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

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

On Sep 14, 11:15*am, Art Unwin wrote:
Now we have something that meets reality, where increase in current
applied creates an increase in radiation...

NOW ?? This has been true forever.

... 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 etc

Decreasing the feedpoint impedance of an antenna to 0 +j0 ohms (if
that were possible) does not maximize radiation.

The first term in the antenna impedance specification in a practical
antenna consists mainly of radiation resistance -- which is required
in order for radiation to occur. Radiation resistance is a function
of the electrical length, diameter and form of the radiator exposed to
space. If it is zero then there is no radiation.

Higher radiation resistances lead to higher efficiencies for the
antenna SYSTEM, because then the power radiated can be much greater
than what is dissipated in the relatively smaller I^2R losses of the
system.

RF

On Sep 14, 12:03*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:15*am, Art Unwin wrote:

Now we have something that meets reality, where increase in current
applied creates an increase in radiation...

NOW ?? *This has been true forever.

... 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 etc

Decreasing the feedpoint impedance of an antenna to 0 +j0 ohms (if
that were possible) does not maximize radiation.

The first term in the antenna impedance specification in a practical
antenna consists mainly of radiation resistance -- which is required
in order for radiation to occur. *Radiation resistance is a function
of the electrical length, diameter and form of the radiator exposed to
space. *If it is zero then there is no radiation.

Higher radiation resistances lead to higher efficiencies for the
antenna SYSTEM, because then the power radiated can be much greater
than what is dissipated in the relatively smaller I^2R losses of the
system.

RF
__________

Art,

How do you respond to my comments to your statements above, seeing as
though you have responded to later r.r.a.a. posts with no further
response to the above sequence?

NO RESPONSE from you easily may be taken to understand that you cannot
defend/support your position on such subjects.

If your lack of response was an oversight, then probably most of us
will understand.

But what IS your position on this subject?

RF

On Sep 14, 7:20*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 14, 12:03*pm, Richard Fry wrote:

On Sep 14, 11:15*am, Art Unwin wrote:

Now we have something that meets reality, where increase in current
applied creates an increase in radiation...

NOW ?? *This has been true forever.

... 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 etc

Decreasing the feedpoint impedance of an antenna to 0 +j0 ohms (if
that were possible) does not maximize radiation.

The first term in the antenna impedance specification in a practical
antenna consists mainly of radiation resistance -- which is required
in order for radiation to occur. *Radiation resistance is a function
of the electrical length, diameter and form of the radiator exposed to
space. *If it is zero then there is no radiation.

Higher radiation resistances lead to higher efficiencies for the
antenna SYSTEM, because then the power radiated can be much greater
than what is dissipated in the relatively smaller I^2R losses of the
system.

RF

__________

Art,

How do you respond to my comments to your statements above, seeing as
though you have responded to later r.r.a.a. posts with no further
response to the above sequence?

NO RESPONSE from you easily may be taken to understand that you cannot
defend/support your position on such subjects.

If your lack of response was an oversight, then probably most of us
will understand.

But what IS your position on this subject?

RF

Sorry, but that is how it is. I do respond to some statements but not
all.

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)

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

On Sep 14, 3:30*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
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.
Yes that is normally true but how many people at the table has asked
for the salt
when it was right in frony of them?




Anyone can develop and publicize a theme about the operation of
antennas.

I consider that a difficult task without running into trouble with
existing laws.



Scientifically PROVING that such a theme is correct takes a true
"Engineer."

When you deliver a theme or paper in front of college graduates,
professionals and
above, one assumes that they are fully aware of the basic laws
involved. Since your only connection to antenna engineering is the
repetitive pushing the "on" and "off" button at a local radio station
as its resident engineer it is more than possible that you have not
had a academic training. Your past posts gives some truth to that
statement, tho it is possible that I will have to stand corrected if,
as with many, age has taken its toll.
As you have stated in the past
.. "your move"!
Point to a law that I have violated of which you learned about in
academia. Alternatively
ask the question from your local academic centre where interllectuals
reside who have more knowledge of such things than either of us will
ever attain.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is
presented.


RF

On Sep 14, 4:11 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

(Fry) 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.

(Unwin) Yes that is normally true but how many people at the table has
asked for the salt when it was right in frony of them?

So YOU have the salt compared to the names I mentioned, and their
published documents? Not very likely.

You would be better off, Art, and create less animosity for yourself
if you relied more on their work, and less on your own "themes."

RF

"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.