This got me thinking (a dangerous thing when comes
to concepts)! When discussing an Isotropic, as an
object that radiates equally well- in ALL DIRECTIONS,
does this also include all PLANES, as well? Horizontal
Vertical, how about Left-Hand , or Right-hand Circular ?
Linear Circular? or, does polarization even enter into
the situation (it being an infinatly small point source)?
Not trying to be smart- Just not the best educated bloke
on the block, and never seen it disgussed.

Thanks, es 73, Jim NN7K

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 22:46:05 GMT, Jim - NN7K
wrote:

This got me thinking (a dangerous thing when comes
to concepts)! When discussing an Isotropic, as an
object that radiates equally well- in ALL DIRECTIONS,
does this also include all PLANES, as well? Horizontal
Vertical, how about Left-Hand , or Right-hand Circular ?
Linear Circular? or, does polarization even enter into
the situation (it being an infinatly small point source)?
Not trying to be smart- Just not the best educated bloke
on the block, and never seen it disgussed.

Thanks, es 73, Jim NN7K

Isn't gain something that comes about by reshaping and polarizing that
isotropic radiation?

Buck

--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

Jim - NN7K wrote:
This got me thinking (a dangerous thing when comes
to concepts)! When discussing an Isotropic, as an
object that radiates equally well- in ALL DIRECTIONS,
does this also include all PLANES, as well?

An isotropic antenna in free space radiates equally
in all directions, i.e. in the three physical dimensions.
The locus of points of equal field strength would describe
a sphere in three dimensions.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim - NN7K wrote:

This got me thinking (a dangerous thing when comes
to concepts)! When discussing an Isotropic, as an
object that radiates equally well- in ALL DIRECTIONS,
does this also include all PLANES, as well?


An isotropic antenna in free space radiates equally
in all directions, i.e. in the three physical dimensions.
The locus of points of equal field strength would describe
a sphere in three dimensions.

Thanks, Cecil -- what got me thinking about it was a friend
brought up this discussion of , say Moonbounce , with say
Lefthand circular polarization , as observed from Earth.
(which on reflection should be RIGHT HAND circular polarization
upon return to earth, if to a Linear , Flat plane, like a billboard)
and one of the experts there said to him "NOT so fast about the
signals being 100 % out of phase" ( think had to do with
Faraday effect) - got me wondering about the effects -apparently
NOT a concern with dBi calculations! thanks, Jim NN7K

"Buck" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 22:46:05 GMT, Jim - NN7K
wrote:

This got me thinking (a dangerous thing when comes
to concepts)! When discussing an Isotropic, as an
object that radiates equally well- in ALL DIRECTIONS,
does this also include all PLANES, as well? Horizontal
Vertical, how about Left-Hand , or Right-hand Circular ?
Linear Circular? or, does polarization even enter into
the situation (it being an infinatly small point source)?
Not trying to be smart- Just not the best educated bloke
on the block, and never seen it disgussed.

Thanks, es 73, Jim NN7K

Isn't gain something that comes about by reshaping and polarizing that
isotropic radiation?

Buck

--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

Re-shaping, yes. Polarization, no. Gain is defined by power radiated through
a unit area, or power density. It doesn't matter which way the E-field
vector is pointing at any given instant.

A good physical analogy is to think of a circular baloon. If you squeeze the
baloon, it will distort from circular. The narrower parts will be "nulls",
and the bulges will be directed energy, or "gain". The tough part of antenna
design is getting those bulges to point where you want them. For instance,
if you want GPS reception, you want good performance roughly from horizon to
horizon, and no nulls overhead. But if you want to talk with other hams on a
hike, very few of them will be located 15,000 feet overhead, so you can
optimize your antenna to not waste power vertically. Indeed, the best
pattern for this work is a squashed-down to the horizon, equi-azimuth
pattern.


Ed
WB6WSN

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:27:17 GMT, Jim - NN7K
wrote:

[snip]

|Thanks, Cecil -- what got me thinking about it was a friend
|brought up this discussion of , say Moonbounce , with say
|Lefthand circular polarization , as observed from Earth.
|(which on reflection should be RIGHT HAND circular polarization
|upon return to earth, if to a Linear , Flat plane, like a billboard)
|and one of the experts there said to him "NOT so fast about the
|signals being 100 % out of phase" ( think had to do with
|Faraday effect)

Faraday rotation takes place in the Earth's ionosphere. The less than
perfect 180 degree phase shift in polarization is caused by the fact
that the lunar surface isn't a flat metallic surface but is instead,
as everyone knows, a lumpy green cheese ball.

"Wes Stewart" *n7ws*@ yahoo.com wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:27:17 GMT, Jim - NN7K
wrote:

[snip]

|Thanks, Cecil -- what got me thinking about it was a friend
|brought up this discussion of , say Moonbounce , with say
|Lefthand circular polarization , as observed from Earth.
|(which on reflection should be RIGHT HAND circular polarization
|upon return to earth, if to a Linear , Flat plane, like a billboard)
|and one of the experts there said to him "NOT so fast about the
|signals being 100 % out of phase" ( think had to do with
|Faraday effect)

Faraday rotation takes place in the Earth's ionosphere. The less than
perfect 180 degree phase shift in polarization is caused by the fact
that the lunar surface isn't a flat metallic surface but is instead,
as everyone knows, a lumpy green cheese ball.



If the moon were green cheese, wouldn't the increased conductivity present
lower return loss?


--
Ed
WB6WSN
El Cajon, CA USA

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 02:44:10 -0700, "Ed Price" wrote:


"Wes Stewart" *n7ws*@ yahoo.com wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:27:17 GMT, Jim - NN7K
wrote:

[snip]

|Thanks, Cecil -- what got me thinking about it was a friend
|brought up this discussion of , say Moonbounce , with say
|Lefthand circular polarization , as observed from Earth.
|(which on reflection should be RIGHT HAND circular polarization
|upon return to earth, if to a Linear , Flat plane, like a billboard)
|and one of the experts there said to him "NOT so fast about the
|signals being 100 % out of phase" ( think had to do with
|Faraday effect)

Faraday rotation takes place in the Earth's ionosphere. The less than
perfect 180 degree phase shift in polarization is caused by the fact
that the lunar surface isn't a flat metallic surface but is instead,
as everyone knows, a lumpy green cheese ball.



If the moon were green cheese, wouldn't the increased conductivity present
lower return loss?

Not compared to a perfect reflector. The RL of the moon is about 11
dB.

Thanks, Wes-- when originally considered it was looking at the moon
in terms of approaching a point source (the surface of the moon
being relatively small TIME-WISE- but the surface to the edges
being relatvly HUGE in distance , per Wavelength would allow a
distortion of a reflection. As I said , its dangerous to get me
thinking too hard (I tend to fall asleep)! Tho, hadn't considered
the (Cheezy) effect! makes me wonder if linear circular would be
the way to go, or would it distort as bad as other signals
(do to Faraday Rotation- the skewing of the signal's polarization)?
Just curious. The linear circular refers to circular yagi construction
rather than as a Helix? Or is this tilting at windmills? Jim - NN7K



Wes Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 02:44:10 -0700, "Ed Price" wrote:


"Wes Stewart" *n7ws*@ yahoo.com wrote in message
. ..

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:27:17 GMT, Jim - NN7K
wrote:

[snip]

|Thanks, Cecil -- what got me thinking about it was a friend
|brought up this discussion of , say Moonbounce , with say
|Lefthand circular polarization , as observed from Earth.
|(which on reflection should be RIGHT HAND circular polarization
|upon return to earth, if to a Linear , Flat plane, like a billboard)
|and one of the experts there said to him "NOT so fast about the
|signals being 100 % out of phase" ( think had to do with
|Faraday effect)

Faraday rotation takes place in the Earth's ionosphere. The less than
perfect 180 degree phase shift in polarization is caused by the fact
that the lunar surface isn't a flat metallic surface but is instead,
as everyone knows, a lumpy green cheese ball.

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:33:42 GMT, Jim - NN7K
wrote:

|Thanks, Wes-- when originally considered it was looking at the moon
|in terms of approaching a point source (the surface of the moon
|being relatively small TIME-WISE- but the surface to the edges
|being relatvly HUGE in distance , per Wavelength would allow a
|distortion of a reflection. As I said , its dangerous to get me
|thinking too hard (I tend to fall asleep)! Tho, hadn't considered
|the (Cheezy) effect! makes me wonder if linear circular would be
|the way to go, or would it distort as bad as other signals
|(do to Faraday Rotation- the skewing of the signal's polarization)?
|Just curious. The linear circular refers to circular yagi construction
|rather than as a Helix? Or is this tilting at windmills? Jim - NN7K

Linear circular is an oxymoron. When you phase two crossed Yagis to
generate circular polarization, it is just as "circular" as a helix.

It's been 20 years (how time flies) since I was operating EME but I
remain interested. There is a current school of thought that
switchable polarization has an operational advantage. I remain
unconvinced when the complexity and degradation of performance is
factored in. I don't know of anyone who is using true circular
polarization (at VHF) even though their antennas are capable of
generating it.

The reason to have switching capability is speed up the QSO. With
fixed linear polarization, at any given time, there can be spatial and
Faraday rotation caused polarization mismatch between two stations
located on different parts of the Earth. Switching polarization at
one end can overcome all or part of this mismatch. Usually, if one
waits long enough the always changing Faraday rotation will bring the
mismatch to zero or near zero without any switching.

So there is a trade of complexity for speed. In the modeling I've
done, I have yet to see a case of high gain, crossed-element Yagis
that were not degraded by the presence of the stacking hardware.