Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:00 am, Richard Fry wrote:
In the case of a single monopole mounted with its base at earth level,
adding tilt to it makes very little difference in its gain at
elevation angles up to +60 degrees or so, at any azimuth. It does
partially fill the elevation null at the zenith produced by the
vertical monopole, as well as to produce a small amount of h-pol
radiation over most of the compass.

Modeling this in NEC for a 1 MHz, 1/4-wave, straight monopole by
moving its top 10 meters out of plumb changed its peak gain by about
0.01 dB compared to the untilted version, at any azimuth.

RF

Gain has never been as issue in tipping the radiator except for some
who which to interject it.
Pointing's vector shows a radiation patterm that is spherical and in a
state of equilibrium
It is not the radiation pattern of a donut which all are familiar
with. Thus if one wants coverage in all directions one must pursue an
array or conductor in equilibrium.

The "donut" is a red herring. It's a visualization, not a blob of RF
coming off the antenna. All antennas radiate in all directions. Some
directions are higher intensity than others, but all directions none the
less. The donut just exists to help us put a number on what is happening.


rotation is an essential property
of the Universe as fracture of an arbitrary boundary is created by two
forces which are not on a common plane. This is a shear force which
also creates torque or spin ,so it stands to reason that the other
force in combination with gravity is a force of torque or rotation.
If Coriolis is not that vector what other characteristic fits the
bill?

So Coriolis needs re-defined also as not a mechanical *effect*, but as
an electrical *force* that compels objects or energy to rotate.

I'll not be so beholden to summarily reject what you are saying, but
what you are talking about wold have to be something other than Coriolis
effect, it would have to be a as yet undefined and un named force.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"christofire" wrote in message
...

snip


Such a design also appears as a self-supporting HF receive antenna the
Navy
mounted on the forward gun mount. I
struggled to find a picture of a ship with one showing but no luck. The
elements were about five to seven feet long and arranged as the OP
describes.


USS Missouri http://www.kh6bb.org/photos2.html

Chris



Chris, that's the discone/cage, a transmit antenna with two individual
feedlines from the Radio Room. Some people call it the discage, as on the
website, but I never did.

The cage portion radiates 4 - 12 MHz and the discone portion radiates 10-30.
IIRC, it stands more than 20 feet high.

The antenna I'm trying to remember was receive only and was less than 6 feet
high. It had a shape that sort of resembled a squat wire basket.

Sal

"Sal M. Onella" wrote in message
news

"christofire" wrote in message
...

snip


Such a design also appears as a self-supporting HF receive antenna the
Navy
mounted on the forward gun mount. I
struggled to find a picture of a ship with one showing but no luck.
The
elements were about five to seven feet long and arranged as the OP
describes.


USS Missouri http://www.kh6bb.org/photos2.html

Chris



Chris, that's the discone/cage, a transmit antenna with two individual
feedlines from the Radio Room. Some people call it the discage, as on the
website, but I never did.

The cage portion radiates 4 - 12 MHz and the discone portion radiates
10-30.
IIRC, it stands more than 20 feet high.

The antenna I'm trying to remember was receive only and was less than 6
feet
high. It had a shape that sort of resembled a squat wire basket.

Sal


Sal,

There's a directory of antennas used at one time or another by the US Navy
at http://www.combatindex.com/hardware/...nsor_main.html. Could it
be the AS-2231? The 'discage' appears to be the AS-2802. Also, a
contributor to this group, Richard Clark, has some photos at
http://home.comcast.net/~kb7qhc/antennas/navy/.

I was aware that the discage in at least one of its incarnations had two
separate feed lines, and the combination of two antennas in one 'package'
gives rise to its particular shape. However, it has always intrigued me
that a single element of similar shape has been used since the early 50s by
the British Navy in the AJE/UK-SRA-102:
http://middle-watch.com/communications.htm and
http://rnmuseumradarandcommunication...org.uk/AJE.pdf. This could be a
coincidence or it could be that F. A. Kitchen, the designer of the AJE, had
been influenced by having previously seen a discage (his paper about
development of the AJE doesn't really explain where the shape comes from).
So I wonder when the AS-2802 'discage' came into use?

Chris

"christofire" wrote in message
...


snip

The antenna I'm trying to remember was receive only and was less than 6
feet
high. It had a shape that sort of resembled a squat wire basket.

Sal


Sal,

There's a directory of antennas used at one time or another by the US Navy
at http://www.combatindex.com/hardware/...nsor_main.html. Could
it
be the AS-2231?

No, that's called a sleeve, I think, but I moused over the MIL nomenclatures
and looked at each picture. The antenna I was thinking of is the
AS-2866/SRR. I am surprised to see in the write-up that it's only 24 inches
tall. I thought twice that.


I used that website many times when I was working (prior to June, 2007) and
was wishing I had saved the link on my home computer. Now I have it again
:-)))


I was aware that the discage in at least one of its incarnations had two
separate feed lines, and the combination of two antennas in one 'package'
gives rise to its particular shape. However, it has always intrigued me
that a single element of similar shape has been used since the early 50s
by
the British Navy in the AJE/UK-SRA-102:
http://middle-watch.com/communications.htm and
http://rnmuseumradarandcommunication...org.uk/AJE.pdf. This could be a
coincidence or it could be that F. A. Kitchen, the designer of the AJE,
had
been influenced by having previously seen a discage (his paper about
development of the AJE doesn't really explain where the shape comes from).
So I wonder when the AS-2802 'discage' came into use?

I think it was removed from USS Dubuque (LPD-7) during the ship's overhaul
in 1982/83. I was there but the memory gets a little hazy about such
details. If that recollection is correct, it predates the 1980s.

On Sep 7, 6:44*pm, "christofire" wrote:
It appears to be believed, by one or two who frequent this NG, that a tilted
monopole provides more gain and somehow 'better' EM radiation than a
vertical one. *However, we've seen that tilting a vertical monopole distorts
its radiation pattern so it is no longer truly omni-directional in the
horizontal plane. *Then why not create an array of such tilted monopoles,
all tilted in different directions, to restore the omni-directional pattern.

On Sep 7, 6:44*pm, "christofire" wrote:
... and if that isn't enough, how about the Racal Antennas at http://www.racalantennas.com/product...45-30mhz.aspx?

I just now looked at this link, and see that it states that this
radiator configuration is horizontally polarized.

That polarization appears to be "implausible" for this configuration.

Does any scientific documentation exist, or do any measured, real-
world performance results prove that this configuration truly is
horizontally polarized?

RF

On Sep 8, 6:49*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 7, 6:44*pm, "christofire" wrote:

... and if that isn't enough, how about the Racal Antennas athttp://www..racalantennas.com/products/ground/omnidirectional/hf/difan...

I just now looked at this link, and see that it states that this
radiator configuration is horizontally polarized.

That polarization appears to be "implausible" for this configuration.

Does any scientific documentation exist, or do any measured, real-
world performance results prove that this configuration truly is
horizontally polarized?

RF

You are so dumb! Look at the center pole as being a vector in
opposition to the gravity vector. Then add the two tilted vectors
which represents the vectors of the Coriolis force.
(Yes, you add both of the vectors for Coriollis because it is a
rotational force) You are then left with a horizontal vector that
balances the above vectors. Thus you have horizontal polarization.
Why? Because the vectors outside the boundary are a combination of
two vectors which is gravity and the Coriolis. Now somebody mentioned
the question of polarization purity ! When you include the Coriolis
effect you get exactly that, a pure horizontal polarization which is
very useful in determining whether forces in shear conditions exist at
airports as views of reflection of transmissions are confusing if
you transfer a mixture in the first place. This way they have purity
in radiation so that reflections are more clearer for their
determinations as to what weather conditions exist and hopefully not
"wind shear" where a plane instantly loses altitude.
You are fortunate that you caught me before I left.

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 8, 6:49 pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 7, 6:44 pm, "christofire" wrote:

... and if that isn't enough, how about the Racal Antennas athttp://www.racalantennas.com/products/ground/omnidirectional/hf/difan...
I just now looked at this link, and see that it states that this
radiator configuration is horizontally polarized.

That polarization appears to be "implausible" for this configuration.

Does any scientific documentation exist, or do any measured, real-
world performance results prove that this configuration truly is
horizontally polarized?

RF

You are so dumb! Look at the center pole as being a vector in

Art

You expect people to treat you with respect and complain when they don't.

And then you treat others like SH T.

And you wonder why we don't respect you.

tom
K0TAR

Art Unwin wrote:

You are so dumb! Look at the center pole as being a vector in
opposition to the gravity vector. Then add the two tilted vectors
which represents the vectors of the Coriolis force.
(Yes, you add both of the vectors for Coriollis because it is a
rotational force) You are then left with a horizontal vector that
balances the above vectors. Thus you have horizontal polarization.
Why? Because the vectors outside the boundary are a combination of
two vectors which is gravity and the Coriolis. Now somebody mentioned
the question of polarization purity ! When you include the Coriolis
effect you get exactly that, a pure horizontal polarization which is
very useful in determining whether forces in shear conditions exist at
airports as views of reflection of transmissions are confusing if
you transfer a mixture in the first place. This way they have purity
in radiation so that reflections are more clearer for their
determinations as to what weather conditions exist and hopefully not
"wind shear" where a plane instantly loses altitude.
You are fortunate that you caught me before I left.

And I have to say, WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH!!

Give me the vectors for all forces involved. The description alone is
not acceptable. And none of your obfuscation BullSh t. Just do it,
otherwise I know you're lying, as usual.

It's not that I don't trust you, but I don't trust you.

tom
K0TAR

On Sep 8, 8:19*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 8, 6:49*pm, Richard Fry wrote:

On Sep 7, 6:44*pm, "christofire" wrote:

... and if that isn't enough, how about the Racal Antennas athttp://www.racalantennas.com/products/ground/omnidirectional/hf/difan...

I just now looked at this link, and see that it states that this
radiator configuration is horizontally polarized.

That polarization appears to be "implausible" for this configuration.

Does any scientific documentation exist, or do any measured, real-
world performance results prove that this configuration truly is
horizontally polarized?

RF

You are so dumb! Look at the center pole as being a vector in
opposition to the gravity vector. Then add the two tilted vectors
which represents the vectors of the Coriolis force.
(Yes, you add both of the vectors for Coriollis because it is a
rotational force) You are then left with a horizontal vector that
balances the above vectors. Thus you have horizontal polarization.
Why? *Because the vectors outside the boundary are a combination of
two vectors which is gravity and the Coriolis. Now somebody mentioned
the question of polarization purity ! When you include the Coriolis
effect you get exactly that, a pure horizontal polarization which is
very useful in determining whether forces in shear conditions exist at
airports as *views *of reflection of transmissions *are confusing if
you transfer a mixture in the first place. This way they have purity
in radiation so that reflections are more clearer for their
determinations as to what weather conditions exist and hopefully not
"wind shear" where a plane instantly loses altitude.
You are fortunate that you caught me before I left.

ROTFLAMO