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

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

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

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

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

Antennas led astray
 

Yuri, I didn't remember that.. Thanks for the memory jog...
And the blurb on the cover about local rtty loops brings back lots of
good memories.. Every time I get a fresh whiff of WD-40 I hear a model
19 rattling in my head for a split second... Autostart thunder from
the basement at 2AM the xyl hated that after the guys got home from
work at the auto plant and started trading the latest rtty pictures....
Remember the topless girl in the indian head dress / the american flag
done with a red and black ribbon / lots others?

denny

Antennas led astray
 

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

Antennas led astray
 

yuri I put my money where my mouth is, it cost me a lot to apply
for another patent. Ask yourself the question why do you
experiment and why are you at at odds so many times with the experts?
I'll tell you why because you are pursueing the truth that may well
oppose the books so why hit me when I do the same?
art

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
"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

Antennas led astray
 

yuri I put my money where my mouth is, it cost me a lot to apply
for another patent. Ask yourself the question why do you
experiment and why are you at at odds so many times with the experts?
I'll tell you why because you are pursueing the truth that may well
oppose the books so why hit me when I do the same?
art

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
"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

Antennas led astray
 

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
 

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

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.

Antennas led astray
 

I responded to another person who posted his thoughts about patents
on this very same thread!
Art


Jimmie D wrote:
"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.

Antennas led astray
 

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
I responded to another person who posted his thoughts about patents
on this very same thread!
Art


Jimmie D wrote:
"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.


So, lets get back to antennas, I really want to see your proofs of
mathematical a mistake the masters made.
Cant wait?

Sincerely Jimmie.

Antennas led astray
 

"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.

Antennas led astray
 

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:40:15 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote:

May I suggest that everyone hold there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant
equations with references.

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:52:58 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote:

Please explain the "faulty mathmatics from the masters"
Please show equations with proofs.

Wow! From Hero to Zero in 12 minutes and 33 seconds.

Jimmie, you could have waited the obligatory 12 days, 33 hours and 54
thousand seconds to discover there are no facts to be had that
1. Contradict ordinary-as-mud modeling;
2. Reveal theories that would astonish the multitudes;
3. Offer a revelation of how statics can perform what dynamics do
daily. And certainly
4. No evidence of the comprehension that statics are a mathematical
fiction. Life does not allow them, and they are completely unknown
outside of a book or a classroom.

Art cannot even explain how he obtained a 50 Ohm non-reactive feed
into his five assorted wires, non of which could have possible
supported a fifth of that value (and jacked up with so much reactance
as to reject all power).

As for your first observation above about waiting. The poster is
entirely responsible for content, both its length and its purpose.
This can be as easily achieved in one posting as in 200. If the past
is to inform us of how efficiently that process has been successful;
then your cæsura || is entirely justified.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The Awesome Razor
 

The reason for the original design was because in rarified locations
such as
Quito, Equador the yagi produces excessive corona at the element tips.

The quad solved the perceived problem. I say perceived because the
corona will eat away at the yagi antenna element lengths , In a
hazardous
area the quad is more suitable than any other antenna.
Art

Rick wrote:
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

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

The Awesome Razor
 

"Rick" wrote in message
...
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?


Very, very true. Razors were designed and customized over hard clay of
Scarborough, ON and I had to wait for maple leaves to fall, otherwise it was
fireworks. It was also reported that if I beamed power lines, the turbines
in Niagara Falls started to spin in reverse and pumping up water from lake
Ontario to Erie (even Tesla could not account for this). Another effect that
expert matrimorticians can not formulaed it. Wide open field for basement
scientwists.


How about we put one up over a salt marsh, would that be safe enough
to not endanger the population?


Salt marshes call for different breed of arrays, we are ploting some dual
(mutli really - all) polarization three dimensional arrays firing and
skimming the salty perfect waves jus' like pebbles, using wave
ampliphication and Van Allen Belts for reaching the dark side of
un-enionosferried territories utilizing resonant freakvencies of bridges as
parasited elements for local coverage of QRPeers. This will be so far out in
the salty mud, that I do not consider even getting patent for it, maybe some
fuzzy pictures like of Razors. Looks like we will rearange all US records
jus' like with Razors I decimated all Canuk records. So get your high vaders
water proofed and get in shape.

Rick K2XT


73 Yuri da K3BU/m

The Awesome Razor
 

three dimensional arrays firing and
skimming the salty perfect waves jus' like pebbles,

So when we see the mud a bubbling it isn't marsh gas, it's the power of the
Mighty Razor beam? Skimmin' the salt marsh, slippin under the Bay Bridge,
grazing the Atlantic Ocean, then blasting the ionosphere, and next stop is
Europe. Smashing S meters against pegs all across Europe. Oh, yeahhhhhh,
now this is living, this is what antennas are all about !!

Rick K2XT

Antennas led astray
 

art wrote:
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


Art:

We may be two of the three blind men who went to see the elephant.

I know for a fact the spinning of the earth (time) has no place it our
equation on radio frequency vibrations. However, I do accept the
possibility of a "universal time frame" which does--but, someone SHOW it
to me first!--universal time frame.

I do accept that the "mysterious 377 ohms" seems to "work" in our
equations. However, I do NOT believe it is "real", but I do believe it
is acting as a "mysterious placeholder" for something unknown, unseen
and undiscovered by us ... and, I do not know what this is.

So, in the end, I am viewed as a kook--just like you. But, with what
you have described, it only leaves me with me with more questions--at
least at the present time ... I am patient, perhaps one day you find the
right words and I will have a revelation ...

Regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

On 23 Jan, 18:54, John Smith I wrote:
art wrote:
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
snip
We may be two of the three blind men who went to see the elephant.

I know for a fact the spinning of the earth (time) has no place it our
equation on radio frequency vibrations.


Why would you say that? Lets look at a rain drop accellerating towards
ground
until it comes to a sudden stop. Now look at this senario in terms of
the big picture
and we note that relatively speaking the droplet does not follow a
straight line relative
to a particular point on the face on the earth because of the earths
rotation.
So with the accellaration towards earth by gravity is a relative change
in time
it needs an accompanaying vector to qualify as curl which is supplied
by the
earths rotation. Thus I would contend that a droplet in free fall is
statically loaded
and provided with a time varying change at the same time. Thus the
noise I heard
with the antenna inside the car while in the rain forest was actually
something that
was transmitted as opposed to a static discharge on impact!. If you
read about space
transmissions you will note that they always place the word static
within " "..
Why do you think they do that? An answer to that would be very
interesting in
light of what I infere early in this post would it not?
Art


However, I do accept the
possibility of a "universal time frame" which does--but, someone SHOW it
to me first!--universal time frame.

I do accept that the "mysterious 377 ohms" seems to "work" in our
equations. However, I do NOT believe it is "real", but I do believe it
is acting as a "mysterious placeholder" for something unknown, unseen
and undiscovered by us ... and, I do not know what this is.

Well the 377 represents ether the impedance in space or ether
the relative impedance in space. Ether way it works out O.K. and the
math
is made to prove it afrter the fact. it is ether that or something else
Art

So, in the end, I am viewed as a kook--just like you.
I have a clone?


But, with what
you have described, it only leaves me with me with more questions--at
least at the present time ... I am patient, perhaps one day you find the
right words and I will have a revelation ...
Did you try changing the angle of a vertical dipole
to obtain some observables?
How can you sleep?
Art

Regards,
JS- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Antennas led astray
 

art wrote:


Why would you say that? Lets look at a rain drop accellerating towards
ground
until it comes to a sudden stop. Now look at this senario in terms of
the big picture
and we note that relatively speaking the droplet does not follow a
straight line relative
to a particular point on the face on the earth because of the earths
rotation.
So with the accellaration towards earth by gravity is a relative change
in time
it needs an accompanaying vector to qualify as curl which is supplied
by the
earths rotation. Thus I would contend that a droplet in free fall is
statically loaded
and provided with a time varying change at the same time. Thus the
noise I heard
with the antenna inside the car while in the rain forest was actually
something that
was transmitted as opposed to a static discharge on impact!. If you
read about space
transmissions you will note that they always place the word static
within " "..
Why do you think they do that? An answer to that would be very
interesting in
light of what I infere early in this post would it not?
Art

Art:

Take 1.1111 Mhz. How do we know that is 1,111,100 cps?

We know that because earth makes 1 revolution in 1 day (24 hrs).
We know there are 60 mins in an hour.
We know there are 60 secs in a min.
Etc.

Now, destroy the earth, forget all about its' revolutions.

Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?

If you were an alien the rf would NOT appear to change (assuming they
are "stupid" enough to base time on the rotations of their planet), what
does it look like to them? Certainly NOT 1,111,100 cps.

So, how could everyone ever agree on what that rf REALLY is?

You must give me an example NOT including the earth, else I will give
you back examples basing time on my goldfish swimming! (and he/she makes
way more than 1 revolution per/day!)

And, perhaps gravity and time are only two phenomenons of the same thing ...

In space, there is only the ether ...

Regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:41:16 -0800, John Smith I
wrote:

Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?
10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations of the Cesium atom - DUH

Any dimbulb alien knows that! They've been watching our TV for more
than half a century to catch onto the universal standard of a
commercial break.

Desperately trying to elevate the technical content of this thread to
at least the level of a Duz laundry ad.... "Antennas led astray"
sounds like a 50s Sal Mineo flick about delinquents.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Antennas led astray
 

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

Antennas led astray
 

On Jan 23, 1:20 pm, "art" wrote:

I have put my money down in earnest, I am not just waving my hands.

Reminds me of a Pink Floyd song... "Your lips move, but I can't hear
what yer
saying..." ooooooohhhhhh, oooohhhh, I've become comfortably numb"

MK

Antennas led astray
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?
10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations of the Cesium atom - DUH
...

Richard:

Really?

Perhaps my understanding of Einsteins theory is incorrect, or I am
attempting to add a relative quality to it?

In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Now, like that told Virgina O'Hanlon about Santa Claus--if the NEW YORK
TIMES said it, it must be true--or, perhaps the editor was mistaken?; I
must admit--if Einstein said it, it must be true! half-smirk

Warmest regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:41:16 -0800, John Smith I
wrote:

Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?
10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations of the Cesium atom - DUH

Any dimbulb alien knows that! They've been watching our TV for more
than half a century to catch onto the universal standard of a
commercial break.

Desperately trying to elevate the technical content of this thread to
at least the level of a Duz laundry ad.... "Antennas led astray"
sounds like a 50s Sal Mineo flick about delinquents.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

Just so you can double check me:

http://www.stormfax.com/virginia.htm

Regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:14:56 -0800, John Smith I
wrote:

In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Cesium by any other name would smell as sw.... no, that alludes to
Shakespeare and we know how much he gets ****ed on here by
anglophobes. We'll try that again:

If it didn't oscillate (resonate actually in a magnetically biased
electron fountain) at that frequency, it's probably Rubidium. Aliens
watching first runs of 50s soap operas ("The Secret Storm" in this
case) would undoubtedly have naming problems. This is not a technical
problem; it is a cultural one.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:

Now, like that told Virgina O'Hanlon about Santa Claus--if the NEW YORK
TIMES said it, it must be true--or, perhaps the editor was mistaken?; I


Make that "New York Sun."

Hey, what can I say, I read the Times ...

JS

Antennas led astray
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
If it didn't oscillate (resonate actually in a magnetically biased
electron fountain) at that frequency, it's probably Rubidium. Aliens
watching first runs of 50s soap operas ("The Secret Storm" in this
case) would undoubtedly have naming problems. This is not a technical
problem; it is a cultural one.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Again, I may have misunderstood "Old Al" along then!

If that cesium atom no longer obeys your "10,214,000,000,000,000
oscillations"--"LAW", then perhaps 1,111,100 cps no longer obeys the
"cps law" either. And, indeed, 1.1111 Mhz is no longer what we see at
all!!!

Of course, the above must be wrong. ET did manage to call home and
apparently there were able to agree on the same freq. (sure would have
liked to have taken a look at "Ole ETs'" watch ...)

Warmest regards,
JS