Not a reasonable answer, could be speculation like some of the comments
I get from experts. The yagi is not totally efficient in changing the
time changing field to a radiative field
because it has detuned elements contrary to what Roy states that a
reflector aids the forward lobe.......that is trash talk but many of
the so called experts are following like lemmons


Tom Ring wrote:
art wrote:

Tom Ring wrote:

art wrote:
snip

There again maybe it is best that you be honest and say
you don't understand! Better that than join those who have
nothing to say about antennas!


Actually Art, you are already the master of misunderstanding.

tom
K0TAR

See Tom you had nothing of value to say about antennas or the question
at hand
I think you would be better conversing with members of this group who
are intent on disruption and stop questions on antennas. What goes
around comes around so I will not answer in kind. If you want to stick
with the idea that a yagi is the next thing to sliced bread then be my
guest Better still study up on the code so you can join friends.


And to continue the theme -

Actually Art, yagis are usually better than 95% efficient.

tom
K0TAR

art wrote:

Not a reasonable answer, could be speculation like some of the comments
I get from experts. The yagi is not totally efficient in changing the
time changing field to a radiative field
because it has detuned elements contrary to what Roy states that a
reflector aids the forward lobe.......that is trash talk but many of
the so called experts are following like lemmons


So why is it then, that Roy and several dozen others here have made good
livings, written respected books, and designed antenna systems that
defined how good it can get? And all you have done is call them names?

Sounds like the "so called experts" are a lot effing smarter than you.

All you have done is throw stones, which is what you accuse all of us
of, by the way. And you haven't given a microgram of proof that what
you believe is true.

tom
K0TAR

Tom Ring wrote:
art wrote:

Not a reasonable answer, could be speculation like some of the comments
I get from experts. The yagi is not totally efficient in changing the
time changing field to a radiative field
because it has detuned elements contrary to what Roy states that a
reflector aids the forward lobe.......that is trash talk but many of
the so called experts are following like lemmons


So why is it then, that Roy and several dozen others here have made good
livings, written respected books, and designed antenna systems that
defined how good it can get? And all you have done is call them names?
When I don't agree with them they call me names It is always them or
their followers and I eventually retaliate with a vengance and I think
I can do it better than them.
They are of a group that everything is known about antennas and is
written in books. If you refer to something that is not in the books
then they attack where I wish they would take a bit of time trying to
understand what I am getting at so I can make use of their superior
knowledge outside of yagis but yagis dominate their whole life to the
exclusion of anything else so we are at an impasse. Tough but it is of
their choice where I have offered my hand many times only to be
rejected.
Art







Sounds like the "so called experts" are a lot effing smarter than you.

All you have done is throw stones, which is what you accuse all of us
of, by the way. And you haven't given a microgram of proof that what
you believe is true.

tom
K0TAR

art wrote:
Tom Ring wrote:
art wrote:
They are of a group that everything is known about antennas and is
written in books. If you refer to something that is not in the books


Art:

If you refer to something that is "not in the books" one should take
great care. Why I do think evidence can be brought out and can be
demonstrated that some of the ways we "think" antennas are working is
not real, however, great men have developed thinking models and formulas
which are able to let us design and use WORKING antennas which are
PRACTICAL. I site that mysterious 377 ohms as an example, or for
another, incorporating the spin rate of the earth into antenna formulas
(time), ridiculous (but useful!) But, those "old books" contain methods
and means to develop antennas which do work and which do work well, we
owe much to those who have gone before us ...

I am only hoping that by refusing to allow "magic numbers" to be
embedded into equations without any suitable explanation of what those
numbers are "REALLY ABOUT" will one day awake the man who can form the
vision and see what the others have all been unable to, Tesla seemed to
have had an excellent ability which I hold as example of the type of
"vision seer" I mean.

I have an open mind, I guess you are as likely as the next guy to "be
the one!" Never hurts to try anyway ...

However, thank God practical antennas work and we have the tools to
design and build them.

Regards,
JS

I figure that if it works ok on my program AO PRO and it is then
checked out OK on NEC4
independently,and I can produce the electrical laws that backs it up it
will get into the books tho for the present time it is not there now.
For a very long time I have tried to introduce this and others to those
who are experienced in that sort of thing but I could never get it off
the ground because the thread kept on being changed to suit somebodies
whim or it developed into a name calling setup that it was impossible
to procede. Actually I let one patent application drop during the
examination process because of the badmouthing that I got but my back
is now stiffer and this one is going all the way. I do it not for money
reasons but because antennas is my hobby despite my so called lack of
knoweledge I have had patents during my working years at G.E. and other
places so the idea of patents doesn't carry much with me any more. For
all the experts we have had over the years on this newsgroup I have
never been able to thrash out one of my ideas to fruition because of
various nebulous reasons. If I brought one up involving SWR, coupling,
baluns e.t.c. the thread will grow by leaps and bounds in minuits
because everybody has something to say about it. If a subject is
brought up that one cannot provide insight then that person feels
denied that he cant post so he will resort to firing bullets and
stones.
Art

John Smith wrote:
art wrote:
Tom Ring wrote:
art wrote:
They are of a group that everything is known about antennas and is
written in books. If you refer to something that is not in the books


Art:

If you refer to something that is "not in the books" one should take
great care. Why I do think evidence can be brought out and can be
demonstrated that some of the ways we "think" antennas are working is
not real, however, great men have developed thinking models and formulas
which are able to let us design and use WORKING antennas which are
PRACTICAL. I site that mysterious 377 ohms as an example, or for
another, incorporating the spin rate of the earth into antenna formulas
(time), ridiculous (but useful!) But, those "old books" contain methods
and means to develop antennas which do work and which do work well, we
owe much to those who have gone before us ...

I am only hoping that by refusing to allow "magic numbers" to be
embedded into equations without any suitable explanation of what those
numbers are "REALLY ABOUT" will one day awake the man who can form the
vision and see what the others have all been unable to, Tesla seemed to
have had an excellent ability which I hold as example of the type of
"vision seer" I mean.

I have an open mind, I guess you are as likely as the next guy to "be
the one!" Never hurts to try anyway ...

However, thank God practical antennas work and we have the tools to
design and build them.

Regards,
JS

Well let me take you on a thinking journey OK? I will do it in stages
so there will be no reason to jump the gun with questions unless it is
pertinent to what I have said. Maybe a new thread would be better
before I start out on explaining new thoughts about antennas which are
away from the traditional designs which really requires an open mind
Look out for the Gaussian Antenna heading and we will get started. You
can read up on Gaussian antennas under Google in the mean time to get
up to speed.The wife just got out of hospital so bear with me as I am
having to do different things
Art
John Smith wrote:
art wrote:
Tom Ring wrote:
art wrote:
They are of a group that everything is known about antennas and is
written in books. If you refer to something that is not in the books


Art:

If you refer to something that is "not in the books" one should take
great care. Why I do think evidence can be brought out and can be
demonstrated that some of the ways we "think" antennas are working is
not real, however, great men have developed thinking models and formulas
which are able to let us design and use WORKING antennas which are
PRACTICAL. I site that mysterious 377 ohms as an example, or for
another, incorporating the spin rate of the earth into antenna formulas
(time), ridiculous (but useful!) But, those "old books" contain methods
and means to develop antennas which do work and which do work well, we
owe much to those who have gone before us ...

I am only hoping that by refusing to allow "magic numbers" to be
embedded into equations without any suitable explanation of what those
numbers are "REALLY ABOUT" will one day awake the man who can form the
vision and see what the others have all been unable to, Tesla seemed to
have had an excellent ability which I hold as example of the type of
"vision seer" I mean.

I have an open mind, I guess you are as likely as the next guy to "be
the one!" Never hurts to try anyway ...

However, thank God practical antennas work and we have the tools to
design and build them.

Regards,
JS

art wrote:

pertinent to what I have said. Maybe a new thread would be better
before I start out on explaining new thoughts about antennas which are
away from the traditional designs which really requires an open mind

Art:

You are correct. I have always longed for a "proper" newsgroup for
these discussions, maybe:

rec.amateur.ridiculous.antenna
rec.amateur.unconventional.antenna
rec.amateur.alien-designed.antennas
rec.amateur.mystic-psychic.antennas
rec.amateur.opium-dreams.antenna
etc.

Only kidding a bit here, but who cares its name, I think it worth while
to strain the sands for a bit or piece of 'theory' which has been
replaced with a 'magic number', which some unexplored, or unused bit of
physics lies behind. One just gets used to using developed formulas and
terms and forgets to question where they came from ...

Indeed, I even suspect we may, eventually, discover time! However, our
earth spinning is NOT it! Nor, I seriously doubt, is the speed of
light, rather these are only two things subject to the "Universal Time
Frame."

At least we should be able to be rid of hecklers!

Regards,
JS

Well let me take you on a thinking journey OK? I will do it in stages
so there will be no reason to jump the gun with questions unless it is
pertinent to what I have said. Maybe a new thread would be better
before I start out on explaining new thoughts about antennas which are
away from the traditional designs which really requires an open mind
Look out for the Gaussian Antenna heading and we will get started. You
can read up on Gaussian antennas under Google in the mean time to get
up to speed.The wife just got out of hospital so bear with me as I am
having to do different things
Art
John Smith wrote:
art wrote:
Tom Ring wrote:
art wrote:
They are of a group that everything is known about antennas and is
written in books. If you refer to something that is not in the books


Art:

If you refer to something that is "not in the books" one should take
great care. Why I do think evidence can be brought out and can be
demonstrated that some of the ways we "think" antennas are working is
not real, however, great men have developed thinking models and formulas
which are able to let us design and use WORKING antennas which are
PRACTICAL. I site that mysterious 377 ohms as an example, or for
another, incorporating the spin rate of the earth into antenna formulas
(time), ridiculous (but useful!) But, those "old books" contain methods
and means to develop antennas which do work and which do work well, we
owe much to those who have gone before us ...

I am only hoping that by refusing to allow "magic numbers" to be
embedded into equations without any suitable explanation of what those
numbers are "REALLY ABOUT" will one day awake the man who can form the
vision and see what the others have all been unable to, Tesla seemed to
have had an excellent ability which I hold as example of the type of
"vision seer" I mean.

I have an open mind, I guess you are as likely as the next guy to "be
the one!" Never hurts to try anyway ...

However, thank God practical antennas work and we have the tools to
design and build them.

Regards,
JS