On Sep 6, 5:07*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Richard Fry" wrote in message

...
On Sep 5, 7:00 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

* Where do you get this stuff from? Please visit a library - you could
do
yourself a lot of good.
Chris

Chris, what I believe he is referring to is that computer programs
support a tipped vertical over one at right angles to earth. Computer
programs are supposed to be based on Maxwell's formula. Is this an
error and how do we fix it. If it is not an error then it supports the
presence of the Coriolis force in collusion with gravity. and not
gravity alone.

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

The NEC computer programs are not in error. *The error is in
understanding how far-field patterns develop.

Art, please read the following link about "tipped verticals," which
hopefully will lead to a better understanding of this issue.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...a/browse_threa...

RF

* Richard, thank you for that. *I stand by what I have stated in several
places earlier in this thread, that if tipping-over a monopole or dipole
results in more gain in one direction then that will be counteracted by less
gain in another direction (i.e. azimuth) as your eznec pattern illustrates.
There is also the question of polarisation purity.

Chris

Equilibrium is when there is no gain. When this occurs there is
polarisation purity.
Gain is not a factor in equilibrium so why muddy up the question. Or
is that being arrogant
because you disagree with me LOL

Art Unwin wrote:

Equilibrium is when there is no gain. When this occurs there is
polarisation purity.
Gain is not a factor in equilibrium so why muddy up the question. Or
is that being arrogant
because you disagree with me LOL

Another data point. Or better put, Art's babbling for today.

So now we have

Equilibrium ==

1) no reflections.

2) isotropic.

3) no gain.

Keep going Art.

If I missed one, step in Dave.

tom
K0TAR

tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

Equilibrium is when there is no gain. When this occurs there is
polarisation purity.
Gain is not a factor in equilibrium so why muddy up the question. Or
is that being arrogant
because you disagree with me LOL


Oops missed one right in front of my lying eyes.

Equilibrium ==

1) no reflections.

2) isotropic.

3) no gain.

4) polarization purity.

tom
K0TAR

"tom" wrote in message
. net...
tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

Equilibrium is when there is no gain. When this occurs there is
polarisation purity.
Gain is not a factor in equilibrium so why muddy up the question. Or
is that being arrogant
because you disagree with me LOL


Oops missed one right in front of my lying eyes.

Equilibrium ==

1) no reflections.

2) isotropic.

3) no gain.

4) polarization purity.

tom
K0TAR

isotropic == no gain
so you can take one of them off the list.

Dave wrote:

isotropic == no gain
so you can take one of them off the list.

You are correct sir.

Art's equilibrium nuggets.

Equilibrium ==

1) no reflections.

2) isotropic/no gain.

3) polarization purity.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 6, 5:07 pm, "christofire" wrote:

-- snip --

* Richard, thank you for that. I stand by what I have stated in several
places earlier in this thread, that if tipping-over a monopole or dipole
results in more gain in one direction then that will be counteracted by
less
gain in another direction (i.e. azimuth) as your eznec pattern
illustrates.
There is also the question of polarisation purity.

Chris

Equilibrium is when there is no gain. When this occurs there is
polarisation purity.
Gain is not a factor in equilibrium so why muddy up the question. Or
is that being arrogant
because you disagree with me LOL


* I don't suppose it's arrogant to present reasoning derived from the work
of those who have provided practical antenna designs for the masses for a
century or more - it's just a case of reminding the readers of this NG
what's already out there, freely available for them to investigate (as
though most of them didn't already know!).

I do suppose it's arrogant to present new, unproven, possibly paraphysical,
attempts at 'explanation' involving poorly-defined terms like 'equilibrium',
in opposition to the conventional working and expecting those who read this
NG to believe them, when the full working appears to be withheld.

Chris

On Sep 6, 7:38*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Equilibrium is when there is no gain. When this occurs there is
polarisation purity.
____________

So you say, Art.

Note that a useful and practical antenna with "no gain," i.e., an
isotropic radiator, does not exist in the real world.

So what good is your concept of "equilibrium?"

RF

On Sep 6, 8:09*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 6, 7:38*pm, Art Unwin wrote: Equilibrium is when there is no gain. When this occurs there is
polarisation purity.

____________

So you say, Art.

Note that a useful and practical antenna with "no gain," i.e., an
isotropic radiator, does not exist in the real world.

So what good is your concept of "equilibrium?"

RF

Enough! You did not get on the stage with respect to the laws of Gauss
and Maxwell so I must assume you are shooting from the hip.It is not
to late to add to the static /dynamic boundary question assuming you
are an engineer of some sort. Other than that.....

On Sep 6, 8:25*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Enough! You did not get on the stage with respect to the laws of Gauss
and Maxwell so I must assume you are shooting from the hip...

Probably most readers of your posts on this subject (including yours
truly) don't wish even to _appear_ to support your stated point of
view on this subject, so far.

Still, I suspect that most/all of us are willing to be convinced
otherwise, if you can supply any legitimate reason(s) for us to do so.

The next step is yours, Art.

RF

Art wrote:
"Equilibrium is when there is no gain."

I for one appreciate that statement because from my standpoint it is the
first intelligible statement I remember from Art defining "equilibrium".
If you tip a ground-mounted vertical antenna, you lose "equilibrium"
because you disrort its normal omnidirectional pattern. The result is a
gain in some directions and a loss in others. Gain and directivity are
two sides of the same coin.

Light beams and radio beams are very similiar except light is visible.
I`ve seen no gravitational effects on light beams and were radio waves
visible, I`d wager you would see no gravitational effects on them
either. The same for the Coriolis effect.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI