The Formula
 

In article om, art
wrote:

Hmmmmm!

Then how do you account for the broad rejection from
"EE"s of Gaussian antennas that comply and are
supported by electromagnetic theory as embodied
in Maxwells equations ?
As you put your address as the "Naval Research
Laboratory" where would you place the responsability
for rejection?
Personaly I would place it in the syndrome of

" Not invented at my place"

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, Art. I have no experience with
"Gaussian antennas." If these antennas have been the subject of, say IEEE
papers my guess would be that they are worthy of investigation. In the
case of the CFA, cold fusion or anything else for that matter,
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. IOW anyone can
believe anything they want. The problem is in getting others to believe
it. And when it comes to skeptical scientists/physicists/engineers that
ain't easy. However, the truth more often than not emerges at some
point. Sincerely,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

The Formula
 

On May 2, 5:23 pm, (J. B. Wood) wrote:
In the
case of the CFA, cold fusion or anything else for that matter,
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Most of us would be happy with just ordinary evidence:
bigfoot - a specimen, or some bones. Just the normal stuff.
paranormal - just a repeatable controlled experiment
cold fusion - just a repeatable controlled experiment
CFA - the same

Not anecdote, however. That never counts.

....Keith

The Formula
 

On 2 May, 15:47, Keith Dysart wrote:
On May 2, 5:23 pm, (J. B. Wood) wrote:

In the
case of the CFA, cold fusion or anything else for that matter,
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Most of us would be happy with just ordinary evidence:
bigfoot - a specimen, or some bones. Just the normal stuff.
paranormal - just a repeatable controlled experiment
cold fusion - just a repeatable controlled experiment
CFA - the same

Not anecdote, however. That never counts.

...Keith

No Kieth that is not true. A month ago we had a Doctor from MIT who
gave
a descision on this newsgroup with respect to the Maxwells law. He
made an
mathematical analysis of an antenna that complied via mathematics.
Only one person agreed with his analysis. All others on this
newsgroup
denied the existance of this analysis as "proof". The Doctor gave an
analysis of a
conservative field that was transformed to a non concervative field by
the addition of
a unit of time. In that case it was a Gaussian field that followed
Gaussian law and the Doctor
showed by the addition of time to a conservative field it complied
with Maxwells laws by changing to a non conservative field that
allowed for a design of a radiating array of maximum efficiency. I
also saw it as an explanational truth of Poyntings Vector.
We have many different types of experts on this newsgroup and all but
one person dissed the idea of conformaty to Maxwell. So something
simple is not want this group wants it is something to diss and
degenerate. As J B Wood stated the truth eventually will come out,
but it will not be via this newsgroup. By the way, there was nobody
except one familiar enough with Maxwells laws to mount a professional
response and many who one would have assumed had the required
knoweledge either dissed or stayed quiet to stay on the safe side.
Art

The Formula
 

On May 2, 7:23 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
J. B. Wood wrote:
Then there's a university EE professor who should know the theory and ends
up supporting misguided concepts like the crossed-field antenna (CFA).

Then there are the people on this newsgroup who presuppose
that the lumped circuit model is adequate for analyzing 75m
Texas Bugcatcher coils.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Well, it is, as far as designing the antenna. What advantage would
knowing about any current "taper" give you? None that I can see.
The design of the antenna will still end up the same, either way
you go about it. The loading coil will still be at the same height,
which is more a practical and mechanical problem, rather
than considering any taper of current across the coil.
To me, this is one of those things that might be handy to consider,
maybe more for designing very complex loaded antennas, ??
but not the run of the mill bugcatcher.
Even with complex arrays, I'm not sure if it would help you too much.
I'd be surprised if any increase of gain from applying this knowledge
would exceed 1 db. Than I'd have to ask...How *would* you apply
this knowledge.
I'm not trying to be a party pooper, but I don't see much advantage
in considering current taper across a short lumped coil. I'm
still going to mount my coils in the same places, which is generally
as high as I can get them. I'm more worried about current distribution
across the whole whip, than I am the short coil alone.
MK

The Formula
 

On May 2, 12:06 pm, art wrote:
On 2 May, 04:13, (J. B. Wood) wrote:




Then how do you account for the broad rejection from
"EE"s of Gaussian antennas that comply and are
supported by electromagnetic theory as embodied
in Maxwells equations ?

It's fairly simple from my point of view.. You talk a bunch of jibber-
jabber
that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and you seem to refuse
to want to build and test an actual antenna.
Talk is cheap to me. I want to see one in the air, live, and working.
Compare it to a known reference like a 1/2 dipole and let the chips
fall where they may. Then you have something to actually talk about.
MK

The Formula
 

The Formula
 

On 3 May, 10:41, wrote:
On May 2, 12:06 pm, art wrote:

On 2 May, 04:13, (J. B. Wood) wrote:

Then how do you account for the broad rejection from
"EE"s of Gaussian antennas that comply and are
supported by electromagnetic theory as embodied
in Maxwells equations ?

It's fairly simple from my point of view.. You talk a bunch of jibber-
jabber
that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and you seem to refuse
to want to build and test an actual antenna.
Talk is cheap to me. I want to see one in the air, live, and working.
Compare it to a known reference like a 1/2 dipole and let the chips
fall where they may. Then you have something to actually talk about.
MK

I was referring to 'EE's not " HS "graduates ! It is certainly
understandable
from those who are not familiar with the arts. You can only get so
far with a
general understanding but it has been said on this newsgroup by others
that without a full understanding of the concepts you finish up with
lots of
misconceptions, and that seems to make makes sense when I read your
postings.
.. I suggest you keep quiet and wait until you can buy one then you
are
less likely to screw up. It is not a design for a typical couch expert
to
expound upon. Suggest you wait until you can quote from a book
if you want to impress

The Formula
 

On 3 May, 11:27, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
What advantage would
knowing about any current "taper" give you?

The advantage of understanding reality. In the
following example:

Source------------A-//////////-B----------------
wire coil wire

The current at A is measured to be zero. The current
at B is measured to be one amp. Does it mean that
there is an unknown source of energy magically entering
the coil from the outside world? Of course not. It
just means that we are dealing with standing-wave
current and we cannot even tell which way its phasor
is rotating.

It just means that the forward traveling current and
reflected traveling current are of equal magnitude and
opposite phase at point A. They are not of opposite
phase at point B. The traveling wave phase shift through
the coil explains everything.

No need for any lumped circuit magic. No need for
a magic source of extra energy. A distributed
network analysis is all one needs.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil, can't you make one and send it to him or better still send
him a picture ?. Words and sentences are not his forte

The Formula
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:

What advantage would
knowing about any current "taper" give you?


The advantage of understanding reality. In the
following example:

Source------------A-//////////-B----------------
wire coil wire

The current at A is measured to be zero. The current
at B is measured to be one amp. Does it mean that
there is an unknown source of energy magically entering
the coil from the outside world? Of course not. It
just means that we are dealing with standing-wave
current and we cannot even tell which way its phasor
is rotating.

The only thing GIVEN was the magnitude of the standing wave current.

A directional coupler would obviously produce a different reading at
those points.

It just means that the forward traveling current and
reflected traveling current are of equal magnitude and
opposite phase at point A. They are not of opposite
phase at point B. The traveling wave phase shift through
the coil explains everything.

So the only thing which remains to be explained is the "traveling wave
phase shift through the coil".

No need for any lumped circuit magic. No need for
a magic source of extra energy. A distributed
network analysis is all one needs.

The difference between the item marked "coil" in your drawing, and a
lump, is that one is marked "coil".

73, Jim AC6XG

The Formula