On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:00:10 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

Very true, but the measured length is never repeatable. Only at the
point of a period
is where it is repeatable which is how a cycle comes into being.

One cycle = one period = one wavelength
Do you have a problem with this?

Ofshoot can be essentially removed or minimised by just the addition
of a resister but such methods are not included in antenna computer
programs.

Adding a resistor will increase the resonant length of an antenna by
5% to 8%. Amazing. I didn't know that. Since resonance is where the
inductive and cazapative reactances cancel, leaving only the real part
of the antenna impedance, I would think that adding a resistor
anywhere would have no effect on the reactive components.

Again what ever trips your trigger, horse shoes or Maxwells equations.

When I was younger, it was sex, drugs, and rock and roll. These days
it's pills, politics, and entertainment value that keeps me going.

Only when accurate metrics are inserted in a program can the accuracy
of Maxwell's equations be shown and the half wave length can never be
stated accurately.

How accurately would you like them to be stated?
1%? 0.1%? 0.00000001%
Accuracy is usually expressed with numbers. I fail to see any
numbers. There's also a question of what's "good enough". Infinite
resolution and accuracy doesn't do me much good if the operating
bandwidth of the antenna is substantial, or the operating requirements
of system are rather minimal.

My antennas are exact and repeatable. *Not only that, I can also
repeat my mistakes every time.

Yes you have shown evidence of that.

To err is human. Reassurances are not required.

For my mistakes, I'll accept responsibility but not blame.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but do eliminate two possibilities,
thus eventually leading to the right answer.

Positive feedback is inherently unstable. One does not learn by
getting positive acclamation and praise. One learns from negative
feedback which is inherently stable and a much more effective learning
experience.

Maybe true but physics demands accuracy

Physics does not demand accuracy. However, my customers might.

which explains the heavy
useage of constant added to justify the use of an equal sign.

None of my work is linear. Therefore constants added as fudge,
finagle, or tweak factors are useless. I prefer to multiple my
results in order to conjure the correct answer.

Same
thing goes for the myriad of particles invented that are not seen or
measurable.

Yep. I suck them up in my vacuum cleaner when they start to become
measurable.

This because those who delve in physics sometimes replace
a constant with a new invented particle that can substantiate
equilibrium or its cousin "equal"

I'll look in the vacuum cleaner bag next time I have a chance for any
new particles.

You know, a well known former ham Stephen Best got hold of a new
antenna program
that had strict adherence to Maxwells laws. The program relied on
Poynting circle as being representitive for all forces in radiation.
The program ,probably more than I can afford. produced a radiator that
was not straight according to the old wives tale that is propagated by
hams. It showed something like a tennis ball where multiple
wavelengths of radiator were stuffed inside and where balance or
equilibrium was obtained. In his study which was around a half wave
radiater produced a radiation pattern that was a perfect hemisphere
that all on this group stated was impossible to attain. ( actually it
was based on a full wave where the ground plane supplied the mirror
image) Possibly in our time, that will make it into the newer physics
books, that will force the re thinking of radiation. This paper is on
the WWW but I leave it to you to show that it must be in error as it
is not yet in the books!

I think you mean this:
http://www.cst.com/Content/Applications/Article/A+Small,+Efficient,+Linear-polarized+Omni-directional+Antenna
I've been trying to understand it for some time.

Again, it's not my place to find your errors. It's your place to
prove and demonstrate your allegations.

At the same time opponents will bring forwards Toms adage W8TI, that
for maximum efficiency a radiator must be straight, thus leaving him
with the onus of showing that Steven Best efforts were all wrong by
the use of the soon to be corrected theory corrections
before old theories are fully discounted where all may read it for
themselves in a book.

Dr Best didn't seem to mention anything about the design being any
more efficient than a larger antenna. He had a design requirement to
fit an antenna inside a 0.04 wavelength diameter ball, and optimized
his design around that requirement. Getting 1.6dBi of gain out such a
small antenna is impressive.

Incidentally, his design is NOT a half-hemisphere. He uses the
symmetry of the antenna to dramatically reduce his calculation time.

Yes, there are some things that NEC doesn't so very well, or rather
other programs do much better. For example, for microstrip and slot
antennas, I'm trying to learn Mstrip40:
http://www.spl.ch/software/MultiSTRIP/Manual.htm
when not posting inane drive to Usenet.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558