Antennas led astray
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:25:56 -0800, art wrote:
yuri I put my money where my mouth is, it cost me a lot to apply for another patent. Getting a patent merely proves that one is able to hire a competent enough patent attorney to convince the patent examiners that the application in question isn't the rehash of prior patents. Enough bogus software patents are issued on an ongoing bases to bear this out. A patent is not proof of sound engineering even though the public at large has been hoodwinked into believing otherwise. Without field strength/antenna range data, any other claims are akin to shouting in the wind. Your money doesn't matter, show us the data. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears this is true." |
Antennas led astray
No I wouldn't call it "art" it is just science gone awry.
If you go back to 101 you will be one of many who got into trouble with Divergence and Curl but chose to believe the books because that is what you are being examined for. Review Helmholts, Stokes and Gauss on statics now that you are not compelled to suck up everything. As far as a dish is concerned for HF that is not really a problem anymore when you understand how the misconceptions that took hold around "curl" I'll give you a hint John look at a "conservative field" where "vector value is zero" statement is made in the books based on what the masters said and then think it out for yourself ! As far as satellites are concerned where circular polarisation is chosen via a turnstile, just imagine what it will do for antennas when it is proven that parallism is not the only way to go. You are quite correct that all is not known and that is purely from misconceptions about "curl" put out via faulty mathematics from the masters. Back to the dish antenna, yes that does appear to be one of the best not because of its traditional nature but because the dish can be formed in equilibrium such that more than one vector points in the same direction. You will understand that better when you read my write up when I get around to it or my patent application is printed.. Regards Art John Smith I wrote: art wrote: ... of a three dimensional vector. The two dimensional term Art: I take the thrust of your previous text to say, "We have lost focus of the antenna as a technical device. Some now think of it as a "magical device" and some as a "work of art." I can see some truth in all of that. Plus, I will go further, if anyone thinks we have discovered ALL there is to know about antennas, they are simply wrong ... Basically, I only have use for three types of antennas. Two of these are for terrestrial use only and one is for non-earth use ("talking" to satellites, NOT aliens.) Of the two for terrestrial use, one is omni directional the other VERY directional. Now omni is quite easy, most dipoles or monopoles can be placed to work with varying success. So that leaves the "beam" or directional antenna. Now, the best directional antenna I have EVER found is the parabolic dish--there just ain't any better! However, for HF (indeed vhf/uhf are VERY difficult to construct) these are out of the question for most of us. So, the question becomes, "How can we mimic the performance of the dish with practical materials. Now, that is what we are all looking for, isn't it? Warmest regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
Nate I know what patents are all about. In this country alone
I have been involved with three patents for G.E where naturally an attorney is hired. For patents outside the workplace I do my own without hiring an attorney. As far as providing the data up front why should I do that, as a former teacher I found that when someone does homework memory alone is not enough. it takes two people to share information and I am doing my part. On this newsgroup I have given plenty of data that when pursued by personal work will provide agreement, the dissent from couch recliners is to be expected. I have put my money down in earnest, I am not just waving my hands. Nate Bargmann wrote: On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:25:56 -0800, art wrote: yuri I put my money where my mouth is, it cost me a lot to apply for another patent. Getting a patent merely proves that one is able to hire a competent enough patent attorney to convince the patent examiners that the application in question isn't the rehash of prior patents. Enough bogus software patents are issued on an ongoing bases to bear this out. A patent is not proof of sound engineering even though the public at large has been hoodwinked into believing otherwise. Without field strength/antenna range data, any other claims are akin to shouting in the wind. Your money doesn't matter, show us the data. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears this is true." |
Antennas led astray
"art" wrote in message ups.com... Before the mathematical equations comes about you must understand the concept, it is that which requires an open mind . We are not back in college where we take every thing in so we can pass an examination. Ask your self why dx/dt is nor included when a conservative field is described by the experts and then we have the beginnings of a debate where you can explain your points. Don't shoot the messenger! Art \ craigm wrote: how about some real math and equations. You should present some technical basis for your conclusions other than some verbal handwaving. You also seem to make some assumptions which are irrelevant ( parallelism being good for manufacturing being one) that may not be valid. As an engineer I can say that elements in a varying three dimensional form to each other is more difficult and more costly than parallism on a single plane, No amount of mathematical juggling will allow you to escape that analysis, but I am willing to debate around that point Art You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance. If you are not willing to try and understand the concept then your mind must be closed. Yes we can debate that to Art craigm In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how one works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold there responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional maner will recive a professional response. Jimmie |
Antennas led astray
"art" wrote in message ps.com... No I wouldn't call it "art" it is just science gone awry. If you go back to 101 you will be one of many who got into trouble with Divergence and Curl but chose to believe the books because that is what you are being examined for. Review Helmholts, Stokes and Gauss on statics now that you are not compelled to suck up everything. As far as a dish is concerned for HF that is not really a problem anymore when you understand how the misconceptions that took hold around "curl" I'll give you a hint John look at a "conservative field" where "vector value is zero" statement is made in the books based on what the masters said and then think it out for yourself ! As far as satellites are concerned where circular polarisation is chosen via a turnstile, just imagine what it will do for antennas when it is proven that parallism is not the only way to go. You are quite correct that all is not known and that is purely from misconceptions about "curl" put out via faulty mathematics from the masters. Back to the dish antenna, yes that does appear to be one of the best not because of its traditional nature but because the dish can be formed in equilibrium such that more than one vector points in the same direction. You will understand that better when you read my write up when I get around to it or my patent application is printed.. Regards Art John Smith I wrote: art wrote: ... of a three dimensional vector. The two dimensional term Art: I take the thrust of your previous text to say, "We have lost focus of the antenna as a technical device. Some now think of it as a "magical device" and some as a "work of art." I can see some truth in all of that. Plus, I will go further, if anyone thinks we have discovered ALL there is to know about antennas, they are simply wrong ... Basically, I only have use for three types of antennas. Two of these are for terrestrial use only and one is for non-earth use ("talking" to satellites, NOT aliens.) Of the two for terrestrial use, one is omni directional the other VERY directional. Now omni is quite easy, most dipoles or monopoles can be placed to work with varying success. So that leaves the "beam" or directional antenna. Now, the best directional antenna I have EVER found is the parabolic dish--there just ain't any better! However, for HF (indeed vhf/uhf are VERY difficult to construct) these are out of the question for most of us. So, the question becomes, "How can we mimic the performance of the dish with practical materials. Now, that is what we are all looking for, isn't it? Warmest regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
Jimmie D wrote:
... In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how one works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold there responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional maner will recive a professional response. Jimmie Geesh! Something we finally stand in total agreement with. However, like most things in science, usually what we are hunting is first "discovered" in a "practical" form, then the math is "found" to explain, describe, and "predict" it and its "properties" ... such has always been mankinds' lot--or, thanks for those goofy guys in their basements with their goofy ideas ... Still, an excellent and valid statement. Warmest regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
"art" wrote in message ps.com... No I wouldn't call it "art" it is just science gone awry. If you go back to 101 you will be one of many who got into trouble with Divergence and Curl but chose to believe the books because that is what you are being examined for. Review Helmholts, Stokes and Gauss on statics now that you are not compelled to suck up everything. As far as a dish is concerned for HF that is not really a problem anymore when you understand how the misconceptions that took hold around "curl" I'll give you a hint John look at a "conservative field" where "vector value is zero" statement is made in the books based on what the masters said and then think it out for yourself ! As far as satellites are concerned where circular polarisation is chosen via a turnstile, just imagine what it will do for antennas when it is proven that parallism is not the only way to go. You are quite correct that all is not known and that is purely from misconceptions about "curl" put out via faulty mathematics from the masters. Back to the dish antenna, yes that does appear to be one of the best not because of its traditional nature but because the dish can be formed in equilibrium such that more than one vector points in the same direction. You will understand that better when you read my write up when I get around to it or my patent application is printed.. Regards Art Please explain the "faulty mathmatics from the masters" Please show equations with proofs. |
Antennas led astray
Atta boy Jimmy if only somebody pursued just a little bit of what I
present we all would gain by a debate but nobody but nobody got off the couch except one whose aims were dishonest. With respect to patents, very few if any is for a miracle it is only a platform for additional ideas to the present state of the art which is only generated by the micro steps of information in any art. When you apply that small piece of information you are suppling a basic for the next patent application which is what is called progress because it was shared and without sharing achievement is retarded. When people decry the idea of patents I think back to the fact that many engineers decried them after the fact but never decried their importance on a resume, just like monday morning quarterbacks Art Jimmie D wrote: "art" wrote in message ups.com... Before the mathematical equations comes about you must understand the concept, it is that which requires an open mind . We are not back in college where we take every thing in so we can pass an examination. Ask your self why dx/dt is nor included when a conservative field is described by the experts and then we have the beginnings of a debate where you can explain your points. Don't shoot the messenger! Art \ craigm wrote: how about some real math and equations. You should present some technical basis for your conclusions other than some verbal handwaving. You also seem to make some assumptions which are irrelevant ( parallelism being good for manufacturing being one) that may not be valid. As an engineer I can say that elements in a varying three dimensional form to each other is more difficult and more costly than parallism on a single plane, No amount of mathematical juggling will allow you to escape that analysis, but I am willing to debate around that point Art You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance. If you are not willing to try and understand the concept then your mind must be closed. Yes we can debate that to Art craigm In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how one works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold there responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional maner will recive a professional response. Jimmie |
Antennas led astray
Jimmie D wrote: Please explain the "faulty mathmatics from the masters" Please show equations with proofs Aw Jimmy I gave three names and the subject matter when you find and declare it to the group they may listen to YOU but frm ME they wont.UNTIL THEY READ IT IN A BOOK WHICH IS WHERE THE PROBLEM STARTED Regards Art |
The Awesome Razor
On Tue, "Yuri Blanarovich" K3BU wrote:
Let's not forget this 3D champion that decimated Yagis and other inferior contraptions by the antenna gurus and professoirs and scientwists. :-))) 73 Yuri da BUm da father of Razors Hey Yuri, Is it true, I've heard you can't operate a Razor over dry land, or where there is flamable material nearby because of the fire hazard? How about we put one up over a salt marsh, would that be safe enough to not endanger the population? Rick K2XT |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com