Art's "Tipping" Belief Explained?
Richard Fry
patterns of a vertical dipole with one that is "tipped."
Sure enough, the tipped antenna has slightly more peak gain, and the
elevation null at the zenith above the vertical version is filled --
just as Art has posted.
However the reason for that is NOT that the antenna itself radiates
better when tipped. It is the result of directing more of the peak
gain of the radiation pattern launched by the antenna (which is a
constant regardless of its physical orientation) toward the earth near
the antenna. This increases the earth reflection in that direction/
sector.
Those considering only the net, far-field radiation as calculated by
NEC may think that the antenna itself radiates better when tipped.
But it is only the contribution of the earth reflection that makes it
appear so.
The radiation pattern of the antenna itself remains the same,
regardless of its physical orientation.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h85/rfry-100/Tipped_Vertical_Dipole.gif
RF
Dave
"Richard Fry" <rf...@adams.net> wrote in message
news:194de661-9754-43e1...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
and even more important, the vertical null is reduced getting it closer to
art's 'equilibrium'.
Richard Fry
> and even more important, the vertical null is reduced getting it
> closer to art's 'equilibrium'.
Only thing is that my plots are based on 1/2-wave antennas.
Art says only full wave antennas have equilibrium.
Perhaps he'll explain.
RF
Dave
try a full wave dipole, maybe it will get closer to 'equilibrium' by art's
definition.
Richard Fry
> try a full wave dipole, maybe it will get closer to 'equilibrium'
> by art's definition.
The lobe of a full-wave dipole is narrower than that of a 1/2-wave
dipole, so the tipped version of the full-wave should show the worse
"equilibrium" of the two configurations.
RF
Art Unwin
>
> RF
You are so dumb that you need help!
If you are going to change the orientation you must change the length
of the radiator
so that is still resonant. ala a state of equilibrium
You did not do that!.
You are proposing that a resonant full wave dipole does not change
its characteristics
even if it falls over. I assure you that you are wrong
Think and think and think about it during my absence and then do your
work over again. Do this before I return so that you may measure the
reactions of your counter parts.
And remember, the tilt and length of the radiator is proportional to
that of the Coriolis vector. No more and no less, if you are going to
abide by the laws of Newton.
I may take my laptop with me as you are not alone with your dumbness
and neglect of the laws of physics. If you are going to suggest some
thing new it must correlate with existing laws of physics. If not you
must prove why such law should not be considered valid Nothing that I
have stated with respect to radiation does not violate any existing
laws of physics otherwise all would be typing in unison in response.
To make believe such a trail that agreed with all laws is no more than
a fairy tale is certainly beyond my capability. Only a trail that
extends along the line of known laws could have such durability that
has lasted and continues, for so long. Again, for every degree of tilt
you must correct the length of your full wave dipole or retake your
novice examination.
tom
Art
You are lecturing someone that has maybe 1000 times the actual knowledge
that you do, and none of the fantasies. You really need to get a grip
on reality.
I'm not joking.
You are a very poor mechanical engineer who thinks he knows more than
excellent electrical engineers.
Give it up. You're a failure.
tom
K0TAR
Richard Fry
> You are proposing that a resonant full wave dipole does not
> change its characteristics even if it falls over.
1. A full-wave dipole is not self-resonant. Its center-fed impedance
in free space is about 2,000 -j600 ohms.
2. None of the equations for the free-space radiation pattern of a
full-wave, or any length dipole include terms for its physical
orientation.
3. In free space there IS no up, no down and no tilt.
> If you are going to suggest something new it must correlate
> with existing laws of physics.
Should you not follow your own advice? You are the one suggesting
"something new," and you offer it with only your opinions to support
it. No scientific proof, whatsoever.
> Nothing that I have stated with respect to radiation does not
> violate any existing laws of physics...
And with that statement I totally agree.
RF
Dave
amen on that! he finally said it the right way.