On Mar 11, 9:46 am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 11, 8:42 am, "John KD5YI" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Mar 8, 12:25 am, "John KD5YI" wrote:

"Brian Kelly" wrote in message

....
On Mar 7, 6:09 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:45 pm, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

On Mar 7, 2:08 pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
I disagree. Laws written are all based on the assumption of
equilibrium and that includes
Maxwell's laws. These laws hav e zero refernce to size as such
though
many would seek

because contrary to what those male enhancement product adds tell you,
size
doesn't matter.

for the word volume. Pertinent factors are wave length of frequency
in
The problem here is that amateur radio is wellded to the yagi design
which is not one of equilibrium

WAIT JUST ONE GOSH DARN MINUTE! you have said in the past that the
simple
half wave dipole WAS a prefect example of equilibrium! NOW it
isn't???
have you had a new revelation while i had your old email address
plonked??

David,
You admit to not understanding the term "equilibrium" so what do you
care what I say and in what content.
If you consider a half wave dipole as being in equilibrium you have to
consider the electrical circuit
consisting of a capacitance from the antenna to ground or the route
thru the center of of the radiator, both of thes circuits
can be considered as being in equilibrium. However, on this newsgroup
a fractional wavelength radiator is considered as an open circuit for
some reason and thus under those circumstances the half wave dipole is
not in equilibrium.
Now your views on radiation is all over the place so it is very hard
for me to determine the context of what you say.
Art

Long before we rode our dinosaurs to club meetings the bright lights
had completely agreed that the strength of radio signals at far off
places was a function of the integral of i·dl where dl is the bigness
of the aerial. Maybe it's in Sears and Zemansky. I dunno . . nor do I
really care.

w3rv

Antennas for All Applications, 3rd Edition, Kraus & Marhefka, McGraw-Hill,
page 12.

Begin quote

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)

where

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

Thus, time-changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates. For
steady-state harmonic variation, we usually focus on current. For
transients
or pulses, we focus on charge. The radiation is perpendicular to the
acceleration, and the radiated power is proportional to the square of IL
or
Qv.

end quote

Cheers,
John

John
If Kraus said "The radiation is perpendicular to the accelleration"
then the book is worthless.
Review the scalar quantities of a radiator. It is impossible for the
resultant to be at 90
degrees to the antenna axis. I suspect the roots of this untruth was
the invention of the
planar antenna. For maximum horizontal radiation a radiator will be
around 10 degrees
out of parallel to the earth surface, not parallel.
The king is dead, long live the king. Old books just cannot keep up to
date
Regards
Art
ie the yagi

Art -

I was actually replying to W3RV. However, since you piped up...

Have you had any books on the subject published? How about research papers?
Anything published at all? Do you have any presentations with equations
prepared to support your claim? To which companies have you sold your
expertise in this field? Have your taught any classes?

It is laughable to think anybody would consider you an authority on the
subject, much less a greater authority than Kraus or any other contributor
to this group. You really should get some psychiatric help to quell those
delusions of grandeur you have.

Cheers,
John

Let's keep to the subject and put the other comments aside.
Do you have any antenna computor programs that you have confidence in?
What are they so I can give you thr figures to prove it to yourself
Art

By the way John, read the book and determine why he points to a pitch
angle for best results
Thus pitch angle is not at right angles so perhaps you can explain
that. You can't learn just by belittling facts
Art