Hi All,

Since Artifice has left us with his errors intact, they can be
resolved quite simply before he returns later with more interesting
dismissals of his previous incarnations of "the truth."

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:34:22 -0700, art wrote:

If you look at the field of a antenna that isr radiating an equal
amount in all direction
the volume of the radiation consists of usefull energy in the form of
radiation.

This volume, then, contains a fixed energy. Fairly simple stuff as it
happens 365.25... days of the year with the sun. Within the arc of
any orbit, there is so much energy from that same sun [hearing the
scrabbling of little feet in the cellar insisting stars and such fill
the void, I will simply bait the traps with better cheese].

If another antenna with the same energy input provides a radiation
field in all
directions that is equal but at a larger radius than the prior antenna
field

It doesn't need to be another sun, but if our "creater" insists, I
will return to that heresy.

Anyway [gad this is abysmally distant from SWLing and QRM - Dirk, you
can't possibly still be with us can you?], we have the same energy
within the volume of a larger orbit. Naturally, any inhabitant at the
original orbit must be wondering about this state of affairs.

Well, this latter Sun provides the same energy (unless more energy is
added, courtesy of our Great Decider bombing it with hydregen bombs in
the chance of killing Osama Bin Forgotten).

Um, sorry for the parenthetics, but Arty has never exhibited a very
good command of English - I suppose this means I will have to examine
both pair o' doxes.

the the latter antenna has gain over the prior antenna.

In fact, this is true in the classic engineering sense - to the degree
of negative gain. Given the obscurity of this missive of his, we must
judge this fact escaped him entirely.

To illustrate, same sun, same energy, different orbits, we return to
the original orbit to find less sunlight at noon (it has been
squandered to fill more volume). Any gain predictions are found in
the debit column of the account books.

----------- Part Deux -------------

OK, so somehow we nuked the sun to achieve this new golden age of
illuminating the expanded cosmos with the "same" energy (see how myths
are born?).

The inhabitant at the original orbit now sees a brighter city on the
hill. His sunburn is manifest in a cancer several years later (blame
technology). The inhabitants at the outer orbit now enjoy the
prospects of a future temperate climate (once the global ice shell
melts).

As we don't know the particulars of the orbit (Arty is never very
useful about providing facts that matter), they could be orthogonal -
or at least the traditional scientist (providing he has copies of
those books burnt by devotees of this "church of gain") would have to
allow for any point on the surface of a sphere.

However, if anyone is still reading this, what have been described
were TWO Isotropic antennas. As such, the only gain achieved is by
nuking the sun (cost $1 trillion per election cycle). In any
interpretation, no gain can be assigned to any antenna.

Of course, we all know that.

------------ Section C -------------

If you compare any fractional ground mounted antenna with a full wave
antenna the radius of the field
willhave a difference of aprox 3 db

As I've cautioned Arty in the past, we know what you don't mean - and
the light at the end of this tunnel ... we will skip the remainder of
doubling cliches here.

Arty is going to disappointed to discover that once again (always) the
facts he showers upon us are diametrically opposed to the fundamentals
of his proposition. Yes, there is a 3dB difference, but it certainly
doesn't favor the full wave (sic) antenna.

and the resistive impedance will
have a ratio of two to one.

Fractional/Full-wave? Not even close - unless this is expressed in
non-linear, 18 dimensional, gaussian string mathematics. It isn't
given that the full mathematical treatments of the total output from
Art wouldn't fill the back of a business card.

Note that gain is a measure of one radiator
level against another and is no way a distorted field of radiation
that has been manipulated by an additional near by radiator.

I can only wonder if this fractional ground mounted antenna is on some
crystalline planet circling a faint red dwarf.

A ground plane does nothing more than balancing the circuit provided

Ground mounted and ground plane(d) is not the same thing. If we are
to divorce this analysis from the distortions of ground (as in the
ground of earth) by mounting it in a ground plane (hung in free
space); then this 3 dB gain is going to evaporate like the White House
promises of a green card to migrant workers.

If you cannot follow the science of antennas then you are doomed to
be a follower, never a leader.

I suppose this admission will inform all future announcements.

Will be back in the fall

A dollar short and an equinox late informs us now.

My bets are follow ups in a very few moments ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC