Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Antennas led astray
Tho the Yagi has been good to communication over
the years it has in fact retarded the advance of antennas. The biggest reason is the misinterpretation of the term "curl" where it is termed as a two dimensional vector instead of a three dimensional vector. The two dimensional term came about by adding vectors to a static charge where the vector values are zero i.e time was removed from equations by reducing the vector to a point for the sake of mathematical expedience but with a known direction. This aproach has fastened into the minds of academics that radiating elements should always be in parallel form and which the Yagi has perpetuated. The error in this aproach is that when a time varying field is applied to a static charge is that the addition of vectors move from a two dimensional form into a cartesian three dimensional form. With this concept in mind which is an extension of a Gaussian antenna aproach, it should be seen that parallism tho good in terms of manufacture is not the ideal array arrangement and in fact verticals may well be better off place at an angle somewhat less than 90 degrees. Ofcourse as always antennas are compromises and the biggest drawback here is the lack of symetry for only a small advance in efficiency. Food for thougtht gentlemen if you have an open mind Art |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Antennas led astray
art wrote:
Tho the Yagi has been good to communication over the years it has in fact retarded the advance of antennas. The biggest reason is the misinterpretation of the term "curl" where it is termed as a two dimensional vector instead of a three dimensional vector. The two dimensional term came about by adding vectors to a static charge where the vector values are zero i.e time was removed from equations by reducing the vector to a point for the sake of mathematical expedience but with a known direction. This aproach has fastened into the minds of academics that radiating elements should always be in parallel form and which the Yagi has perpetuated. The error in this aproach is that when a time varying field is applied to a static charge is that the addition of vectors move from a two dimensional form into a cartesian three dimensional form. With this concept in mind which is an extension of a Gaussian antenna aproach, it should be seen that parallism tho good in terms of manufacture is not the ideal array arrangement and in fact verticals may well be better off place at an angle somewhat less than 90 degrees. Ofcourse as always antennas are compromises and the biggest drawback here is the lack of symetry for only a small advance in efficiency. Food for thougtht gentlemen if you have an open mind Art 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. You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance. craigm |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Antennas led astray
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Antennas led astray
"art" wrote in message oups.com... 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 Patents are almost useless unless you actually build something. Basically patents protect ideas and I know a guy who use to do hundreds of applictions on just ideas. It is not the purpose of a patent to establish that an idea is workable. It just establishes it as "your idea" Besides I thought we were talking about antennas, not the value of patents. Jimmie. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Antennas led astray
Odldy enough Jim I found out all about this by accident some years ago
and tho I proved what I was seeing was correct the hardest part was why this was occurring when the subject has been studied to death over the years It was when I reviewed past works of the masters I came across this error and you must realise that in the old days decades passed before it was studied by others. George Green like others such as Gauss had a niche in mathematics a lot of which came from non uniform studies such that later reiterations of what they had deduced was shaken around and rehashed after death such that if an error was introduced there were few who could refute it. Let's face it, if it is seen in a book in present day how many would be alert or foolhardy enough to refute it without changing context, the naysayers would immediatly shout, not pounce, from their lazy boys knowing full well it is easier to ridicule than to think things out for themselves. Have you ever heard a monday morning quarterback prophesising two days before the match and repeating it again on monday morning? Art John Smith I wrote: 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Antennas led astray
Well, there is the Moxon Rectangle, Discone, Sloper, Delta Loop, Big
Wheel, Circular Loop, Orthogonal loops with periodic feed, Vee, Rhombic, Helix, Parabolic Dish, Cone with spiral lip, G String, Surface fed half sphere, BirdCage, Lazy Vee, Moon Bounce, and a bunch of others that escape me at the moment... It would seem that many antenna designers, some of whom would not recognize a real time vector if it poked them in the eye and then scrawled a table of Naperian Logarithms on the wall paper, have already gone ahead without waiting on directions from open minds... denny / k8do |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Antennas led astray
"Denny" wrote in message ups.com... Well, there is the Moxon Rectangle, Discone, Sloper, Delta Loop, Big Wheel, Circular Loop, Orthogonal loops with periodic feed, Vee, Rhombic, Helix, Parabolic Dish, Cone with spiral lip, G String, Surface fed half sphere, BirdCage, Lazy Vee, Moon Bounce, and a bunch of others that escape me at the moment... You left out the King of them all: http://members.aol.com/ve3bmv/Razors.htm Da VE3BMV Razor Beam, which may have escaped the Art da Antenna Wiz. 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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|