On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:44:56 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Feb 21, 11:18*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:45:03 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
Model of 2 element multi polarization.
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture6.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture7.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture10.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture11.png

I don't see a model. *There is no .EZ, .GAA, .N4W or .NEC file for me
to play with and tear apart. *I can't even tell what the antenna looks
like from what you've posted. *

You have two elements each located with x,y and z co ordinates at
each end, so you make your own file to suit the program you intend to
use or is available.

I do not have two elements. I can't located them in x, y, or z
because you didn't specify any such coordinates. I can make a
suitable NEC deck, but *YOU* need to supply the numbers.

Surely you can model anything if you know the end locations of the
elements.

I certainly can. Now, can you supply those end locations? While your
at it, the height above ground, element diameter, material
composition, etc might be good to disclose.

Also, why make me do all the work? You have obviously created a data
file for some unspecified NEC2 modeling program. Why not just post
the model?

If you are unable to do that then may be it is better that
you don't.

Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try.
Yoda

There are to many programs around for me to make files for
every body and every program that is available so I supplied x,y,z co
ordinates which every body can translate.

Yep. Pick one.

These are the points you
should look for to determine what the antenna looks like.

These are what points? You haven't supplied any numbers.

Either way I
have supplied the results to save you the work.

Generous of you. If you don't disclose any numbers, it's not a model.
It's a bad joke. Try harder.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Feb 23, 12:32*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:44:56 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin



wrote:
On Feb 21, 11:18 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:45:03 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
Model of 2 element multi polarization.
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture6.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture7.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture10.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture11.png

I don't see a model. There is no .EZ, .GAA, .N4W or .NEC file for me
to play with and tear apart. I can't even tell what the antenna looks
like from what you've posted.
You have two elements each located with x,y and z *co ordinates at
each end, so you make your own file to suit the program you intend to
use or is available.

I do not have two elements. *I can't located them in x, y, or z
because you didn't specify any such coordinates. *I can make a
suitable NEC deck, but *YOU* need to supply the numbers.

Surely you can model anything if you know the end locations of the
elements.

I certainly can. *Now, can you supply those end locations? *While your
at it, the height above ground, element diameter, material
composition, etc might be good to disclose. *

Also, why make me do all the work? *You have obviously created a data
file for some unspecified NEC2 modeling program. *Why not just post
the model?

If you are unable to do that then may be it is better that
you don't.

Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Yoda

There are to many programs around for me to make files for
every body and every program that is available so I supplied x,y,z co
ordinates which every body can translate.

Yep. *Pick one.

These are the points you
should look for to determine what the antenna looks like.

These are what points? *You haven't supplied any numbers.

Either way I
have supplied the results to save you the work.

Generous of you. *If you don't disclose any numbers, it's not a model.
It's a bad joke. *Try harder.

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

Just let it drop!
I use Minninec not NEC programs
I really do not want to fight with you or anybody on this even tho
many want to.
I made the post as a point of interest and to share only. To show
what polarities it was sensitive to even tho many want to fight
regardless of what I post.
The majority on this newsgroup are not able or interested
in modeling which is why I posted the results, otherwise the intent
would be lost on them.
Ever since I declared that a static field in equilibrium, when made
dynamic, is applicable to Maxwells equation for radiation it seems
like everybody wants a piece of me even tho they are completely
ignorant of the physics involved. The model provided is complete
evidence of this fact which as yet nobody has been able to refute
prefering to personaly harm the messenger. Maxwell gained fame just by
adding /dt to an equation which made it dynamic,
and apparently many on this newsgroup want to deny him of his
achievement because the importance is not illustrated in any physic
books. Frankly, if you can't live with history you should be
challenging computer programing that utelise 1/2 wavelength radiators
where the energy lost by the components is ignored as is the EXACT
length of a 1/2 wavelength which varies with every cycle!
Use of Maxwells equations are for radiator designs that are sensitive
to ALL polarities directed at it for maximum efficiency, and not for
those designs that it ignores or cannot handle.
Art KB9MZ

On Feb 23, 9:02*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Feb 23, 12:32*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:



On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:44:56 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
On Feb 21, 11:18 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:45:03 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
Model of 2 element multi polarization.
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture6.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture7.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture10.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture11.png

I don't see a model. There is no .EZ, .GAA, .N4W or .NEC file for me
to play with and tear apart. I can't even tell what the antenna looks
like from what you've posted.
You have two elements each located with x,y and z *co ordinates at
each end, so you make your own file to suit the program you intend to
use or is available.

I do not have two elements. *I can't located them in x, y, or z
because you didn't specify any such coordinates. *I can make a
suitable NEC deck, but *YOU* need to supply the numbers.

Surely you can model anything if you know the end locations of the
elements.

I certainly can. *Now, can you supply those end locations? *While your
at it, the height above ground, element diameter, material
composition, etc might be good to disclose. *

Also, why make me do all the work? *You have obviously created a data
file for some unspecified NEC2 modeling program. *Why not just post
the model?

If you are unable to do that then may be it is better that
you don't.

Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Yoda

There are to many programs around for me to make files for
every body and every program that is available so I supplied x,y,z co
ordinates which every body can translate.

Yep. *Pick one.

These are the points you
should look for to determine what the antenna looks like.

These are what points? *You haven't supplied any numbers.

Either way I
have supplied the results to save you the work.

Generous of you. *If you don't disclose any numbers, it's not a model..
It's a bad joke. *Try harder.

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

Just let it drop!
I use Minninec not NEC programs
I really do not want to fight with you or anybody on this even tho
many *want to.
I made the post as a point of interest and to share only. * To show
what polarities it was sensitive to even tho many *want to fight
regardless of what I post.
The majority *on this newsgroup *are not able or interested
*in modeling which is why I posted the results, otherwise the intent
would be lost on them.
Ever since I declared that a static field in equilibrium, when made
dynamic, is applicable to Maxwells equation for radiation it seems
like everybody wants a piece of me even tho they are completely
ignorant of the physics involved. The model provided is complete
evidence of this fact which as yet nobody has been able to refute
prefering to personaly harm the messenger. Maxwell gained fame just by
adding /dt to an equation which made it dynamic,
and apparently many on this newsgroup want to deny him of his
achievement because the importance is not illustrated in any physic
books. Frankly, if you can't live with history you should be
challenging computer programing that utelise 1/2 wavelength radiators
where the energy lost by the components is ignored as is the EXACT
length of a 1/2 wavelength which varies with every cycle!
Use of Maxwells equations are for radiator designs that are sensitive
to ALL polarities directed at it for maximum efficiency, and not for
those designs that it ignores or cannot handle.
Art KB9MZ

the only thing that should be ignored on here is you.

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:44:56 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Feb 21, 11:18 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:45:03 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
Model of 2 element multi polarization.
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture6.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture7.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture10.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture11.png
I don't see a model. There is no .EZ, .GAA, .N4W or .NEC file for me
to play with and tear apart. I can't even tell what the antenna looks
like from what you've posted.

You have two elements each located with x,y and z co ordinates at
each end, so you make your own file to suit the program you intend to
use or is available.

I do not have two elements. I can't located them in x, y, or z
because you didn't specify any such coordinates. I can make a
suitable NEC deck, but *YOU* need to supply the numbers.


Jeff

I hate to support Art, but he did give the endpoint data in picture6. I
modeled it with eznec+ 5 and the pattern and gain are reasonably close
to what he shows in the other "pictures". Close considering he appears
to be using mininec and if he includes conductor loss and real ground
it's off a fair amount (I show 9.36 dBi gain). I didn't run circular,
and doubt that it has much in the way of circularity, which is kind of
obvious from the elements. Even though they are skewed in a way which
he probably patented.

tom
K0TAR

On Feb 23, 10:35*pm, tom wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:44:56 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Feb 21, 11:18 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:45:03 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
Model of 2 element multi polarization.
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture6.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture7.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture10.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture11.png
I don't see a model. *There is no .EZ, .GAA, .N4W or .NEC file for me
to play with and tear apart. *I can't even tell what the antenna looks
like from what you've posted. *

You have two elements each located with x,y and z *co ordinates at
each end, so you make your own file to suit the program you intend to
use or is available.

I do not have two elements. *I can't located them in x, y, or z
because you didn't specify any such coordinates. *I can make a
suitable NEC deck, but *YOU* need to supply the numbers.

Jeff

I hate to support Art, but he did give the endpoint data in picture6. *I
modeled it with eznec+ 5 and the pattern and gain are reasonably close
to what he shows in the other "pictures". *Close considering he appears
to be using mininec and if he includes conductor loss and real ground
it's off a fair amount (I show 9.36 dBi gain). *I didn't run circular,
and doubt that it has much in the way of circularity, which is kind of
obvious from the elements. *Even though they are skewed in a way which
he probably patented.

tom
K0TAR

I got the same gain as you using lower segments but it went up when I
doubled the segments so I held to that figure. I thought I provided
the cp and it was something like 3 dbi down which is much better than
20 dbi or more down if the array was not sensitive to cp. The same
segment problem occured again when modeling the
Beverage in circular form as it requires a tremendous amount of
segments to get total accuracy but the actual antenna in practice
showed conformality to make me comfortable. The same problem occurs
again using wire mesh and it would cost me near $1000 to acomplish
that but in practice it functioned very close to the circular wound
Beverage. The best antenna in the trials appeared to be long dual
wire mesh curtains which I checked out on top band tho conditions were
not consistent to hang my hat on. I intent to check out the "tilt"
action during the coming year using "garbage can" shaped mesh and at
ground level.
The whole point of the modeling was to show two FW elements that were
not planar or parallel provided an array that was sensitive to more
than a yagi built for horizontal gain alone. This to my mind makes it
a more efficient antenna for conversion of signals that hit it.
Another interesting point showed up with the circular beverage which
clearly merges the two vector radiations instead of the saucer shape
radiation from the earths rotation vector
and the gravity vertical column radiation that is added to the above
to form a planar yagi radiation form.

tom wrote:

Jeff

I hate to support Art, but he did give the endpoint data in picture6. I
modeled it with eznec+ 5 and the pattern and gain are reasonably close
to what he shows in the other "pictures". Close considering he appears
to be using mininec and if he includes conductor loss and real ground
it's off a fair amount (I show 9.36 dBi gain). I didn't run circular,
and doubt that it has much in the way of circularity, which is kind of
obvious from the elements. Even though they are skewed in a way which
he probably patented.

tom
K0TAR

Picture6 data show equal horizontal and total gain, which means it's
purely horizontally polarized in the direction of the analysis. That's
also consistent with equal CW and CCW (or right and left hand) circular
components, which mean polarization (again in the direction of the
analysis) is purely linear.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Feb 24, 5:16*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Feb 23, 10:35*pm, tom wrote:



Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:44:56 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Feb 21, 11:18 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:45:03 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
Model of 2 element multi polarization.
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture6.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture7.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture10.png
http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Picture11.png
I don't see a model. *There is no .EZ, .GAA, .N4W or .NEC file for me
to play with and tear apart. *I can't even tell what the antenna looks
like from what you've posted. *

You have two elements each located with x,y and z *co ordinates at
each end, so you make your own file to suit the program you intend to
use or is available.

I do not have two elements. *I can't located them in x, y, or z
because you didn't specify any such coordinates. *I can make a
suitable NEC deck, but *YOU* need to supply the numbers.

Jeff

I hate to support Art, but he did give the endpoint data in picture6. *I
modeled it with eznec+ 5 and the pattern and gain are reasonably close
to what he shows in the other "pictures". *Close considering he appears
to be using mininec and if he includes conductor loss and real ground
it's off a fair amount (I show 9.36 dBi gain). *I didn't run circular,
and doubt that it has much in the way of circularity, which is kind of
obvious from the elements. *Even though they are skewed in a way which
he probably patented.

tom
K0TAR

I got the same gain as you using lower segments but it went up when I
doubled the segments so I held to that figure. I thought I provided
the cp and it was something like 3 dbi down which is much better than
20 dbi or more down if the array was not sensitive to cp. The same
segment problem occured again when modeling the
*Beverage in circular form as it requires a tremendous amount of
segments to get total accuracy but the actual antenna in practice
showed conformality to make me comfortable. The same problem occurs
again using wire mesh and it would cost me near $1000 to acomplish
that but in practice it functioned very close to the circular wound
Beverage. The best antenna in the trials appeared to be *long dual
wire mesh curtains which I checked out on top band tho conditions were
not consistent to hang my hat on. I intent to check out the "tilt"
action during the coming year using "garbage can" shaped mesh and at
ground level.
The whole point of the modeling was to show two FW elements that were
not planar or parallel provided an array that was sensitive to more
than a yagi built for horizontal gain alone. This to my mind makes it
a more efficient antenna for conversion of signals that hit it.
Another interesting point showed up with the circular beverage which
clearly merges the two vector radiations instead of the saucer shape
radiation from the earths rotation vector
and the gravity vertical column radiation that is added to the above
to form a planar yagi radiation form.

if you wind a wire into a coil it is NOT a Beverage antenna. And note
it is properly Beverage with a capital B since it is named after it's
inventor. go invent something useful and make up your own name,
don't try to distort a perfectly good antenna that has well know
characteristics.

Roy Lewallen wrote:
tom wrote:

Jeff

I hate to support Art, but he did give the endpoint data in picture6.
I modeled it with eznec+ 5 and the pattern and gain are reasonably
close to what he shows in the other "pictures". Close considering he
appears to be using mininec and if he includes conductor loss and real
ground it's off a fair amount (I show 9.36 dBi gain). I didn't run
circular, and doubt that it has much in the way of circularity, which
is kind of obvious from the elements. Even though they are skewed in
a way which he probably patented.

tom
K0TAR

Picture6 data show equal horizontal and total gain, which means it's
purely horizontally polarized in the direction of the analysis. That's
also consistent with equal CW and CCW (or right and left hand) circular
components, which mean polarization (again in the direction of the
analysis) is purely linear.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Thanks Roy. I was rushed at the time and also didn't care too much,
since it was obvious that even though the elements weren't parallel or
on quite the same centerline, they were very close to it. He picks at
nits when he says his antennas are different. I could get similar
results from a good windstorm.

tom
K0TAR

tom wrote:

Thanks Roy. I was rushed at the time and also didn't care too much,
since it was obvious that even though the elements weren't parallel or
on quite the same centerline, they were very close to it. He picks at
nits when he says his antennas are different. I could get similar
results from a good windstorm.

tom
K0TAR


Ok, revisiting things now that I have time, I discovered something,
which The Art may (ok, will) get off into an incomprehensible rant about.

I did a simple normalization. I calculated the lengths of the elements
and the location of their centerpoints. I then calculated the distance
between the centerpoints. I then put it all in a nice level and square
2 element array. I left the diameters alone.

New endpoints -

-37.455 -219.135 707 -37.455 219.135 707 1
37.455 -195.45 707 37.455 195.45 707 1.25


Results at 14.175 using EZNEC+ 5

Gain F/B
Original 9.87 dBi 7.84
Normalized 10.29 dBi 8.58

The impedance curves were not different enough to be of note and were
matchable to 50 ohms with good efficiency.

I'll take the one with better gain and F/B that's also nice looking with
elements that are easier to mount because they're at 90 degree angles,
thank you. Yes, run-on sentence.

tom
K0TAR

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:50:47 -0600, tom wrote:

Ok, revisiting things now that I have time, I discovered something,
which The Art may (ok, will) get off into an incomprehensible rant about.

This outrage is largely due in part to revealing an inferior design:

Gain F/B
Original 9.87 dBi 7.84
Normalized 10.29 dBi 8.58

I wonder whatever happened to the golden city shining on the top of
the hill that Art called "length efficiency?" A back of the envelope
calculation of Art's 20M antenna reveals elements that are
conventional half wave. This raises the more immediate
head-scratcher: whatever happened to the golden calf of his designs
being in equalithium?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC