On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:40:58 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

the solution would have to be that each source is randomly polarized

Hi Jim,

I have worked further with the "random" applications. "Random" is no
simple thing as published data has already revealed and my additions,
editions, and refinements have not bought much more traction. Putting
enough decimal places into the "random" valuations would be
mind-numbingly brutal; and as interesting as it would be, it would be
a solution in search of a different problem.

If "random" put oil on troubled waters and reduced the 1.4dB
discrepancy to say 0.4dB, it says nothing of the original 1dB. And
all these machinations to fill the sky with sources so they can look
over the reflector of the yagi.... If you pour more water into the
bucket, you will eventually fill it, but it won't tell you why the
bucket leaks.

However, it is nice to see that the topic still has legs.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:16:08 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:


I think what you're seeing is the 3-D interference pattern generated by
your sources.


Hi Jim,

3D in two-space? No.

It was you who claimed to have modeled the antenna in three-space, was
it not? Either way, in three-space or two, you have an interference
pattern. That is the point.

I'm not sure that really tells us very much about the antennas themselves.
You'd need to surround each of the antennas with a
uniform field in order to compare them. By uniform, I mean the field
intensity toward the antenna is the same in any direction.


The problem has symmetry on its side, additional source add to the
dipole in equal measure to the yagi. Adding more power does not
create the missing power already lost.

It would be silly to expect it to. How much power should you expect to
measure with your instruments positioned in an interference null? This
is the nature of your "leaky bucket".

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
3D in two-space? No.

It was you who claimed to have modeled the antenna in three-space, was
it not?

Actually, if time appeared in the equations as in 2*pi*f*t,
then it would be 3Dspace+1Dtime = 4D, no?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:08:00 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Hi Jim,

Either way, in three-space or two, you have an interference
pattern. That is the point.

The point being what? The observation of the pattern is simply that,
an observation. That a pattern exists is also hardly a revolutionary
concept. That it is the product of many sources does not preclude the
results as physics allows a wave to be viewed as a continuum of
sources along its length.

The problem has symmetry on its side, additional source add to the
dipole in equal measure to the yagi. Adding more power does not
create the missing power already lost.

It would be silly to expect it to. How much power should you expect to
measure with your instruments positioned in an interference null? This
is the nature of your "leaky bucket".

When two designs inhabit the same null, as you put it (which is a
mistaken attribution because there are regions with two orders
magnitude less power resolved by the same designs), and one exhibits
more response than the other (regardless of its subsequent
repositioning and that was performed to the degree of 1/80th wave
increments); then it stands to reason one design is inferior to the
other in the capture of a continuum of radiation encompassing them.

This is all displayed in the data offered.

The yagi is that inferior design. This leaky bucket is not fixed by
placing it outside of the "null" (ironically it was very near in a
peak); hence an interference pattern is immaterial to the loss of
power as both designs suffer the same pattern - and equally I might
point out, if other arguments are consistently applied that equal
powers should be exhibited.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:08:00 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Hi Jim,


Either way, in three-space or two, you have an interference
pattern. That is the point.


The point being what? The observation of the pattern is simply that,
an observation. That a pattern exists is also hardly a revolutionary
concept. That it is the product of many sources does not preclude the
results as physics allows a wave to be viewed as a continuum of
sources along its length.

The typical radiation pattern which would ordinarily illuminate an
antenna does not have an array of 'holes' in it - symmetrical or
otherwise. Further, you can't expect to compare the performance of two
different antennas when the field you're exposing them to is malformed
and non-uniform. The result would be convoluted (as you have shown).

This leaky bucket is not fixed by
placing it outside of the "null" (ironically it was very near in a
peak);

It is fixed by creating a uniform field. As I said before, integrating
the results from a large number of individual point sources (rather than
superposing the fields from a large array of point sources) would not
produce an interference pattern.

hence an interference pattern is immaterial to the loss of
power as both designs suffer the same pattern - and equally I might
point out, if other arguments are consistently applied that equal
powers should be exhibited.

This is apparently incorrect, as both antennas should produce the same
result.

One wouldn't have to do as much handwaving and fast talking if the field
was uniform, Richard.

73, ac6xg

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:13:34 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

It is fixed by creating a uniform field. As I said before, integrating
the results from a large number of individual point sources (rather than
superposing the fields from a large array of point sources) would not
produce an interference pattern.

Hi Jim,

Here you are clearly wrong in some presumption. For one, I have done
exactly as you have demanded should be done and you find an error. I
have responded several times to this identical complaint you've
offered, and you have neither offered what that error is, or where I
differ from what you insist in integrating the results. It seems to
me in performing it exactly as you describe it, that I have very
little choice in that matter anyway and barring further elaboration in
how my fulfilling your imperative differs from your imperative, your
point remains rather elusive.

hence an interference pattern is immaterial to the loss of
power as both designs suffer the same pattern - and equally I might
point out, if other arguments are consistently applied that equal
powers should be exhibited.

This is apparently incorrect, as both antennas should produce the same
result.

"Should" is the operative word here. "Doesn't" is clearly exhibited.
You don't explain the "Should" and you clearly have issue with the
"Doesn't," but to this point you and others haven't got much to offer.
As I put the challenge to Roy, offer your own model that fulfills the
"Should." Results haven't exactly flown out of that yet, if ever.

One wouldn't have to do as much handwaving and fast talking if the field
was uniform, Richard.

A circular uniform field? And one that exists without a pattern of
interference within it? That could only exist at the beginning of
creation reverse filling the void of the cosmos.
THIS is hand waving. ;-)

However, let's just cut to the chase in that you are clearly disturbed
by this "interference pattern" that the tool so clearly reveals. What
about it is so inimical to your expectations? The partitioning of the
problem into multiple sources dates back to Huygens' principle.
Predating EZNEC by 300+ years suggests that the math has more or less
stabilized such that the model confirms it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:13:34 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:


It is fixed by creating a uniform field. As I said before, integrating
the results from a large number of individual point sources (rather than
superposing the fields from a large array of point sources) would not
produce an interference pattern.


Hi Jim,

Here you are clearly wrong in some presumption. For one, I have done
exactly as you have demanded should be done and you find an error. I
have responded several times to this identical complaint you've
offered, and you have neither offered what that error is, or where I
differ from what you insist in integrating the results. It seems to
me in performing it exactly as you describe it, that I have very
little choice in that matter anyway and barring further elaboration in
how my fulfilling your imperative differs from your imperative, your
point remains rather elusive.

You forgot to write - Harumph! ;-)

If you'll read back, you'll find that the descriptions you've provided
of your model are far less than effusive and illuminating. No more than
a few partial or incomprehensible sentences were provided. We're left
to guess most of the details of what you have done. I can only deduce
some of it from the results you have provided. I made no criticism of
this. You spoke of symmetries and lost power without mention of their
nature. So I mentioned their nature. It should have been obvious, but
you hadn't even alluded to a possible explanation for this "lost power".

BTW, single sources do not produce interference patterns (unless somehow
you're inadvertantly causing diffraction somewhere between the source
and the antenna). Each individual source will provide a signal. The
amplitude and phase of the signal rendered in the antenna from a single
source will depend the position of the source relative to the
orientation and construction of the antenna. Summing all the individual
signals rendered in the antenna from a multitude of individuals sources
does not create an interference pattern in 3 space. It produces a
simple magnitude and phase which would hypothetically appear in the
antenna if an incoming uniform 'spherical field' existed.

However, let's just cut to the chase in that you are clearly disturbed
by this "interference pattern" that the tool so clearly reveals.

I don't find interference to be disturbing. I'm simply pointing out
that we shouldn't expect textbook results from antennas that are
positioned amidst interfering sources. I'm sorry to have perturbed you
with my comments and observations. Any criticisms you may have
precieved should have been taken as purely constructive to the task.
That is my only intent.

73, ac6xg

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:31:31 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:
If you'll read back, you'll find that the descriptions you've provided
of your model are far less than effusive and illuminating.

Hi Jim,

Is that the standard we now measure by? The data is not going to
change and its repetition is not necessary. Do you have something new
to point out?

You spoke of symmetries and lost power without mention of their nature.

I left speculation to others and you stepped up to the podium.

So I mentioned their nature. It should have been obvious, but
you hadn't even alluded to a possible explanation for this "lost power".

Again, this was already offered by me - I may have made a mistake. As
of yet, no one seems interested in pursuing that. Other explanations
would hardly qualify as such, they would be speculations as I've said
and given there is no competing model supporting those speculations -
well, the adage that talk is cheap has had the price slashed by
posting is cheaper.

BTW, single sources

Demonstrate a single source that offers an inward radiating circular
field. I can anticipate you might be tempted to suggest the
multiplicity of sources accruing from the big bang, but then that
would violate your premise:

do not produce interference patterns

As I've suggested, all it takes is a positive model supporting a
negation of my results.

However, let's just cut to the chase in that you are clearly disturbed
by this "interference pattern" that the tool so clearly reveals.

I don't find interference to be disturbing. I'm simply pointing out
that we shouldn't expect textbook results from antennas that are
positioned amidst interfering sources.

Well, then it descends to a population of one disturbed correspondent,
and Roy has yet to resolve his conflict. Your last observation must
emphasize it if we cannot expect a modeler to provide textbook
results.

So, as it stands I see that no one has a competing model and the data
remains an enigma to most.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:
Any criticisms you may have
precieved should have been taken as purely constructive to the task.

Richard probably considers you input to be constructive interference. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Any criticisms you may have precieved should have been taken as purely
constructive to the task.


Richard probably considers your input to be constructive interference. :-)

Then it wasn't for naught. We've finally landed upon something that you
and Richard can agree upon. ;-)

73, Jim AC6XG