On 22 Sep, 12:33, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote

A quad radiator is a wave length radiator with a gain more
than a half wave as one sample.

In your first post you wrote, "The most efficient radiator is one wave
length long where it is considered to be in equilibrium with a parallel
electrical cuircuit," and that is what I responded to.

Now you are writing about gain. Efficiency and gain are not synonymous.

Both of the dipole antennas in my previous post will radiate nearly 100% of
the r-f energy available from a matched, balanced source connected to their
input terminals. Therefore the radiation efficiency of those two
configurations does not favor the 1-wave over the 1/2-wave, which was your
opening premise.

They won't have the same gains in every direction, because their radiation
patterns are different. Same for your quad and "half wave" example.

RF

O.K. I may have muddied things. I hold to the fact that a one
wavelength dipole will always radiate at a higher efficiency than a
1/2 wave dipole. The example I gave as for an instance was a quad
versus a 1/2 wave dipole.
This is readily seen by any operator empirically. Mathematically it is
proven that way also even tho both are in accordance to Maxwell's
laws. You could I suppose compare a series antenna with a parallel
circuit i.e. a tank circuit that could reinforce your point and that
is what I hoped you would come up with to bolster your point without
resorting to a computor program based on Maxwellian laws. There is
much discussion about what creates radiation and I thought you may
have come up with something that we can all learn from. Eventually
even tho the past masters have died some one, possibly you, will
discover that which has eluded all, even quallified scientists with
huge resumes. I am willing to give you a hearing which does not often
happen on this newsgroupAs an aside I suspect that a single quad
element will beat a dipole anyway regardles of what the fields
differences that you point to but again I am very interested in any
mathematics that defends your possition possibly starting witha
parallel versus a series arrangement since it is very clear whatstarts
radiation in the parallelcase but unknown mathematically for the
series circuit.
Very best regards
Art Unwin....KB9MZ

On 22 Sep, 15:40, art wrote:
On 22 Sep, 12:33, "Richard Fry" wrote:





"art" wrote

A quad radiator is a wave length radiator with a gain more
than a half wave as one sample.

In your first post you wrote, "The most efficient radiator is one wave
length long where it is considered to be in equilibrium with a parallel
electrical cuircuit," and that is what I responded to.

Now you are writing about gain. Efficiency and gain are not synonymous.

Both of the dipole antennas in my previous post will radiate nearly 100% of
the r-f energy available from a matched, balanced source connected to their
input terminals. Therefore the radiation efficiency of those two
configurations does not favor the 1-wave over the 1/2-wave, which was your
opening premise.

They won't have the same gains in every direction, because their radiation
patterns are different. Same for your quad and "half wave" example.

RF

O.K. I may have muddied things. I hold to the fact that a one
wavelength dipole will always radiate at a higher efficiency than a
1/2 wave dipole. The example I gave as for an instance was a quad
versus a 1/2 wave dipole.
This is readily seen by any operator empirically. Mathematically it is
proven that way also even tho both are in accordance to Maxwell's
laws. You could I suppose compare a series antenna with a parallel
circuit i.e. a tank circuit that could reinforce your point and that
is what I hoped you would come up with to bolster your point without
resorting to a computor program based on Maxwellian laws. There is
much discussion about what creates radiation and I thought you may
have come up with something that we can all learn from. Eventually
even tho the past masters have died some one, possibly you, will
discover that which has eluded all, even quallified scientists with
huge resumes. I am willing to give you a hearing which does not often
happen on this newsgroupAs an aside I suspect that a single quad
element will beat a dipole anyway regardles of what the fields
differences that you point to but again I am very interested in any
mathematics that defends your possition possibly starting witha
parallel versus a series arrangement since it is very clear whatstarts
radiation in the parallelcase but unknown mathematically for the
series circuit.
Very best regards
Art Unwin....KB9MZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wait a minuit! you stated that a half wave antenna was nearly 100%
efficient and therein may be the true answer
A quad is often considered as two dipoles even tho there is only one
feed point thus efficiency per unit!Then one can refer to efficiency
per unit length. Is that your point?
Art

"art" wrote
O.K. I may have muddied things. I hold to the fact that a one
wavelength dipole will always radiate at a higher efficiency than a
1/2 wave dipole.
_________

Please post your definition of "efficiency," in this context.

RF

On 22 Sep, 16:02, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote O.K. I may have muddied things. I hold to the fact that a one
wavelength dipole will always radiate at a higher efficiency than a
1/2 wave dipole.

_________

Please post your definition of "efficiency," in this context.

RF

Power in vs power out of a system. I know how to do this for a
parallel circuit ala
a tank circuit where energy is released in equilibrium fashion. For a
half wave dipole
you can't have two energy containers so you may or may not be heading
for excess end effects because of high voltage looking for where it
has to go. (Personally I don't know how a half wave radiates because
that form vuews the cyclic current continually radiating as the time
variant which is contrary to all other radiations i.e. a spark plug,
ahydregen bomb which is a bigger container that a flyback transformer
and a bigger container will always beat a small container with respect
to out going accelleration of energy, particles or plasma which ever
you may prefer)without any known proof.I believe that is why the quad
was designed to get away from the spark plug type emmissions at the
ends of the radiator.
On the other side of the coin, since both a quad and a 1/2 wave dipole
is assumed to be suitable drivers for a yagi array both must be bi
directional so gain is applicable when comparing these radiators I
would would think!
Best regards
Art

On 22 Sep, 16:47, art wrote:
On 22 Sep, 16:02, "Richard Fry" wrote:

"art" wrote O.K. I may have muddied things. I hold to the fact that a one
wavelength dipole will always radiate at a higher efficiency than a
1/2 wave dipole.

_________

Please post your definition of "efficiency," in this context.

RF

Power in vs power out of a system. I know how to do this for a
parallel circuit ala
a tank circuit where energy is released in equilibrium fashion. For a
half wave dipole
you can't have two energy containers so you may or may not be heading
for excess end effects because of high voltage looking for where it
has to go. (Personally I don't know how a half wave radiates because
that form vuews the cyclic current continually radiating as the time
variant which is contrary to all other radiations i.e. a spark plug,
ahydregen bomb which is a bigger container that a flyback transformer
and a bigger container will always beat a small container with respect
to out going accelleration of energy, particles or plasma which ever
you may prefer)without any known proof.I believe that is why the quad
was designed to get away from the spark plug type emmissions at the
ends of the radiator.
On the other side of the coin, since both a quad and a 1/2 wave dipole
is assumed to be suitable drivers for a yagi array both must be bi
directional so gain is applicable when comparing these radiators I
would would think!
Best regards
Art

Richard , I have been reviewing antenna fundamentals as per the
engineering
handbook by Jasik second edition where it states
"The method of computing radiation patterns foir thin linear radiators
is basic regardless of length or complexity of shape " if one assumes
that the current from point to point is sinosoidal. This statment is
consistent with the present assumption that the time variant current
is sinosoidal at every point along the length of the antenna.
Well I have clearly shown for a parallel circuit you cannot pursue
this assumption anymore even tho the books state otherwise. The books
are not incorrect if the mathematics produced by such a assumption is
correct which mathematicians often do when there is an absence of
knoweledge to the contrary. What I am declaring is the tank circuit
ala parallel circuit which demands a full wave length antenna is the
most efficient because the assumption by mathematicians is incorrect.
Following Gauss's laws for static and enlarging the format to a
dinamic situation i.e. time varient then the demand is for a
arrangement in "equilibrium" which cannot be attained with anything
other that a full wave length. Following this logic mathematically it
concurrs with Maxwells laws and any computor program will move away
from any half wave radiator if you ask for maximum gain and allow it
to computeaway from a planar arrangement under Maxwells laws.( By the
way I always refer to a full wavelength radiator which by no means
infers
a center feed. In my case I usually follow the end fed aproach because
of a dual windings but in opposite directions)
If Maxwell had in his portfolio an expanded Gaussuian law for making
his jigsaw complete the overall picture would have been completed in
no time. Unfortunately he did not have this at hand but instead used
Faraday and others input
to arrive at the correct answer but with gaps in the info provided. It
is for that reason I persued this analogy which is new and contrary
with existing assumptions even tho the eventual answers are the same.
BUT the analogy of assumption of time varient current of itself
produces radiation is incorrect at least for a parallel circuit,
aspark plug with a flyback transformer or even the emmisions of a
nuclear explosion. I don't think there is a need to dither on the
subject anymore since nobody knows how a fractional wavelength antenna
really works whereas I am promoting a view of an arrangement in
equilibrium and the commonly used approach by Gauss and others with
respect to a closed arbitary field. Enjoyed the discussion tho, very
thought provoking.
Regards
Art
antennas

"art" wrote
I don't think there is a need to dither on the subject anymore
since nobody knows how a fractional wavelength antenna
really works

Read Kraus' "Antennas...," 3rd edition, Section 2-12 and
related text.

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:18:24 -0700, art wrote:

Richard , I have been reviewing antenna fundamentals as per the
engineering
handbook by Jasik second edition where it states

Equation (1-1)

efficiency = power radiated by antenna / power accepted by antenna

There is absolutely nothing stated here about "Gain" because radiation
is in every direction. An antenna is a passive device, it cannot
exhibit gain. Johnson and Jasik sez: "if one has a lossless antenna,
the directivity and gain are identical."

Equation (1-2): "The total power radiated from the antenna is" the
measurement of radiation intensity in watts/sr in every direction from
an antenna.

Equation (1-4): "Directivity is the measure of the ability of an
antenna to concentrate radiated power in a particular direction."
which is a sub-portion of the total radiation.

We can measure the total power of all radiation (EZNEC provides this);
we can measure the power accepted by an antenna (EZNEC provides this);
we can measure the power in a particular direction (EZNEC provides
this).

"The method of computing radiation patterns foir thin linear radiators
is basic regardless of length or complexity of shape "

There is for EVERY length.

"if one assumes
that the current from point to point is sinosoidal.

"for the case of a thin half-wave radiator which can be assumed to
have a sinusoidal current distribution"

This statement is NOT about efficiency and it specifically recites
what can be said about:
1. radiation patterns;
2. radiation resistance;
3. "gain" (directivity);
4. input Z.

We, in this group, quite typically express ALL of these qualities for
ANY antenna on the basis of SPECIFIC physical dimensions and
frequency. When we do, there is barely a half dB variation in any
answer, and often better when all SPECIFIC physical dimensions and
frequency are provided by the claim maker.

As you often fail to provide this SPECIFIC information, then your
claims descend into the category of myth and superstition (you can
call it hope and desire).

What I am declaring is the tank circuit
ala parallel circuit which demands a full wave length antenna is the
most efficient because the assumption by mathematicians is incorrect.

This is superstition.

This Voodoo can be easily tested. The first part of equation (1-1)
from the authors you quote demand you supply the SPECIFIC power
accepted by an antenna. You also fail to supply the second part of
equation (1-1) that states the SPECIFIC power radiated by the antenna.

Voodoo = 100%

So, to SPECIFIC counter proofs:

A half wave antenna in free space:
length = 33.43 feet
wire diameter = #12 wire
frequency = 14.28127 MHz
input Z = 72.12 ±j0.00 Ohms
Power accepted by antenna = 100W
Power radiated by antenna = 100W
Efficiency = 100%

Absolutely same antenna in free space at its full wavelength
frequency:
length = 33.43 feet
wire diameter = #12 wire
frequency = 28.463975 MHz
input Z = 4257 ±j0.00 Ohms
Power accepted by antenna = 100W
Power radiated by antenna = 100W
Efficiency = 100%

BOTH antennas exhibit radiation patterns IDENTICAL to Johnson and
Jasik. BOTH antennas exhibit input Zs IDENTICAL to Johnson and Jasik.
BOTH antennas exhibit radiation patterns IDENTICAL to Johnson and
Jasik. BOTH antennas exhibit radiation resistances IDENTICAL to
Johnson and Jasik. BOTH antennas exhibit radiation gain (directivity)
IDENTICAL to Johnson and Jasik.

When either of these two are off-center fed the efficiency DOES NOT
CHANGE:
Power accepted by antenna = 100W
Power radiated by antenna = 100W
Efficiency = 100%

nobody knows how a fractional wavelength antenna
really works

Total ignorance reveals:
Voodoo = 100%

Equation (1-1) and (1-2) are for any size antenna. All of this stuff
is in the FIRST TWO PAGES OF THE BOOK.

On the very first page of "Fundamentals of Antennas"
"If the current distribution on a wire is known ...
then the radiation pattern and the radiated power
can be computed."

Marconi could measure current distribution 100 years ago.

The authors, of course, give treatments for antennas of all sizes,
otherwise the book would only be three pages long.

Arthur, stop coloring the pages with your crayons long enough to try
reading at least these three pages. :-0

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote ...
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:18:24 -0700, art wrote:

Richard , I have been reviewing antenna fundamentals as per the
engineering
handbook by Jasik second edition where it states

Equation (1-1)

Massive snip of good stuff

Arthur, stop coloring the pages with your crayons long enough to try
reading at least these three pages. :-0

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard: I love to watch you tilt at windbags!!!!

Mike W5CHR

On Sep 22, 5:40 pm, art wrote:


O.K. I may have muddied things. I hold to the fact that a one
wavelength dipole will always radiate at a higher efficiency than a
1/2 wave dipole.

If it does, I doubt it's enough to measure on the air..

The example I gave as for an instance was a quad
versus a 1/2 wave dipole.
This is readily seen by any operator empirically.

I've never seen it here. For that reason, I hardly use loops.
Neither vertically oriented, or horizontal as for NVIS use.
I don't see them as worth the extra trouble. Being I tested
them on 75m using NVIS paths, a noticable difference in
efficiency should have been readily apparent. It wasn't.
In fact, I usually has slightly better performance using the
dipoles, which I think was due to the bulk of the max current
portions of the antenna being higher above ground in general.
The loop sagged a bit in areas, and wasn't all that high above
ground. The more wire near the ground, the more ground loss
in general.

Mathematically it is
proven that way also even tho both are in accordance to Maxwell's
laws.

Where is the math? You should find a very slight difference
at best..
It's common knowledge that even a short piece of wire 1/10
of a wave long will radiate nearly all the power that is applied
to it.
You can go lots shorter than that if you want.
If even a short piece of wire will radiate nearly all the power
applied to it, what is the point on harping about some magical
properties of a full wave length of wire?
Art, you are starting to bark at the moon I'm afraid...

I was going to comment on some of your other posts, but I
think I'll spare you the increase in blood pressure.
All I can say is that you are starting to wander off in
mumbo jumbo land again..
Replacing known science with conjured mumbo jumbo is no
way to live.
MK

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:19:18 -0700, wrote:

On Sep 22, 5:40 pm, art wrote:


O.K. I may have muddied things. I hold to the fact that a one
wavelength dipole will always radiate at a higher efficiency than a
1/2 wave dipole.

If it does, I doubt it's enough to measure on the air..

The example I gave as for an instance was a quad
versus a 1/2 wave dipole.
This is readily seen by any operator empirically.

I've never seen it here. For that reason, I hardly use loops.
Neither vertically oriented, or horizontal as for NVIS use.
I don't see them as worth the extra trouble. Being I tested
them on 75m using NVIS paths, a noticable difference in
efficiency should have been readily apparent. It wasn't.
In fact, I usually has slightly better performance using the
dipoles, which I think was due to the bulk of the max current
portions of the antenna being higher above ground in general.
The loop sagged a bit in areas, and wasn't all that high above
ground. The more wire near the ground, the more ground loss
in general.

Mathematically it is
proven that way also even tho both are in accordance to Maxwell's
laws.

Where is the math? You should find a very slight difference
at best..
It's common knowledge that even a short piece of wire 1/10
of a wave long will radiate nearly all the power that is applied
to it.
You can go lots shorter than that if you want.
If even a short piece of wire will radiate nearly all the power
applied to it, what is the point on harping about some magical
properties of a full wave length of wire?
Art, you are starting to bark at the moon I'm afraid...

I was going to comment on some of your other posts, but I
think I'll spare you the increase in blood pressure.
All I can say is that you are starting to wander off in
mumbo jumbo land again..
Replacing known science with conjured mumbo jumbo is no
way to live.
MK





Art, it distresses me to read the misleading statements you profess to be true in your posts.

There is no difference in the 'efficiencies' between a full-wave and a half-wave dipole. Let's assume the wire
size and conductivity of each dipole is such that we can say they both radiate 98 percent of the power
delivered to them. Let's also say that the same amount of power is delivered to both dipoles. What now is the
difference in the radiation between the two dipoles?

The only difference is in the SHAPE of the radiation patterns--the full-wave dipole will have a somewhat
narrower lobe in the direction broadside to the dipole than that of the half-wave dipole, therefore deriving
slightly more gain IN THAT DIRECTION than that of the half-wave, but with less gain than the half-wave in all
other directions. Consequently, the total integrated power in either radiation pattern will be exactly the
same!!!

If you want to express the mathematics of the conditions I described here according to J.C.Maxwell's
equations, you will find that Maxwell's equations fit the conditions EXACTLY.

Walt, W2DU