On 12/11/2010 10:00 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 11, 9:04 pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

Think about it Joe
If you had an equation for efficiency it would be dimensionless.

It depends upon how efficiency is measured. My more efficient car gets
30 MPG, My less efficient car gets 15 MPG. Any equation defining
efficiency in terms of miles per gallon does not have a dimensionless
result.

A meaningful measure of the efficiency of a transmitting antenna may
relate to field strength per watt input, which is not dimensionless.

What is your equation?

Typically you would have a portion in that equation that depicts
perfection
and also a portion depicting deviation from perfection.So the second
portion points to what creates losses and the first part points to
perfection.

OK, but what equation are you using for an antenna that has those
portions and where does L/C fit?

Now look at root L/C which points to the constitution of

that which creates losses.
Now ideally we would like this portion to be 1
which states zero losses, an ideal situation.

Without providing your equation, we don't know how L/C fits. From what
you say it is just some term out of nowhere.

Thus we can say the losses involved equals
root L/C which must equal "1" Logic therefore tells you that both L
and C are loss leaders whether they be lumped or distributed and
therefore not part of the vectors that create
acceleration of charge.

How do L and C contribute to loss? Since current and voltage for each is
out of phase, the power lost is 0. How do you reconcile this discrepancy
with your position?

Remember for legitimacy all formulae must

equal zero for equilibrium and therefore resolves into zero units. Now
if you are unaware where root L/C
appears in the study of radiation this is a good time to hit the books
to fill that gap.

The books don't reflect your views. I'm trying to understand your
position, not some book.

Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ xg

Tom. I don't trust you because of your prior posts but I am following

He responded to me! I am honored. I guess. But alas, it wasn't me.

Again, WOW!

tom
K0TAR