There has been some "talk" that the spherical radiation pattern shown
via Poynting's vector is impossible or just a theoretical thing. There
are many things that point to this such as point radiatiion as well as
not being a realistic concept. I offer the following as an opposite
aproach for the news group.

First, I rely on the basic radiator as being in equilibrium which
naturally points to a full wave length or reference to one period.
Secondly, I point to a radiator as being the circuit of a tank circuit
which is essentially perpetual motion if one removes the frictional
aspect.
Thus the approach by Maxwell is the ultimate point of maximum
efficiency where all forces are accounted for and ALL contribute to
radiation.
From the above it is natural that a radiator is tipped to equal the
outside vectors of the arbitrary boundary which are gravity and the
Coriolis effect.
We then have to allow the radiator to have near zero resistiveness
such that all input power is used solely for radiation ( super cooled
I suppose)
From this approach we can state that, in the limit of zero resistance
all power is converted into radiation! Thus if we have a radiator of
one WL
that is tipped in space and of near zero resistance in the impedance
metric we will then attain a spherical radiation pattern as with
Poynting's vector and thus a demonstration of point radiation together
with further evidence that radiation is of a particle and not one of
waves.
By the way, since the phenomina of radiation is created solely by the
electo-magnetic and electro-static fields per the tank circuit it
becomes very clear that radiation is not continuous but in "packets or
"pulses" because of the momentary stop as shown at the center of a
sine wave.
When I get back I look forward with interest how the group tries to
counter above with presently known facts or the common retreat to
insults or just rest comfortably assured that the prior postings
explain all.
See you all later and have a great week end

On Sep 11, 11:47*am, Art Unwin wrote:
There has been some "talk" that the spherical radiation pattern shown
via Poynting's vector is impossible or just a theoretical thing. etc etc

Quoting from John Kraus' well-respected textbook "Antennas For All
Applications," 3rd edition, page 74: "Although the isotropic source
is convenient in theory, it is not a physically realizable type. Even
the simplest antennas have directional properties, i.e., they radiate
more energy is some directions than in others."

The Poynting vector does not apply only to isotropic sources. Here is
a link to a simple definition: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...oynting-vector
.. It doesn't have to describe a perfect sphere. And in fact for
practical, physical antennas it never does so.

FYI, Art, nowhere in that textbook does Kraus write anything about
your equilibrium, tipping, Coriolis effect, or tank circuits, or their
being germane to the proper understanding and/or functioning of
antennas.

RF

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
There has been some "talk" that the spherical radiation pattern shown
via Poynting's vector is impossible or just a theoretical thing. There
are many things that point to this such as point radiatiion as well as
not being a realistic concept. I offer the following as an opposite
aproach for the news group.

of course you will... that doesn't make it right, or even logical.


First, I rely on the basic radiator as being in equilibrium which
naturally points to a full wave length or reference to one period.

only in your brain since none of us understand your constantly changing
explanation of what equilibrium is.

Secondly, I point to a radiator as being the circuit of a tank circuit
which is essentially perpetual motion if one removes the frictional
aspect.

ah, perpetual motion, now we are getting somewhere!

Thus the approach by Maxwell is the ultimate point of maximum
efficiency where all forces are accounted for and ALL contribute to
radiation.

maxwell's equations have nothing about gravity, the weak force, or the
strong force, or efficiency included in them...

From the above it is natural that a radiator is tipped to equal the
outside vectors of the arbitrary boundary which are gravity and the
Coriolis effect.

the Coriolis effect is not a vector nor a force, it is a method of
explaining what someone on a rotating sphere thinks they see... purely a
figment of your imagination.

We then have to allow the radiator to have near zero resistiveness
such that all input power is used solely for radiation ( super cooled
I suppose)
From this approach we can state that, in the limit of zero resistance
all power is converted into radiation!

this one statement may contain some small smidgen of reality... you are
slipping art!

Thus if we have a radiator of one WL
that is tipped in space and of near zero resistance in the impedance
metric we will then attain a spherical radiation pattern as with
Poynting's vector and thus a demonstration of point radiation together
with further evidence that radiation is of a particle and not one of
waves.

nope, sorry, still won't work. it will still have the distorted doughnut
pattern.

By the way, since the phenomina of radiation is created solely by the
electo-magnetic and electro-static fields per the tank circuit it
becomes very clear that radiation is not continuous but in "packets or
"pulses" because of the momentary stop as shown at the center of a
sine wave.

you have been listening to that other kook too much and have picked up his
signature pulses... next you'll be talking about speakers and pressure wave
interference to explain your equilibrium.

When I get back I look forward with interest how the group tries to
counter above with presently known facts or the common retreat to
insults or just rest comfortably assured that the prior postings
explain all.
See you all later and have a great week end

insults are so much more fun than trying to educate the insane!

On Sep 11, 1:04*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

There has been some "talk" that the spherical radiation pattern shown
via Poynting's vector is impossible or just a theoretical thing. There
are many things that point to this such as point radiatiion as well as
not being a realistic concept. I offer the following as an opposite
aproach for the news group.

of course you will... that doesn't make it right, or even logical.



First, I rely on the basic radiator as being in equilibrium which
naturally points to a full wave length or reference to one period.

only in your brain since none of us understand your constantly changing
explanation of what equilibrium is.

Secondly, I point to a radiator as being the circuit of a tank circuit
which is essentially perpetual motion if one removes the frictional
aspect.

ah, perpetual motion, now we are getting somewhere!

Thus the approach by Maxwell is the ultimate point of maximum
efficiency where all forces are accounted for and ALL contribute to
radiation.

maxwell's equations have nothing about gravity, the weak force, or the
strong force, or efficiency included in them...

From the above it is natural that a radiator is tipped to equal the
outside vectors of the arbitrary boundary which are gravity and the
Coriolis effect.

the Coriolis effect is not a vector nor a force, it is a method of
explaining what someone on a rotating sphere thinks they see... purely a
figment of your imagination.

We then have to allow the radiator to have near zero resistiveness
such that all input power is used solely for radiation ( super cooled
I suppose)
From this approach we can state that, in the limit of zero resistance
all power is converted into radiation!

this one statement may contain some small smidgen of reality... you are
slipping art!

Thus if we have a radiator of one WL
that is tipped in space and of near zero resistance in the impedance
metric we will then attain a spherical radiation pattern as with
Poynting's vector and thus a demonstration of point radiation together
with *further evidence that radiation is of a particle and not one of
waves.

nope, sorry, still won't work. *it will still have the distorted doughnut
pattern.

By the way, since the phenomina of radiation is created solely by the
electo-magnetic and electro-static fields per the tank circuit it
becomes very clear that radiation is not continuous but in "packets or
"pulses" because of the momentary stop as shown at the center of a
sine wave.

you have been listening to that other kook too much and have picked up his
signature pulses... next you'll be talking about speakers and pressure wave
interference to explain your equilibrium.

When I get back I look forward with interest how the group tries to
counter above with presently known facts or the common retreat to
insults or just rest comfortably assured that the prior postings
explain all.
See you all later and have a great week end

insults are so much more fun than trying to educate the insane!

David
The idea is accountability for all forces. If you model for 100%
radiation without losses you get a spherical pattern, no doubt about
it. With respect to the choice of a WL radiator this is because it
represents a period which classical physics demand.
If one chooses 1/2 WL then you are using a fudge factor since one
cannot avoid overshoot or the use of time just to obtain an impedance
that mankind feel is better.
Overshoot is a matter of correction by a circuit with the correction
getting smaller and smaller but always with the inevitable corrections
This then allows the cross over point of a sine wave to aproach, but
never arrive, at the center representing a 1/2 WL.
Now I have modeled the above aiming for zero for a resistive value in
the impedance
because that is the way programs are set up ,which is fine by me, as
it supplies a truly spherical pattern just prior to the pattern moving
away from a transmit to a recieve function
On a separate note. Just because something is not mentioned in a book
does not provide mention of such points to be false, only to the fact
that the author has not fully completed his studies. There is no such
thing of a book that explains all in it entirety, only different
versions of plaguerisation,
Failing that it shows that the ham fraternity considers "all is known"
about radiation and complely discardes the notion of current possibly
being ABOVE the surface of a radiator
when the environment allows it to happen or even the presence of
negative impedance with respect to a element with a time varying field
e.t.c. otherwise it would be mentioned in a book Ofcourse there will
be protests that
certain things such as zero resistance cannot be otherwise electrical
laws will have to be modified! Well that has proved to be normal when
looking at history so shall we suppres it?

On Sep 11, 1:55*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
The idea is accountability for all forces. If you model for 100%
radiation without losses you get a spherical pattern, no doubt
about it. With respect to the choice of a WL radiator this is
because it represents a period which classical physics demand.

I did, see the link below.

The pattern of a full-wave antenna is far from being spherical.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...CompareArt.jpg

RF

On Sep 11, 1:04*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

There has been some "talk" that the spherical radiation pattern shown
via Poynting's vector is impossible or just a theoretical thing. There
are many things that point to this such as point radiatiion as well as
not being a realistic concept. I offer the following as an opposite
aproach for the news group.

of course you will... that doesn't make it right, or even logical.



First, I rely on the basic radiator as being in equilibrium which
naturally points to a full wave length or reference to one period.

only in your brain since none of us understand your constantly changing
explanation of what equilibrium is.

Secondly, I point to a radiator as being the circuit of a tank circuit
which is essentially perpetual motion if one removes the frictional
aspect.

ah, perpetual motion, now we are getting somewhere!

Thus the approach by Maxwell is the ultimate point of maximum
efficiency where all forces are accounted for and ALL contribute to
radiation.

maxwell's equations have nothing about gravity, the weak force, or the
strong force, or efficiency included in them...

From the above it is natural that a radiator is tipped to equal the
outside vectors of the arbitrary boundary which are gravity and the
Coriolis effect.

the Coriolis effect is not a vector nor a force, it is a method of
explaining what someone on a rotating sphere thinks they see... purely a
figment of your imagination.

We then have to allow the radiator to have near zero resistiveness
such that all input power is used solely for radiation ( super cooled
I suppose)
From this approach we can state that, in the limit of zero resistance
all power is converted into radiation!

this one statement may contain some small smidgen of reality... you are
slipping art!

Thus if we have a radiator of one WL
that is tipped in space and of near zero resistance in the impedance
metric we will then attain a spherical radiation pattern as with
Poynting's vector and thus a demonstration of point radiation together
with *further evidence that radiation is of a particle and not one of
waves.

nope, sorry, still won't work. *it will still have the distorted doughnut
pattern.

By the way, since the phenomina of radiation is created solely by the
electo-magnetic and electro-static fields per the tank circuit it
becomes very clear that radiation is not continuous but in "packets or
"pulses" because of the momentary stop as shown at the center of a
sine wave.

you have been listening to that other kook too much and have picked up his
signature pulses... next you'll be talking about speakers and pressure wave
interference to explain your equilibrium.

When I get back I look forward with interest how the group tries to
counter above with presently known facts or the common retreat to
insults or just rest comfortably assured that the prior postings
explain all.
See you all later and have a great week end

insults are so much more fun than trying to educate the insane!

That appears to be true. However I have always used Bernollis
experiments with liquid as being synonamous with current flow. So to
mention Bernolles findings to the question of Eddy flow appears to me
to have some merit., Introduction of pressure in both liquids,
current flow and air flow I would consider having some merit.
I once mentioned the similarity of a mechanical pump which is designed
around Bernollies experiments producing the same deflections that we
see with changing cross sections
of electrical conductors, which then must produce cavitation and thus
eddy curwrents.
Roy instantly pushed me aside on that one saying the functions are
different which immediately declares the Standard forces theory as
nonsense. ( Sorry about that Einstein)
Gotta go. Excuse me plse

Have a good vacation Art!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Have a good vacation Art!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


.... and when you get back, let's see some proof that all this wacky
'new-age' theory is of any practical use to mankind.

I'd be willing to bet, say, 100 UK pounds that Professor Unwin can't create
an antenna in hardware that radiates isotropically, that is, over a whole
sphere within, let's say +/-1 dB with respect to any chosen (but constant)
polarisation. Anyone wish to up the ante?

Chris

PS: for those who may not be aware, there used to be someone else known as
'Professor Unwin' who was famed for talking in gobbledygook
http://www.stanleyunwin.com/audio.htm

christofire wrote:

... and when you get back, let's see some proof that all this wacky
'new-age' theory is of any practical use to mankind.

I'd be willing to bet, say, 100 UK pounds that Professor Unwin can't create
an antenna in hardware that radiates isotropically, that is, over a whole
sphere within, let's say +/-1 dB with respect to any chosen (but constant)
polarisation. Anyone wish to up the ante?

Chris

I'd be glad to, but there's no way to prove it. Measurement accuracy and
repeatability just aren't that good, especially if you're trying to do a
full 3D measurement. The closest I've seen to a 3D measurement system
actually measured just one hemisphere. It was at what used to be NRAD
(Naval Research and Development center) and before that NOSC in San
Diego, consisting of a large (100 foot diameter if I recall correctly)
rotating circular platform with a semicircular arch overhead. By
rotating the platform and moving the detector along the arch, a full
hemispherical measurement could be made. The models were physical scale
models of Navy ships having appropriately scaled antennas. Even then,
though, engineers there told me that when the measured results differed
from NEC computer model results, they tended to believe the computer
results. It's extremely difficult to make highly, or even moderately,
accurate field strength measurements.

A while back I designed an antenna for a consulting job which was simply
a two-sloping-radial ground plane made with fairly wide traces on a
low-loss PC board. George Brown, the inventor of the ground plane
antenna, had observed an omnidirectional pattern in the horizontal plane
with only two radials, but the marketing department at RCA insisted on
adding two more to make it look symmetrical before selling them. Hence
the ubiquitous 4-radial design. (The pattern of the 4 radial version is
more circular above and below the horizontal plane, but not by a whole
lot.) Anyway, I was concerned that maybe the PCB or the relatively wide,
flat conductors might have a detrimental impact on the pattern
circularity, so I took it to a local lab that has a high quality
anechoic chamber and ran the pattern. When the plot was finished, the
lab technician muttered "Holy $/!%", hit the print button, grabbed a
camera, and ran into the chamber to take a picture of the antenna. Then
he went around to the other folks at the lab with the picture and plot.
Seems that it was circular within about a dB, better than their $10k
reference antenna. The prototype, by the way, was made with adhesive
copper tape and an X-Acto knife and looked as crude as it was. I can't
claim that the pattern was really better than their reference antenna
because small differences in positioning of the feedline (even though
decoupled), the antenna, and anything else in the chamber can easily
cause a couple of dB of pattern deviation.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

christofire wrote:
I'd be willing to bet, say, 100 UK pounds that Professor Unwin can't create
an antenna in hardware that radiates isotropically, ...

For those types of proof, it is impossible to prove a
negative. It would be akin to the police knocking
on your door and demanding that you prove that you
are not a terrorist. The onus of logical proof is
upon the one who makes the positive assertion.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com