely linear
transmitted wave and usually produces a quite mixed polarization at
distance from an emitting antenna.

By "mixed" polarization, I assume you mean a single polarization which
is neither horizontal nor vertical and can be described as a "mixture"
of a purely horizontal and a purely vertical wave.

Malus' Law {I = Io [cos(theta)]^^2} describes the response of a linearly
polarized receiving antenna to waves arriving at a polarization angle
theta relative to the receiving antenna's preferred orientation. i.e a
horizontally polarized antenna will produce maximum response to
horizontally polarized waves and a minimum response (zero) to a
vertically polarized wave and vice versa.

Of course in practice, because of the multipath reflections and
refractions the 'cross response' is never exactly zero or maximum as
predicted by Malus Law.

It's also difficult to get the polarizations of the antennas exactly right.

Just the same it is preferable to have the orientation of a receiving
antenna 'aligned' with that of a particular transmitting antenna. In
the HF region it is difficult for hams to "rotate" the orientation of
their receiving antennas to maximize signal pickup based upon
polarization, and so most hams are forced to take whatever response
their relatively fixed antennas produce to the relatively unknown
orientation of received waves.

There's no advantage at HF of having the antenna orientations the same
if the path is via the ionosphere.

In military or commercial installations, where money and space may not
be an issue, either electronically or mechanically derived spatial
antenna polarization diversity can be utilized to maximize received
signal strength based upon arriving polarization. Polarization
diversity receivers...

Circular Polarization (CP):

. . .

Again Malus Law applies, in an easily applied modified form and so...
RHCP receiving antennas respond to RHCP waves and LHCP receiving
antennas respond to LHCP waves. A purely RHCP antenna will produce zero
response to an LHCP wave, etc...

Interesting. Can you work an example for us? I'm curious as to what you
use for theta in the "law's" equation.

An interesting effect happens upon reflection of CP waves. An RHCP wave
reflected from a perfectly reflecting surface returns (is echoed) as a
LHCP wave!

Only if it strikes the surface directly head-on. Otherwise you get an
elliptically polarized wave. The axial ratio depends on the angle of
incidence and, if the reflector isn't perfectly conducting, on the
impedance of the surface.

CP propagation is often used in Satellite communications where a
satellite may use both RHCP and LHCP transmitting antennas on the same
frequency for communicating independently with two different ground
stations using R and L CP antennas on the same frequency. CP frequency
diversity doubles channel capacity!

I think you mean that polarization (not frequency) diversity doubles
channel capacity.

Yet another common form of CP antenna uses crossed linear antennas fed
with a 90 degree (Pi/2) phase difference excitation.

As far as I know all currently known CP antennas such as axial mode
helixes and crossed 90 degree linear arrays produce CP waves where the
angular velocity of rotation is one revolution per cycle of the RF
carrier, or in other words one radian of circular rotation for each
radian of frequency transmitted. In other words most well known CP
antennas produce ONLY synchronous CP, where the angular velocity of
rotation of the E vector is synchronized exactly with the frequency of
the wave being transmitted.

That is, in fact, the definition of circular or elliptical polarization.

I believe that the well known and understood situation of purely
synchronous CP is NOT necessesarily the only form of CP.

It's the only one which fits the definition. If you choose to rotate the
polarization at some other rate, you should call it something else.

Warning... The following may be an invention!

Consider the case of a linear antenna, say a dipole, fed from a feed
line over rotating slip rings, such that the antenna can be rotated
while it is transmitting.

Now transmit on that dipole antenna whilst mechanically spinning it
clockwise [RHCP?] (with a mechanical motor of some kind).

The dipole antenna is linear and thuse emits linear polariztion, except
it is mechanically spinning, and so the E vector emanating from the
antenna will be rotating with respect to its direction of travel.

In this case the angular velocity of the motor that spins the linear
antenna need not be synchronous with the frequency being radiated.

For example we could mechanically spin the antenna at 330 rpm while
transmitting a carrier of 1 GHz.

This would most certainly produce circular polarization. For is not the
E vector spinning at 330 revs!

Sorry, it doesn't. An unavoidable side effect of the synchronicity
change is that the amplitude of the E field still changes at a 1 GHz
rate, going through a complete cycle from max to zero to max to zero to
max each nanosecond. A circularly polarized wave doesn't change
amplitude with time. A non-circular elliptical wave changes amplitude
but not fully to zero each cycle.

Circularly polarized waves have many characteristics and particular
relationships to linearly polarized waves. The waves you're producing
don't have some of these characteristics, like the constant amplitude.
Your method doesn't produce circularly polarized waves even though the
polarization does indeed change with time.

In fact the astute newsreader may note that we need not use a motor to
rotate the antenna. In fact, I can propose several ways of
"electronically" rotating the linear antenna at any arbitrary angular
velocity, not necessarily synchronous with the transmitted frequency and
so produce a so-called non-synchronous CP at any desired rate of rotation.

Clearly, according to Malus Law, the maximum response to the
non-synchronous CP received waves from this 'rotating' antenna
contraption would be from a similarily rotating receiving antenna!

Question?

What would be the response of an axial mode helix antenna or say crossed
90 degree fed dipoles or any other "synchronous" CP antenna to such a
non-synchronous wave produces by a rotating antenna?

Because a circularly polarized antenna responds equally well to all
orientations of linear polarization, the normal helix wouldn't be aware
of the polarization rotation -- unless the polarization rotation was
fast enough to be nearly synchronous.

Would the response of a syncrhronous axial mode helix be less than that
of a sympathetically rotating receiving antenna?

No.

What?

Thoughts, comments?

Sorry, I didn't find it "mind-blowing".

-- Pete K1PO
-- Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy:

Thanks for your well thought out responses.

See my comments below interspersed with snippings of your response.

[snip]
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
treetonline...
Peter O. Brackett wrote:
. . .
It is commonly understood that polarization of electromagnetic waves may
be either linear or circular.

Then some education is in order. Electromagnetic waves are elliptically
polarized. The two extreme special cases of this are linear and circular
(with axial ratio of zero -- or infinite depending on your choice of
definition -- and one respectively). There are an infinite number of other
possible elliptical polarizations with different axial ratios.
[snip]

I agree. My statement was not quite precise.

I should have stated something like, "it is commonly understood that
polarization of waves may be categorized as being either linear or
elliptical, and
in the elliptical category the special case of circular polarization occurs
whenever
the major and minor axes of the elliptical polarization are equal."

[snip]
Of course linear polarization can have any orientation, not just vertical
or horizontal. And even those terms lose meaning when away from the Earth.
However, it's often convenient to mathematically separate waves into two
superposed components of horizontal and vertical polarization.
[snip]

Agreed!

[snip]
The polarization of the dipole signal will be purely horizontal only
directly broadside. The signal off the ends are purely vertically
polarized, and in other directions neither horizontal nor vertical.
[snip]

Agreed! It is relatively difficult, and perhaps even impossible to arrange
the physical configuration of an antenna such that it emits (or receives)
wave of purely one category of polarization.

In practice though many antennas concentrate a major part of their emissions
in one polariztion form.

[snip]
By "mixed" polarization, I assume you mean a single polarization which is
neither horizontal nor vertical and can be described as a "mixture" of a
purely horizontal and a purely vertical wave.
[snip]

No. What I meant by "mixed" was that, just as with daylight for example,
the field contains many polarization orientations. In fact usually outside
in daylight most of the light we see with our eyes contains very nearly
an equal distribution of all polariztions. An exception in the sky's light
is perpedicular to the suns rays where because of upper atmospheric
conditions light becomes slightly polarized. It is claimed that some people
can actually "see" this polarized light differently than normal light.
(Haider's
Brush) Of course many people know that reflected light, for example
from the surface of a lake, becomes highly polarized. This is the
reason that "Polaroid" sunglasses are used by sportsmen and others
to reduce perceived glare from reflective surfaces.

That said, mixed polarization, is also largely the case of HF waves
received over ionospheric paths. In other words HF waves received
over long distances will contain a wide distribution of linear
and perhaps circular polarizations. Thus rendering the use of single
polarized antennas relatively useless at HF by amateurs. Unless of
course one is prepared to pay the significant price in space and
equipment to implement a polarization diversity receiving system.

[snip]
It's also difficult to get the polarizations of the antennas exactly
right.
[snip]

Agreed!

[snip]
There's no advantage at HF of having the antenna orientations the same if
the path is via the ionosphere.
[snip]

True for a single antenna and receiver, which is the usual case for a ham,
see my remarks above.

However if one is willing to pay the price for several antennas and
synchronous
receiving systems then receiving gains can often be obtained by the
exploitation
of polarization diversity.

[snip]
Interesting. Can you work an example for us? I'm curious as to what you
use for theta in the "law's" equation.
[snip]

Theta is just the relative orientation of the polarization of the
transmitting
and receiving antennas, or in the case of an optical polarimeter, the
relative orientations of the polarizing and analyzing polarizer.

Theta is commonly illustrated in undergraduate optical laboratories and
science
experiment kits, using a couple of pieces of "Polaroid" film with the
polarization
angle marked on the film by a notch or other marking. When the
two films are aligned with their polariztion direction perpendicular there
is no
light propagation, i.e. theta is 90 degrees, and when they are aligned with
theta
equal to zero then light is propagated.

In the case of dipole antennas, theta is zero when two antennas are
co-linear and theta is 90 degrees when the antennas are perpendicular.

[snip]
Only if it strikes the surface directly head-on. Otherwise you get an
elliptically polarized wave. The axial ratio depends on the angle of
incidence and, if the reflector isn't perfectly conducting, on the
impedance of the surface.
[snip]

Agreed!

A very intersting optical phenomena to observe is to look at a mirror
through
an optical circular polarizer (polarizer in tandem with a 1/4 wave retarder)
which
renders the "image" of the circular polarizer to be black. i.e. the optical
circular polarizer eliminates the reflection. This technique is widely used
to eliminate reflections from information displays that must operate in high
sunlight with good sunlight readability. High quality high transmissivity
optical circular polarizers are relatively expensive, and so one does not
find such technology applied to consumer displays like computer
monitors, TV sets or IPhones, however optical circular polarizers are
widely used by the military for eliminating sunlight reflections from their
(expensive) information displays.

[snip]
CP propagation is often used in Satellite communications where a
satellite may use both RHCP and LHCP transmitting antennas on the same
frequency for communicating independently with two different ground
stations using R and L CP antennas on the same frequency. CP frequency
diversity doubles channel capacity!

I think you mean that polarization (not frequency) diversity doubles
channel capacity.
[snip]

Yep that's exactly what I meant, but my fingers did not type it that way.
Thanks!

[snip]
angular velocity of rotation is one revolution per cycle of the RF
carrier, or in other words one radian of circular rotation for each
radian of frequency transmitted. In other words most well known CP
antennas produce ONLY synchronous CP, where the angular velocity of
rotation of the E vector is synchronized exactly with the frequency of
the wave being transmitted.

That is, in fact, the definition of circular or elliptical polarization.
[snip]

Agreed, both you and I and thousands of others know that. [smile]

[snip]
I believe that the well known and understood situation of purely
synchronous CP is NOT necessesarily the only form of CP.

It's the only one which fits the definition. If you choose to rotate the
polarization at some other rate, you should call it something else.
[snip]

Definition! Gosh where is Cecil when you need him? The only
problem with definitions is that there are so many of them!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone,

"It means just what I chose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be Master - that's all."

-- Lewis Caroll, from Through the Looking Glass

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[grin]

[snip]
Sorry, it doesn't. An unavoidable side effect of the synchronicity change
is that the amplitude of the E field still changes at a 1 GHz rate, going
through a complete cycle from max to zero to max to zero to max each
nanosecond. A circularly polarized wave doesn't change amplitude with
time. A non-circular elliptical wave changes amplitude but not fully to
zero each cycle.
[snip]

Here there is a bit of fuzziness...

I agree that the E field of a wave is always changing at the RF carrier
frequency
since it is an AC waveform. Alternating current is always changing! And so
a
1 GHz carrier will always have an E field that oscillates back and forth at
the
carrier (center?) frequency when analyzed by a (linear) polarimeter.

I disagree with you that a circular polarized wave has a constant E field.

Even in the case of a purely circularly polarized the E field still
oscillates
at the carrier (center?) frequency when analyzed by a linear polarizer.

i.e. if a purely CP wave is received on a linear polarized antenna the
detected E field (Volts per meter) will be observed to be oscillating
at the carrier frequency. However if received on a purely CP responding
antenna this oscillating E fileld will appear to be constant.

The E field vector can be considered to be similar to the image of a
spoke on a rolling wheel. The radius of the spoke is constant, but
it's projection on the ground over which the wheel is rolling will
always be oscillating in length.

[snip]
Circularly polarized waves have many characteristics and particular
relationships to linearly polarized waves. The waves you're producing
don't have some of these characteristics, like the constant amplitude.
Your method doesn't produce circularly polarized waves even though the
polarization does indeed change with time.
[snip]

I beg to disagree. The waves that I am describing are exactly the same.

Consider if the mechanical motor that spins my linear antenna spins at
exactly the carrier frequency. There would be then no way to tell the
difference between the two.

[snip]
Because a circularly polarized antenna responds equally well to all
orientations of linear polarization, the normal helix wouldn't be aware of
the polarization rotation -- unless the polarization rotation was fast
enough to be nearly synchronous.
[snip]

Heh, heh... what would you consider to be "fast enough"?

Would the rate of spin have to be 99-44/100 percent of the synchronous
frequency? Or would it have to be closer than that?

At what magic spin frequency would the two be indistinguisable.

FWIW... I can propose a scheme that will electronically rotate the linear
antenna
at any desired frequency, at least up to the accuracy of modern atomic clock
standards.

[snip]
Sorry, I didn't find it "mind-blowing".
[snip]

Roy, I don't belive you have thought about it hard enough yet, for clearly
this idea
has already "blown" your mind!

For did you not state above that a circular carrier wave has a constant
amplitude?

A radio wave with constant aplitude, indeed! Something must be blown!

At zero frequency, how would a constant wave propagate?

This assumption/view that zero frequency wave can propagate is akin to
Cecil's
view that there are no reflections at DC.

I don't mean to be facitious and I am quite serious about all of this.

Just because no one has ever considered non-synchronous circular polariztion
before
does not mean that it doesn't exist, or that it may not be useful.

Me? I have already thought of several potential uses for non-synchronous
circular
polarization. How about polariztion frequency modulation? Or... how about
polariztion phase modulation? Or...

Got you thinking yet?

Thanks again for your clearly interesting comments and feedback.

More thoughts, comments?

-- Pete K1PO
-- Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL

On Dec 6, 10:11*am, "Peter O. Brackett"
wrote:
Roy:

Thanks for your well thought out responses.

See my comments below interspersed with snippings of your response.

[snip]"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message

treetonline... Peter O.. Brackett wrote:
. . .
It is commonly understood that polarization of electromagnetic waves may
be either linear or circular.

Then some education is in order. Electromagnetic waves are elliptically
polarized. The two extreme special cases of this are linear and circular
(with axial ratio of zero -- or infinite depending on your choice of
definition -- and one respectively). There are an infinite number of other
possible elliptical polarizations with different axial ratios.

[snip]

I agree. *My statement was not quite precise.

I should have stated something like, "it is commonly understood that
polarization of waves may be categorized as being either linear or
elliptical, and
in the elliptical category the special case of circular polarization occurs
whenever
the major and minor axes of the elliptical polarization are equal."

[snip] Of course linear polarization can have any orientation, not just vertical
or horizontal. And even those terms lose meaning when away from the Earth.
However, it's often convenient to mathematically separate waves into two
superposed components of horizontal and vertical polarization.

[snip]

Agreed!

[snip] The polarization of the dipole signal will be purely horizontal only
directly broadside. The signal off the ends are purely vertically
polarized, and in other directions neither horizontal nor vertical.

[snip]

Agreed! *It is relatively difficult, and perhaps even impossible to arrange
the physical configuration of an antenna such that it emits (or receives)
wave of purely one category of polarization.

In practice though many antennas concentrate a major part of their emissions
in one polariztion form.

[snip] By "mixed" polarization, I assume you mean a single polarization which is
neither horizontal nor vertical and can be described as a "mixture" of a
purely horizontal and a purely vertical wave.

[snip]

No. *What I meant by "mixed" was that, just as with daylight for example,
the field contains many polarization orientations. *In fact usually outside
in daylight most of the light we see with our eyes contains very nearly
an equal distribution of all polariztions. *An exception in the sky's light
is perpedicular to *the suns rays where because of upper atmospheric
conditions light becomes slightly polarized. *It is claimed that some people
can actually "see" this polarized light differently than normal light.
(Haider's
Brush) *Of course many people know that reflected light, for example
from the surface of a lake, becomes highly polarized. *This is the
reason that "Polaroid" sunglasses are used by sportsmen and others
to reduce perceived glare from reflective surfaces.

That said, mixed polarization, is also largely the case of HF waves
received over ionospheric paths. *In other words HF waves received
over long distances will contain a wide distribution of linear
and perhaps circular polarizations. *Thus rendering the use of single
polarized antennas relatively useless at HF by amateurs. *Unless of
course one is prepared to pay the significant price in space and
equipment to implement a polarization diversity receiving system.

[snip] It's also difficult to get the polarizations of the antennas exactly
right.

[snip]

Agreed!

[snip] There's no advantage at HF of having the antenna orientations the same if
the path is via the ionosphere.

[snip]

True for a single antenna and receiver, which is the usual case for a ham,
see my remarks above.

However if one is willing to pay the price for several antennas and
synchronous
receiving systems then receiving gains can often be obtained by the
exploitation
of polarization diversity.

*[snip] Interesting. Can you work an example for us? I'm curious as to what you
use for theta in the "law's" equation.

[snip]

Theta is just the relative orientation of the polarization of the
transmitting
and receiving antennas, or in the case of an optical polarimeter, the
relative orientations of the polarizing and analyzing polarizer.

Theta is commonly illustrated in undergraduate optical laboratories and
science
experiment kits, using a couple of pieces of *"Polaroid" film with the
polarization
angle marked on the film by a notch or other marking. *When the
two films are aligned with their polariztion direction perpendicular there
is no
light propagation, i.e. theta is 90 degrees, and when they are aligned with
theta
equal to zero then light is propagated.

In the case of dipole antennas, theta is zero when two antennas are
co-linear and theta is 90 degrees when the antennas are perpendicular.

[snip] Only if it strikes the surface directly head-on. Otherwise you get an
elliptically polarized wave. The axial ratio depends on the angle of
incidence and, if the reflector isn't perfectly conducting, on the
impedance of the surface.

[snip]

Agreed!

A very intersting optical phenomena to observe is to look at a mirror
through
an optical circular polarizer (polarizer in tandem with a 1/4 wave retarder)
which
renders the "image" of the circular polarizer to be black. *i.e. the optical
circular polarizer eliminates the reflection. *This technique is widely used
to eliminate reflections from information displays that must operate in high
sunlight with good sunlight readability. *High quality high transmissivity
optical circular polarizers are relatively expensive, and so one does not
find such technology applied to consumer displays like computer
monitors, TV sets or IPhones, however optical circular polarizers are
widely used by the military for eliminating sunlight reflections from their
(expensive) information displays.

[snip] CP propagation is often used in Satellite communications where a
satellite may use both RHCP and LHCP transmitting antennas on the same
frequency for communicating independently with two different ground
stations using R and L CP *antennas on the same frequency. *CP frequency
diversity doubles channel capacity!

I think you mean that polarization (not frequency) diversity doubles
channel capacity.

[snip]

Yep that's exactly what I meant, but my fingers did not type it that way.
Thanks!

[snip] angular velocity of rotation is one revolution per cycle of the RF
carrier, or in other words one radian of circular rotation for each
radian of frequency transmitted. *In other words most well known CP
antennas produce ONLY synchronous CP, where the angular velocity of
rotation of the E vector is synchronized exactly with the frequency of
the wave being transmitted.

That is, in fact, the definition of circular or elliptical polarization..

[snip]

Agreed, both you and I and thousands of others know that. *[smile]

[snip] I believe that the well known and understood situation of purely
synchronous CP is NOT necessesarily the only form of CP.

It's the only one which fits the definition. If you choose to rotate the
polarization at some other rate, you should call it something else.

[snip]

Definition! *Gosh where is Cecil when you need him? *The only
problem with definitions is that there are so many of them!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone,

"It means just what I chose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be Master - that's all."

* * * * * * * * *-- Lewis Caroll, from Through the Looking Glass

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[grin]

[snip] Sorry, it doesn't. An unavoidable side effect of the synchronicity change
is that the amplitude of the E field still changes at a 1 GHz rate, going
through a complete cycle from max to zero to max to zero to max each
nanosecond. A circularly polarized wave doesn't change amplitude with
time. A non-circular elliptical wave changes amplitude but not fully to
zero each cycle.

[snip]

Here there is a bit of fuzziness...

I agree that the E field of a wave is always changing at the RF carrier
frequency
since it is an AC waveform. *Alternating current is always changing! *And so
a
1 GHz carrier will always have an E field that oscillates back and forth at
the
carrier (center?) frequency when analyzed by a (linear) polarimeter.

I disagree with you that a circular polarized wave has a constant E field..

Even in the case of a purely circularly polarized the E field still
oscillates
at the carrier (center?) frequency when analyzed by a linear polarizer.

i.e. if a purely CP wave is received on a linear polarized antenna the
detected E field (Volts per meter) will be observed to be oscillating
at the carrier frequency. *However if received on a purely CP responding
antenna this oscillating E fileld will appear to be constant.

The E field vector can be considered to be similar to the image of a
spoke on a rolling wheel. *The radius of the spoke is constant, but
it's projection on the ground over which the wheel is rolling will
always be oscillating in length.

[snip] Circularly polarized waves have many characteristics and particular
relationships to linearly polarized waves. The waves you're producing
don't have some of these characteristics, like the constant amplitude.
Your method doesn't produce circularly polarized waves even though the
polarization does indeed change with time.

[snip]

I beg to disagree. *The waves that I am describing are exactly the same..

Consider if the mechanical motor that spins my linear antenna spins at
exactly the ...

read more »



It was stated above that the purely horizontal polarisation will occur
when the dipole is broadside
This is not correct
Using an optimiser and inserting a one liner where all dimensions are
different allows for the design to conform to Maxwell
laws in their entirety, which means the inclusion of the "weak" force
required for equilibrium
Regards
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
the inclusion of the "weak" force
required for equilibrium

leave it up to art to take a perfectly good premise and insert utter idiocy
into it. next he'll be saying that since the magical levitating weak force
neutrinos are jumping off the antenna at an angle to the element that the
polarization is caused by them. how about it art, can you make your
levitating neutrinos rotate in different directions with left or right hand
circular antennas??

On Dec 6, 10:37*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

the inclusion of the "weak" force
required for equilibrium

leave it up to art to take a perfectly good premise and insert utter idiocy
into it. *next he'll be saying that since the magical levitating weak force
neutrinos are jumping off the antenna at an angle to the element that the
polarization is caused by them. *how about it art, can you make your
levitating neutrinos rotate in different directions with left or right hand
circular antennas??

You can have diversity with respect to all polarizations except
circular
where you only have the choice of one. If you believe that antenna
programs
are utter idiocy then that will be inline with your general attitude.
I am sure that some have taken up my suggestion to check for
themselves
instead of resorting to knee jerk reactions with out foundation.
One more fool like you on this newsgroup changes little
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
You can have diversity with respect to all polarizations except
circular where you only have the choice of one.

why can't you do lhcp and rhcp diversity?

If you believe that antenna programs
are utter idiocy then that will be inline with your general attitude.
I am sure that some have taken up my suggestion to check for
themselves instead of resorting to knee jerk reactions with out foundation.

on the contrary, i believe antenna programs and understand how they work, at
one time i wrote one of my own that did well on designing phased vertical
arrays... and not a single reference to the weak force in it at all! nor
will you find any of the existing antenna modeling programs that use the
weak force. which kind of contradicts your whole rant, you say you believe
in the modeling programs and that they give results that agree with your
corrupted weak force model, and yet they don't use the weak force at all...
never have, and never will. nor can you state where the weak force is
included in Maxwell's equations, which of course all the modeling programs
are based on. so that just leaves you hanging by your magical equilibrium
levitating diamagnetic neutrinos... which you still haven't explained how
they work with my ferromagnetic radiators.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:46:16 GMT, "Dave" wrote the
lamentations of a weak mind struggling with the high concepts of an
infinitely Byzantine theory from the laboratories of Ærthur:

on the contrary, i believe antenna programs and understand how they work, at
one time i wrote one of my own that did well on designing phased vertical
arrays... and not a single reference to the weak force in it at all!

It is singularly impossible for them to have not included the weak
force - whose total contribution to the resulting -um- results
registers in the 13th digit to the right of the decimal point.
Dismissing this immense revelation is like arguing that a drowning man
is immune from the effects of a drunk ****ing into the ocean.

nor
will you find any of the existing antenna modeling programs that use the
weak force.

op. cit.

which kind of contradicts your whole rant,

That well may be seeing that Ærthur practices a self reinforcing
argument that exhibits that quality of Æquilibrium: damned if you do,
and damned if you do it again.

you say you believe
in the modeling programs and that they give results that agree with your
corrupted weak force model,

A corrupted weak force, the wæk force?

and yet they don't use the weak force at all...

Of course they do (op. cit.)

never have, and never will.

Always has and always will (I already said that didn't I? (which is
what op. cit. mæns in Lat.))

nor can you state where the weak force is
included in Maxwell's equations,

Ærthur, while rooting in the library stacks of an ancient university
located on the banks of a great (but not grand) lake, he discovered
them in the margins (long neglected as flyspecks on the page due to
their singular characteristic out 13 places to the right). Patents
are pænding, so watch your step.

As we are taxpayers, supporting inventors on the dole, it should be
our full right to be able to examine these hidden documents, but
Ærthur continues to suppress their access.

which of course all the modeling programs
are based on. so that just leaves you hanging by your magical equilibrium
levitating diamagnetic neutrinos... which you still haven't explained how
they work with my ferromagnetic radiators.

The only thing he hasn't explained is the beneficial prosperities of
the color of the color-coded wire. Just as all resistors look the
same except for the colors - and we are all perfectly aware that not
all resistors are the same - hence it is a color thing. (Lest we
diverge into the side topic of wæk resistance, aka Unpedance.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Dec 6, 12:46*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

You can have diversity with respect to all polarizations except
circular where you only have the choice of one.

why can't you do lhcp and rhcp diversity?

If you believe that antenna programs
are utter idiocy then that will be inline with your general attitude.
I am sure that some have taken up my suggestion to check for
themselves instead of resorting to knee jerk reactions with out foundation.

on the contrary, i believe antenna programs and understand how they work, at
one time i wrote one of my own that did well on designing phased vertical
arrays... and not a single reference to the weak force in it at all! *nor
will you find any of the existing antenna modeling programs that use the
weak force. *which kind of contradicts your whole rant, you say you believe
in the modeling programs and that they give results that agree with your
corrupted weak force model, and yet they don't use the weak force at all....
never have, and never will. *nor can you state where the weak force is
included in Maxwell's equations, which of course all the modeling programs
are based on. *so that just leaves you hanging by your magical equilibrium
levitating diamagnetic neutrinos... which you still haven't explained how
they work with my ferromagnetic radiators.

I explained ferro magnetism and antennas a long time ago where the
weak force becomes swamped
You should be able to come to your own conclusions when evatuating
the effect on the Tank Circuit
With respect to the weak force action it was that addition to Maxwells
laws that provided equilibrium.
Kraus gave an example of it when he empirically created pitch angle
with respect to other parameters
without a full understanding of what created it. In this Universe
there is no such thing as a straight line tho a helicoptor can
simulate it with two rotors at right angles to create equilibrium the
same as a gyroscope or a Sedgeman.
The Universe is contained within an arbitrary border in equilibrium,
you can't get away from that.
The pitch angle that Kraus uses is a creation of the weak force which
thus forbids parallelism
in antenna arrays. If your antenna that you are bragging about
contains parallelism between elements and or the ground surface
then you are NOT obtaining maximum radiation but in fact you are
increasing your losses. You really have a long way to go with respect
to antennas
and the answers you search for are not to be found in Snakesphere that
is muddied to prevent understanding.
As far as antenna programs not using the weak force, that is stupid as
it is what is termed as the "displacement" current a guess arrived at
based on the units required
But rarely do hams use computer programs as initially designed around
Maxwell but instead use a modification of such in following Yagi and
Uda
planar design which is an aproximation. All you have to do is to
provide a one liner to a optimiser to realise you are stating a load
of crap and have reached a point where you cannot handle the truth as
it reveals exactly who and what you are. Some day a knoweledgable
person will arrive on this group and ram a computer sample down your
throat and expose you and the others as just talking heads. Most of
you are like a high school student who wondered into a post graduate
lecture room where all appeared as a torrent of babble until the time
you grew up, if you ever did.
Have a great week end
Art

Peter O. Brackett wrote:
. . .
By "mixed" polarization, I assume you mean a single polarization which
is neither horizontal nor vertical and can be described as a "mixture"
of a purely horizontal and a purely vertical wave.
[snip]

No. What I meant by "mixed" was that, just as with daylight for example,
the field contains many polarization orientations. In fact usually outside
in daylight most of the light we see with our eyes contains very nearly
an equal distribution of all polariztions. An exception in the sky's light
is perpedicular to the suns rays where because of upper atmospheric
conditions light becomes slightly polarized. It is claimed that some
people
can actually "see" this polarized light differently than normal light.
(Haider's
Brush) Of course many people know that reflected light, for example
from the surface of a lake, becomes highly polarized. This is the
reason that "Polaroid" sunglasses are used by sportsmen and others
to reduce perceived glare from reflective surfaces.

That said, mixed polarization, is also largely the case of HF waves
received over ionospheric paths. In other words HF waves received
over long distances will contain a wide distribution of linear
and perhaps circular polarizations. Thus rendering the use of single
polarized antennas relatively useless at HF by amateurs. Unless of
course one is prepared to pay the significant price in space and
equipment to implement a polarization diversity receiving system.

There is only one E field associated with a wave and, if linearly
polarized, it has only one orientation or polarization. It's not like
incoherent light, but akin to a laser. There is no "mixture" of
polarizations in an EM wave.

. . .

True for a single antenna and receiver, which is the usual case for a ham,
see my remarks above.

However if one is willing to pay the price for several antennas and
synchronous
receiving systems then receiving gains can often be obtained by the
exploitation
of polarization diversity.

Actually, you don't want synchronous receivers, or else you get a single
effective polarization just as though the antennas were combined into a
phased array. For spacial or polarization diversity, you need
intentionally non-coherent receivers.

[snip]
Interesting. Can you work an example for us? I'm curious as to what
you use for theta in the "law's" equation.
[snip]

Theta is just the relative orientation of the polarization of the
transmitting
and receiving antennas, or in the case of an optical polarimeter, the
relative orientations of the polarizing and analyzing polarizer.

Theta is commonly illustrated in undergraduate optical laboratories and
science
experiment kits, using a couple of pieces of "Polaroid" film with the
polarization
angle marked on the film by a notch or other marking. When the
two films are aligned with their polariztion direction perpendicular
there is no
light propagation, i.e. theta is 90 degrees, and when they are aligned
with theta
equal to zero then light is propagated.

In the case of dipole antennas, theta is zero when two antennas are
co-linear and theta is 90 degrees when the antennas are perpendicular.

So in your equation, what are theta for RHP and LHP, since you've said
that the equation applies to circular polarization?

. . .

[snip]
angular velocity of rotation is one revolution per cycle of the RF
carrier, or in other words one radian of circular rotation for each
radian of frequency transmitted. In other words most well known CP
antennas produce ONLY synchronous CP, where the angular velocity of
rotation of the E vector is synchronized exactly with the frequency
of the wave being transmitted.

That is, in fact, the definition of circular or elliptical polarization.
[snip]

Agreed, both you and I and thousands of others know that. [smile]


Then why are you calling your non-synchronous system "circular
polarization"?


Definition! Gosh where is Cecil when you need him? The only
problem with definitions is that there are so many of them!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone,

"It means just what I chose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be Master - that's
all."

-- Lewis Caroll, from Through the Looking Glass

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[grin]


That's a great attitude for a politician, philosopher, or biblical
scholar. But engineers and scientists depend on universally understood
technical terms in order to communicate. I'm free to say that my car
gets a gas mileage of 30 miles/hour and weighs 420 miles. But it
wouldn't be a smart thing to do if I intend to convey information.

[snip]
Sorry, it doesn't. An unavoidable side effect of the synchronicity
change is that the amplitude of the E field still changes at a 1 GHz
rate, going through a complete cycle from max to zero to max to zero
to max each nanosecond. A circularly polarized wave doesn't change
amplitude with time. A non-circular elliptical wave changes amplitude
but not fully to zero each cycle.
[snip]

Here there is a bit of fuzziness...

I agree that the E field of a wave is always changing at the RF carrier
frequency
since it is an AC waveform. Alternating current is always changing!
And so a
1 GHz carrier will always have an E field that oscillates back and forth
at the
carrier (center?) frequency when analyzed by a (linear) polarimeter.

I disagree with you that a circular polarized wave has a constant E field.

Even in the case of a purely circularly polarized the E field still
oscillates
at the carrier (center?) frequency when analyzed by a linear polarizer.

i.e. if a purely CP wave is received on a linear polarized antenna the
detected E field (Volts per meter) will be observed to be oscillating
at the carrier frequency. However if received on a purely CP responding
antenna this oscillating E fileld will appear to be constant.

The E field vector can be considered to be similar to the image of a
spoke on a rolling wheel. The radius of the spoke is constant, but
it's projection on the ground over which the wheel is rolling will
always be oscillating in length.

When you receive a circularly polarized wave on a linearly polarized
antenna, you're seeing only the component of the wave that's linearly
polarized in the orientation of the antenna. This is exactly the same
process as filtering a complex waveform. You've removed part of the
field and are observing what's left after the filtering process, then
drawing conclusions about the original waveform based on those
observations, much like listening to a concert orchestra through a long
pipe and deciding that orchestral sound is very ringy and limited in
tonal range. It would benefit you to gain a bit of education about
circularly polarized waves. You'll find that a circularly polarized wave
can be created from (or broken into) two linearly polarized waves
oriented at right angles and in phase quadrature. So each of the
components has a time-varying amplitude, but the sum, which is the
circularly polarized wave, has a constant amplitude but time-varying
orientation. Your linear antenna filters out one of the components,
leaving you to observe only the other.

[snip]
Circularly polarized waves have many characteristics and particular
relationships to linearly polarized waves. The waves you're producing
don't have some of these characteristics, like the constant amplitude.
Your method doesn't produce circularly polarized waves even though the
polarization does indeed change with time.
[snip]

I beg to disagree. The waves that I am describing are exactly the same.

Consider if the mechanical motor that spins my linear antenna spins at
exactly the carrier frequency. There would be then no way to tell the
difference between the two.

That's right, in that case you would be producing circularly polarized
waves. But only with a synchronous spin speed. As soon as you separate
the rotational speed from the wave's oscillation, you have something
else with different characteristics, e.g., a time varying amplitude.

[snip]
Because a circularly polarized antenna responds equally well to all
orientations of linear polarization, the normal helix wouldn't be
aware of the polarization rotation -- unless the polarization rotation
was fast enough to be nearly synchronous.
[snip]

Heh, heh... what would you consider to be "fast enough"?

Would the rate of spin have to be 99-44/100 percent of the synchronous
frequency? Or would it have to be closer than that?

At what magic spin frequency would the two be indistinguisable.

FWIW... I can propose a scheme that will electronically rotate the
linear antenna
at any desired frequency, at least up to the accuracy of modern atomic
clock standards.

What you'll end up with is amplitude modulation with the modulating
frequency being the beat note between your spinning speed and the wave
frequency. This creates sidebands. You'll see this when the sidebands
are within the bandwidth of the helix. Outside that, the helix will
filter off the sidebands and you'll just see the "carrier" -- the
original wave with no modulation.


[snip]
Sorry, I didn't find it "mind-blowing".
[snip]

Roy, I don't belive you have thought about it hard enough yet, for
clearly this idea
has already "blown" your mind!

If you say so.

For did you not state above that a circular carrier wave has a constant
amplitude?

Yes, I did. Circularly polarized, that is.

A radio wave with constant aplitude, indeed! Something must be blown!

At zero frequency, how would a constant wave propagate?

Here's a really neat little trick you might want to add to your bag --
superposition. As I mentioned, you can create a circularly polarized
wave from two linearly polarized waves. The linearly polarized waves are
of course normally time-varying. As long as the propagation medium is
linear (such as air), superposition says you can split the circularly
polarized wave apart into two linearly polarized waves, study and
analyze how they propagate, then add the two components back together
again after the propagation. This is, incidentally, a very simple way to
see what happens when a circularly polarized wave reflects from a
surface -- analyze the linear components separately and add the results.

This assumption/view that zero frequency wave can propagate is akin to
Cecil's
view that there are no reflections at DC.

No, it isn't.

I don't mean to be facitious and I am quite serious about all of this.

Just because no one has ever considered non-synchronous circular
polariztion before
does not mean that it doesn't exist, or that it may not be useful.

Me? I have already thought of several potential uses for
non-synchronous circular
polarization. How about polariztion frequency modulation? Or... how about
polariztion phase modulation? Or...

Got you thinking yet?

Sorry, I don't recall having stopped thinking. If I have, this isn't the
way to get me started.

Thanks again for your clearly interesting comments and feedback.

More thoughts, comments?

-- Pete K1PO
-- Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL

That's about all I can do at this end. I can't make you actually pick up
a text and learn about circularly polarized waves, and until you do,
you'll have some fundamental misconceptions about them.

Guess I'm one of those folks who someone described recently as "having
the common sense educated out of me". It's served me well, since it's
enabled me able to spend a career designing a wide variety of state of
the art electronic circuits and antennas, successfully mass produced,
which work as designed. But I know it's not for everyone.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy:

[snip]
That's a great attitude for a politician, philosopher, or biblical
scholar. But engineers and scientists depend on universally understood
technical terms in order to communicate. I'm free to say that my car gets
a gas mileage of 30 miles/hour and weighs 420 miles. But it wouldn't be a
smart thing to do if I intend to convey information.

[snip]
Sorry, it doesn't. An unavoidable side effect of the synchronicity
change is that the amplitude of the E field still changes at a 1 GHz
rate, going through a complete cycle from max to zero to max to zero to
max each nanosecond. A circularly polarized wave doesn't change
amplitude with time. A non-circular elliptical wave changes amplitude
but not fully to zero each cycle.
[snip]

Here there is a bit of fuzziness...

I agree that the E field of a wave is always changing at the RF carrier
frequency
since it is an AC waveform. Alternating current is always changing! And
so a
1 GHz carrier will always have an E field that oscillates back and forth
at the
carrier (center?) frequency when analyzed by a (linear) polarimeter.

I disagree with you that a circular polarized wave has a constant E
field.

Even in the case of a purely circularly polarized the E field still
oscillates
at the carrier (center?) frequency when analyzed by a linear polarizer.

i.e. if a purely CP wave is received on a linear polarized antenna the
detected E field (Volts per meter) will be observed to be oscillating
at the carrier frequency. However if received on a purely CP responding
antenna this oscillating E fileld will appear to be constant.

The E field vector can be considered to be similar to the image of a
spoke on a rolling wheel. The radius of the spoke is constant, but
it's projection on the ground over which the wheel is rolling will
always be oscillating in length.

When you receive a circularly polarized wave on a linearly polarized
antenna, you're seeing only the component of the wave that's linearly
polarized in the orientation of the antenna. This is exactly the same
process as filtering a complex waveform. You've removed part of the field
and are observing what's left after the filtering process, then drawing
conclusions about the original waveform based on those observations, much
like listening to a concert orchestra through a long pipe and deciding
that orchestral sound is very ringy and limited in tonal range. It would
benefit you to gain a bit of education about circularly polarized waves.
You'll find that a circularly polarized wave can be created from (or
broken into) two linearly polarized waves oriented at right angles and in
phase quadrature. So each of the components has a time-varying amplitude,
but the sum, which is the circularly polarized wave, has a constant
amplitude but time-varying orientation. Your linear antenna filters out
one of the components, leaving you to observe only the other.
[snip]

Yes indeed, we must be talking at cross purposes, since we seem to
have no disagreement on any of the above. I don't see where we differ at
all!

[snip]
Would the rate of spin have to be 99-44/100 percent of the synchronous
frequency? Or would it have to be closer than that?

At what magic spin frequency would the two be indistinguisable.
[snip]

I would repeat the above question in a slightly different way...

How much frequency, or for that matter phase, difference must there
be between the mechanical spin frequency and the carrier frequency
before you could tell the difference between your "conventionally defined"
circular polarization and my definition?

If my antenna was spining with an angular velocity within say,
0.000000000005% of the carrier frequency, would that do it?

Or perhaps my spin rate would have to be closer to the carrier
frequency than that?

If so, then how close does it have to be to qualify to be called
circular polarization under (your) traditional/conventional
definition?

[snip]
What you'll end up with is amplitude modulation with the modulating
frequency being the beat note between your spinning speed and the wave
frequency. This creates sidebands. You'll see this when the sidebands are
within the bandwidth of the helix. Outside that, the helix will filter off
the sidebands and you'll just see the "carrier" -- the original wave with
no modulation.
[snip]

Hmmm... Yes, I agree and that's partially correct, but some of the above
paragraph is
somewhat "fuzzy" to say the least.

That helix must be a very sharp [brick wall???] filter, no?

Let's get real here, no practical implementation of any kind of physical
filtering
mechanism can filter with infinitely sharp transition bands. It just
doesn't happen
in nature.

[snip]
Here's a really neat little trick you might want to add to your bag --
superposition. As I mentioned, you can create a circularly polarized wave
from two linearly polarized waves. The linearly polarized waves are of
course normally time-varying. As long as the propagation medium is linear
(such as air), superposition says you can split the circularly polarized
wave apart into two linearly polarized waves, study and analyze how they
propagate, then add the two components back together again after the
propagation. This is, incidentally, a very simple way to see what happens
when a circularly polarized wave reflects from a surface -- analyze the
linear components separately and add the results.
[snip]

Heh, heh... Superposition is not a 'trick' it is a well known principle and
Roy, I agree with all of the above!

What's your point?

Bringing up superposition is fine, but you seem to raise the concept of
superposition simply as a digression here, not as a means of disproving my
assertion that mechanically spinning a linear antenna is tantamount to
conventional circular polarization.

[snip]
That's about all I can do at this end. I can't make you actually pick up a
text and learn about circularly polarized waves, and until you do, you'll
have some fundamental misconceptions about them.
[snip]

Hmmm... that was a cheap shot! Unfortunately I agree, YOU cannot
make me pick up a text.

However, I can make myself do so myself, and... it may (or may not)
interest you to know that I have done so on many occasions.

In fact I have picked up several such texts, addressing such subject matter
authored by Physicists and Engineers ranging over subjects
as diverse as radio frequency antennas and optics.

Would it impress you if I sent you a picture of my personal library
of several hundred volumes, which contains perhaps a dozen or more
textbooks on electromagnetics. Since I have been examined on these
subjects at graduate degree levels by the faculty at several duly accredited
Universities it seems that there is some evidence that I may have read and
understood at least a few paragraphs from those texts that I "picked up"!
[smile]

[snip]
Guess I'm one of those folks who someone described recently as "having the
common sense educated out of me". It's served me well, since it's enabled
me able to spend a career designing a wide variety of state of the art
electronic circuits and antennas, successfully mass produced, which work
as designed. But I know it's not for everyone.
[snip]

Hmmm... I too have spent (wasted?) most of several decades designing
electronic products and equipment for international markets sold in more
than 40 countries with at total sales volume exceeding $5BB dollars.

And it seems in today's world that if you combine that Engineering
experience with $2.50 you can buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks!

Now that we have suitably set the stage, lets get back to the common
sense Engineering question at hand!

All I need is a number!

Perhaps I should regurgitate the statement of Lord Kelvin about knowledge
that dear departed Reg used to quote. You know... the one about quantifying
things, the one that says you know nothing unless you can put a number to
it!

Do I really need to do that here? Reggie dear friend, are you watching from
above?

Roy, please answer the following common sense Engineering questions, just
how close must the angular velocity of my spinning antenna be to the carrier
frequency before YOU will allow it to be called circular polarization?

A simple numerical value in percentage form would do fine!

[smile]

-- Pete K1PO
-- Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL