|
Spherical radiation pattern
"Szczepan Bia�ek" wrote in message ... "Richard Fry" wrote ... - - small snip -- QUOTE A radio antenna may be defined as the structure associated with the region of transition between a guided wave and a free-space wave, or vice-versa. Antennas convert electrons to photons, or vice-versa. Regardless of antenna type, all involve the same basic principle that radiation is produced by accelerated (or decelerated) charge. The basic equation of radiation may be expressed simply as: IL = Qv (A m s^-1) where I = time-changing current, A s^-1 L = length of current element, m Q = charge, C v = time change of velocity which equals the acceleration of the charge, m s^-2 Thus, time-changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates. In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate? S* In all the parts that carry current, of course. Isn't that obvious? Incidentally, who is A* ? ... the person who wrote: Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many polarizations? Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me? A* Chris |
Spherical radiation pattern
Szczepan Białek wrote:
"Richard Fry" wrote ... On Sep 13, 12:57 pm, Szczepan Białek wrote: If the current oscilate at the ends is developed the very high voltage. The high voltage produce the electric field. So you can wrote: "the electric field is a direct consequence of voltage developed in the ends of the transmitting antenna". This electric field generate the magnetic field and so on. So the Hertz' dipole has the three sources of waves. The centre and the two ends. Only the change in current and charge, over time, produces EM radiation. That radiation includes both the magnetic and electric fields, at right angles to each other and to the direction of travel. In the case of a self-resonant, center-fed, 1/4-wave dipole, current is maximum at the feedpoint and minimum at the ends of the dipole. Therefore the ends radiate very little of the total applied power. Below is what John Kraus writes about this in Antennas, 3rd edition, page 12: QUOTE A radio antenna may be defined as the structure associated with the region of transition between a guided wave and a free-space wave, or vice-versa. Antennas convert electrons to photons, or vice-versa. Regardless of antenna type, all involve the same basic principle that radiation is produced by accelerated (or decelerated) charge. The basic equation of radiation may be expressed simply as: IL = Qv (A m s^-1) where I = time-changing current, A s^-1 L = length of current element, m Q = charge, C v = time change of velocity which equals the acceleration of the charge, m s^-2 Thus, time-changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates. In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate? S* All of them. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Spherical radiation pattern
|
Spherical radiation pattern
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:56:07 +0100, "christofire"
wrote: Incidentally, who is A* ? He explained that he was typing one letter to the left. Doesn't the content of his postings reveal that? Retype one of his submissions by shifting your hands to the right one key may reveal the contents to Dan Brown's newest book! It won't make anymore sense, but Ron Howard may sign a deal to get Tom Hanks to post here for him. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 12:41*pm, Szczepan Bia�ek wrote:
In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate? Parts with r-f-current flow, the greatest radiation occurring from locations along the radiator where current is greatest. Current flow is near zero at the ends of any unloaded dipole, and at the top of any unloaded vertical monopole (even those in directional arrays). RF |
Spherical radiation pattern
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:56:07 +0100, "christofire" wrote: Incidentally, who is A* ? He explained that he was typing one letter to the left. Doesn't the content of his postings reveal that? Retype one of his submissions by shifting your hands to the right one key may reveal the contents to Dan Brown's newest book! It won't make anymore sense, but Ron Howard may sign a deal to get Tom Hanks to post here for him. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Didn't spot the explanation (have done now, thanks) and I did wonder if the issue was that he couldn't type his own initial correctly. For a moment I wondered if there were two alter egos: A* asks a question, apparently sincerely, then, when given the answer, S* responds with rebuttal of the correct answer and a lecture based on paraphysics and historical dead ends. However, that would be bonkers. Chris |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 11:15*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:29*am, Richard Clark wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:46:30 +0100, "christofire" wrote: Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many polarizations? Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me? A* You appear to have changed your identity from S* to A* ! The answers according to the physics that real-life radio communication depends upon, and was designed by, a A much simpler, and compelling explanation: * * * * *what you see is what you get. If it looks vertical, the polarization is vertical; If it looks horizontal, the polarization is horizontal. It thus stands to reason that if the radiator is U shaped you see both horizontal and vertical - hence the full sphere filled with radiation. This closes the simple answer, which of course drives a very lengthy explanation - there is no such thing as a free lunch: Now, I can well anticipate some wag pointing out that they are standing, looking at these "goal posts" edge on and see only the vertical supports. *"There is no horizontal view - no horizontal polarization. *It can't be isotropic!" Of course it can't; and yet the vertical radiation fills the null of the horizontal (and likewise, the horizontal fills the null of the vertical). *Total field is spherical. What does this make of a tilted radiator? *What you see is what you get. *At some perspectives it looks goofy horizontal AND it looks goofy vertical. *In other perspectives it just looks vertical. *As Art might protest: *"Never mind goofy, how much horizontal?" *If we reduce this to a number of goofiness, a trig function would serve quite well. Most students who were trained in mechanics would recognize the method to deconstruct an angle into its two, XY, components. *If the tilt were 45 degrees, in full view of that angle you must experience the single antenna as having two equal vertical and horizontal contributions to radiation. *If it were tilted 30 degrees, obviously one polarization would dominate over the other. *Ground would compound the issue, but would not negate the general principle. This last part returns us to the discussion of isotropism which encompasses the topic of Lambert's Law which is generally confined to a black body radiator (or the sun from a great distance as it fails to be isotropic in the near view, such as we have here on earth). *Few here need concern themselves with this unless they are making patch antennas. *However, within the discussion above, the topic of view, angle, and radiation contribution are wrapped up in Lambert and cosine. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard cannot read this. However I find his posting to be rewarding . The present aproach to radiation is that a free electron is torn away from the nucleous of an atom which creates uncertaincy. Such an action is that of the strong force which is akin the the splitting of an atom where such an action would release electrons such that they would bombard electrical networks such as in Hawaii. When one uses Maxwells equations it becomes very obvious that with decreasing impeadance radiation increases until we get to the point of zero impedance where reality is forced to be reviewed. Since we now recognize that radiation is not created by the radiator itself as it is only a carrier of a radiator, the model used must be of cylinder type of homogeonos free electrons where removal of the free electrons/particles is by a "weak force" and not a strong force. Thus in reality the model to be used is that of a cylinder where the "stiction" of each electron,(I should really keep to the term particle so one does not automatically insert *neutrinos or a subset of leptons) to a diamagnetic material is effectively replaced by a hoop stress which first showed up in the *boundary of the "Big Bang". Now we have something that meets reality, where increase in current applied creates an increase in radiation and where the model is seen to be a boundary consisting of particles bound to each other! This is basically implied by Maxwell's equations as illustrated by the computer programs where radiation increase is proportional to the decrease of impedance of the energy robbing metallic radiator and where cylindrical boundary model increases it's share of the current applied for continued radiation and still is in concert with known laws without resorting to extreme low temperature to attain "zero impedance" which lacks reality. As a side note. It is the arbitrary boundary in shear (spin) which provides the Weak Force of the Standard Model as foreseen by Einstein when he took on his fruitless search. And it would appear that the reversal of the positive sign of the shown "Radio World" material is somewhat supporting of this posting but that should be the subject of a separate thread. Art Unwin I might add that this solves a nagging problem of mine. What is normally referred to as a "half wave" is in reality the equivalent of a "full wave folded dipole" where the particle sleeve represents the other half of a wave length ( see "U" antenna mentioned by Richard) Of course the inner element formally seen as a radiator takes on its true form of a carrier only but does provide for the required equilibrium even tho the lumped load capacitance area in between "has disappeared" or the equivalent of cancellation of lumped loads to provide maximum efficiency while accounting for all forces involved. This now completely solves the radiation problem, that has lasted a Century, in compliance with all existing laws. as well as being suplimented by the Gaussian extention . The above also solves the identification of the Weak Force which provided completion of the Standard Model as envisioned by Einstein. All is now of a proven nature UNTIL my peers can point to where it deviates from existing laws of Classical Physics. It has been fun over the years exposing the self perceived psuedo experts of this newsgroup as well as exposing to the World those who follow and quote only books in the effort to resist change. Bottom line is. If you can't develop a theme from first principles you are just a follower and not a true Engineer. Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG(UK) |
Spherical radiation pattern
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:15 am, Art Unwin wrote: On Sep 13, 11:29 am, Richard Clark wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:46:30 +0100, "christofire" wrote: Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many polarizations? Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me? A* You appear to have changed your identity from S* to A* ! The answers according to the physics that real-life radio communication depends upon, and was designed by, a A much simpler, and compelling explanation: what you see is what you get. If it looks vertical, the polarization is vertical; If it looks horizontal, the polarization is horizontal. It thus stands to reason that if the radiator is U shaped you see both horizontal and vertical - hence the full sphere filled with radiation. This closes the simple answer, which of course drives a very lengthy explanation - there is no such thing as a free lunch: Now, I can well anticipate some wag pointing out that they are standing, looking at these "goal posts" edge on and see only the vertical supports. "There is no horizontal view - no horizontal polarization. It can't be isotropic!" Of course it can't; and yet the vertical radiation fills the null of the horizontal (and likewise, the horizontal fills the null of the vertical). Total field is spherical. What does this make of a tilted radiator? What you see is what you get. At some perspectives it looks goofy horizontal AND it looks goofy vertical. In other perspectives it just looks vertical. As Art might protest: "Never mind goofy, how much horizontal?" If we reduce this to a number of goofiness, a trig function would serve quite well. Most students who were trained in mechanics would recognize the method to deconstruct an angle into its two, XY, components. If the tilt were 45 degrees, in full view of that angle you must experience the single antenna as having two equal vertical and horizontal contributions to radiation. If it were tilted 30 degrees, obviously one polarization would dominate over the other. Ground would compound the issue, but would not negate the general principle. This last part returns us to the discussion of isotropism which encompasses the topic of Lambert's Law which is generally confined to a black body radiator (or the sun from a great distance as it fails to be isotropic in the near view, such as we have here on earth). Few here need concern themselves with this unless they are making patch antennas. However, within the discussion above, the topic of view, angle, and radiation contribution are wrapped up in Lambert and cosine. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard cannot read this. However I find his posting to be rewarding . The present aproach to radiation is that a free electron is torn away from the nucleous of an atom which creates uncertaincy. Well, movement of electrons is the basis for current flow. 'Torn away' is an interesting choice of words, but separation of electrons from an atom is commonplace. (BTW the electrons come from the atom, not the nucleus.) Such an action is that of the strong force which is akin the the splitting of an atom where such an action would release electrons such that they would bombard electrical networks such as in Hawaii. Removing an election and 'splitting of an atom' are vastly different concepts. You are talking about two vastly different things. When one uses Maxwells equations it becomes very obvious that with decreasing impeadance radiation increases until we get to the point of zero impedance where reality is forced to be reviewed. Since we now recognize that radiation is not created by the radiator itself as it is only a carrier of a radiator, the model used must be of cylinder type of homogeonos free electrons where removal of the free electrons/particles is by a "weak force" and not a strong force. So, explain this model. A cylinder of homogeneous (whatever that means) free electrons would repel each other and dissipate into space. They would be lost forever. Thus in reality the model to be used is that of a cylinder where the "stiction" of each electron,(I should really keep to the term particle so one does not automatically insert neutrinos or a subset of leptons) to a diamagnetic material is effectively replaced by a hoop stress What is the hoop stress. You have created another undefined term which is meaningless. which first showed up in the boundary of the "Big Bang". Now we have something that meets reality, where increase in current applied creates an increase in radiation and where the model is seen to be a boundary consisting of particles bound to each other! This is basically implied by Maxwell's equations as illustrated by the computer programs where radiation increase is proportional to the decrease of impedance of the energy robbing metallic radiator and where cylindrical boundary model increases it's share of the current applied for continued radiation and still is in concert with known laws without resorting to extreme low temperature to attain "zero impedance" which lacks reality. As a side note. It is the arbitrary boundary in shear (spin) which provides the Weak Force of the Standard Model as foreseen by Einstein when he took on his fruitless search. And it would appear that the reversal of the positive sign of the shown "Radio World" material is somewhat supporting of this posting but that should be the subject of a separate thread. Art Unwin I might add that this solves a nagging problem of mine. What is normally referred to as a "half wave" is in reality the equivalent of a "full wave folded dipole" where the particle sleeve represents the other half of a wave length ( see "U" antenna mentioned by Richard) You seem to have created your own, new, definition of a folded dipole. One where the length in wavelengths is no longer the distance from end to end, rather the length of material used (or the perceived circuit path). What is more amazing is that your definition of full wavelength is now 1/2 what you originally thought it to be. Yet that apparently doesn't cause you significant concern. Of course the inner element formally seen as a radiator takes on its true form of a carrier only but does provide for the required equilibrium even tho the lumped load capacitance area in between "has disappeared" or the equivalent of cancellation of lumped loads to provide maximum efficiency while accounting for all forces involved. However, you completely ignore the 'laws' regarding the fields that are generated by the current in the 'carrier'. Or that they would cancel the result from the field generated by the outer element. This now completely solves the radiation problem, that has lasted a Century, in compliance with all existing laws. You have not shown, in any way, how this is in compliance with what you call laws. Since you show no math, nobody can really know what you are talking about. as well as being suplimented by the Gaussian extention . The above also solves the identification of the Weak Force which provided completion of the Standard Model as envisioned by Einstein. All is now of a proven nature UNTIL my peers can point to where it deviates from existing laws of Classical Physics. Proof of your concept is something YOU PROVIDE. Nothing is proven until you can show, in a clear manner, what you think you understand about how antennas work. If you really have some new idea, you should be able to document it and verify it with real work experiments. Your work should also be verifiable and able to be repeated independently by others. When that happens you may have developed some new scientific understanding. It has been fun over the years exposing the self perceived psuedo experts of this newsgroup as well as exposing to the World those who follow and quote only books in the effort to resist change. I would venture to guess that it is not the others resisting change, rather it is their opposition to someone who proposes concepts that ignore and contradict the current understanding of antennas. If you have some new idea regarding antennas, it should not conflict with the understood state of the art, rather, it should expand the state of the art. Your ideas conflict in numerous areas which other have pointed out. However, you choose to ignore those inputs. Bottom line is. If you can't develop a theme from first principles you are just a follower and not a true Engineer. An engineer does not need to develop all his ideas from first principles. Rather, existing ideas are extended. The engineer should know the first principles, but deriving everything from first principles is grossly inefficient. But the big thing is you just spout those first principles without really understanding them. The true engineer knows what he is talking about. The true engineer also validates his work with models and prototypes. He tests his ideas to show they actually work as expected. You play with models (but never adequately share them) and your prototypes have not been shown to have real usefulness as an antenna. When asked to provide results from experiments any good engineer will have, or get, data that supports his position. When you are asked, your favorite answer is 'I don't work for you'. You even use this response when someone gives you a suggestion on how to verify the cause of a problem you are having. You are NOT an engineer. You are NOT a scientist. You may have been an engineer in the past, but today, you are not showing that ability. The pity is, you believe what you are doing. That is the only thing that can be verified. (Verification comes from the fact you did submit a patent application. That is the only thing that can be independently verified.) Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG(UK) |
Spherical radiation pattern
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:45 pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Point to a law that I have violated of which you learned about in academia. As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a violation of law is presented. then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect is confined to the nucleus. And why not? You keep shooting from the hip on baseless statements. For me I have supplied a trail for examination that I believe is in complience of existing laws. And someone has pointed out something is wrong. As is typical, you avoid the point and ignore the conflict with your position. You were the first to state I was in error by applying a time varying field to Gauss's law of Statics and the group followed your position where no body provided academic proof. You provided no proof of you assertion. Then Dr Davis came along and provided academic proof per its legitimacy. Having a Doctorate from MIT and working for the Space Agency gives him some what of a track record. All Dr. Davis stated was the relationship between Gauss and Maxwell. You claimed to come up with something new, and it was there all the time. He did not say anything about the validity of your ideas regarding antennas. I then found out that one of the prolific antagonistic posters did not survive high school. True, he was suspended, so it was not really his fault! Obviously such things are not the norm in this group but it does give you thought regarding a antagonistic track record when lacking in independent thought shoots from the hip or extract a paragraph from a book like a copy provided by a copying machine of which he has no understanding. Nope, I have provided details of my independent work all of which follows the existing laws of Classical physics. Any details you have presented are minimal. At this time I see it as a worthwhile theory with merit and possibly more if there is no violation of existing laws. "if there is no violation" means you aren't even convinced. If you have doubts then contact your alma to provide consistency in your allegations. Or alternatively wait for the PTO printing of my present concluding patent request such that all details are available for inspection. This newsgroup is available for free speech but for the reader caution is advised. Reverse your position on the Gaussian extension so we can then continue the discussion. If you extension to Gauss is just a re-iteration of Maxwell, then you have presented nothing new. Time and time again you have shown that you are not willing to discuss. You do a lot of verbal handwaving, but there is no substance. |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 2:22*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Bottom line is. If you can't develop a theme from first principles you are just a follower and not a true Engineer. I submit that industry-recognized, expert sources on the subject of antennas such as Kraus, Balanis, Johnson/Jasik, George Brown etc were and are much more likely to understand and respect those first principles. Anyone can develop and publicize a theme about the operation of antennas. Scientifically PROVING that such a theme is correct takes a true "Engineer." RF |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com