On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:56:40 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:
Hi Walt,

What stopped it if not a physical barrier?

Richard, there is no physical barrier in an antenna array that changes
the shape of the radiated pattern. The barrier is caused only by
destructive wave interference.

but due to the
interference the result was a null

A null is not the absence of energy, but is the combination of equal
and opposing forces. If you were the Ref at a title bout, and stepped
between two punches of equal magnitude; then you wouldn't move very
far, the motions would cancel, but most would doubt you'd be up again
before the "count."

In a title bout two punches of equal magniude are coming from opposite
directions. The energies in the two punches is dissipated in the
noggins of the morons who got into the bout;. The resulting null is in
reducing the already worped brains to zero.

Nulls are evidenced quite clearly in bridges of many designs. They
may balance between huge potentials (energy), but evidence absolutely
no current (or power from energy times current). If you unplugged the
equipment from a bridge, the absence of current would not be an
indication of a null. Nulls within the context of engineering
necessarily carries the implication of energy present.

We're not talking about nulls in bridges, we're talking about energy
controlled in desired directions, reduced in some directions, with the
energy lost in one direction adding to that in another; but you know
this.
in that direction and an increased
amount of energy in the opposite, or forward direction, achieving gain
in that direction?

Linear systems do not exhibit "gain." The combination of forces are
due to the total field in comparison to the region of interest.

Well, Richard, there is no non-linearity in the formation of antenna
radiation patterns. Are you saying there is no 'gain' when energy is
taken from one direction and pushed into another? With respect to
radiation patterns, 'gain' is relative, and not consideredas an
increase in power. But you know that too.

It is by similar simplifications that we have contributors here who
offer that the radials of elevated ground planes do not radiate
energy. Their contribution to producing a power at a remote load may
cancel such that no power is evident, but this does not negate the
radiation nor the energy present.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

My comments are totally unrelated to elevated ground planes. I'm only
trying to prove to Jim that wave interference DOES cause energy to
shift direction without any aid of a physical entity. The only cause
of the change in direction of energy radiated from an array of dipoles
is wave interference, the interference between the waves emanting from
the different dipoles.

Walt, W2DU

Walter Maxwell wrote:


My comments are totally unrelated to elevated ground planes. I'm only
trying to prove to Jim that wave interference DOES cause energy to
shift direction without any aid of a physical entity. The only cause
of the change in direction of energy radiated from an array of dipoles
is wave interference, the interference between the waves emanting from
the different dipoles.

Walt, W2DU

The radiation pattern of an antenna is the result of the superposition
of fields either radiated or reflected from REAL surfaces. Energy from
the radiating and reflecting elements travels only in directions where
the resulting superposed fields are not zero. The resulting
interference pattern is simply the plot in 3 dimensional space of where
energy is being directed.

73, Jim AC6XG

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:14:48 -0400, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

We're not talking about nulls in bridges, we're talking about energy
controlled in desired directions, reduced in some directions, with the
energy lost in one direction adding to that in another; but you know
this.

Hi Walt,

What is being discussed is energy. Energy is wholly transparent to
application. The laws for its conservation don't care if you are
shooting marbles or colliding stars. Physics eventually devolves to
very few units of measure and the books balance on both sides of the
event.

in that direction and an increased
amount of energy in the opposite, or forward direction, achieving gain
in that direction?

Linear systems do not exhibit "gain." The combination of forces are
due to the total field in comparison to the region of interest.

Well, Richard, there is no non-linearity in the formation of antenna
radiation patterns. Are you saying there is no 'gain' when energy is
taken from one direction and pushed into another? With respect to
radiation patterns, 'gain' is relative, and not consideredas an
increase in power. But you know that too.

And we both know no energy is created or lost without an atom being
ripped apart. The appeal to antenna "gain" is simply the choice of
where your attention is focused. Energy is neither lost nor created,
nor increased, nor decreased, the concomitant power that results of a
load being exposed to several sources of energy has a resultant. That
resultant expressed in the gain charts presumes there is a continuum
of loads throughout the circle/sphere of the lobes being described.

It is by similar simplifications that we have contributors here who
offer that the radials of elevated ground planes do not radiate
energy. Their contribution to producing a power at a remote load may
cancel such that no power is evident, but this does not negate the
radiation nor the energy present.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

My comments are totally unrelated to elevated ground planes. I'm only
trying to prove to Jim that wave interference DOES cause energy to
shift direction without any aid of a physical entity. The only cause
of the change in direction of energy radiated from an array of dipoles
is wave interference, the interference between the waves emanting from
the different dipoles.

Elevated ground planes, if they do not fit into the discussion, reveal
that discussion cannot support their characteristics. This is
expressly a failure of that discussion.

Elevated ground planes radiate from the entire structure. What they
radiate is energy. The net sum of those energies, at a distance,
combined into a load, reveal that the contribution of the radials
nullifies in horizontal polarity, and because the relative height
(thickness) of the radials is so small in proportion to the main
vertical element, make very little contribution to the vertical
polarity. Yet and all, every radial element is blasting away in
proportion to its current and radiation resistance. The radials are
pouring energy into the Æther with every effort as the main vertical
element. Reduce this to the barest minimum of two radials and the
results are identical, however, lop off to one radial element, and the
energy balance upsets the apple cart and a horizontal component,
formerly offset by equal opposing energies, appears. That last radial
element had always been radiating energy, it is still radiating
energy.

Optics has been maligned through very poor examples here, but if two
beams of light intersect we have wave interference ONLY if a load is
present at that intersection. A load is a necessarily physical
correlative. Otherwise, these energies have absolutely no
interaction, barring a non-linear medium.

It then follows that waves do not mix freely in and of themselves and
hence they are not causative agents. This has been illustrated by The
Extreme Failure of Poor Concepts in Discussing Thin Layer Reflections.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
Elevated ground planes radiate from the entire structure. What they
radiate is energy. The net sum of those energies, at a distance,
combined into a load, reveal that the contribution of the radials
nullifies in horizontal polarity,
________________

Psst... the definition of "polarity" is not same as that of polarization.
Probably you meant to write "polarization," did you not?

RF

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:54:45 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

"Richard Clark" wrote
Elevated ground planes radiate from the entire structure. What they
radiate is energy. The net sum of those energies, at a distance,
combined into a load, reveal that the contribution of the radials
nullifies in horizontal polarity,
________________

Psst... the definition of "polarity" is not same as that of polarization.
Probably you meant to write "polarization," did you not?

RF

Hi OM,

True.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC