Radiation Resistance & Efficiency
[ Copied from another newsgroup.]
While I'm in the mood, the following little calculation may assist in understanding what goes on in an antenna. Suppose we wish to know the radiating efficiency of a resonant half-wave dipole fed at its center. When at exact resonance we are concerned only with pure resistances. For calculating convenience, we assume the radiation resistance, Rrad, is uniformly distributed along the length of the wire and is 140 ohms which has been calculated from its dimensions. It only has two - Length and Diameter. But for a half-wave dipole it is always about 140 ohms. Wire diameter has a relatively small effect on Rrad. Frequency, F = 10 MHz. One wavelength = 300/F = 30 metres. Overall dipole length L = 15 metres. Copper wire diameter D = 2mm. Calculate Rloss, the end-to-end wire loss resistance - Rloss = 0.0833 * Sqrt( F ) * Length / Diameter ohms, which takes skin effect with copper wire into account. Rloss = 1.976 ohms. Insofar as the current flow is concerned, the total resistance in the antenna wire is 140 + 1.976 = 141.976 ohms. But only Sqr( Amps ) * Rloss watts is lost. So antenna efficiency = (Power radiated) / (Power input) = Rrad / ( Rrad + Rloss ) Effncy = 140 / ( 140 + 1.976 ) times 100 percent. Effncy = 98.6 percent. Note that we have taken care to place both the radiation and loss resistances at the same place in the system so that they can be properly compared. It is usual to locate the radiation resistance at the dipole centre as one lump when it then becomes 70 ohms. But a slightly different efficiency calculation is then needed to provide the same correct answer. Almost certainly there will be an appreciably greater loss in the transmission line to the transmitter and in the coupling/impedance transforming coil and capacitor networks. If you are interested in numerical quantities without tedious arithmetic, download in a few seconds one or two simple programs from the following website and run immediately. Amuse yourself. ---- .................................................. ........... Regards from Reg, G4FGQ For Free Radio Design Software go to http://www.btinternet.com/~g4fgq.regp .................................................. .......... |
Reg:
[snip] For calculating convenience, we assume the radiation resistance, Rrad, is uniformly distributed along the length of the wire and is 140 ohms which has been calculated from its dimensions. It only has two - Length and Diameter. But for a half-wave dipole it is always about 140 ohms. Wire diameter has a relatively small effect on Rrad. [snip] Reg, in your model, is your *assumption* "for calculating convenience" that radiation resistance is uniformly distributed along the antenna structure, i.e. the transmission line that represents the antenna in your model, supported by any theory or is it just a mathematical *fit* to the data? For example, one could *assume* literally any analytic distribution of radiation resistance along an antenna's length, for instance sinusoidal, catenary, exponential, triangular, etc... and come up with a value/function for that particular distribution that has the equivalent effect of a lumped value placed at the antenna feedpoint. What is so unique about uniform? Why do you think *uniform* is any better than any other distribution of Rrad? I have no axe to grind here, just curiosity... Best Regards for the New Year. -- Peter K1PO Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL. |
Peter,
I am somewhat surprised to receive such questions from your good self. They are not so far from the realms of Ohm's Law as to cause YOU any difficulties. Perhaps after the festivities you are feeling too lazy to satisfy your own curiosity by exercising your brain cells. ;o) You must be aware, even without thinking about it, a lumped radiation resistance must always be associated with a definite location on an antenna at which the current is known. This by no means need be at the feedpoint. But I guess this is the first occasion on which you have been confronted with the *distributed* variety and have been brought to a sudden dead stop. Let's stay with the well-known resonant 1/2-wave dipole. The objective is to directly compare radiation resistance with wire loss resistance. To do this means the same current must flow through both just as if they were in series with each other. { Many people are familiar with the simple equation, efficiency = Rrad / ( Rrad + Rloss ) and state it whenever an appropriate occasion arises. It sounds very learned of course. But in the whole of North America I venture to say hardly a single radio amateur knows from where Rloss and Rrad can be obtained (except perhaps ground loss with verticals) and what its value is. It follows that few have ever used the equation presented in Handbook articles, etc. } We have a choice. 1. Lump both the radiation resistance and conductor resistance together at one point after transforming from the distributed to lumped value of wire loss. Or 2, leave the wire resistance where it is and distribute the radiation resistance along the wire. We have no choice about the type of istribution - it must be the same as the wire resistance is distributed - i.e., uniformly. Whatever we do we cannot avoid transforming from a lumped to distributed resistance value, or vice-versa. Electrical engineers do it all the time. In the case of a dipole there are several ways. But its a simple process and the result is amazingly even more simple. I prefer to begin with the accurate assumption of a sinewave distribution of current along the dipole wire with the maximum of 1 amp at the dipole centre. Then integrate P = I squared R from one end of the wire to the other to find the total power dissipated in the wire. The equivalent lump of resistance located at the centre (where 1 amp flows) turns out to be exactly half of uniformly distributed end-to-end resistance of the wire. In fact, that's exactly how the radiation resistance of the usual 70-ohm lump got itself into a dipole's feedpoint. It is exactly half of 140 ohms. If radiation resistance itself had any say in the matter I am sure it would prefer to be nicely spread along the length of the wire instead of being stuck in a lump next to the feedpoint. If the end-to-end wire loss resistance is R ohms then the ficticious equivalent lump at the centre feedpoint is exactly R/2 ohms. So easy to remember, eh? Another way of obtaining exactly the same result is to calculate the input impedance of a 1/4-wave, open-circuit, transmission line, which of course is the same as half of a half-wave dipole. It even has a 1/4-sinewave current distribution along its length. The input resistance at resonance is always half of the conductor loss resistance. With a good impedance bridge this can be measured to keep Roy happy. In fact, it is the pair of 1/4-wave, open-circuit, single-wire lines constituting the dipole which transform the uniformly distributed wire loss resistance to the equivalent lumped 1/2-value input resistances as measured at the dipole centre. And, of course, the antenna performs exactly the same transformation on an antenna's uniformly distributed radiation resistance. I sometimes feel sorry for things which find themselves securely locked in, constrained for ever to obey the irresistible laws of nature, helpless to do othewise, for ever. See how the interlocking bits of the jig-saw puzzle now fit very nicely together. Your general question - yes it would be possible to 'assume' any arbitrary mathematical distribution of radiation or loss resistance and then find an equivalent lumped value which would radiate/dissipate the same power when located at a particular current point. But it would not be of any practical use - it would never correspond to an actual antenna. When calculating efficiency of wire antennas it seems only a uniform distribution of resistance is of any use. An investigator has no choice in the matter. Calculating the efficiency of coil loaded antennas gets complicated. The current distributions of the upper and lower sections are different and so are their efficiencies. But efficiencies are so high in the conductors themselves ball-park guesses are good enough. However it is still necessary to transform various effects, including those due to the coil, to the common base feedpoint in order to calculate input impedance. --- Best Wishes, Reg, G4FGQ =================================== Reg: [snip] For calculating convenience, we assume the radiation resistance, Rrad, is uniformly distributed along the length of the wire and is 140 ohms which has been calculated from its dimensions. It only has two - Length and Diameter. But for a half-wave dipole it is always about 140 ohms. Wire diameter has a relatively small effect on Rrad. [snip] Reg, in your model, is your *assumption* "for calculating convenience" that radiation resistance is uniformly distributed along the antenna structure, i.e. the transmission line that represents the antenna in your model, supported by any theory or is it just a mathematical *fit* to the data? For example, one could *assume* literally any analytic distribution of radiation resistance along an antenna's length, for instance sinusoidal, catenary, exponential, triangular, etc... and come up with a value/function for that particular distribution that has the equivalent effect of a lumped value placed at the antenna feedpoint. What is so unique about uniform? Why do you think *uniform* is any better than any other distribution of Rrad? I have no axe to grind here, just curiosity... Best Regards for the New Year. -- Peter K1PO Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL. |
Peter O. Brackett wrote:
Why do you think *uniform* is any better than any other distribution of Rrad? Here's a quote from _Antennas_, by Kraus & Marhefka: "... the radiation resistance may be thought of as a virtual resistance that does not exist physically but is a quantity coupling the antenna to distant regions of space via a virtual transmission line." -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"Here`s a quote from _Antennas_by Kraus&Marthelka: "... the radiation resistance may be thought of as a virtual resistance that does not exist physically but is a quantity coupling the antenna to distant regions of space via a virtual transmission line." A problem comparing radiation to a transmission line is that everytime line length increases a fixed amount, so does the loss. The loss is so many db per mile. After a radio wave travels a million miles, the next million miles only produces an additional 6 db loss. Thus, we are looking at radio pictures from Mars. We couldn`t get them by the lowest loss coax from Mars without distributed repeaters. I can`t find my 1955 edition of Terman but as I recall he says that radiation resistance is equal to the resistor, which if placed in series with the antenna, would consume the same power that the antenna does. Radiation resistance is a useful fiction. Radiation resistance is usually the resistance at an antenna`s maximum current point. Fictional or not, it can be measured with an impedance bridge. My 1937 edition of Terman says: "---fields produced by the antenna currents induce back voltages that are equivalent to an impedance against which the applied voltage can be considered as acting." Terman also says: "In addition to the radiated energy, energy is also lost in the antenna system as a result of wire and ground resistance, corona, eddy currents induced in neighboring masts, guy wires and other conductors, and dielectric losses arising from such imperfect dielectrics as trees and insulators, located in the field of the antenna. These losses can be represented in the same way as the radiated energy, i.e., by a resistance which inserted in series with the antenna will consume the same amount of power as that actually dissipated in these various ways. The total antenna resistance is the sum, Rr + Rl, of the radiation resistance Rr and the loss resistance Rl, and determines the amount of energy that must be supplied to the antenna to produce a given current. The efficiency of the antenna as a radiator is the ratio Rr / (Rr + Rl) of radiation to total resistance. This represents the fraction of the total energy supplied to the antenna which is converted into radio waves." Terman also says: "The radiated field (epsilon) varies directly as the current I, the frequency f, the doublet length (delta)l, and the cosine of the angle of elevation, and is inversely proportional to the distance d." The strength of the radiation from an antenna at a point P is the sum of the strengths of the fields of its elemental pieces carrying a current I. Current is not uniform throughout the usual antenna and neither is the antenna`s impedance. The current is zero at the open ends of an antenna, near zero at exact multiples of a half wave length distant from the open end, while the current is maximum at points that are odd quarter wave lengths distant from the open ends. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Very, very good Reg. If you can get them to understand
what you have said, it would be a cakewalk to understand the underpinnings of my antennas. My aproach of explaining what you have said is to refer to 'complex circuitry', where in general use this is used to SIMPLIFY circuits. If one understood the basics of what you are pointing out then one could easily understand how one can translate lumped circuits to circuits that RADIATE in an efficient manner. It should not be difficult to understand that a matching circuit which is desirable in a lot of cases, is a circuit of lumped items. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to prevent one from transforming the lumped items to radiating circuits which not only radiate but also provide the same impedance to a transmitter that the original matching unit supplied. Also very importantly it shows how little the frequency dominates the antenna size Thanks a bunch for your posting and I wish you luck in your education pursuit in the area that I met failure Cheers Art. "Reg Edwards" wrote in message ... Peter, I am somewhat surprised to receive such questions from your good self. They are not so far from the realms of Ohm's Law as to cause YOU any difficulties. Perhaps after the festivities you are feeling too lazy to satisfy your own curiosity by exercising your brain cells. ;o) You must be aware, even without thinking about it, a lumped radiation resistance must always be associated with a definite location on an antenna at which the current is known. This by no means need be at the feedpoint. But I guess this is the first occasion on which you have been confronted with the *distributed* variety and have been brought to a sudden dead stop. Let's stay with the well-known resonant 1/2-wave dipole. The objective is to directly compare radiation resistance with wire loss resistance. To do this means the same current must flow through both just as if they were in series with each other. { Many people are familiar with the simple equation, efficiency = Rrad / ( Rrad + Rloss ) and state it whenever an appropriate occasion arises. It sounds very learned of course. But in the whole of North America I venture to say hardly a single radio amateur knows from where Rloss and Rrad can be obtained (except perhaps ground loss with verticals) and what its value is. It follows that few have ever used the equation presented in Handbook articles, etc. } We have a choice. 1. Lump both the radiation resistance and conductor resistance together at one point after transforming from the distributed to lumped value of wire loss. Or 2, leave the wire resistance where it is and distribute the radiation resistance along the wire. We have no choice about the type of istribution - it must be the same as the wire resistance is distributed - i.e., uniformly. Whatever we do we cannot avoid transforming from a lumped to distributed resistance value, or vice-versa. Electrical engineers do it all the time. In the case of a dipole there are several ways. But its a simple process and the result is amazingly even more simple. I prefer to begin with the accurate assumption of a sinewave distribution of current along the dipole wire with the maximum of 1 amp at the dipole centre. Then integrate P = I squared R from one end of the wire to the other to find the total power dissipated in the wire. The equivalent lump of resistance located at the centre (where 1 amp flows) turns out to be exactly half of uniformly distributed end-to-end resistance of the wire. In fact, that's exactly how the radiation resistance of the usual 70-ohm lump got itself into a dipole's feedpoint. It is exactly half of 140 ohms. If radiation resistance itself had any say in the matter I am sure it would prefer to be nicely spread along the length of the wire instead of being stuck in a lump next to the feedpoint. If the end-to-end wire loss resistance is R ohms then the ficticious equivalent lump at the centre feedpoint is exactly R/2 ohms. So easy to remember, eh? Another way of obtaining exactly the same result is to calculate the input impedance of a 1/4-wave, open-circuit, transmission line, which of course is the same as half of a half-wave dipole. It even has a 1/4-sinewave current distribution along its length. The input resistance at resonance is always half of the conductor loss resistance. With a good impedance bridge this can be measured to keep Roy happy. In fact, it is the pair of 1/4-wave, open-circuit, single-wire lines constituting the dipole which transform the uniformly distributed wire loss resistance to the equivalent lumped 1/2-value input resistances as measured at the dipole centre. And, of course, the antenna performs exactly the same transformation on an antenna's uniformly distributed radiation resistance. I sometimes feel sorry for things which find themselves securely locked in, constrained for ever to obey the irresistible laws of nature, helpless to do othewise, for ever. See how the interlocking bits of the jig-saw puzzle now fit very nicely together. Your general question - yes it would be possible to 'assume' any arbitrary mathematical distribution of radiation or loss resistance and then find an equivalent lumped value which would radiate/dissipate the same power when located at a particular current point. But it would not be of any practical use - it would never correspond to an actual antenna. When calculating efficiency of wire antennas it seems only a uniform distribution of resistance is of any use. An investigator has no choice in the matter. Calculating the efficiency of coil loaded antennas gets complicated. The current distributions of the upper and lower sections are different and so are their efficiencies. But efficiencies are so high in the conductors themselves ball-park guesses are good enough. However it is still necessary to transform various effects, including those due to the coil, to the common base feedpoint in order to calculate input impedance. --- Best Wishes, Reg, G4FGQ =================================== Reg: [snip] For calculating convenience, we assume the radiation resistance, Rrad, is uniformly distributed along the length of the wire and is 140 ohms which has been calculated from its dimensions. It only has two - Length and Diameter. But for a half-wave dipole it is always about 140 ohms. Wire diameter has a relatively small effect on Rrad. [snip] Reg, in your model, is your *assumption* "for calculating convenience" that radiation resistance is uniformly distributed along the antenna structure, i.e. the transmission line that represents the antenna in your model, supported by any theory or is it just a mathematical *fit* to the data? For example, one could *assume* literally any analytic distribution of radiation resistance along an antenna's length, for instance sinusoidal, catenary, exponential, triangular, etc... and come up with a value/function for that particular distribution that has the equivalent effect of a lumped value placed at the antenna feedpoint. What is so unique about uniform? Why do you think *uniform* is any better than any other distribution of Rrad? I have no axe to grind here, just curiosity... Best Regards for the New Year. -- Peter K1PO Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL. |
Reg:
[snip] Perhaps after the festivities you are feeling too lazy to satisfy your own curiosity by exercising your brain cells. ;o) [snip] Ahem... well I do admit to imbibing during the Holiday, but I feel that at least 20% of my brain cells are still intact which should enable me to pass the next generation of ham radio exams with no problem. :-) [snip] But I guess this is the first occasion on which you have been confronted with the *distributed* variety and have been brought to a sudden dead stop. [snip] Well yes and no! Even tho,. for professional reasons, I have extensive transmission line modelling software [self-developed] which supports extremes of complex Zo and distributed losses with various loss distributions along the lines, I have never used these computer codes/algorithms to simulate antennas. [My professional applications of these codes, written in Fortran, have been for broadband digital subscriber loop, DSL, BRA ISDN and cable modem transmissions over telco local loops. i.e. upwards of 1000 to18,000 feet of twisted pairs of mixed guages and dielectrics, with bridged taps etc. These codes allow for empirical fits to primary parameters, R, L, C and G as functions of frequency and other effects, etc... I had posted on this NG some of the models developed by several contributors to the ANSI T1E1.4 Standards Committee over the past few years sometime in the last year or so if you recall.] Clearly such software/algorithms which are sort of like finite element analysis methods breaking the lines into incremental sections and summing the results, etc... and can also be used to simulate the driving point impedances and losses, both disipative and radiative, of antennas as you suggest. Until your posting I had never fully thought through what the distribution of radiative losses on antenna structures should be... [snip] Or 2, leave the wire resistance where it is and distribute the radiation resistance along the wire. We have no choice about the type of istribution - it must be the same as the wire resistance is istributed - i.e., uniformly. : : Whatever we do we cannot avoid transforming from a lumped to distributed resistance value, or vice-versa. Electrical engineers do it all the time. In the case of a dipole there are several ways. But its a simple process and the result is amazingly even more simple. : : The equivalent lump of resistance located at the centre (where 1 amp flows) turns out to be exactly half of uniformly distributed end-to-end resistance of the wire. In fact, that's exactly how the radiation resistance of the usual 70-ohm lump got itself into a dipole's feedpoint. It is exactly half of 140 ohms. If radiation resistance itself had any say in the matter I am sure it would prefer to be nicely spread along the length of the wire instead of being stuck in a lump next to the feedpoint. If the end-to-end wire loss resistance is R ohms then the ficticious equivalent lump at the centre feedpoint is exactly R/2 ohms. So easy to remember, eh? [snip] Yes it sure is! [snip] In fact, it is the pair of 1/4-wave, open-circuit, single-wire lines constituting the dipole which transform the uniformly distributed wire loss resistance to the equivalent lumped 1/2-value input resistances as measured at the dipole centre. And, of course, the antenna performs exactly the same transformation on an antenna's uniformly distributed radiation resistance. I sometimes feel sorry for things which find themselves securely locked in, constrained for ever to obey the irresistible laws of nature, helpless to do othewise, for ever. See how the interlocking bits of the jig-saw puzzle now fit very nicely together. [snip] Linear distribution... Yes, now with your simple, yet very clear explanation, I now see that, thanks! [snip] \ use - it would never correspond to an actual antenna. When calculating efficiency of wire antennas it seems only a uniform distribution of resistance is of any use. An investigator has no choice in the matter. [snip] Hmmm... I'm just thinking... that may not always be the case! What about certain kinds of travelling wave antennas. i.e. a V-beam, or a rhombic, etc... which are transmission lines with an ever changing spacing between the elements. Surely the radiation resistance along such an antenna/transmission line is not distributed uniformly even tho the dissipative losses are! Thanks again for your lucid reply, I am indebted to you for refreshing some of my *besotted* brain cells... hmmm, I wonder is it the reds or the whites that cause most of the brain cell damage? I'm gonna go try some of my homebrew transmission line software on some antenna problems and see how it does... Best Regards for the New Year. -- Peter K1PO Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL |
"Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote
Very, very good Reg. ========================== Art, nice to hear from a representative of the few who agree with what is the bleeding obvious. I am aware of your long outstanding problems about convincing folks of the properties of your loop-coupled antenna proposals. But I am too exhausted and too long-in-the-tooth to take part in the (by far) unecessarily convoluted arguments. Try KISS. Provide a precise, unambiguous picture of all dimensions and submit it to a program capable of analysing it - if you can find one. I am unable to provide any assistance myself in that direction. May you and yours enjoy life in 2004 to the full. ---- Yours, Reg, G4FGQ. |
"Reg Edwards" wrote in message ... "Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote Very, very good Reg. ========================== Art, nice to hear from a representative of the few who agree with what is the bleeding obvious. I am aware of your long outstanding problems about convincing folks of the properties of your loop-coupled antenna proposals. But I am too exhausted and too long-in-the-tooth to take part in the (by far) unecessarily convoluted arguments. Try KISS. Provide a precise, unambiguous picture of all dimensions and submit it to a program capable of analysing it - if you can find one. Reg, no need for help as it is all completed with success. I may add. I used AO PRO to do the final wrap up as well as making the antennas which in uncompromising fashion proved what you are stating but what other people have been unable to understand . And I have made many different antennas of this family.! I might add that with shorting either capacitor one can change a "T match style antenna "to other forms that provide for high or low impedance at the antenna feed point. to meet requirements of the transmitter.as well as providing a ' loss less' interface, a subject that has been bandied around for years but in isolation. I am sure glad however, to see a dissertation such as yours that was unsolicitated even tho it may finish up as a 'Plonk" on this side of the Pond as many times the obvious is ignored until it apears in a book Hopefully you will able to withstand the junk that will now be thrown at you for stating such an outrageous thing. Cheers Art I am unable to provide any assistance myself in that direction. May you and yours enjoy life in 2004 to the full. ---- Yours, Reg, G4FGQ. |
Peter,
To satisfy yourself that a half-wave dipole automatically transforms end-to-end wire resistance to an equivalent lumped resistance of half its value located at the dipole centre, use program RJELINE3. It takes only a few seconds. Enter F = 10 MHz, Open-wire line length = 7.5 metres = 1/4-wave. As everybody knows a 1/4-wavelength of line (a half dipole), behaves as an impedance transformer. Any value Zo of open wire line will do. But try Zo around 500 ohms with thin wire such as 0.2mm diameter. Terminate the line with 99999999 + j99999999 ohms, ie., open circuit just like the dipole ends. Loop-ohms per metre of the wire is one of the computed results. Another computed result is exact line length in wavelengths. Vary line length until it is exactly 1/4 wavelengths. The input impedance of the 1/4-wave length of open-circuited line is also calculated and displayed. It will be found that at exact resonance (vary length or frequency very finely) the input impedance of the line will be a pure resistance ( jXin = 0) equal to half of the of the line end-to-end wire resistance. It is obvious exactly the same transformation occurs when the wire resistance is replaced by a uniformly distributed radiation resistance. If your own programs significantly disagree then consign them to the junk box. As you may have noticed I never support my stuff by citing the usual old wives. Never come across, even heard of most of 'em. There are no references except my tattered note books. I came across various useful relationship around 1960 when researching into methods of locating faults on oceanic phone cables. But I daresay Heaviside preceded me. I dug up much information and designed fault locating and other test equipment but very little was published beyond contract manufacturing information. There were two articles in the house engineering journal. I worked alone with a small group of assistants, a lab and a workshop. I did present a series of lectures afterwards, twice in Europe. But it was all just in a day's work with occasional trips aboard cable laying ships and at manufacturers. The nearest I got to the States was Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. I then shifted in succession to several entirely different fields of operations. But no experience is ever lost. -- Reg, G4FGQ |
Art:
[snip] Reg, no need for help as it is all completed with success. I may add. I used AO PRO to do the final wrap up as well as making the antennas which in uncompromising fashion proved what you are stating but what other people have been unable to understand . [snip] Art, you can't blame others for not understanding! What? It is your responsibility and your's alone to help others to understand your ideas, concepts, inventions. Any failure of others to understand is your responsibility alone! There are three important things in science: Communications, communications and communications. Clearly *you* have failed to communicate. If you communicate clearly and succinctly without whining and do so clearly and unequivocally and stop complaining that no one understands you, why... then you may succeed! I for one certainly wish you well in that regard. [snip] I am sure glad however, to see a dissertation such as yours that was unsolicitated even tho it may finish up as a 'Plonk" on this side of the Pond as many times the obvious is ignored until it apears in a book [snip] Not true at all. Reg is quite capable of explaining himself and no one that I know of feels that Reg's contributions to the NG are "plonk". Apparently you might! [snip] Hopefully you will able to withstand the junk that will now be thrown at you for stating such an outrageous thing. Cheers Art [snip] Reg has proven that he can withstand criticism, questioning, and examination, he has demonstrated that many times over on this NG... he needs no help or appeals to the lack of ability of readers and listeners. Art, wake up and smell the roses and practice: Communicatons, communications, communications... :-) You are doing better, but... you have come very close to whining again here... If no one understands you, it is your fault! "Perception is Reality" -Tom Peters Best regards for the New Year, -- Peter K1PO Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL. |
Reg:
[snip] Vary line length until it is exactly 1/4 wavelengths. The input impedance of the 1/4-wave length of open-circuited line is also calculated and displayed. It will be found that at exact resonance (vary length or frequency very finely) the input impedance of the line will be a pure resistance ( jXin = 0) equal to half of the of the line end-to-end wire resistance. [snip] This is *exactly* what my [and other's as well] line analysis computer programs do for the analysis of so-called "bridged taps". "Bridged taps", which are sections of open circuited transmission line bridged across an operational transmission line, are quite common in telephony practice. They are often placed deliberately to allow for extra extension/party lines, or are inadvertently left in place once a line is taken out of service. There are often several bridged taps on a given line. These bridged taps don't affect telephony [audio] but wreak havoc at higher frequencies for broadband signals. For frequencies where the bridged taps represent a 1/4 wavelength, they act as traps or notches and "suck out" the desired energy on the main line. As such bridged taps can ruin the performance of digital subscriber loops aka "DSL" such as ADSL/VDSL, etc. because they punch holes in the transmission band. Several companies, and consultants such as myself, have transmission line programs to evaluate broadband transmission over lines with cascades of multiple guages/dielectrics and several bridged taps. In fact several such "standard" line makeups for evaluating the performance of DSL systems are published in the Standards literature [ANSI T1E1.4]. My Fortran computer codes must perforce analyze such 1/4 wave, or any wavelength for that matter, stubs quite accurately to predict multi-megabit transmission performance over several thousand feet of such impaired lines. :-) But until your posting I had never thought to use them to analyze the driving point impedances of antennas. Neat application! [snip] If your own programs significantly disagree then consign them to the junk box. [snip] Can't do that now, since literally millions of DSL modems are now running around the world over lines that have been accurately analyzed using those programs, hence they must be "right". I still use the programs in my consulting practice for client companies designing DSL modems who use my services. I have never used these programs to simulate antennas yet, gotta do that just for fun... I can set any arbitrary distribution of radiation resistance along the line in series with the primary parameter R(f) [of R(f), L(f), C(f) and G(f)] and so uniform distribution should be easy. [snip] . There are no references except my tattered note books. I came across various useful relationship around 1960 when researching into methods of locating faults on oceanic phone cables. [snip] Well you certainly predate me, I only started developing my transmission line analysis programs around 1971 or so and have kept *improving* them over the years, mostly to make contributions to my employers, clients and various transmission standards committees [ANSI, ITU, ETSI, IEEE]. [snip] But I daresay Heaviside preceded me. I dug up much information and designed fault locating and other test equipment but very little was published beyond contract manufacturing information. There were two articles in the house engineering journal. I worked alone with a small group of assistants, a lab and a workshop. I did present a series of lectures afterwards, twice in Europe. But it was all just in a day's work with occasional trips aboard cable laying ships and at manufacturers. The nearest I got to the States was Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. I then shifted in succession to several entirely different fields of operations. But no experience is ever lost. [snip] Same here, as you know... I am a "fan" of Oliver's myself... and most of my work in this area was done "in house" for various clients and never published. Many times I felt that such work was "all done" and I was ready to retire it all only to have it called back into service with each round of higher bandwidth systems... for various reasons detailed cable/transmission line analysis seems to come back into favor every decade or so... these days it is a sadly neglected subject in "skul" curricula and are few "young turks" who can handle such problems, and so we "old farts" can't retire just yet. :-) Newfie and Nova Scotia, eh? Wonderful place in the summer. My wife and I have a condominium overlooking Halifax harbour and we spend part of the summers there. My Mom was/is a Newfie and I was born in Halifax, Nova Scotia myself, although we are both now all fully certified "Americans". Did you work for Cable and Wireless at one time? I suppose you might even have sailed on the "Cyrus Field", no? Long live the "Telegraphist's Equations"! -- Peter K1PO Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL. |
Peter,
Soon after WW2 the Cable & Wireless company was 'nationalised' and became a part of the British General Post Office. The GPO, in effect, was a giant government department with 250,000 employees world wide. At its head was the Postmaster General, a politician, a minister of government next in authority to the prime minister (Clement Attley who had usurped Churchill). All other employees, including the usually distinguished Engineer-in-Chief, down to postmen, telegram boys on motor bikes and pretty female telephone operators were civil servants. C&W was the GPO's overseas arm distributed around the far-flung Empire on which the sun never set. As the whole of my 40 years telecoms career was with the GPO (later British Telecom and The Royal Mail to be asset-stripped by Mrs Thatcher) you might say that for a period I was a C&W employee. At any rate we were all contributing to the same pension scheme. One of the Engineer-in-Chief's domains was his Research Department based at Dollis Hill, N.London. It was the British renowned equivalent of Bell labs. Formally I was a member of the E-in-Chief's Cable Test Section, a non-descript name which covered a multitude of sins. I once met Josephson of Junction fame with some of his equipment in a broom cupboard under the stairs at DH. But at that time research was being concentrated on submerged deep-sea repeaters, reliablity of thermionic tubes, and on a new, light-weight oceanic cable with its strength member being the coaxial inner conductor itself. It consisted of a bundle of high-tensile steel wires covered with a seamed copper tape. I designed the mobile transmission test equipment used at the cable factory in Southampton docks. To determine temperature coefficients of line loss and other properties the last decade of the home-brewed comparison attenuator was in steps of 0.001 decibels. I also recall the all-tube equipment incorporated what must have been one of the first of the phase-locked loops. RF signal switching circuits used high-speed, mercury-wetted relays. To get everything to work properly in the lab all at the same time I had to haggle my boss (who hadn't any idea what it was all about) to specially import a Tektronics double-beam scope from the States. It will be appreciated cable loss across the Atlantic can amount to 4000 decibels. A prediction error of 0.5 percent involving temperature coefficients can cause HF signal levels to disappear in thermal agitation noise or LF signals to overload the last repeater into a state of intermodulation paralysis. Aaah! - the romance of it all. Never met up with the famous "Cyrus Field" cable layer. But I've had spells at sea on HMTS (Her Majesty's Telegraph Ship) "Monarch" and "Iris" and even privately shared most of a bottle of Scotch with Captain Evans of "HMTS Arial" in his cabin while proceding in darkness up the English Channel back to the ship's home port, Dover, just in time for Xmas. There were once so many thousands of miles of disused Teed-pairs, bridged-taps, coax, buried in GPO telephone exchanges (offices) and trunk switching centres a national drive was organised to recover them for the value of the metal involved. It was called "Copper Mining". I lived for 4 years in the other Halifax, in the hills and deep valleys of the West Riding of Yorkshire, but didn't spend much time at home to be amid the smoking chimney stacks attached to the many woolen mills. They've now all gone. We have other things in common besides transmission lines. To have confidence in an analysis of an antenna as a transmission line it is first necessary to pray and believe in the existance of single-wire transmission lines. But Heaviside asked "Shall I refuse to eat my dinner because I do not fully understand the processes of digestion." ---- Yours, Reg. ============================================ [snip] Vary line length until it is exactly 1/4 wavelengths. The input impedance of the 1/4-wave length of open-circuited line is also calculated and displayed. It will be found that at exact resonance (vary length or frequency very finely) the input impedance of the line will be a pure resistance ( jXin = 0) equal to half of the of the line end-to-end wire resistance. [snip] This is *exactly* what my [and other's as well] line analysis computer programs do for the analysis of so-called "bridged taps". "Bridged taps", which are sections of open circuited transmission line bridged across an operational transmission line, are quite common in telephony practice. They are often placed deliberately to allow for extra extension/party lines, or are inadvertently left in place once a line is taken out of service. There are often several bridged taps on a given line. These bridged taps don't affect telephony [audio] but wreak havoc at higher frequencies for broadband signals. For frequencies where the bridged taps represent a 1/4 wavelength, they act as traps or notches and "suck out" the desired energy on the main line. As such bridged taps can ruin the performance of digital subscriber loops aka "DSL" such as ADSL/VDSL, etc. because they punch holes in the transmission band. Several companies, and consultants such as myself, have transmission line programs to evaluate broadband transmission over lines with cascades of multiple guages/dielectrics and several bridged taps. In fact several such "standard" line makeups for evaluating the performance of DSL systems are published in the Standards literature [ANSI T1E1.4]. My Fortran computer codes must perforce analyze such 1/4 wave, or any wavelength for that matter, stubs quite accurately to predict multi-megabit transmission performance over several thousand feet of such impaired lines. :-) But until your posting I had never thought to use them to analyze the driving point impedances of antennas. Neat application! [snip] If your own programs significantly disagree then consign them to the junk box. [snip] Can't do that now, since literally millions of DSL modems are now running around the world over lines that have been accurately analyzed using those programs, hence they must be "right". I still use the programs in my consulting practice for client companies designing DSL modems who use my services. I have never used these programs to simulate antennas yet, gotta do that just for fun... I can set any arbitrary distribution of radiation resistance along the line in series with the primary parameter R(f) [of R(f), L(f), C(f) and G(f)] and so uniform distribution should be easy. [snip] . There are no references except my tattered note books. I came across various useful relationship around 1960 when researching into methods of locating faults on oceanic phone cables. [snip] Well you certainly predate me, I only started developing my transmission line analysis programs around 1971 or so and have kept *improving* them over the years, mostly to make contributions to my employers, clients and various transmission standards committees [ANSI, ITU, ETSI, IEEE]. [snip] But I daresay Heaviside preceded me. I dug up much information and designed fault locating and other test equipment but very little was published beyond contract manufacturing information. There were two articles in the house engineering journal. I worked alone with a small group of assistants, a lab and a workshop. I did present a series of lectures afterwards, twice in Europe. But it was all just in a day's work with occasional trips aboard cable laying ships and at manufacturers. The nearest I got to the States was Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. I then shifted in succession to several entirely different fields of operations. But no experience is ever lost. [snip] Same here, as you know... I am a "fan" of Oliver's myself... and most of my work in this area was done "in house" for various clients and never published. Many times I felt that such work was "all done" and I was ready to retire it all only to have it called back into service with each round of higher bandwidth systems... for various reasons detailed cable/transmission line analysis seems to come back into favor every decade or so... these days it is a sadly neglected subject in "skul" curricula and are few "young turks" who can handle such problems, and so we "old farts" can't retire just yet. :-) Newfie and Nova Scotia, eh? Wonderful place in the summer. My wife and I have a condominium overlooking Halifax harbour and we spend part of the summers there. My Mom was/is a Newfie and I was born in Halifax, Nova Scotia myself, although we are both now all fully certified "Americans". Did you work for Cable and Wireless at one time? I suppose you might even have sailed on the "Cyrus Field", no? Long live the "Telegraphist's Equations"! -- Peter K1PO Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL. |
Reg:
Thanks for that interesting personal history below... I enjoyed reading it. Another thing that [my] transmission line analysis routines [based upon 150 year old but "augmented" "Telegraphist's Equations"] allow for besides arbitrary resistive loading is arbitrary inductive loading along the length to accomodate the effects of loading coils [Thanks Prof. Puppin, Oliver Heaviside!]. Of course the "Telegraphists Equations" [first developed by Oliver Heaviside I believe] are based upon circuit theory and not field theory per se, and so they only accurately model the TEM mode of transmission. Single conductor transmission lines. It seems to me that there may be several, even many, modes simultaneously supported on such single conductor lines. I don't know about your programs/algorithms capabilities, but my own programs analyze lines only for the TEM mode [Sufficient for telephony, and broadband DSL and cable modem applications] and so one has to be careful with interpertations of the outputs of such modelling programs when other [non-TEM] modes might be present. The mathematical models for various modes will be different won't they? I don't see [forsee] any problems with the pure TEM analysis of single conductor lines using augmented "Telegraphists Equations". Other than the radiation losses and their distribution, which we have been discussing. such single conductor lines are modeled, for TEM mode, the same way as two [or more] conductor transmission lines are they not? -- Peter K1PO Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL. "Reg Edwards" wrote in message ... Peter, Soon after WW2 the Cable & Wireless company was 'nationalised' and became a part of the British General Post Office. The GPO, in effect, was a giant government department with 250,000 employees world wide. At its head was the Postmaster General, a politician, a minister of government next in authority to the prime minister (Clement Attley who had usurped Churchill). All other employees, including the usually distinguished Engineer-in-Chief, down to postmen, telegram boys on motor bikes and pretty female telephone operators were civil servants. C&W was the GPO's overseas arm distributed around the far-flung E[ny]mpire on which the sun never set. As the whole of my 40 years telecoms career was with the GPO (later British Telecom and The Royal Mail to be asset-stripped by Mrs Thatcher) you might say that for a period I was a C&W employee. At any rate we were all contributing to the same pension scheme. One of the Engineer-in-Chief's domains was his Research Department based at Dollis Hill, N.London. It was the British renowned equivalent of Bell labs. Formally I was a member of the E-in-Chief's Cable Test Section, a non-descript name which covered a multitude of sins. I once met Josephson of Junction fame with some of his equipment in a broom cupboard under the stairs at DH. But at that time research was being concentrated on submerged deep-sea repeaters, reliablity of thermionic tubes, and on a new, light-weight oceanic cable with its strength member being the coaxial inner conductor itself. It consisted of a bundle of high-tensile steel wires covered with a seamed copper tape. I designed the mobile transmission test equipment used at the cable factory in Southampton docks. To determine temperature coefficients of line loss and other properties the last decade of the home-brewed comparison attenuator was in steps of 0.001 decibels. I also recall the all-tube equipment incorporated what must have been one of the first of the phase-locked loops. RF signal switching circuits used high-speed, mercury-wetted relays. To get everything to work properly in the lab all at the same time I had to haggle my boss (who hadn't any idea what it was all about) to specially import a Tektronics double-beam scope from the States. It will be appreciated cable loss across the Atlantic can amount to 4000 decibels. A prediction error of 0.5 percent involving temperature coefficients can cause HF signal levels to disappear in thermal agitation noise or LF signals to overload the last repeater into a state of intermodulation paralysis. Aaah! - the romance of it all. Never met up with the famous "Cyrus Field" cable layer. But I've had spells at sea on HMTS (Her Majesty's Telegraph Ship) "Monarch" and "Iris" and even privately shared most of a bottle of Scotch with Captain Evans of "HMTS Arial" in his cabin while proceding in darkness up the English Channel back to the ship's home port, Dover, just in time for Xmas. There were once so many thousands of miles of disused Teed-pairs, bridged-taps, coax, buried in GPO telephone exchanges (offices) and trunk switching centres a national drive was organised to recover them for the value of the metal involved. It was called "Copper Mining". I lived for 4 years in the other Halifax, in the hills and deep valleys of the West Riding of Yorkshire, but didn't spend much time at home to be amid the smoking chimney stacks attached to the many woolen mills. They've now all gone. We have other things in common besides transmission lines. To have confidence in an analysis of an antenna as a transmission line it is first necessary to pray and believe in the existance of single-wire transmission lines. But Heaviside asked "Shall I refuse to eat my dinner because I do not fully understand the processes of digestion." ---- Yours, Reg. ============================================ [snip] Vary line length until it is exactly 1/4 wavelengths. The input impedance of the 1/4-wave length of open-circuited line is also calculated and displayed. It will be found that at exact resonance (vary length or frequency very finely) the input impedance of the line will be a pure resistance ( jXin = 0) equal to half of the of the line end-to-end wire resistance. [snip] This is *exactly* what my [and other's as well] line analysis computer programs do for the analysis of so-called "bridged taps". "Bridged taps", which are sections of open circuited transmission line bridged across an operational transmission line, are quite common in telephony practice. They are often placed deliberately to allow for extra extension/party lines, or are inadvertently left in place once a line is taken out of service. There are often several bridged taps on a given line. These bridged taps don't affect telephony [audio] but wreak havoc at higher frequencies for broadband signals. For frequencies where the bridged taps represent a 1/4 wavelength, they act as traps or notches and "suck out" the desired energy on the main line. As such bridged taps can ruin the performance of digital subscriber loops aka "DSL" such as ADSL/VDSL, etc. because they punch holes in the transmission band. Several companies, and consultants such as myself, have transmission line programs to evaluate broadband transmission over lines with cascades of multiple guages/dielectrics and several bridged taps. In fact several such "standard" line makeups for evaluating the performance of DSL systems are published in the Standards literature [ANSI T1E1.4]. My Fortran computer codes must perforce analyze such 1/4 wave, or any wavelength for that matter, stubs quite accurately to predict multi-megabit transmission performance over several thousand feet of such impaired lines. :-) But until your posting I had never thought to use them to analyze the driving point impedances of antennas. Neat application! [snip] If your own programs significantly disagree then consign them to the junk box. [snip] Can't do that now, since literally millions of DSL modems are now running around the world over lines that have been accurately analyzed using those programs, hence they must be "right". I still use the programs in my consulting practice for client companies designing DSL modems who use my services. I have never used these programs to simulate antennas yet, gotta do that just for fun... I can set any arbitrary distribution of radiation resistance along the line in series with the primary parameter R(f) [of R(f), L(f), C(f) and G(f)] and so uniform distribution should be easy. [snip] . There are no references except my tattered note books. I came across various useful relationship around 1960 when researching into methods of locating faults on oceanic phone cables. [snip] Well you certainly predate me, I only started developing my transmission line analysis programs around 1971 or so and have kept *improving* them over the years, mostly to make contributions to my employers, clients and various transmission standards committees [ANSI, ITU, ETSI, IEEE]. [snip] But I daresay Heaviside preceded me. I dug up much information and designed fault locating and other test equipment but very little was published beyond contract manufacturing information. There were two articles in the house engineering journal. I worked alone with a small group of assistants, a lab and a workshop. I did present a series of lectures afterwards, twice in Europe. But it was all just in a day's work with occasional trips aboard cable laying ships and at manufacturers. The nearest I got to the States was Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. I then shifted in succession to several entirely different fields of operations. But no experience is ever lost. [snip] Same here, as you know... I am a "fan" of Oliver's myself... and most of my work in this area was done "in house" for various clients and never published. Many times I felt that such work was "all done" and I was ready to retire it all only to have it called back into service with each round of higher bandwidth systems... for various reasons detailed cable/transmission line analysis seems to come back into favor every decade or so... these days it is a sadly neglected subject in "skul" curricula and are few "young turks" who can handle such problems, and so we "old farts" can't retire just yet. :-) Newfie and Nova Scotia, eh? Wonderful place in the summer. My wife and I have a condominium overlooking Halifax harbour and we spend part of the summers there. My Mom was/is a Newfie and I was born in Halifax, Nova Scotia myself, although we are both now all fully certified "Americans". Did you work for Cable and Wireless at one time? I suppose you might even have sailed on the "Cyrus Field", no? Long live the "Telegraphist's Equations"! -- Peter K1PO Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL. |
Cec and others, what's the point in dragging in opinions of people nobody
has ever head of and whose publications are highly unlikely ever to become available before all interest in the subject has faded from everybody's imagination. If anything needs to be said, would it not be better to say it just on one's own authority and be done with it. Otherwise it falls into the category of "name dropping". --- Reg |
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 03:58:18 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote: I never support my stuff by citing On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 04:41:03 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards" wrote: to keep Roy happy On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 03:58:18 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards" wrote: But I daresay Heaviside preceded me. On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:28:33 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards" wrote: Clement Attley who had usurped Churchill On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:28:33 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards" wrote: I once met Josephson On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:28:33 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards" wrote: Captain Evans On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:18:52 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards" wrote: If anything needs to be said, would it not be better to say it just on one's own authority and be done with it. Otherwise it falls into the category of "name dropping". --- Reg I don't agree (and apparently neither do you). If names were snowflakes, this would be an avalanche. :-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Reg Edwards wrote:
Cec and others, what's the point in dragging in opinions of people nobody has ever head of and whose publications are highly unlikely ever to become available before all interest in the subject has faded from everybody's imagination. Reg, everyone except you has heard of John D. Kraus, W8JK. My personal library would be extremely incomplete without his book(s). If anything needs to be said, would it not be better to say it just on one's own authority and be done with it. Otherwise it falls into the category of "name dropping". In physics and engineering circles, it's called providing a reference. Without a reference, it is just a personal opinion, unless one can prove otherwise. With a proper reference, it is generally accepted as fact, unless one can prove otherwise. Check out all the references at the end of any technical article. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Reg Edwards wrote:
Cec and others, what's the point in dragging in opinions of people nobody has ever head of and whose publications are highly unlikely ever to become available before all interest in the subject has faded from everybody's imagination. If anything needs to be said, would it not be better to say it just on one's own authority and be done with it. We already noticed. But if anyone else tried that, guess who'd call it "plagiarism"? Otherwise it falls into the category of "name dropping". Cecil has it right: it's called "a reference". -- 73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book' http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
Peter, wot's a 'mode'. Don't bother to answer. ;o)
All I know is that there are a great number of them. I became aware of their existence when in 1944 I first twiddled the 3 slugs in the matching section of rectangular waveguide (the tuner) between Randall and Boot's 50 KW magnetron and a renewed radar dish. This was a tedious, aggravating process because when tightening the locking nuts the slugs never failed rotate with the nuts so returning the process to square one. I have always been under the impression Modes were invented by academics just to explain by using pictures in their published papers the peculiarities of waves when confined to waveguides. As I have never come across another waveguide since 1946, and my favourite band has always been 160 meters, what microscopic amount of knowledge of modes I may have gleaned from tightening nuts while lying on my belly inside an aircraft fuselage has long ago evaporated. On the other hand, 1875 telegraphists' equations have always provided good enough answers when used to analyse behaviour of single wire lines including antennas. If it looks by eye like a line it will behave like one. After all, the very first telegraph lines were just single wires strung up on poles. All have uniformly distributed R,L,C & G except at their ends. And end effects, which are related to wire diameter, are calculable and can (if necessary for precision) be accounted for. The only problem, and it's not a serious one in practice, using classical transmission line analysis is due to uncertainty in the antenna's environment such as height above ground, ground conductivity, or dogs' hind legs. or trees. Attempts to use some sort of mode analysis to relieve environmental uncertainty would be just as likely to fail. The modelling and number-crunching methods of EZNEC-type programs, which are neither classical nor modal, will eventually remove the guesswork by fully including the environment in the model. But the time and effort taken to enter the data and to ensure absence of errors may prove overwhelming to professionals and amateurs alike. I would think trying to find a use for modes would be as fruitless as considering what happens to the so-called power which is supposed to be reflected back into transmitters. ---- Reg. |
Reg Edwards, G4FGQ wrote:
"I have always been under the impression Modes were invented by academics just to explain by using pictures in their published papers the pecularities of waves when confined to wave guides." Could well be. If anyone would like to see some of these pictures, King, Mimno, and Wing have a well illustrated section beginning on page 243 of "Transmission Lines, Antennas, and Wave Guides". They even include a single-wire line, near or far from the earth, in the text. It isn`t only telegraph which used single-wire transmission lines. In Tierra del Fuego, there was a single galvanized steel wire running along the 40-miile long road between Rio Grande and San Sebastian used for telephone service to the sheep raising "estancias" (stations) along the route. It was hardly insulated at all. It must have worked, but we never imitated nor tried to gain access. We interfered with the estancias as little as possible. Drilling for oil was imposition enough. In return we were the finders, producers, refiners, and marketers of petroleum products and natural gas on the Argentine side of the island. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
... Reg Edwards wrote: Cec and others, what's the point in dragging in opinions of people nobody has ever head of and whose publications are highly unlikely ever to become available before all interest in the subject has faded from everybody's imagination. Reg, everyone except you has heard of John D. Kraus, W8JK. My personal library would be extremely incomplete without his book(s). If anything needs to be said, would it not be better to say it just on one's own authority and be done with it. Otherwise it falls into the category of "name dropping". In physics and engineering circles, it's called providing a reference. Without a reference, it is just a personal opinion, unless one can prove otherwise. With a proper reference, it is generally accepted as fact, unless one can prove otherwise. Check out all the references at the end of any technical article. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ============================= Cec, You know very well I have heard of Kraus. But only by reputation on these walls. He must be a professional who by chance happened or happens to have a call sign as so many American engineers do. As I am myself it so happens. But that's about all of it. The reputations of American amateurs and professionals appear to have become mixed. In my opinion to the benefit of neither. References are of no use unless they are accessible. It is of no use recomending references to people who are without ready access to them. People with ready access wouldn't be asking questions in the first place. I have only two reference books of consequence. One author's name is Terman. Believe me I have come to the conlusion that 99 percent people who worship and specify Terman have never actually used him except merely for quotations which they don't understand anyway. He need a lot of checking before placing one's life in his hands. I say this as one who HAS used him on occasions over the years but only as a very comprehensive and valuable source of memory refreshment. But I have NEVER dropped his name to strengthen my own statements. And nobody else's name either to my recollection. Whenever I see references to authors (most of which I've never heard of except on these walls) I am inclined to the opinion the person making the reference lacks self confidence in what he's waffling about. But of course, when a reference is made for the purposes of further reading should the source be readily available, then that's fine. But in such cases I know full well the chances of getting my hands on a particular reference within 6 months are remote. And should I ever get it it is unlikely to tell me what I want to know anyway. Been there - done that too many times in the past to expect otherwise. So as far as I'm concerned the matter is best dropped. To minimise the losses just change the subject! To proceed is never worth the trouble. My other reference is Everitt. Far more reliable. I've never found a single error in 55 years. I use him only every few years because I know him mostly by heart anyway. You may think my knowledge base is exeedingly small. It is! Perhaps I could have explained the foregoing in better terms. But most of you understand exactly what I'm saying. English and American English become closer every day. Our politicians tell exactly the same lies. ---- Reg, G4FGQ |
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:35:32 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote: But I have NEVER dropped his name to strengthen my own statements. And nobody else's name either to my recollection. Short recollection. That is why folks supply citations. [merely stating the bleeding obvious] 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Reg Edwards wrote:
References are of no use unless they are accessible. Reg, if I need to look at a reference, I just drive 40 miles over to the Texas A&M library. If I really like it, I buy one. I bought 4 reference books last year. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Reg Edwards wrote: SNIP Citing references is standard in the business where I last did technical work. Most good libraries have a reference section. Most technical colleges/universities also have excellent resource sections. Anyway ... SNIP Our politicians tell exactly the same lies. ---- Reg, G4FGQ Here in central NH this morning it is getting cool. Real cool. Air temperature is -8F and still going down at 1200Z. Why, it's so cold that the local weatherman chided that ... are you ready for this?? "It's so cold the politicians are keeping their hands in their own pockets." Love it!! DD, W1MCE |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com