73 Yuri da BUm da father of Razors

QST April 1972

"Christopher Cox" wrote in message
...

73 Yuri da BUm da father of Razors

QST April 1972

What about it?

BUm

Denny you make my point by pointing out that radiation can occur when
parasitics are not in parallel but for all of this the yagi is a firm
favorite
as well as the boomless quad wire directive antenna which is just a
variation
of stacked dipoles bent at the ends.. Why don't you model a vertical
dipole
with a succession of one degree change in the vertical direction and
note what changes occur, I'm sure you will be surprised at the results
even tho parassitic elements are not involved.
As far as designers not being up to speed in time they will change
trust me
Art





Denny wrote:
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

I spend time with EZNEC trying my antenna theories - most of which are
dogs, but once in a while I get lucky...
No, I have not done the modeling iterations for off the vertical as
fine as 1 degree steps as you suggest... Not sure what surprises you
are alluding to as I have spent considerable time modeling leaning
vertical elements - and then built arrays that sprawl across hundreds
of feet of swamp... I am actually running my EZNEC modeled antennas on
160...

cheers ... denny / k8do

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

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

"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

"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.

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

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...

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


Thats what I thought your answer would be.