RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Antenna (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/)
-   -   The Formula (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/118671-formula.html)

Gene Fuller May 4th 07 04:22 AM

The Formula
 
Roy Lewallen wrote:
wrote:

Well, it is, as far as designing the antenna. . .


MK


And MK takes the bait, hook, line, and sinker. The fight is on, and the
fish will be played until he can't so much as wiggle a fin. . .

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Do fish have phasors? If so, then we know that they must keep rotating.
Of course we can't figure out which direction they are rotating, but at
least the spin continues.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore[_2_] May 4th 07 06:19 AM

The Formula
 
Roy Lewallen wrote:
And MK takes the bait, hook, line, and sinker.


Actually, the hook, line, and sinker that was swallowed
years ago is that a 360 cubic inch 75m Texas Bugcatcher
coil can be magically shrunken down to a dimensionless
point inductance that passes current with a zero delay
and phase shift, i.e. faster than the speed of light.

The technical truth will triumph in the end. A 75m
Texas Bugcatcher coil occupies ~30 degrees of a 75m
mobile antenna and it takes the forward current (and
reflected current) ~21 nS to flow through the coil.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

[email protected] May 4th 07 08:24 AM

The Formula
 

art wrote:


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.


Are you an EE? Seems to me you were some type of mechanical
engineer. If so, I don't see how your qualifications are a heck of
a lot greater than mine.
How would you describe your level of understanding? General? High?
Massive? Einsteins lost step child? I could guess, but I'll reserve
comment..
What misconceptions have I finished up with lately? Can you list them?
I'd be glad to go back and review any I'm not aware of.

. I suggest you keep quiet and wait until you can buy one then you
are
less likely to screw up.


Why would I want to buy a gaussian antenna? I have no real use for one
that I can think of. Besides, I don't generally waste money on
antennas.

It is not a design for a typical couch expert
to
expound upon.


I've never been able to gather enough coherant details to expound on
it,
even if I wanted to. Also, I don't sit on a couch. There is one in the
other
room, but I'm never in there. I sit in a rollaround office chair,
which hurts
my ass in general. Needs more cushioning. A couch might be more
comfortable, but would probably sit too low. I also doubt I have
enough
room in this clutterhut room to fit a couch...

Suggest you wait until you can quote from a book
if you want to impress


I rarely quote from books. And I'm not here to impress people.
Why would I try to do that when many here obviously know
quite a bit more than I do? Or you for that matter...
Would be like racing a pack of V8 corvettes with a V6 impala.
I've never claimed to be any great guru of antennas.
I just fart with this stuff to kill time, and maybe erect a bit
better
antenna than I would if I buried my head in the sand.
I don't have any real "guru" ego to try to protect. I just call em as
I
see em..
I do have a few books, but I'm almost always too lazy to get up
and find one to quote whatever it would be I would want to quote.
But my comments still stand. I hear about all these new fangled
gaussian designs, but I never hear much about you actually trying
or using any of them.
If I was trying to design a new type of antenna, I would test it in
the real world before trying to convince the masses of the internet
if it is a workable design or not. Seems to me it would save a lot of
time. From what I read of your posts, I'm not even sure if you know
if it's workable or not. To me, that strikes me as a weird way to
live.
MK


[email protected] May 4th 07 08:32 AM

The Formula
 
On May 3, 8:59 pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
wrote:

Well, it is, as far as designing the antenna. . .
MK


And MK takes the bait, hook, line, and sinker. The fight is on, and the
fish will be played until he can't so much as wiggle a fin. . .

Roy Lewallen, W7EL



I like to stir it. But there is no fight to be fought. I'm not
arguing
with him. I just fail to see any real advantage of considering coil
current "taper", or whatever you would want to call it when designing
a typical bugcatcher. From many of his posts, you would think it's
a required consideration, or rewards one with super performance
not available to a designer using regular ole lumped coil theory.
The coil is still going to end up being mounted in the same place
either route you take.
MK


Cecil Moore[_2_] May 4th 07 02:08 PM

The Formula
 
wrote:
I just fail to see any real advantage of considering coil
current "taper", or whatever you would want to call it when designing
a typical bugcatcher.


There's no advantage in discovering an earth-like planet
50 light years away either but lots of curious people find
such endeavors interesting.

Designing a typical bugcatcher is not my goal nor does it
hold any interest for me. I have not had a QSO in years.
99% of my interest in amateur radio is in figuring out
how things really work in reality. The only reason that
I obtained a EE degree was to know more about how an amateur
radio system works. If I never had another QSO, I wouldn't
miss a thing.

I don't understand your interests and you don't understand
mine. So what's new?
--
73, Cecil
http://www.w5dxp.com


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com