On Jan 26, 2:40*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:59*pm, "christofire" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....
On Jan 26, 12:16 pm, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

8

Chris
First of all thank you very much for the effort that you placed in
your response.
It really what I expected from you after reading your profile ie the
anbsence of derision.
Now I am not fully convinced with your response as the rest of the
newsgroup already suspect
Coming from a different direction with respect to mathematics, when
adding a timevarying field
to a Gaussian field it equates in every way to the laws of Maxwell.
Both of these laws I consider
as an absolute truth. The above therefore states that the presence of
particles is undeniable in the generation of RF communication. Because
of the specificity of a state of equilibrium in a Gaussian field the
following can be stated. A radiator or array can be any size, shape or
varied elevation
..............AS LONG AS IT IS IN A STATE OF EQUILIBRIUM
From the above ground rules which is confirmed by Maxwells laws the
single winding of a wire
is NOT in equilibrium unless the lumped properties are cancelled which
leaves a structure that is in equilibrium ala wire that is conductive
and with no other properties other that he addition of distributed
loads that are common from a conductor.
Your response is based on the generation of fields without which the
radiator cannot receive by incoming waves from a transmitter, Where as
my response is based on the basis of particles impinging on a receive
antenna to create oscillation.
The biggest difference is the interpretation of a tank circuit( a
circuit in equilibrium) where in *the perfect case of zero friction
your aproach would define this operation as a zero tx/rc element
My interpretation is that it cannot be zero friction even if the
distributed components were friction free because of the presence of
particles, which must be impelled by force to another radiator to
create oscillation.
So to sum up
*Your aproach is from dissipating fields to provide communication and
mine is from non dissipating fields that dislodge particles as it
rotates to and from the distributed loads using both as energy
retainers..
As I have stated before, this is a presently a widely known method in
a macro *re enactment of salvage processes *that sorts materials by
directional magnetic field thrusts provided by eddy fields
I do need more time to study your response to see the difference
between the field aproach and the particle aproach tho with my present
circumstances I may not be able to determine.
Again, thankyou for your gentlemanly response, a rarity in this
particular newsgroup.
Regards
Art

You're welcome.

I can't say I understand much of what you've written above but I'm sure
there are often many ways to visualise the same physical process; the
wave/particle duality of EM radiation being one often spoken about. *For
this case, I wrote from the viewpoint of the work reported in a large number
of text books: the set of principles that's passed on at universities and
has been used to design the vast majority of antennas that have been used
since the discovery of radio. *I'm not aware of any successful antenna
designs, operating lower than EHF, based on a particle theory of
electromagnetic radiation. *However I am aware of a few unsuccessful designs
(e.g. the 'crossed-field antenna') for which the creators have purported to
re-write the known (wave) theory of radiation.

I know it's generally bad to generalise (!) but it seems clear to me, and
probably many others, that antennas based on well-documented,
well-understood, theory are always a safer bet! *They certainly are in (most
lines of) business where cost matters - but perhaps not in amateur circles
where different motives apply.

Chris

Understood
I have an applied patent that is on the net somewhere that goes thru
these same motions to obtain an array inequilibrim whbich are then
displayed via the AO pro program whiuch confirms the
equilibrium theoryn that is obtained by the Gaussian field aproach on
Maxwells laws.
On the same patent request I provided an analysis of a verticle dipole
which for maximum gain is tipped with reference to earth. The tipping
force is the weak force or the eddy field I spoke of which is not
included in programs associated with planar forms that are based on
intercoupling coupling.
The same aproach can also be applied using the equilibrium requirement
as I proposed earlier.
The only problem I can see in using MOM programs is the validity of
close spaced conduntors where it is possible to conceive of
interfering eddy currents not impinging upon particles, but it terms
of receiving there is nothing to prevent the impact of particles on
the radiator. At present my tower antenna is made of circularly wound
wires in both the cw and ccw direction, again based on the equilibrium
finding, where the antenna is a travelling wave form that is end fed
which allows for smaller volume antennas to those presently known.
Everything revolves around the extended Gaussion theorem which equates
to Maxwell's laws with the addition of particles within a boundary in
equilibrium. Break that association down then all of mine falls apart.
I will place a dual wound helix on my page in the next couple of days
that is produced via
the AOP Minninec program for antennas by Beasely so that you can see
it for your self. It will not be completely accurate as such an
arrangement requires many more point calculations than I have
available to me. Will be at hospital all day tomorrow so please be
patient on my page issue.
Best regards
Art

ok Chris
I have to get ready for an operation early tomorrow so I collected
some stuff from the past and just put it into a package for my son to
post for me. It will at least give you some stuff to look at until I
get back. The important thing to remember is all other polarizations
are always 3db down from 'max gain' and with only one circular
direction with horiz and vert. The object is to choose the
polarization required which you are aiming for to get the purest of
radiation which helps in the reflected signal when searching for
weather abnormalities at airports such as wind shear with minimum
distortion. Sorry I could not plan the offering so I have not vetted
what is posted

See....,. http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/

Best regards
Art unwin KB9MZ.......xg (uk)