| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
receive polarity
Has there ever been a study that shows the relative consistency of received signal polarity to see if it would be advantageous for multi polarity receive antennas? |
receive polarity
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:51:21 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote: Has there ever been a study that shows the relative consistency of received signal polarity to see if it would be advantageous for multi polarity receive antennas? Yes. I did one for a company doing exactly that at various frequencies between 120 to 450Mhz. Sorry, but I don't have a copy of the report. For convenience, we use ham frequencies for most of the testing. What we found is that once a signal is reflected, the reflected signals polarization is fairly random. There are few flat plate reflectors in both man made and natural objects. The measured result was a mess of varying polarization angles. You can expect similar results for HF signals reflected off the ionosphere with the added complexity of Faraday rotation. However, it is beneficial to build polarization insensitive antennas. In a common dipole, there's very little loss for polarization mismatch until you get very close to perpendicular. There, the signal drops off quickly. Filling in this hole is considered to be a good thing. You can get a crude idea of how it works using an Adcock DF antenna array, or just two cross polarized dipoles. Since you're not building a direction finder, the crossed dipoles are easier to explain. Just setup two perpendicular dipoles with the center feeds fairly close together. Connect two well matched receivers to the two antennas. Connect the IF or audio outputs to the vertical and horizontal of an oscilloscope. The resulting Lissajous pattern will give you a rough idea of the polarization (assuming the signal arrives from above). Pick a strong steady signal like WWV. You'll probably see the polarization change erratically when the skip is in. (Last time I did this was 20 years ago). You'll also see that vertical and horizontal parts of the Lissajous display to wander around in amplitude fairly independently. This is the main advantage of a polarization independent antenna. The antenna will automagically select the strongest polarization to feed the receiver. There are circularly polarized HF antennas, but I'm too lazy to Google for them tonite. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
receive polarity
On Feb 14, 11:26*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:51:21 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin wrote: Has there ever been a study *that shows the relative consistency of received signal polarity to see if it would be advantageous for multi polarity receive antennas? Yes. *I did one for a company doing exactly that at various frequencies between 120 to 450Mhz. *Sorry, but I don't have a copy of the report. *For convenience, we use ham frequencies for most of the testing. *What we found is that once a signal is reflected, the reflected signals polarization is fairly random. *There are few flat plate reflectors in both man made and natural objects. *The measured result was a mess of varying polarization angles. You can expect similar results for HF signals reflected off the ionosphere with the added complexity of Faraday rotation. However, it is beneficial to build polarization insensitive antennas. In a common dipole, there's very little loss for polarization mismatch until you get very close to perpendicular. *There, the signal drops off quickly. *Filling in this hole is considered to be a good thing. You can get a crude idea of how it works using an Adcock DF antenna array, or just two cross polarized dipoles. *Since you're not building a direction finder, the crossed dipoles are easier to explain. *Just setup two perpendicular dipoles with the center feeds fairly close together. *Connect two well matched receivers to the two antennas. Connect the IF or audio outputs to the vertical and horizontal of an oscilloscope. *The resulting Lissajous pattern will give you a rough idea of the polarization (assuming the signal arrives from above). Pick a strong steady signal like WWV. *You'll probably see the polarization change erratically when the skip is in. *(Last time I did this was 20 years ago). *You'll also see that vertical and horizontal parts of the Lissajous display to wander around in amplitude fairly independently. *This is the main advantage of a polarization independent antenna. *The antenna will automagically select the strongest polarization to feed the receiver. There are circularly polarized HF antennas, but I'm too lazy to Google for them tonite. -- Jeff Liebermann * * 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558 Thank you for that! I have not seen the like printed any where soto me it is good stuff. When I model a polarization independent antenna the individual gains confuse me as each of the individual gains are some what 3 db down from the "total" gain. In other words "total" is not the addition of all the polarizations gains. I find it very difficult to get my mind wrapped around that fact. On the surface it would suggest that competition types would benefit from a polarization independent antenna. |
receive polarity
On Feb 15, 11:01*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Feb 14, 11:26*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:51:21 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin wrote: Has there ever been a study *that shows the relative consistency of received signal polarity to see if it would be advantageous for multi polarity receive antennas? Yes. *I did one for a company doing exactly that at various frequencies between 120 to 450Mhz. *Sorry, but I don't have a copy of the report. *For convenience, we use ham frequencies for most of the testing. *What we found is that once a signal is reflected, the reflected signals polarization is fairly random. *There are few flat plate reflectors in both man made and natural objects. *The measured result was a mess of varying polarization angles. You can expect similar results for HF signals reflected off the ionosphere with the added complexity of Faraday rotation. However, it is beneficial to build polarization insensitive antennas. In a common dipole, there's very little loss for polarization mismatch until you get very close to perpendicular. *There, the signal drops off quickly. *Filling in this hole is considered to be a good thing. You can get a crude idea of how it works using an Adcock DF antenna array, or just two cross polarized dipoles. *Since you're not building a direction finder, the crossed dipoles are easier to explain. *Just setup two perpendicular dipoles with the center feeds fairly close together. *Connect two well matched receivers to the two antennas. Connect the IF or audio outputs to the vertical and horizontal of an oscilloscope. *The resulting Lissajous pattern will give you a rough idea of the polarization (assuming the signal arrives from above). Pick a strong steady signal like WWV. *You'll probably see the polarization change erratically when the skip is in. *(Last time I did this was 20 years ago). *You'll also see that vertical and horizontal parts of the Lissajous display to wander around in amplitude fairly independently. *This is the main advantage of a polarization independent antenna. *The antenna will automagically select the strongest polarization to feed the receiver. There are circularly polarized HF antennas, but I'm too lazy to Google for them tonite. -- Jeff Liebermann * * 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558 Thank you for that! I have not seen the like printed any where soto me *it is good stuff. When I model a polarization independent antenna the individual gains confuse me as each of the individual gains are some what 3 db down from the "total" gain. In other words "total" is not the addition of all the polarizations gains. I find it very difficult to get my mind wrapped around that fact. On the surface it would suggest that competition types would benefit from a polarization independent antenna. What is/are "polarizations gains". That's a term with which I am not familiar. Jimmie |
receive polarity
On Feb 15, 4:51*am, Art Unwin wrote:
Has there ever been a study *that shows the relative consistency of received signal polarity to see if it would be advantageous for multi polarity receive antennas? there have been studies of polarization of signals over various paths and frequencies. but i don't know that anyone has studied their polarity... why don't you try that and let us know how it comes out. |
receive polarity
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:07:35 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote: On Feb 15, 11:01*am, Art Unwin wrote: I have not seen the like printed any where soto me *it is good stuff. When I model a polarization independent antenna the individual gains confuse me as each of the individual gains are some what 3 db down from the "total" gain. In other words "total" is not the addition of all the polarizations gains. I find it very difficult to get my mind wrapped around that fact. On the surface it would suggest that competition types would benefit from a polarization independent antenna. What is/are "polarizations gains". That's a term with which I am not familiar. Jimmie It's part of Polarity Therapy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarity_therapy I think it has something to do with yin and yang polarization. Applying acupuncture to the coax cable is known to activate and improve the flow of Chi, as well as increase the life force energy, which is what produces the necessary gain. (Sorry, I couldn't resist). -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
receive polarity
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:07:35 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote: What is/are "polarizations gains". That's a term with which I am not familiar. Hi Jimmie, EZNEC, for one, reports antenna "gain"/directivity (re dBi) for each polarization, azimuthum or elevation; or their sum as a total field for a 3D model. When two antennas (one receive, one transmit) are cross polarized, the gain between them can vanish to zero. In a real application this zero is something larger, but still small like 30dB down compared to two antennas employing the same polarization. This last is observed in line of sight transmissions of VHF and above (try hitting your favorite 2M repeater with the wrong antenna polarization orientation). It is not so common at HF as long paths (aka skip) can blur the polarization (as can nearby reflectors for any frequency) causing intermittant fading. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
receive polarity
On Feb 15, 4:43*pm, Dave wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:51*am, Art Unwin wrote: Has there ever been a study *that shows the relative consistency of received signal polarity to see if it would be advantageous for multi polarity receive antennas? there have been studies of polarization of signals over various paths and frequencies. *but i don't know that anyone has studied their polarity... why don't you try that and let us know how it comes out. ___________ Apparently Art believes that a radiated, linearly-polarized a-c waveform has a unique polarity, rather than a unique polarization. RF |
receive polarity
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:01:18 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote: I have not seen the like printed any where soto me it is good stuff. This might offer a clue as to how such antennas are built: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/4812/13333/00608613.pdf?arnumber=608613 http://www.springerlink.com/content/g215405815642611/ Plenty more under IEEE Ants and Props search. Check if your local library or college library has a subscription: http://www.ieeeaps.org http://ieeeaps.org/aps_trans/ When I model a polarization independent antenna the individual gains confuse me as each of the individual gains are some what 3 db down from the "total" gain. In other words "total" is not the addition of all the polarizations gains. If you use a circularly polarized antenna, and feed it a linearly polarized signal (either vertical or horizontal) you'll see a -3dB polarization mismatch loss. http://www.antenna-theory.com/basics/antennapol.php I find it very difficult to get my mind wrapped around that fact. On the surface it would suggest that competition types would benefit from a polarization independent antenna. Nope. According to my friends that do contesting, the major requirement of an antenna is NOT to maximize the gain in all directions. It's to reduce the gain to the side and back, where all the other interfering stations are usually located. Directionality is important or all you're going to hear are other local hams. A truely isotropic antenna is fairly useless for contesting. (Note: I don't do contesting). -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
receive polarity
On Feb 15, 6:02*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:01:18 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin wrote: I have not seen the like printed any where soto me *it is good stuff. This might offer a clue as to how such antennas are built: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/4812/13333/00608613.pdf?arnumber=608613 http://www.springerlink.com/content/g215405815642611/ Plenty more under IEEE Ants and Props search. *Check if your local library or college library has a subscription: http://www.ieeeaps.org http://ieeeaps.org/aps_trans/ When I model a polarization independent antenna the individual gains confuse me as each of the individual gains are some what 3 db down from the "total" gain. In other words "total" is not the addition of all the polarizations gains. If you use a circularly polarized antenna, and feed it a linearly polarized signal (either vertical or horizontal) you'll see a -3dB polarization mismatch loss. http://www.antenna-theory.com/basics/antennapol.php I find it very difficult to get my mind wrapped around that fact. On the surface it would suggest that competition types would benefit from a polarization independent antenna. Nope. *According to my friends that do contesting, the major requirement of an antenna is NOT to maximize the gain in all directions. *It's to reduce the gain to the side and back, where all the other interfering stations are usually located. *Directionality is important or all you're going to hear are other local hams. *A truely isotropic antenna is fairly useless for contesting. *(Note: *I don't do contesting). -- Jeff Liebermann * * 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558 To be honest Jeff the antennas I design are based on starting with a full wavelength radiators which I presume you are already aware of. Initially I was basing efficiency on all forces being accounted for with a higher gain resulting. In fact this aproach to design provides diversity of polarizations instead of linear thus linear seamed to supply top gains. The full wave length aproach gives the option of dual polarity or even all forms. The penalty is usually in the 1db range where as the multiple polarity may drop down a bit on gain but makes use of signals that a linear design cannot hear as well as zero side lobes and good front to rear figures. So without knowing what polarizations one has to deal with a reasonable choice is hard to come by. On top of these questions one has to look t what "gain" really represents since cross polarization can be reduced to just noise with the rest of the db gain value representing quality signal. Thus it is difficult to quantify gain when the real advantage comes about on weak signals that others cannot hear. In other words gain itself is not important unless it is a measure of discernabilitity or quality above noise or none matching polarities. Two antenna designs come to mind 1 is the two element array that can supply 2 polarities, horizontal and one direction circular and 2 the helical that can accept all that is thrown at it with a prime gain around 13 db and 10 db for the others. Thus if polarizations are random with weather fluctuations in city or wooded area it would seam reasonable to discard linear forms in favour of helicals. To sum up, all the above has placed me on a zero level as to what antenna efficiency really means which to the reader must now be obvious, as one does not know what variables should be weighted and by how much., |
receive polarity
On Feb 15, 6:38*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:07:35 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE wrote: What is/are "polarizations gains". That's a term with *which *I am not familiar. Hi Jimmie, EZNEC, for one, reports antenna "gain"/directivity (re dBi) for each polarization, azimuthum or elevation; or their sum as a total field for a 3D model. When two antennas (one receive, one transmit) are cross polarized, the gain between them can vanish to zero. *In a real application this zero is something larger, but still small like 30dB down compared to two antennas employing the same polarization. This last is observed in line of sight transmissions of VHF and above (try hitting your favorite 2M repeater with the wrong antenna polarization orientation). *It is not so common at HF as long paths (aka skip) can blur the polarization (as can nearby reflectors for any frequency) causing intermittant fading. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC A different perspective on polarization loss? Jimmie |
receive polarity
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:04:51 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote: A different perspective on polarization loss? Different? How? All pretty standard stuff. As for different literal perspectives of polarization, I am sitting here with two sets of 3D glasses for "Avatar" (just got back from the IMAX version) and these two pair of glasses are very different from my experience with Polaroid lenses of days gone by. And they are very different from each other for the same movie. The Real3D glasses at IMAX didn't work as normally worn, I still saw a double image; but viewing the movie through the lenses backwards (ear pieces going forward) rendered the IMAX 3D as 2D. Now, when I sit here at the console and view the display (flat screen) through the IMAX lenses, I can dim the display by rotating the pair. One eye piece goes black at 45 degrees rotation, and the other eye piece goes black at -45 degrees rotation. Flip them to look through them backwards, and the same effect is observed. When I take the Real3D pair and rotate them, only a slight shift in hue: yellow tint in both lenses at 45 degrees rotation, and a blue tint at -45 degrees rotation. When I flip them to look through them backwards, I encounter a slight brightening for both lenses at 45 degrees rotation and a complete blocking for both lenses at -45 degrees. I am familiar with display technology employing LCDs with double polarization to increase contrast, and I could easily expect this from the lenses of these two pairs of 3D glasses. Without having gone further into researching it, I have a hunch that I am encountering circular polarization here. A little digging will tell. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
receive polarity
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:44:13 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote: Without having gone further into researching it, I have a hunch that I am encountering circular polarization here. Yep. RealD XL 3D is circularly polarized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_Cinema http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RealD_films "How to avoid getting a 3D headache while watching Avatar" http://www.shadowlocked.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70:ho w-to-avoid-getting-a-3d-headache-while-watching-avatar&catid=41:feature -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
receive polarity
In message
, Art Unwin writes Has there ever been a study that shows the relative consistency of received signal polarity to see if it would be advantageous for multi polarity receive antennas? When I listen to the local 2m beacon ( horizontal polarisation) which is north of me ,I get a strong reflection from something to the south that turns the polarisation vertical. I noticed that while testing an antenna in the garden. Brian GM4DIJ -- Brian Howie |
receive polarity
On Feb 15, 6:55*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I was basing efficiency on all forces being accounted for with a higher gain resulting. Whether or not you account for all forces will not have any effect on gain. :/ This is another case of the hopeful free lunch.. But the cupboard was bare. :( The radiation from the vertical and horizontal polarizations added together will never end up being more than you started with. And an antenna that is a mix of both will be a compromise if the other antenna is purely one way or the other assuming no reflections, etc skewing the path. No free lunch.. :( |
receive polarity
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:44:13 -0800, Richard Clark wrote: Without having gone further into researching it, I have a hunch that I am encountering circular polarization here. Yep. RealD XL 3D is circularly polarized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_Cinema http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RealD_films "How to avoid getting a 3D headache while watching Avatar" http://www.shadowlocked.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70:ho w-to-avoid-getting-a-3d-headache-while-watching-avatar&catid=41:feature Which makes perfect sense, since it means that if you tilt your head, you don't swap images between left and right eyes. A very clever use of CP. |
receive polarity
|
receive polarity
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. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
receive polarity
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. * -- Jeff Liebermann * * 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558 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. Surely you can model anything if you know the end locations of the elements. If you are unable to do that then may be it is better that you don't. 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.These are the points you should look for to determine what the antenna looks like. Either way I have supplied the results to save you the work. |
receive polarity
On Feb 22, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote:
Model of 2 element multi polarization. http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/art/Pic.../Picture11.png and this proves what? |
receive polarity
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 |
receive polarity
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 |
receive polarity
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. |
receive polarity
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 |
receive polarity
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. |
receive polarity
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 |
receive polarity
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. |
receive polarity
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 |
receive polarity
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 |
receive polarity
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 |
receive polarity
Richard Clark wrote:
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 I believe his designs are the result of lackolithium. tom K0TAR |
receive polarity
On Feb 24, 7:50*pm, tom wrote:
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 Tom I have no problem with your choice of going with the one with the best front to back, what ever one that is. The crux of the matter is under the equations of Maxwell optimiser programs do not provide the planar form as the best radiator. I understand that Roy now has an optimiser program for sale and I fully expect for it to follow the same pattern as well as prove my point on the circular wound antenna as apparently he supplies more than enough segments assuming the computer has the power to use them. However a look at the larger picture the same particulars provided state that one can manipulate the elements to occupy a small volume as long as the resonance and equilibrium restrictions are held to. I see that as the real prize that will come from my workif one had the equipment to do the optimization. Ofcourse if Roy's program still provide the yagi as the optimizer result then there is a definate conflict with other computer programs that use Maxwells equations. Looking back at the idea that waves are the carrier of communication it leaves us with the silly propersition that a Faraday cage perforations must be less in size to that of the incoming wave! Thus for a cage for use on the top band can live with openings that are a bit smaller than 180 metres! Now some text books have dropped the size opening to approx 1/10 of a WL which is still way to large to enclose the eddy current rotation.Einstein failed to prove his theorem and was forced to invent quantum mechanics which provided the answer of particles that he anticipated and now with the above standard physics figures supplies the same result. So it is up to the ham himself to decide whether it is worthwhile to have an antenna sensitive to all signals that are thrown at it, where it operates in a smaller volume than the yagi or stay with one more pleasing on the eye. I personally do not have the equipment to pursue what appears to be smaller antennas than presently used all the way down to point radiation. What hams have to recognise now is that the much vaunted antenna programs do not consider the yagi as an optimized array and to decide whether to ditch the programs or pursue what the programs based on Maxwell provide to its limits. Art Unwin KB9MZ......xg |
receive polarity
Art Unwin wrote:
On Feb 24, 7:50 pm, tom wrote: 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 Tom I have no problem with your choice of going with the one with the best front to back, what ever one that is. The crux of the matter is under the equations of Maxwell optimiser programs do not provide the planar form as the best radiator. I understand that Roy now has an optimiser program for sale and I fully expect for it to follow the same pattern as well as prove my point on the circular wound antenna as apparently he supplies more than enough segments assuming the computer has the power to use them. However a look at the larger picture the same particulars provided state that one can manipulate the elements to occupy a small volume as long as the resonance and equilibrium restrictions are held to. I see that as the real prize that will come from my workif one had the equipment to do the optimization. Ofcourse if Roy's program still provide the yagi as the optimizer result then there is a definate conflict with other computer programs that use Maxwells equations. Looking back at the idea that waves are the carrier of communication it leaves us with the silly propersition that a Faraday cage perforations must be less in size to that of the incoming wave! Thus for a cage for use on the top band can live with openings that are a bit smaller than 180 metres! Now some text books have dropped the size opening to approx 1/10 of a WL which is still way to large to enclose the eddy current rotation.Einstein failed to prove his theorem and was forced to invent quantum mechanics which provided the answer of particles that he anticipated and now with the above standard physics figures supplies the same result. So it is up to the ham himself to decide whether it is worthwhile to have an antenna sensitive to all signals that are thrown at it, where it operates in a smaller volume than the yagi or stay with one more pleasing on the eye. I personally do not have the equipment to pursue what appears to be smaller antennas than presently used all the way down to point radiation. What hams have to recognise now is that the much vaunted antenna programs do not consider the yagi as an optimized array and to decide whether to ditch the programs or pursue what the programs based on Maxwell provide to its limits. Art Unwin KB9MZ......xg Yup, I was correct, pretty much incomprehensible nonsense. And the comprehensible parts were worthless, as usual. Go back on your meds kid. And stay there. tom K0TAR |
receive polarity
On Feb 24, 8:14*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
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 Richard, I am sharing results provided by computer optimizers where an array must be in equilibrium. I am not party to how these programs were generated or how closely they adhere to maxwells equations.If they provide results that are different then that seller has to answer for it. Obviously clever people such as yourself will guide hams on the correct path to follow as well as to explain why Maxwells equations do not favor the yagi. Hopefully you will supply technical details and not just wordy fluff. I would point out that Tom provided a planar form, which you copied, for a different frequency to the one that I supplied which provided f/ b/r that greatly exceeded his design. If your idea is to be a pied piper to lead ham radio away from examining change then such tactics will certainly do the job. But first to justify your dreams as a leader you have to provide reasons that make optimizer programs suspect. A point in your favor would be that Roy declares that his optimizer do NOT supply the results that others do so that experts such as you can direct your talents where they would be more profitable. Since you are not wired the same as I am I will not respond to you any more so that guilt by association may not be applied. But I will mention to all that you are in total disagreement with the association of a static field being made dynamic which is a staple in physics around which this discussion rests upon. Nobody, nobody, has come forward to provide academic reasons why this staple should not be held to or why people such as you should trash pursuit of that what I disclose. What I have provided is that computer programs side lines yagis in favor of arrays where elements are not parallel but all are resonant and where the array as a whole is in equilibrium. They do this because Maxwell supports the physics staple I proffer which you declare as NOT being correct but without supporting data other than you said so. |
receive polarity
tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: I understand that Roy now has an optimiser program for sale. . . Regretfully, I don't. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
receive polarity
On Feb 24, 9:24*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Hopefully you will supply technical details and not just wordy fluff. Talk about spray painting the kettle flat black... :/ |
receive polarity
|
receive polarity
On Feb 26, 10:59*am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:45:09 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Feb 24, 9:24 pm, Art Unwin wrote: Hopefully you will supply technical details and not just wordy fluff. Talk about spray painting the kettle flat black... *:/ Is Art straining to come to terms with gain comparisons? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Patent number 1 on my page has now been approved . If there is anything there then my grandchildren will benefit. If there isn't you can visit my grave and say "I told you so." Now I await the 2nd request to go thru. Yes anybody can get a patent and yes you knew all about that years ago and couldn't be bothered. And yes it doesn't prove anything at least at this point. So I have saved you from having to post. The other spammers can now go right aheadand show who and what they really are and add to their profiles. Look up patent number 2 on my page and start storing ammunition ready to throw my way. With respect to gain comparison, what I am providing is sensitivity to all polarizations thrown at the antenna instead of concentrating on horizontal alone and neglecting receipt of all others. Gain is just one measurement but it is nice if you can hear what others neglect or not sensitive to or cannot hear. If you want to see a model of the arrays in number 2 I can supply. |
receive polarity
On Feb 26, 10:15*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Feb 26, 10:59*am, Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:45:09 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Feb 24, 9:24 pm, Art Unwin wrote: Hopefully you will supply technical details and not just wordy fluff.. Talk about spray painting the kettle flat black... *:/ Is Art straining to come to terms with gain comparisons? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Patent number 1 on my page has now been approved . If there *is anything there then my grandchildren will benefit. If there isn't you can visit my grave and say "I told you so." *Now I await the 2nd request to go thru. Yes anybody can get a patent and yes you knew all about that years ago and couldn't be bothered. And yes it doesn't prove anything at least at this point. So I have saved you from having to post. The other spammers can now go right aheadand show who and what they really are and add to their profiles. Look up patent number 2 on my page and start storing ammunition ready to throw my way. With respect to gain comparison, what I am providing is sensitivity to all polarizations thrown at the antenna instead of concentrating on horizontal alone and neglecting receipt of all others. Gain is just one measurement but it is nice if you can hear what others neglect or not sensitive to or cannot hear. If you want to see a model of the arrays in number 2 I can supply. oh, oh, what is the number for it so i can submit it to the bad patents examples page???? |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:09 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com