Art Unwin wrote:
When you move out further with the introduction of protons my eyes
glaze over because I know nothing of such things.

Actually, photons are easier to understand than Maxwell's
equations. Maybe it would help if you researched the
ability of electron carriers to absorb and/or emit
photons plus the physical characteristics of electrons
and photons. Wikipedia has fairly good sections on
these two elementary particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Jan 11, 9:09*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
When you move out further with the introduction of protons my eyes
glaze over because I know nothing of such things.

Actually, photons are easier to understand than Maxwell's
equations. Maybe it would help if you researched the
ability of electron carriers to absorb and/or emit
photons plus the physical characteristics of electrons
and photons. Wikipedia has fairly good sections on
these two elementary particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, I try to read all sides but the botton line is that
communication is definitely linked to the Sun.
Also It is known that antennas are made from diagmagnetic material and
the expansion of Gaussian law implies the presence of particles.
The books support Maxwells equations to its limits and none of the
above violate those same principles when based on mathematics. I
understand that words like photon and quarks are parotted around and
it may be correct but I have no indication of what their reaction is
with respect
to a rejection force of diamagnetic materials. If it was proven that a
particle from the sun when resting on a diagmagnetic surface loses its
original qualities via a radical change in the particle itself then I
would be forced to consider it. But that is only a theory that is not
backed up by known facts. That is why I turn the subject on its head
when I turn to computer programs which are a fact of life and in use.
Thus the question is reduced from these other aproaches by asking the
question,
why do antenna programs agree that a vertical antenna must be tilted
for best results? Forget the theoretical routes that current takes and
also the presence of particles I have brought the question
of antennas to the level of every body. There is the Eznec program
available to all so all can tackle this paradox for themselves very,
very simply. Input a vertical full wave antenna at various angles in a
resonant form and see what angle is best. Simple oh so simple. No
arguements, no disputes, no presentation of selected articles just a
simple personal homework assignment which is very specific to which
there is only one answer. for say vertical radiation.
No, it is not in the books so it has to be YOUR findings as in
homework
When the answers come back I will place an answer on my page that is
acceptable to all programs in existance. If you have a program with an
optimiser then the project takes less that 5 minuits.
If you use your own programs it will take longer after which you will
be confident of the answer you arrive at. It is very cold outside so
you really have nothing better to do than to shut Art's mouth up once
and for all with a fact that is inescapable of escape from, one that
satisfies all.
Vertical full wave antenna, frequency 14.00Mhz ,diameter 1 inch
material aluminum
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Also It is known that antennas are made from diagmagnetic material and
the expansion of Gaussian law implies the presence of particles.
I have ferromagnetic antennas that art can't explain. obviously they work
and i have never seen any magical levitating neutrinos jumping off them!
Vertical full wave antenna, frequency 14.00Mhz ,diameter 1 inch
material aluminum
Art
change that material to steel and see if it still works!

On Jan 11, 10:37*am, Art Unwin wrote:
Thus the question is reduced from these other aproaches by asking the
question, why do antenna programs agree that a vertical antenna must
be tilted for best results?

What antenna programs are you describing, and for what parameters do
you think they show this?

Instead of stating your claim about "tilt" and then trying to coerce
others to prove you are wrong, why not take the initiative to try to
prove you are right?

RF

On Jan 11, 12:12*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Jan 11, 10:37*am, Art Unwin wrote:

Thus the question is reduced from these other aproaches by asking the
question, why do antenna programs agree that a vertical antenna must
be tilted for best results?

What antenna programs are you describing, and for what parameters do
you think they show this?

Instead of stating your claim about "tilt" and then trying to coerce
others to prove you are wrong, why not take the initiative to try to
prove you are right?

RF

I could do that but you will only accept what you yourself can prove
by your own means.
I said I would provide what you are asking for so you have control of
the solution i.e
my solution is or is not the same as your own
What you are proposing is nothing more than a way out to prevent a
solution
If you cannot operate a computer then that aproach has no standing
with you or myself
So now we are back to a word war on facts which are indeterminate.
When you do it for yourself you can voutch for all steps taken by you
that proves your point.
Self reliance instead of default

On Jan 11, 12:50*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I could do that but you will only accept what you yourself can
prove by your own means.

No, I accept the work of Kraus, Terman, Balanis etc and the
experimental work of George Brown et al as they have written and
proven it.

The undocumented statements of Art Unwin I do not.

But for your edification, Art, below is a link to what NEC shows for a
full-wave, base-fed vertical monopole over a perfect ground plane.

Note that it has zero gain in the horizontal plane, and about 6.7 dBi
gain at an elevation angle of 37 degrees. So yes, tilting the
radiator would increase gain in the horizontal plane, by varying
amounts depending on azimuth (two azimuths would still be zero)..

Is this the basis for your claim? If so, why would anyone install
such a thing, as more than that peak gain in the horizontal plane is
supplied by a cheaper, shorter VERTICAL monopole of about 0.6
wavelengths.

If this model is not what you have in mind then please completely
define your radiator (including how it is fed and its relation to the
ground plane), and your meaning of "best results" due to tilting it.

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

RF

On Jan 11, 1:20*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Jan 11, 12:50*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I could do that but you will only accept what you yourself can
prove by your own means.

No, I accept the work of Kraus, Terman, Balanis etc and the
experimental work of George Brown et al as they have written and
proven it.

The undocumented statements of Art Unwin I do not.

I fully understand that.But curiousity surely must creep in if there
is a suggestion that the antenna programs do not agree totally with
the books by straying towards tilted radiators. Which is correct one
might ask!




But for your edification, Art, below is a link to what NEC shows for a
full-wave, base-fed vertical monopole over a perfect ground plane.

Very good, you do have a vestige of curiousity




Note that it has zero gain in the horizontal plane, and about 6.7 dBi
gain at an elevation angle of 37 degrees. *So yes, tilting the
radiator would increase gain in the horizontal plane, by varying
amounts depending on azimuth (two azimuths would still be zero)..

Well that is one way of looking at it which is probably why in some
instances they changed to sloping dipoles. to enhance the polarity
that was required


Is this the basis for your claim? *If so, why would anyone install
such a thing, as more than that peak gain in the horizontal plane is
supplied by a cheaper, shorter VERTICAL monopole of about 0.6
wavelengths.

Not totally but it is a variation to what the books state so my
curiousity questions why
I would opt for a vertical radiator that does not rely on the ground
to provide an answer.
Always remove the maximum variables before determining the truth



If this model is not what you have in mind then please completely
define your radiator (including how it is fed and its relation to the
ground plane), and your meaning of "best results" due to tilting it.

Members of the group oppose the idea of sloping antennas but without
reason
It is certainly a good place to start. To me best results is
determined by your needs whether it is total gain, polarity or what
have you. As I stated aproach the proof in your own way with out
interference from others. If you feel that a tilted antenna provides
more gain than a vertical antenna
then you have the solution. From what you are saying you are aiming
either for maximum gain regardless of polarity OR since you are using
a vertical antenna your desires are for maximum vetical polarity. But
that is my interpretation because you did not state yours.
Note Kraus stated a case where the angle of the radiator is best at
about 14 degrees and you trust him


*http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...eVerticalMonop....

The graph seems o.k. depending on what your desire was. What ever your
desire is you can tilt things while keeping the radiator resonant to
determine the finality of the debate. The ground is perfect right? Let
me know what your desires are for this antenna so I may repeat all the
motions you undertake. Obviously you are on your own and by use of the
computer program you have a modicom of trust in them, which is
encouraging.
You are now on your way but apparently ....alone !
Onward, Onward and now allow the lemmings to follow you



RF

On Jan 11, 3:05*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Members of the group oppose the idea of sloping antennas but without
reason. It is certainly a good place to start. To me best results is
determined by your needs whether it is total gain, polarity...

You mean polarization, no doubt, which is not the same as polarity.

Note Kraus stated a case where the angle of the radiator is best at
about 14 degrees and you trust him.

Please provide a verifiable reference to this in anything Kraus wrote.

The graph seems o.k. depending on what your desire was. What ever your
desire is you can tilt things while keeping the radiator resonant to
determine the finality of the debate.

N.B., Art, that...

(1) a monopole radiator does not need to be SELF resonant to be
intrinsically efficient. Fractional wavelength, vertical monopoles as
short as 45 degrees radiate nearly as efficiently as longer ones that
are self-resonant, as long each is Z-matched to the source driving
them.

(2) a vertical monopole of 0.625 wavelengths and less generates its
maximum relative field in the horizontal plane, regardless of the
ground conditions it has.

... by use of the computer program you have a modicom of trust
in them, which is encouraging.

More than a modicum. See the examples on my website http://rfry.org
for examples of my NEC studies going back many years.

RF

Art wrote:
"Members of this group oppose the idea of sloping antennas but without
reason."

A sloper is neither vertical nor horizontal. A horizontal discriminates
against groundwave propagated noise sources when receiving. A vertical
discriminates against wasting transmited energy toward the zenith and at
high angles over the horizon. For locations near the antenna, groundwave
propagation is usually preferred. Check page 803 of Terman`s 1955 opus:
"The groundwave is vertically polarized, because any horizontal
component of the electric field in contact with the earth is
short-circuited by the earth."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Art wrote:
"Input a vertical full wave antenna at various angles in a resonant form
and sere what angle is best."

Better yet, just open "Electronics and Radio Engineering by F.E. Terman,
the 1955 edition to page 867. Examine Fig. 23-3 and Fig. 23-4.
Notice that fullwave antenna has 4 lobes almost equally spaced around
its center. That places them at quite an angle as compared with the
lobes of a halfwave antenna. The fullwave pattern results from phase
reversal at the halfwave point,

The fullwave antenna`s pattern is usually something to be put up with
when operating a halfwave antenna at its second harmonic. The resulting
pattern is usually considered undesirable. I wouldn`t tilt a tower by 44
or 45 degrees to make one of its lobes parallel with the earth.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB6WZI