On Jan 11, 12:22*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Nope
You have the solution in your own hands where you have total control
if you are able to use a antenna computer program.Many on this group
have an aversion to computers and thus rely on other means which puts
control
in book authors. *If you have a similar aversion thats O.K.

yeah, right... i am an author, and i also use computers, where does that put
me? *EVERYONE on this group must use a computer... kind of hard to use
newsgroups like this without a computer.

For those who can use a computer they can determine for themselves if
antenna programs can be trusted or not.

no they can't... not unless they have a sophisticated test setup to do fill
size models and measurements to compare predicted with actual results. *YOU
don't even have that art, so how can you be so sure that the programs are
doing what you think they are doing?

Very good. But Richard Harrison does not have a computer thus he
relies on books.
I'd venture to say that many have books as well as computers but have
not used the canned antenna programs. After all cobol, basic, extra
basic, fortran e.t.c are outside of their sphere!
With that aside your answer questions the veracity of antenna computer
programs
in the hands of the average ham. That may or may not be true
But the members of this group percieve themselves as experts with
respect to antennas and I have no doubt that all will arrive at the
correct answer individually and that includes yourself
As for being sure of the result obtained no one can arrive at the
correctness unless they themselves revert to first principles to
determine the confines of what is acceptable.
On the other hand one can rely on the fact that the approximations
provided by computers aligns with your own experiences. Either way to
find the solution is totally in your hands, your own choice
in how to determine the veracity of antenna computer programs without
placing trust in unknowing
hands.
Is that clear and technical enough for you or has your descision on
antenna programs already been made and irreversable?
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 12:22 pm, "Dave" wrote:
Very good. But Richard Harrison does not have a computer thus he
relies on books.

he sure posts a lot for someone who doesn't have a computer!

I'd venture to say that many have books as well as computers but have
not used the canned antenna programs. After all cobol, basic, extra
basic, fortran e.t.c are outside of their sphere!

so which language have you written your program in?

With that aside your answer questions the veracity of antenna computer
programs in the hands of the average ham.

no, i question the use of it by those who have no idea what is a reasonable
answer. such as yourself.

Is that clear and technical enough for you or has your descision on
antenna programs already been made and irreversable?

you said nothing that was useful or technical. and the only irreversible
decision I have made is that you are full of bull... sometimes entertaining,
but still full of bull. now come on, we need something new and wild, like
how about your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos somehow morphing
into photons when they get levitated by the faraday anti-eddy currents in
the diamagnetic antenna element?? but then again you have never addressed
how my ferromagnetic elements work without any of your magical neutrinos
sitting on them.

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, 2:03*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Jan 11, 12:22 pm, "Dave" wrote:

Very good. But Richard Harrison does not have a computer thus he
relies on books.

he sure posts a lot for someone who doesn't have a computer!

I'd venture to say that many have books as well as computers but have
not used the canned antenna programs. After all cobol, basic, extra
basic, fortran e.t.c are outside of their sphere!

so which language have you written your program in?

With that aside your answer questions the veracity of antenna computer
programs in the hands of the average ham.

no, i question the use of it by those who have no idea what is a reasonable
answer. *such as yourself.

Is that clear and technical enough for you or has your descision on
antenna programs already been made and irreversable?

you said nothing that was useful or technical. *and the only irreversible
decision I have made is that you are full of bull... sometimes entertaining,
but still full of bull. *now come on, we need something new and wild, like
how about your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos somehow morphing
into photons when they get levitated by the faraday anti-eddy currents in
the diamagnetic antenna element?? *but then again you have never addressed
how my ferromagnetic elements work without any of your magical neutrinos
sitting on them.

Ferro magnetic is just a word but salvagers use the difference
compared to diamagnetic when sorting materials. The diagmagnetic
material levitate higher and in a different direction to
ferromagnetic. The same difference is also used to sort dielectric and
other materials
To understand the implications of this standard operation do the
research in your books or in the
net. You have total control on the subject. Same goes for anti eddy
currents what ever they are.

David while you sit on your arse doing nothing but talk you now have a
person
who has got off his duff to provide for your angst for technical
matter thus widening your sphere of critisism. Sit back and carry on
with your drinking and contemplate what is about to come and how it
could then effect arrays so you become ahead of all in your wisdom.

Art

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

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:
"But Richard Harrison does not have a computer thus he relies on books."

Richard relies on books because it is more effective and efficient than
experiencing everything for himself.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Cecil Moore wrote:
"Has anyone ever measured a difference between aluminum tubing and a
solid rod at the end of an antenna?"

Unnecessary as the inside diameter of the tubing would have to be at
least 1/2-wavelength to admit significant RF energy.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Jan 11, 4:39*pm, Richard Harrison wrote:

Richard (H) relies on books because it is more effective and efficient
than experiencing everything for himself.

A good observation.

How many modern research labs repeated the work that led to the
fundamental laws of physics in use today before they undertook the
design of new systems and products? (Answer = Zero.)

Art Unwin: have you verified for yourself by mathematics and
experiment the "first principles" originating with the "masters" you
like to refer to here?

If not, why, by your posts do you expect others on r.r.a.a. to have
done so?

RF