From twang@netcom.com Wed Jan 26 11:38:09 1994
To: scarp@npac.syr.edu, twang@netcom.com
Subject: [scarp@npac.syr.edu: mlpatgen]
Content-Length: 1444
X-Lines: 36


Shawn, here are my some comments:

>1.  infpole.geo (of course!)
>
>Looks like the magnitude of E-theta and E-phi now match very well... the
>image plots are virtually identical.  There is still one thing that is 
>possibly of concern to me...  When I take a cut ofinfpole with new patgen
>and compare to the same cut from old patgen, I find that the relative
>phase shift from field point to field point is different.  In other words,
>E-theta phase difference from theta=44 to theta=46 in new patgen is different
>than that same difference from old patgen.  The same applies to E-phi.  Please
>note that I am referring to relative phase difference, not absolute phase.

How do we view the phase? I recall that I wrote a program (demo) at Sonnet
which would plot the phase also. I don't have access to it now.  I
could use Excel to plot the phase.

What is important for far field phase is the relative phase between
the theta and phi componets (spectral wise). Together, this phase
difference and their amplitude will determine the physical far field
intensity.

I believe that the relative phase shift for e-theta (spatial wise) can
be adjusted easily. However, for consistance, I should make it same as
before (free-space dipole). 

I do appreciate your pointing out this subtle difference.

The other problem is more puzzling.

Tao


PS: It seems to me that you like the image plot very well. I should
start to collect royalty. Ah ha ...