On Sep 26, 2:40*pm, "JB" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 26, 11:44 am, "Mike Lucas" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote:
I do not have any lumped constants. Maxwell's laws do not include
lumped loads only distributed loads and my antennas revolve solely
around the laws of Maxwell which being based on equilibrium
includes all four forces of the standard model

Art:
Of course you have lumped elements in your "antenna". You have
a shoebox full of wire, fashoned into contra-wound coils. Also, the
tuning device you described is a variometer, again replete with COILS.
These coils constitute "lumped constants", as you call them.
Mistakes like this show that your equilibrium is tilted.

Mike W5CHR
Memphis Tenn

-If you say so
-Rectifier
-I am having a rethink on where to feed it aproach. Have to sleep on it
-I will keep hold of that antenna but I am working on the winter one at
-the moment
-Regards
-Art

I merely used Lumped Constants as an example to describe the relationship
between Inductive and Capacitive reactance, resistance, then to go on and
show how it is differently applied to antennas and impedance. *Where to feed
it is exactly the point in providing a transition between the feedline and
antenna. *For example: *Lumped Constants in an antenna tuner not only adjust
reactance by providing the conjugate reactance to whatever is presented at
its input terminals, but also adjusts impedance, akin to adjusting where the
current minima and maxima will be in relation to the tuner's output
terminals. *There are a great many ways to physically do that, either by
linear loading, lumped constants, transmission lines, transitions,
transformers. *Look into the feed methods used for Yagis.

Mike I am not a total newby to antennas. I understand them in my own
way very well.I obviously have a problem in communication
I am changing the dimensional structure purely to get the anti
resonant point at the center of the top band instead of the standard
resonant point
which is too low to realistically to use. Now the antiresonant point
will be between 100 and 200 ohms resistive which allows me to feed it
directly from a 50 ohm transmission line (3/4 andrews) with negligable
losses as the mismatch is resistive. Past work and experimental
results lead me to belive I have a beam for top band with approx 9/10
dbi gain when a reflector is not used. Now who in the World would
throw away the thought of such a antenna because
of the silly aproach of old timers who consider all is known otherwise
they would have changed things a long while ago? The design with all
info will eventually appear on my page. Up to now I have tried to
share everything but old timers on retirement close their minds and
cannot abide change.
If I see from past postings that a dialog could be rewarding I will
respond but they are few and far between. There has not been one
person on this newsgroup over the last few years who is able to look
at a Gaussian field with an applied time varient field and a radiator
and mathematically prove that the results are the same as Maxwell.
True the units are different between Gauss and Maxwell but to deny the
mathematical equivalence without doing the math is unconciousable
Art
Regards
Art