In the words of the great Basil Fawlty "you'll like this one"!

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.

The result is a discone antenna, or a discage like the one illustrated at
http://gvarc.us/GVARCFrames/Titan/Di...ch4life002.jpg. I wonder what
the 'new-age theorists' would make of this. Does it require the Coriolis
effect to analyse it, or is the old-fashioned version provided by
Schellkunoff & Friis(#) still adequate?

Chris


# Schellkunoff, S.A., and Friis, H.T. Antennas, theory and practice. John
Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1952. pp 104 to 106.



.... and if that isn't enough, how about the Racal Antennas 'Difan'
http://www.racalantennas.com/product...45-30mhz.aspx?

"christofire" wrote in message
...
In the words of the great Basil Fawlty "you'll like this one"!

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.

The result is a discone antenna, or a discage like the one illustrated at
http://gvarc.us/GVARCFrames/Titan/Di...ch4life002.jpg. I wonder
what the 'new-age theorists' would make of this. Does it require the
Coriolis effect to analyse it, or is the old-fashioned version provided by
Schellkunoff & Friis(#) still adequate?

Chris


# Schellkunoff, S.A., and Friis, H.T. Antennas, theory and practice.
John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1952. pp 104 to 106.



... and if that isn't enough, how about the Racal Antennas 'Difan'
http://www.racalantennas.com/product...45-30mhz.aspx?

It makes one wonder how they "stumbled" onto these designs without a
knowledge of equalibrium and coriolis.

I can already see Art's reply- how do you know they did not take these into
account?
My only answer is- because you're the only one that does.
Dale W4OP

"christofire" wrote in message
...
In the words of the great Basil Fawlty "you'll like this one"!

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.

The result is a discone antenna, or a discage like the one illustrated at
http://gvarc.us/GVARCFrames/Titan/Di...ch4life002.jpg. I wonder
what
the 'new-age theorists' would make of this. Does it require the Coriolis
effect to analyse it, or is the old-fashioned version provided by
Schellkunoff & Friis(#) still adequate?



Also a receive-only HF 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

"christofire" wrote in message
...
In the words of the great Basil Fawlty "you'll like this one"!

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.

The result is a discone antenna, or a discage like the one illustrated at
http://gvarc.us/GVARCFrames/Titan/Di...ch4life002.jpg. I wonder
what
the 'new-age theorists' would make of this. Does it require the Coriolis
effect to analyse it, or is the old-fashioned version provided by
Schellkunoff & Friis(#) still adequate?



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.

"christofire" wrote in message
...
In the words of the great Basil Fawlty "you'll like this one"!

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.

The result is a discone antenna, or a discage like the one illustrated at
http://gvarc.us/GVARCFrames/Titan/Di...ch4life002.jpg. I wonder
what
the 'new-age theorists' would make of this. Does it require the Coriolis
effect to analyse it, or is the old-fashioned version provided by
Schellkunoff & Friis(#) still adequate?



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.

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.

"Sal M. Onella" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote in message
...
In the words of the great Basil Fawlty "you'll like this one"!

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.

The result is a discone antenna, or a discage like the one illustrated at
http://gvarc.us/GVARCFrames/Titan/Di...ch4life002.jpg. I wonder
what
the 'new-age theorists' would make of this. Does it require the Coriolis
effect to analyse it, or is the old-fashioned version provided by
Schellkunoff & Friis(#) still adequate?



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

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

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 present state of the art only considers gravity as being outside
the arbitrary border
such that the equal and opposite vecter is exactly that. ie at right
angles to the Earth's surface. Now we all know that the radiation
pattern of such does not remotely resemble that of Pointings vector!
To get to the point of a spherical radiation pattern one must
recognize that there is an additional vector outside the boundary that
one must consider to obtain equilibrium. So far you have shown
progress by tipping the radiator where it started to fill the void at
the center of the donut. This alone confirms the idea that another
vector has to be considered outside the arbitrary border. Now
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?

On Sep 8, 12:30*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
So far you have shown
progress by tipping the radiator where it started to fill the void at
the center of the donut. This alone confirms the idea that another
vector has to be considered outside the arbitrary border

The change in the elevation pattern shape and gains seen in the
"tipped" NEC plot I posted are NOT due to equilibrium, vectors outside
boundaries, shear forces, torque, spin etc.

The change in the pattern of the tipped vertical dipole are due to
changes in the amount and direction of the energy radiated toward the
earth by, and near the antenna, and the net field that results by the
vector addition of that reflection with the energy radiated in a given
direction by the dipole itself.

Suggest you use NEC to model a vertical dipole in free space, at
several physical rotation angles away from plumb. See if the gain and
shape of the radiation pattern changes (they won't, if your model is
valid).

Also note that the Poynting vector does not take the form of a perfect
sphere for any linear antenna -- only for a (non-existent) isotropic
radiator.

RF