On 23 Sep, 14:31, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 23 Sep, 10:54, "Dave" wrote:
back again art?? still stuck on 'equilibrium'??? 'equilibrium' is a
nice
catch word. and yes, many 'masters' heartily believed that everything
had
to be in 'equilibrium' with something or another. but we have come a
long
way since then. there can be no energy flow between things in
equilibrium,
and we all know there is energy flowing in antenna elements. if there
wasn't they wouldn't radiate. and we can directly measure it with
current
and voltage probes. so while maybe the static case of coulomb's law may
be
said to represent 'equilibrium', none of the others needs that... in fact
none of the others would exist if everything was in 'equilibrium'. the
current, curl, and d/dt parts of the equations are all a representation
of
non-equilibrium conditions that must exist for those equations to be of
any
use. so get out of the 19th century and into the 21st and join the rest
of
us in the understanding of the dynamic world around us!

"art" wrote in message

roups.com...

For full understanding of how Maxwells laws were generated one has to
check if eny proviso's were written in.
Ffor instance I suspect that there was a proviso for equilibrium in
every law thar Maxwell used for his summation ofr laws there was an
exceptance by all the masters that without equilibrium the who univere
would fall apart.
Some where along the line somebody deviated from this proviso and made
the assumption that at every point on a radiator can be seen as a sino
soidal current that causes radiation because the assumption was needed
to conform with Maxwells laws while ignoring the dictae of the masters
that the laws of the universe is bound by
by equilibrium so the assumption was conncocted to "solve" the 1/2
wave problem. Can anybody versed in the art point to one of the many
laws at his time were not based on equilibrium. In other words did any
of the work he used specifically addres things that were NOT in
equilibrium to justify its use for items not in equilibrium to
substantiate the use of Maxwells laws to derive its function. Being a
mechanical engineer I am not well informed
of all the doings of the masters
TIA
Art KB9MZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well David my checks on books on the subject that revealed that all
Maxwells laws
conform to standard boundary conditions. When I started enlarging the
static law of statics I was cogniscent of the fact that the same
boundary conditions must exist to maintain plausability. This forced
me to make sure that the additions within the boundary must not alter
the boundary aproach. I could not uset 1/2 wave antennas be3cause that
violates the laws laid down by Maxwell in all his laws so I used full
wave radiators to continue, after all it xcannot be a law if you have
to make asumptions. I applied a time varying field to make it dynamic
so that it conforms to Maxwell
laws Thus in effect my aproach should be considerfed law
Now we come back to existing aproaches of present day scientists and
they have chosen to ignore the required conditions and in its place
started to apply assumption which you are not allowed to do with laws
only theories. Scientists and others further violated existing laws
ala Maxwells laws which are based upon equiulibrium in all cases and
used it where it is not applicable.
Now all computor programs are based around Maxwells LAWS so how come
it is used in violation of those same laws?
I followed the boundary laws in my expansion of Gaussian law where the
results conform to Maxwell and as I have described earlier the tank
cuicuit is the result but without having to make assumptions
assumptions because I abided by LAW. At the same time it clearly
prooves that asuumptions made by scientists and programmers are
clearly in error of itself. Since I like to do things from first
principles it was my responserbilty to ask electrical people and those
familiar with the state of the art that the principles I used were
"not out of date" ie now revised. One response came from a ham with a
Doctorate working for MIT. He clearly stated that mathematics support
my approach and showed how they were in conformance with Maxwells
LAWS. Nobody concurred with his finding and none supplied reasons why
except that 'you can't do that'! So until somebody of stature
challenges his confirmation I stand my ground. Now W7el is making a
living from programs that are applying Maxwells LAWS to items within a
boundary that are NOT in equilibrium which is INCORRECT. Others by the
way deny the existance
of boundary Laws ala equilibrium as if it does not mean anything.
Ofcourse programmers say I only copied what the government released
ala if it is printed in a book it must be correct so perhaps there is
a computor programmer around as to why he continous to use erroneos
methods for programming with respect to radiators!
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

ok... now if you have a LAW that is different than what is put down in the
existing maxwell's 4 equations you must be able to write the equations that
make your law different than his. if you can't do that, its no better than
a bag of hot air. so show your calculations, write a paper, get it
published and show the rest of the world that uses those equations and gets
perfectly valid results why we are all wrong.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sooner or later you will have to act your age.
The tank circuit is a electrical circuit that is also the circuit
of a full wave radiator regardless of how the extended mathematics and
my work
portrays. It clearly shows that release of energy by shorting the
energy source
is how an efficient radiating system works i.e two energy sources
continuing a pendulum swing
as it were. Attack that if you wish since the books validate that
without reference to equilibrium or Gauss.
It stands on its own. If you end feed a folded full wave length dipole
you will get an answer that Maxwells laws will verify and was tried
out by a guy named Frank who I do not know using NEC 4 antenna
computing program and found to be correct. Nobody but nobody has
presented anything that point out errors in any of this.
Now I come to the second point. I would have thought that radiation of
a 1/2 wave dipole would concurr with that of
a full wave end fed radiator but it doesn't. Why is that? When I try
to feed it at the end voltage becomes a problem
as there is no energy receptical available which is illustrated by the
socalled end effects where the voltage has nowhere to go but into the
atmosphere directly with it being contained to a specific frequence
given by the radiators
length so certainly it does not connect with the tank circuit of a
full wave.
So now we can also take a look at the electrical circuit of a half
wave end fed radiator where we come up with a series circuit but no
evidence of what starts the radiation and in fact the circuit has none
of the character istics shown by the tank circuit and does not provide
any clues as to what creats radiation, this all experts agree upon.
Nobody but nobody has ever been able to describe radiation.
Now based on the parallel circuit I profer the following. Static
particles are allowed to rest on diagmatic materials
and possibly paramagnetic materials each of which cannot retain a
magnetic field. All other materials are bound with specific electrons
that repulse static particles. From the same gaussian laws which when
expanded the way I stated
is directly related to present dynamic laws such that on a full length
radiator there are particles at rest and I might add decaying.It is
reasonable to assume that the instant release of energy overcomes the
inertia of the static particles and push them awayby fracturing the
arbitary field. Those that do not escape return to the radiator
surface
which is now fully occupied with static particles thus forcing the
particle to burrow under the surface providing skin effect of decay.
The next release of energy does the same thing but fracture or
penetrates the arbitary border at a different place producing
radiation other than that of a planar array or any other array not in
equilibrium.
As for the half wave there is nothing that suggests any similarity to
the tank circuit, no suggestion that energy release is from two energy
sources but evidence that there is not one to contain the voltage
swings/.
Now the tank circuit shows that beyond the frequency band edges there
is a strong dip in filter pass abilities so the radiation is retained
within a certain spectrum. In a series circuit the spectrum does not
have a pass filter
and infact the end effect is really the escape of energy to the
atmosphere without a containment within the desired frequency spectrum
so clearly it is not operating efficiently which also suggests that
the driven energy is not fully matched to the impedance of the antenna
itself which again suggests that because it not resonate in circuit
terms the feed line is invaded to correct the situation.
So be my guest. End feed a half wave radiator and a endfed full wave
radiator and then compare.
The new shortened antenna from the university of R.I. is a good place
to start where those who are familiar with the state of the art state
that the feed line has been forced to become a part of the antenna so
one has to look at SYSTEM as a whole. Now using the same antenna the
wire does not stop at the top but comes down to the starting point
by winding in a contra wound direction such the radiator is a full
wave length and in equilibrium and by strentch the height of the
radiator to remove any stray capacitance that has been added (since
the LC ratio of an antenna must be held to) you will find that the new
radiator is balanced (in equilibrium), has no end effects and does not
extend the circuit to the feed lines and has the same impedance and
volume of the original short antenna but with more gain.
With all the above I rest my case especially since nobody has refuted
any of it in scientific terms which includes mathematics.
Isn't life good when things come to a successful end such that the
time has come around again as it always does to throw the old books
away of past generations and go with books of the new generation?
Best regards to all
Art Unwin..KB9MZ..... ex UK

snip
Isn't life good when things come to a successful end such that the
time has come around again as it always does to throw the old books
away of past generations and go with books of the new generation?
Best regards to all
Art Unwin..KB9MZ..... ex UK


Art
Science is about building on the foundations of the past and not about
throwing away books. The old methods of calculation still work fine, its
just that in the light of new knowledge we can refine the methods to produce
more accurate results. All of our achievements to date have been built on
the foundations laid down by past generations and it is foolish and
dangerous to dismiss or ignore any part of history. Never, ever throw away a
book - well maybe the ones by Catherine Cookson et al :-)
Regards
Mike G0ULI

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:21:29 -0700, art wrote:

Isn't life good when things come to a successful end such that the
time has come around again as it always does to throw the old books
away of past generations and go with books of the new generation?

Are you quoting Gobbels now?

This "golden city on the hill" fluff hardly describes any antenna of
remarkable ability. The alternative is so much misty eyed and fond
desires (superstition) like a pre-teen girl's scribbling into her
diary.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

art wrote:

...
Art Unwin..KB9MZ..... ex UK


Art:

Although I may, or may not, agree or share your exact visions,
questions, assumptions, etc., only fools move to stop discussion,
debate, experimentation and new ideas. I think it is quite
apparent--for every one success a man will ask a thousand questions--try
a thousand things. The easy stuff has all been done--the more difficult
lays before us. Those before us never thought they left a completed
work but only wished for others to follow behind them and further their
thought, experiments and discovery.

Hang in their, almost every concept we now accept (until better presents
itself) was scoffed at and belittled, men have been imprisoned, and
worse for even challenging accepted principals and thinking ...

Hang in their, asking questions has never hurt. Just choose those more
capable to interact with. Interacting with self-important morons never
bears fruit ... and you know about news groups.

Regards,
JS

On 23 Sep, 18:22, John Smith wrote:
art wrote:

...

Art Unwin..KB9MZ..... ex UK

Art:

Although I may, or may not, agree or share your exact visions,
questions, assumptions, etc., only fools move to stop discussion,
debate, experimentation and new ideas. I think it is quite
apparent--for every one success a man will ask a thousand questions--try
a thousand things. The easy stuff has all been done--the more difficult
lays before us. Those before us never thought they left a completed
work but only wished for others to follow behind them and further their
thought, experiments and discovery.

Hang in their, almost every concept we now accept (until better presents
itself) was scoffed at and belittled, men have been imprisoned, and
worse for even challenging accepted principals and thinking ...

Hang in their, asking questions has never hurt. Just choose those more
capable to interact with. Interacting with self-important morons never
bears fruit ... and you know about news groups.

Regards,
JS

Fully understood. Odd thing is that 73 magazine used to make a good
living by printing details of various antenna
building and I admit I built a few of them.Ihave described the
modifications needed for the new university antenna and for some
reason see no reason to build it because it is a dud. I know you built
the university antenna to check it out for yourself but I don't know
of anybody who did the same thing to verify the claim. So it goes for
the simple modification I supplied which if I am wrong gives loads of
ammunition to every body to shoot me down once and for all with
factual details but they seam scared to search for the truth. In the
absence of knoweledge usually resort to insults and name calling and I
see you got such a burst today. Remember that time when a guy appeared
with his new NEC 4 program and wanted to model a simple arrray I
supplied? Nobody would help him in checking things out and it took a
personal E mail from somebody who did not want to be identified to
help him with the proper useage of the program. It proved the veracity
of what I had supplied dispite the lachof assistance to prove me
wrong.
As yet nobody with knoweledge of the state of the art has taken me on
with respectto what I have discovered. I have had posts given where I
believe the central theme was poetry, others who said they couldn't
understand despite posts given by a Doctrate holder, ofcourse there
are many like the blasting that you just got which should invite back
the multi posters that decimated several newsgroups. What I am doing
is sharing my work so all can enjoy but if hams are satisfied with
lesser antennas because of the poor conditions so be it. But to try
and stop thespreading of a particular advance to protect their so
called resumes as being experts is really hard to fathom. I thought it
would be a delight to all if somebody refuted the mathematics given
but only silence reigned and then joined by name calling. Look at
todays posting, how many were devoid of insults and name calling, I
think that they finished up in the majority so what does that say
antenna talk by hams?
I am beginning to wonder with the spectrum being in such demand if the
FCC would be justified in selling the amateur frequencies since it is
certainly not the same when the frequencies were given, a listen to
repeaters or a review of newsgroups going ons must fraustrate them
very much. After the upcomming sale of frequencies which is in demand
by industry I can easily see pressure on ham frequencies which is
costing not contributing to the coffers. The idea that we are a public
necessity was down graded years ago by industries inovative ideas so
hams have a hard time now justifying their position. In the past it
was often said that it was amatures that advanced the cusp of the
science well we sure are not doing that now!
O well let the discussion move away from mathematical analysis of
antennas or new designs and get back to argueing and calling people
names e.t.c. so all can participate including those who are true
hobbyist that do not wish to concern themselves with the engineering
background but who also want to participate in the augument side that
most hams relish.
Have a happy day and goodnight
Art Unwin KB9MZ...ex UK

art wrote:

...
Have a happy day and goodnight
Art Unwin KB9MZ...ex UK


Art:

Let me cut though this BS--straight to the chase; this group would be
better renamed to rec.radio.amateur.EZNEC

If eznec doesn't OK it--it just won't work; All which exists here are
eznec-appliance users.

However, to some who have already built antennas which work, contrary to
eznecs claim they won't, it is quite obvious current beliefs, equations,
charts, theories, etc. are in some degree of error ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
However, to some who have already built antennas which work, contrary to
eznecs claim they won't, it is quite obvious current beliefs, equations,
charts, theories, etc. are in some degree of error ...

I personally have never had a QSO using a simulated
antenna. :-)

It also works the other way. By accidentally violating
the modeling guidelines, I came up with a simulated
omnidirectional antenna with 24 dBi gain. Want to build
that one?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 24 Sep, 06:03, Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
However, to some who have already built antennas which work, contrary to
eznecs claim they won't, it is quite obvious current beliefs, equations,
charts, theories, etc. are in some degree of error ...

I personally have never had a QSO using a simulated
antenna. :-)

It also works the other way. By accidentally violating
the modeling guidelines, I came up with a simulated
omnidirectional antenna with 24 dBi gain. Want to build
that one?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I have gonedown that road also in the past. As one programmer stated
Antenna programs are not perfect and neither are you. They do not
adhere to Maxwells laws
because some have taken the libity to insert assumptions when things
don't work out.
Mathematicians usually find a constant to insert if they are not sure
of mathematical difference
or their mods don't work. You can do that with a theory because it has
not been confirmed but an electrical LAW
stands alone as being correct as it stands. Just imagine using Ohms
law with a fudge factor inserted where you have to insert a fuse to
take care of it! Even when dealing with superconductors there are
numurous provisos with respect to an ifnittessimle length that are
"solved with mathematical technics. With my amateur thesis that is on
plus other letters and attillas I wrote down the tears
that the head of the nuclear industry in Russia stated with the
reliance on the computors ability to do multiple equations every
minuite of the dayin the hope that one answer fits the bill or at
least it will if you add constants where it deviates from what you
want!
However the assumptions used in this case finally worked out for 100
years and where it doesn't work
in the present computor era then you didn't follow the restrictions
that come with adding assumptions

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
I personally have never had a QSO using a simulated
antenna. :-)

It also works the other way. By accidentally violating
the modeling guidelines, I came up with a simulated
omnidirectional antenna with 24 dBi gain. Want to build
that one?

Cecil:

My statement was a little bold; I take it back. Not all here are stuck
in the same rut. It is just sometimes I feel I am in a room full of
children, you have to shout now and then just to get some order to the
dominant personalities.

You realize, I am sure, my bark is much worse than the bite ...

Sorry. :-(

Regards,
JS

On 24 Sep, 08:08, John Smith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

...

I personally have never had a QSO using a simulated
antenna. :-)

It also works the other way. By accidentally violating
the modeling guidelines, I came up with a simulated
omnidirectional antenna with 24 dBi gain. Want to build
that one?

Cecil:

My statement was a little bold; I take it back. Not all here are stuck
in the same rut. It is just sometimes I feel I am in a room full of
children, you have to shout now and then just to get some order to the
dominant personalities.

You realize, I am sure, my bark is much worse than the bite ...

Sorry. :-(

Regards,
JS

John you are preaching to the converted! Cecil is known for standing
his ground
on technical matters despite the howls and catcalling. His posts
easily exceed a hundred or so
because he rarely get a reasonable technical response in this group.
That ofcourse takes a lot of tenaccity and visits to the texas
university library and I could never do that because the group would
attack the library contents. I prefer to hammer on the same subject a
bit over time for several years as you can see in the archives on
Gaussian antenna, this seasons you to laughing at the comments instead
of taking it personal because it becomes obvious what the technical
level is of the poster. No problem hobbiest having thought and
theories and stories of magnificent performance of a wire that rests
in a gutter and then drops to the ground so that they are part of ham
radio that produces statement that "my antenna is best because every
thing I hear I can work" Or "every thing is known about antennas"! or"
we already have good antennas so why do we need to know how they
work". But when they take on a technical mantle without the require
engineering regimen it can be very very funny.
Regards
Art