Mike
I hope you learn from your exchange with Richard.
His only interest is not to aid in your thoughts but to take a
swipe at you after every paragraph. He is trying to taunt you.
He will also intimate, but without saying so, that he has all
the answers to your quandry as a way of enticing you for a longer
dialogue which for him are far and few between on this newsgroup.
Obviously you can now see why.
I have been informed that he has responded to the "skin" thread.
I have not read it nor will I reply to it, since I know before hand it
will contain nothing but taunts either to me or the prior poster.
The best thing for Richard's posts is if you must read them then smile
at his childish actions and then move on. Either way, from now on
he is going to take a swipe at you at every opportunity to provoke
you into a dialogue with him where the scenario will repeat itself
all over again.
Tolerate him but without engagement.
Best Regards
Art Unwin.....KB9MZ....xg
Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:29:08 -0000, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:
Thanks for yor comments and encouragement. I can well understand your
skepticism and accept that this idea is pretty far out. As you rightly point
out, there are a whole host of issues revolving around what is being
defined, measurement methods and interpretation of results.
Hi Mike,
OK, but this still tells me nothing of what issue you think I am
skeptical about!
The small transmitting loop efficiency experiments were carried out using
thermographic imaging to try and identify areas of heating within the loops.
Good, that is instructive.
The areas with maximum heating would indicate high current flow or high
resistance.
More properly, their product - Watts.
This information was used to try and derive a theory of
operation and efficiency figures for the loops. The idea being to prove that
efficiency was in fact higher than predicted by the Chu theory.
This names only one theory and doesn't actually illustrate any
differences.
The
methodology and results of the experiment were challenged and Chu theory
seems to have won out, at least for the time being.
Again, all of this is suggestive, not informative. Returning to your
earlier complaint of "detailed research" we have no details beyond
heat imaging challenging the establishment.
I don't see that there would be any need to invoke non standard units for
experimental measurements, ohms, amps and volts should suffice.
Too often, this group has to wade through "what it is not" instead of
"what it is." Tell us what specific units would be convincing for
you, as you have introduced a complaint that needs to be satisfied.
I have not
worked out the best measurement methods or instrumentation to use, but I am
sure that existing equipment and techniques will suffice.
I have worked on a world of instruments (more than anyone here).
Believe me, that experience has NOT answered the question of the ages.
Small sampling
coils, hall effect devices, temperature measurement
probes and thermal cameras are all available at prices which an amateur
experimenter can afford, so there is no reason why these experiments could
not be carried out in a domestic environment rather then an industrial one.
OK, by induction, I presume you are harkening back to these thermal
maps or imaging.
Well, in fact they have been done, their results have been posted to
the net and argued here. You didn't get the invitation?
Unfortunately, that contributor was arguing smaller loops, coils
specifically and the mapping was tangential to the rant. He promised
more data when Spring weather would allow him to pursue this line of
inquiry, but that was several Springs ago, and he has in the interval
chosen to -um- till the same ground.
The reason for specifying a single radiating element is because directional
and reflecting elements absorb and re-radiate RF energy. Once the properties
of a single element are known, then it is possible to add additional
elements and make further measurements and assessments of performance. Since
it is already known that all the elements of an antenna interact with one
another, it is important to start with the basics and work up from there.
True, and certainly it stands to improve clarity by reducing
variables.
The choice of the word 'within' was unfortunate because I accept that there
is nothing going on actually within an antenna element, skin effect ensuring
that RF travels on the outside of conductors.
Plus, thermal imaging would be hard pressed to peer inside a
conductor.
So I come back to my assertion that very little detail seems to have been
published about what is happening really close in to antennas i.e. on the
actual elements making up the antenna. Loads of stuff about near field and
far field experiments, but not specific points of radiation from the antenna
elements. It may all be a complete waste of time but at least I will have
fun and hopefully learn some new stuff doing it.
You mean you are unfamiliar with this work. I've posted my own here
to little attention, I don't think this cycle will attract much more,
but here it is:
http://home.comcast.net/~kb7qhc/ante...pole/index.htm
This doesn't actually attend your preference of thermal mapping, but
you are still vague to the point of "what is happening really close in
to antennas" (even qualified by "on the actual elements" - there's
that word actual again which lends nothing to a specification).
There is an entire field of Science devoted to this (beyond the scope
of many here who would anticipate my answer being "Fields"). This
field is called Plasmonics. Books are written about it, pictures are
taken of it, and I've sat through hours of presentations demonstrating
it. Unfortunately, this crowd of investigators, like Arthur, have
re-invented the wheel and they proclaim it is square.
The long and short of it is that you stand to become more confused,
but it could be rewarding if you wear asbestos.
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC