"Richard Harrison" wrote
...
Art wrote:
"Thus if we have a radiator of one WL that is tipped in space and near
zero resistance in impedance metric we will then attain a spherical
radiation pattern with Poynting`s vector and thus a demonsration of
point radiation together with further evidence that radiation is of
particle and not of waves."

No matter how Art`s words were combined, I don`t see in them any such
evidence. Even Art agrees that Maxwell`s equations correctly produce
answers to where the energy goes.

The 1955 edition of Terman`s "Electronic and Radio Engineering" shows
the radiation pattern of one WL of wire in Fig. 23-4 (b) on page 867. It
consists of four lobes each making an angle of 54 degrees with the axis
of the wire. The pattern deviates from a spherical pattern by a lot. So
much for "equilibrium"!

Cecil pointed out that in physics, electromagnetic radiation is treated
with duality, using either particle theory or waves, whichever is more
convenient for the problem at hand.

Maxwell solved the problems of radiation using wave equations which are
said to be four of the most influential equations in science.

"Heaviside said that mathematics was an experimental
science. He organised Maxwell's mathematical work into the four equations
which we now call "Maxwell's Equations".

Maxwell made model of solid etherWhat is Heaviside's model like?

On page 864 of Terman`s 1955 opus he writes:
"The laws governing such radiation are obtained by using Maxwell`s
equations to express the fields associated with the wire; when this is
done there is found to be a component, termed the radiated field, having
a strength that varies inversely with distance.

If Art would just absorb Terman`s chapter on "Antennas" I doubt he would
write such nonsense.
S*

On Sep 13, 12:57*pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
If the current oscilate at the
ends is developed the very high voltage. The high voltage produce the
electric field. So you can wrote: "the electric field is a direct
consequence *of voltage developed in the ends of the transmitting antenna".
This electric field generate the magnetic field and so on. So the Hertz'
dipole has the three sources of waves. The centre and the two ends.

Only the change in current and charge, over time, produces EM
radiation. That radiation includes both the magnetic and electric
fields, at right angles to each other and to the direction of travel.

In the case of a self-resonant, center-fed, 1/4-wave dipole, current
is maximum at the feedpoint and minimum at the ends of the dipole.
Therefore the ends radiate very little of the total applied power.

Below is what John Kraus writes about this in Antennas, 3rd edition,
page 12:

QUOTE
A radio antenna may be defined as the structure associated with the
region of transition between a guided wave and a free-space wave, or
vice-versa. Antennas convert electrons to photons, or vice-versa.

Regardless of antenna type, all involve the same basic principle that
radiation is produced by accelerated (or decelerated) charge. The
basic equation of radiation may be expressed simply as:

IL = Qv (A m s^-1)

where

I = time-changing current, A s^-1
L = length of current element, m
Q = charge, C
v = time change of velocity which equals the acceleration of the
charge, m s^-2

Thus, time-changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates.

END QUOTE

RF

On Sep 14, 5:24*am, Richard Fry wrote:

In the case of a self-resonant, center-fed, 1/4-wave dipole, current
is maximum at the feedpoint and minimum at the ends of the dipole.
Therefore the ends radiate very little of the total applied power.

Correcting myself, that dipole would need to be about 1/2-wave long
for first self-resonance. But neither form of this dipole radiates
very much from its ends.

RF

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:00:06 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

Before you recite an authority, you really need to understand them.

It is commonly known

You don't show any evidence of being in that community. Leaning on
the Xerox copy button doesn't bring knowledge.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Dave" wrote in message
...

- - snippity - -

art will never accept your challenge. its up to you to prove that his
assertions are incorrect... and then get ignored as he continues to state
the same things in many different forms. unless you can capture one of
his diamagnetic levitating solar neutrinos and show that it doesn't sit on
the antenna element and jump off when a pulse of current hits it you will
never be believed... and even if you did capture one he would tell you it
changed in flight from the sun.


He he, or HI, or ROTFLMAO as some put it.

Better get some more heavy water in for the winter then
http://www.physicscentral.com/explor.../neutrinos.cfm

Chris

On Sep 13, 11:29*am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:46:30 +0100, "christofire"

wrote:
Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many
polarizations? Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me?
A*

You appear to have changed your identity from S* to A* !

The answers according to the physics that real-life radio communication
depends upon, and was designed by, a

A much simpler, and compelling explanation:
* * * * *what you see is what you get.

If it looks vertical, the polarization is vertical;
If it looks horizontal, the polarization is horizontal.

It thus stands to reason that if the radiator is U shaped you see both
horizontal and vertical - hence the full sphere filled with radiation.

This closes the simple answer, which of course drives a very lengthy
explanation - there is no such thing as a free lunch:

Now, I can well anticipate some wag pointing out that they are
standing, looking at these "goal posts" edge on and see only the
vertical supports. *"There is no horizontal view - no horizontal
polarization. *It can't be isotropic!"

Of course it can't; and yet the vertical radiation fills the null of
the horizontal (and likewise, the horizontal fills the null of the
vertical). *Total field is spherical.

What does this make of a tilted radiator? *What you see is what you
get. *At some perspectives it looks goofy horizontal AND it looks
goofy vertical. *In other perspectives it just looks vertical. *As Art
might protest: *"Never mind goofy, how much horizontal?" *If we reduce
this to a number of goofiness, a trig function would serve quite well.
Most students who were trained in mechanics would recognize the method
to deconstruct an angle into its two, XY, components. *If the tilt
were 45 degrees, in full view of that angle you must experience the
single antenna as having two equal vertical and horizontal
contributions to radiation. *If it were tilted 30 degrees, obviously
one polarization would dominate over the other. *Ground would compound
the issue, but would not negate the general principle.

This last part returns us to the discussion of isotropism which
encompasses the topic of Lambert's Law which is generally confined to
a black body radiator (or the sun from a great distance as it fails to
be isotropic in the near view, such as we have here on earth). *Few
here need concern themselves with this unless they are making patch
antennas. *However, within the discussion above, the topic of view,
angle, and radiation contribution are wrapped up in Lambert and
cosine.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard cannot read this. However I find his posting to be rewarding .
The present aproach to radiation is that a free electron is torn away
from the nucleous of an atom which creates uncertaincy. Such an action
is that of the strong force which is akin the the splitting of an atom
where such an action would release electrons such that they would
bombard electrical networks such as in Hawaii. When one uses Maxwells
equations
it becomes very obvious that with decreasing impeadance radiation
increases until we get to the point of zero impedance where reality is
forced to be reviewed.
Since we now recognize that radiation is not created by the radiator
itself as it is only a carrier of a radiator, the model used must be
of cylinder type of homogeonos free electrons
where removal of the free electrons/particles is by a "weak force" and
not a strong force.
Thus in reality the model to be used is that of a cylinder where the
"stiction" of each electron,(I should really keep to the term particle
so one does not automatically insert neutrinos or a subset of
leptons) to a diamagnetic material is effectively replaced by a hoop
stress which first showed up in the boundary of the "Big Bang".
Now we have something that meets reality, where increase in current
applied creates an increase in radiation and where the model is seen
to be a boundary consisting of particles bound to each other! This is
basically implied by Maxwell's equations as illustrated by the
computer programs where radiation increase is proportional to the
decrease of impedance
of the energy robbing metallic radiator and where cylindrical boundary
model increases it's share of the current applied for continued
radiation and still is in concert with known laws
without resorting to extreme low temperature to attain "zero
impedance" which lacks reality.
As a side note. It is the arbitrary boundary in shear (spin) which
provides the Weak Force of the Standard Model as foreseen by Einstein
when he took on his fruitless search. And it would appear that the
reversal of the positive sign of the shown "Radio World" material is
somewhat supporting of this posting but that should be the subject of
a separate thread.
Art Unwin

On Sep 14, 3:00Â*am, Szczepan BiaÅ‚ek wrote:
U¿ytkownik "Richard Clark" napisa³ w wiadomo¶cinews:9ocqa5l6qcddd7tcrl1o4502e6s1rtq8mm @4ax.com...

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:57:22 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

EM waves by Heaviside are transverse. Now we should check if he was right.

You have confused the telegrapher's equations with propagation.

Before you recite an authority, you really need to understand them.

It is commonly known: "Heaviside said that mathematics was an experimental
science. He organised Maxwell's mathematical work into the four equations
which we now call "Maxwell's Equations".

Maxwell made the model of solid ether. The four equations by Heaviside is
rather "fluid analogy".

"Now Heaviside had the concept of the TEM Wave, which Kelvin and Preece did
not. With these two formulae, he could give a gloss of mathematical style to
his assertion that, properly treated, a slab of energy current could
propagate at the speed of light without distortion. This assertion had
massive practical implications, but Heaviside was obstructed for decades."
From:http://www.ivorcatt.com/2810.htm
S*

If radiation occurs at the end of a dipole ( which it does) it exists
only in the near field
because of its lack of spin. ie charge dissipation but without spin.

On Sep 14, 11:15*am, Art Unwin wrote:
Now we have something that meets reality, where increase in current
applied creates an increase in radiation...

NOW ?? This has been true forever.

... and where the model is seen
to be a boundary consisting of particles bound to each other! This is
basically implied by Maxwell's equations as illustrated by the
computer programs where radiation increase is proportional to the
decrease of impedance of the energy robbing metallic radiator etc

Decreasing the feedpoint impedance of an antenna to 0 +j0 ohms (if
that were possible) does not maximize radiation.

The first term in the antenna impedance specification in a practical
antenna consists mainly of radiation resistance -- which is required
in order for radiation to occur. Radiation resistance is a function
of the electrical length, diameter and form of the radiator exposed to
space. If it is zero then there is no radiation.

Higher radiation resistances lead to higher efficiencies for the
antenna SYSTEM, because then the power radiated can be much greater
than what is dissipated in the relatively smaller I^2R losses of the
system.

RF

"Richard Fry" wrote
...
On Sep 13, 12:57 pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
If the current oscilate at the
ends is developed the very high voltage. The high voltage produce the
electric field. So you can wrote: "the electric field is a direct
consequence of voltage developed in the ends of the transmitting antenna".
This electric field generate the magnetic field and so on. So the Hertz'
dipole has the three sources of waves. The centre and the two ends.

Only the change in current and charge, over time, produces EM
radiation. That radiation includes both the magnetic and electric
fields, at right angles to each other and to the direction of travel.

In the case of a self-resonant, center-fed, 1/4-wave dipole, current
is maximum at the feedpoint and minimum at the ends of the dipole.
Therefore the ends radiate very little of the total applied power.

Below is what John Kraus writes about this in Antennas, 3rd edition,
page 12:

QUOTE
A radio antenna may be defined as the structure associated with the
region of transition between a guided wave and a free-space wave, or
vice-versa. Antennas convert electrons to photons, or vice-versa.

Regardless of antenna type, all involve the same basic principle that
radiation is produced by accelerated (or decelerated) charge. The
basic equation of radiation may be expressed simply as:

IL = Qv (A m s^-1)

where

I = time-changing current, A s^-1
L = length of current element, m
Q = charge, C
v = time change of velocity which equals the acceleration of the
charge, m s^-2

Thus, time-changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates.

In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate?
S*

Roy Lewallen wrote:


George Brown, the inventor of the ground plane
antenna, had observed an omnidirectional pattern in the horizontal plane
with only two radials, but the marketing department at RCA insisted on
adding two more to make it look symmetrical before selling them.

Side note, Roy. I take a lot of Morotcycle rides to the north central
part of PA, and being a remote area, that have a fair number of radio
systems to tell them of the shape of the power lines in eh area.

They use a ground plane antenna that consists of a spring mounted
vertical, and two horizontal radials. They are pretty homely.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -