| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
New antenna
On 18 Oct, 11:51, John Smith wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote: ... speaking of, and why do you consider them "experts"? Roy Lewallen, W7EL YEAH! And besides, "Where's the beef?" ;-) JS Actually John my beef is that the rule for the most efficient radiation is that "if a radiating element is resonant and in equilibrium it can be of any shape, size or elevation". Yet that is ignored by the so called experts of the amateur ranks. I can only assume that most think themselves as being experts that they do not find a need to get up from the couch and try things knowing that there is no room for surprises over their own superior brain power. How many would admit that :for a given polarization the best results are NOT at right angles or parallel to earth" ? And as somebody said "If it was really true it would have been invented a long time ago" as if all discoveries have their own time scale for discovery and time has expired for antennas Art KB9MZ....XG Art KB9MZ over their thoughts. |
New antenna
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:03:55 -0700, art wrote:
the rule for the most efficient radiation is that "if a radiating element is resonant and in equilibrium it can be of any shape, size or elevation". Hmmm, take the cover off any HF tube transmitter. It has an element that is resonant - called the Plate Load. It is of any shape. It must be quiting Librium. It is of any size. It is at some elevation (you may raise the transmitter if you wish). Yet and all, it makes one of the worst HF antennas ever to come down the pike in the past three centuries or two millenniums. We can all agree that if Arthur had any pride in his theory, he wouldn't be building antennas having already satisfied EVERY proviso with a Plate Load. Yet that is ignored by the so called experts of the amateur ranks. EVERY amateur can test this one idea. Most who did, abandoned this theory immediately as obviously deeply inferior. No experts were called, implicated, consulted, used or maimed in the making of this announcement - except, possibly, the previous two correspondents. Torts limitations have capped their flamboyant claims to the value of their posts: 2¢ (adjusted for inflation equal only to the Weimar Republic Mark). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
New antenna
On 18 Oct, 14:01, Richard Clark wrote:
snip We can all agree that if Arthur had any pride in his theory, he wouldn't be building antennas having already satisfied EVERY proviso with a Plate Load. Yet that is ignored by the so called experts of the amateur ranks. EVERY amateur can test this one idea. Most who did, abandoned this theory immediately as obviously deeply inferior. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC You make my point. I have a lot of pride in my findings and as yet no amateur has made it otherwise they would be shouting from the roof tops. There are many so called experts who write about antennas, some even have written books no less but they get so upset when others write things down for antennas I suppose because they have gone thru life without making one experiment relying on their superior brain power so they do not have to lift a finger. If they choose not to agree then all others are frauds no less. Kudos to JS he actually made a Vincent antenna for himself to prove things. Kudo's to those who have AO optimisers where they can model these things for themselves. Yes a optimizer bound by Maxwell's rules produces the Gaussian radiators if you ask for arrays, a radiator or maximum polarity radiation and without tieing it down to a planar form. And yes, all other antenna programs verify what the AO optimiser program supplies. I don't give one hoot for what you think about it since you do not posses an engineering degree and never writes anything of substance, where as this discovery is all mine. Oh and another thing I suspect Roys program would also verify the results of the AO optimizer just by duplicating the results given since he doesn't posses any optimiser features. Are we ready to say that if a antenna program based on Maxwell's rules provides a gaussian antenna then programs based on Maxwell follow the "garbage in garbage out adage". Your choice It is unusual for me to correspond to you because of your endless lies and mockery of other people so make the best of this one as it is going to be a long time......... |
New antenna
"art" wrote
Actually John my beef is that the rule for the most efficient radiation is that "if a radiating element is resonant and in equilibrium it can be of any shape, size or elevation". Yet that is ignored by the so called experts of the amateur ranks. ___________ So, art, you are quoting yourself as an authority, whose beliefs are ignored by others having academic credentials/experience in the field of professional antenna engineering -- in which you have admitted you have NO credentials? How many would admit that :for a given polarization the best results are NOT at right angles or parallel to earth" ? And as somebody said "If it was really true it would have been invented a long time ago" Which somebody are you quoting? I suspect you are referring to me in one of my direct email responses to you, which I paste below (my text only). Note that your "quote" above is a great stretch from what I wrote in that email. \\ Enthusiasm is always good, but if it was possible to do what you outline using the radiation possible on 160 m solely from a structure in the shape of a 4 ft cube, IMO it would have been done long ago. Some very experienced antenna engineers including George Brown of RCA, Carl E. Smith, John Kraus, C. Balanis and many others have investigated this subject over the last 60-70 years, and have concluded that nothing smaller is as effective on MW as a linear, vertical monopole at least 1/4-wave high, using a good r-f ground. I'd suggest that you conduct very good pattern and gain tests for whatever you build. This is not a simple project. If you decide to proceed I suggest that your tests be done and documented very carefully with calibrated instruments, and in an acceptable, scientific manner that can be endorsed and repeated by qualified investigators. If you do that, history suggests that you will find that the performance of your design does not meet your expectations. But better to know that early on, so that you won't publish information that discredits you. // RF |
New antenna
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:33:53 -0700, art wrote:
On 18 Oct, 14:01, Richard Clark wrote: snip We can all agree that if Arthur had any pride in his theory, he wouldn't be building antennas having already satisfied EVERY proviso with a Plate Load. (We must all agree that Arthur, who faithfully and selectively quoted me above, didn't actually read this line - did he?) Yet that is ignored by the so called experts of the amateur ranks. EVERY amateur can test this one idea. Most who did, abandoned this theory immediately as obviously deeply inferior. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC You make my point. You have abandoned all antennas other than a Plate Load. (Delicious irony for English Major versus the titan of random engineering.) So, you made your point, I made your point, the point has been made. Is it all down to waiting for the Load's white smoke to come out of the Vatican chimney? An ecumenical QSO. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
New antenna
On Oct 18, 3:03 pm, art wrote:
Actually John my beef is that the rule for the most efficient radiation is that "if a radiating element is resonant and in equilibrium it can be of any shape, size or elevation". Yet that is ignored by the so called experts of the amateur ranks. Maybe because it's not true.. :/ Whether or not an antenna is resonant means very little. Most any wire will radiate nearly all power applied to it. It doesn't matter if it's a full wave, half wave, quarter wave, or even 1/16 of a wave. And I don't even consider myself an expert, and can comprehend and retain that simple fact of life. My usual antennas used do happen to be resonant, but it has nothing to do with the efficiency of the antennas themselves. The reason I radiate over 90-95 percent of my power is because I'm feeding the 50 ohm antenna with fairly low loss 50 ohm feed line from a 50 ohm radio with no garbage in between. In other words, I'm getting most of my power to the antenna. And like I say, once you get it there, it will be radiated, no matter what size or shape the antenna. It doesn't take an expert to know that. It's in most all of the books and can be read by anyone. Would I use an antenna with an intentional resister? No. Do I care if anyone else does? No. I have ways of doing the same "all band" job and not lose efficiency. You will never see me running a dummy load on a stick or wire... But thats just me.. I'm kind of anal when it comes to turning my RF into heat. MK |
New antenna
On Oct 19, 6:28 am, "Richard Fry" wrote:
snip \\ Enthusiasm is always good, but if it was possible to do what you outline using the radiation possible on 160 m solely from a structure in the shape of a 4 ft cube, IMO it would have been done long ago. Some very experienced antenna engineers including George Brown of RCA, Carl E. Smith, John Kraus, C. Balanis and many others have investigated this subject over the last 60-70 years, and have concluded that nothing smaller is as effective on MW as a linear, vertical monopole at least 1/4-wave high, using a good r-f gound Hi Richard so you are saying that as all the afore mentioned came to the same conclusion, there is no possibility they were 'all' wrong?, if that is the case then all is known and there is no point in trying to prove otherwise as there is nothing left to learn. I think not. Derek |
New antenna
"Derek" wrote
so you are saying that as all the afore mentioned came to the same conclusion, there is no possibility they were 'all' wrong?, if that is the case then all is known and there is no point in trying to prove otherwise as there is nothing left to learn. I think not. _____________ The fundamentals of EM radiation are defined by natural laws, which even 50 years ago were rather well understood. New antenna designs always will be possible, but all of them of necessity must be based on, and follow natural law. RF |
New antenna
On Oct 19, 9:27 pm, "Richard Fry"
The fundamentals of EM radiation are defined by natural laws, which even 50 years ago were rather well understood. New antenna designs always will be possible, but all of them of necessity must be based on, and follow natural law. RF Hi Richard where is it shown that Art is not following natural laws?. He has explained every step along the way and I see no place where he has strayed from natural law. Derek |
New antenna
On Oct 19, 5:17 am, Derek wrote:
On Oct 19, 6:28 am, "Richard Fry" wrote: snip \\ Enthusiasm is always good, but if it was possible to do what you outline using the radiation possible on 160 m solely from a structure in the shape of a 4 ft cube, IMO it would have been done long ago. Some very experienced antenna engineers including George Brown of RCA, Carl E. Smith, John Kraus, C. Balanis and many others have investigated this subject over the last 60-70 years, and have concluded that nothing smaller is as effective on MW as a linear, vertical monopole at least 1/4-wave high, using a good r-f gound Hi Richard so you are saying that as all the afore mentioned came to the same conclusion, there is no possibility they were 'all' wrong?, if that is the case then all is known and there is no point in trying to prove otherwise as there is nothing left to learn. I think not. Derek The chances of them being wrong is about .01 %... They have only had 70 years to double check themselves.. :/ The size of the small 4 ft antenna is the least of your problems. Wait until you try to get all your power to it... Myself, I think this "new" antenna is nothing new at all. He's not doing anything that hasn't been done before. But even that point is fairly moot.. The design is an inferior one when it comes down to it. For a given height of vertical radiator, there is no form of loading that will beat capacitive hat top loading using no inductor at all. Not in efficiency, and not in current distribution. And even if a coil is needed to tune, it's still the best, vs other methods. The top of the radiator is the best place to add capacitance. Top hat loading gives the most linear current distribution through a short whip. So...Do I get to re-invent and patent this new whiz bang up top loaded vertical... Har... Give me a break.. Then again, maybe I could talk the military into using my superior antenna vs his inferior one. I could make a zillion bucks overnight with all the lucrative contracts. Move to Beverly Hills... Swimming pools...Britney! Naw, after mulling it over, I think I'd rather stay in Tejas with the normal people... If you go to the hospital to get a bypass, do you want a doctor that follows proven medical theory and practice, or do you want Jethro and Granny to have a go at it? :/ MK |
New antenna
"Derek" wrote
where is it shown that Art is not following natural laws?. He has explained every step along the way and I see no place where he has strayed from natural law. ___________ Below from earlier in this thread (quoting Art)... " I say again, one must have equilibrium for maximum efficiency and that requires a full wave length radiator and at the same time holding to the LC ratio for that length. " Natural law, and decades of field experience with commercial antenna systems do not support these beliefs. RF |
New antenna
This reminds me of the "E H " antenna spiel.
"First we modify Maxwell's equations." hahahahahahahahahahahaha 73 H., NQ5H "Richard Fry" wrote in message ... "Derek" wrote where is it shown that Art is not following natural laws?. He has explained every step along the way and I see no place where he has strayed from natural law. ___________ Below from earlier in this thread (quoting Art)... " I say again, one must have equilibrium for maximum efficiency and that requires a full wave length radiator and at the same time holding to the LC ratio for that length. " Natural law, and decades of field experience with commercial antenna systems do not support these beliefs. RF |
New antenna
On 19 Oct, 21:03, wrote:
On Oct 19, 5:17 am, Derek wrote: On Oct 19, 6:28 am, "Richard Fry" wrote: snip \\ Enthusiasm is always good, but if it was possible to do what you outline using the radiation possible on 160 m solely from a structure in the shape of a 4 ft cube, IMO it would have been done long ago. Some very experienced antenna engineers including George Brown of RCA, Carl E. Smith, John Kraus, C. Balanis and many others have investigated this subject over the last 60-70 years, and have concluded that nothing smaller is as effective on MW as a linear, vertical monopole at least 1/4-wave high, using a good r-f gound Hi Richard so you are saying that as all the afore mentioned came to the same conclusion, there is no possibility they were 'all' wrong?, if that is the case then all is known and there is no point in trying to prove otherwise as there is nothing left to learn. I think not. Derek The chances of them being wrong is about .01 %... They have only had 70 years to double check themselves.. :/ The size of the small 4 ft antenna is the least of your problems. Wait until you try to get all your power to it... Myself, I think this "new" antenna is nothing new at all. He's not doing anything that hasn't been done before. But even that point is fairly moot.. The design is an inferior one when it comes down to it. For a given height of vertical radiator, there is no form of loading that will beat capacitive hat top loading using no inductor at all. Not in efficiency, and not in current distribution. And even if a coil is needed to tune, it's still the best, vs other methods. The top of the radiator is the best place to add capacitance. Top hat loading gives the most linear current distribution through a short whip. So...Do I get to re-invent and patent this new whiz bang up top loaded vertical... Har... Give me a break.. Then again, maybe I could talk the military into using my superior antenna vs his inferior one. I could make a zillion bucks overnight with all the lucrative contracts. Yes, you to can apply for a patent for yourself regarding an antenna and for listenning purposes only to boot. But you sir have a problem or two. First of all the PTO will not accept anything you "say" verbally which is what you are good at. Secondly you have to have faith and understanding about what you propose. Thirdly you have to put up front to the PTO and possibly others a substantial amount of money which instead of pursuing your research you can purchase a whole new radio set up. So you do have a choice......put up or shut up .. Move to Beverly Hills... Swimming pools...Britney! Naw, after mulling it over, I think I'd rather stay in Tejas with the normal people... If you go to the hospital to get a bypass, do you want a doctor that follows proven medical theory and practice, or do you want Jethro and Granny to have a go at it? :/ MK- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
New antenna
On Oct 20, 9:55 am, art wrote:
Yes, you to can apply for a patent for yourself regarding an antenna and for listenning purposes only to boot. But you sir have a problem or two. First of all the PTO will not accept anything you "say" verbally which is what you are good at. Secondly you have to have faith and understanding about what you propose. Thirdly you have to put up front to the PTO and possibly others a substantial amount of money which instead of pursuing your research you can purchase a whole new radio set up. So you do have a choice......put up or shut up I feel no great need to re-invent an antenna. I also feel no great need to bribe the patent office to ensure my success of this re-invention, or to prove my faith or understanding in top loaded verticals which were around before I was born. I have plenty of radios. Don't really need any more. I do put up antennas quite often though. So I guess this means I don't need to shut up. MK |
New antenna
Richard Fry wrote:
... The fundamentals of EM radiation are defined by natural laws, which even 50 years ago were rather well understood. New antenna designs always will be possible, but all of them of necessity must be based on, and follow natural law. RF Sheer insanity and babbly-cockery! Current "natural laws", and especially as defined by math, allows for a 377 ohm impedance to be given "nothing" (or, the ether--and indeed, there does appear to be some "property" responsible for it--just not the one presently given.) Allows for a permittivity to be assigned to "nothing", actually the ether. Allows for a permeability to be assigned to "nothing", actually, again, the ether. Allows for the spinning of the earth and motion of our solar system to be involved in the equations/math of our antenna/rf calculations. Nothing should be allowed to be logical, and, therefore, simply "NOTHING!" And, therefore unable to have any qualities, properties, effects, affects, laws, etc. Until the above is accounted for and sorted into a logical theorem, present "antenna science" looks as if a bunch of African witch doctors are implementing it! Admittedly, some progress is being made, however, little of that ever sees the light of day here ... Regards, JS |
New antenna
John Smith wrote:
Richard Fry wrote: ... The fundamentals of EM radiation are defined by natural laws, which even 50 years ago were rather well understood. New antenna designs always will be possible, but all of them of necessity must be based on, and follow natural law. RF Sheer insanity and babbly-cockery! Current "natural laws", and especially as defined by math, allows for a 377 ohm impedance to be given "nothing" (or, the ether--and indeed, there does appear to be some "property" responsible for it--just not the one presently given.) Allows for a permittivity to be assigned to "nothing", actually the ether. Allows for a permeability to be assigned to "nothing", actually, again, the ether. Allows for the spinning of the earth and motion of our solar system to be involved in the equations/math of our antenna/rf calculations. Nothing should be allowed to be logical, and, therefore, simply "NOTHING!" And, therefore unable to have any qualities, properties, effects, affects, laws, etc. Until the above is accounted for and sorted into a logical theorem, present "antenna science" looks as if a bunch of African witch doctors are implementing it! Admittedly, some progress is being made, however, little of that ever sees the light of day here ... Regards, JS I guess I missed the part of Vincent's patent where he invokes modern cosmological thinking to help explain his antenna. 8-) Vincent does not claim any radical new physics or math, in the style of EH and CFA. Instead he simply combines several well-known elements into what he claims as a novel device. The USPO allowed his claims of novelty. You can accept or reject his claim of novelty, but don't try to add some modern mumbo-jumbo more related to pondering the scope of the universe. I doubt that the URI Physics Department would support such ramblings without a lot more internal review. 73, Gene W4SZ |
New antenna
Gene Fuller wrote:
... Vincent does not claim any radical new physics or math, in the style of EH and CFA. Instead he simply combines several well-known elements into what he claims as a novel device. The USPO allowed his claims of novelty. You can accept or reject his claim of novelty, but don't try to add some modern mumbo-jumbo more related to pondering the scope of the universe. I doubt that the URI Physics Department would support such ramblings without a lot more internal review. 73, Gene W4SZ Before our present physics and sciences stepped forward in an attempt to expand mankinds' knowledge, the same winds blew through the trees, the same sun rose and set, the same rivers flowed, the same earth spun, the same stars were seen, the oceans existed, the same universe lay spread before us--the same, the same, the same ... However, way back when, spirits and the supernatural where given as explanations, now science attempts to provide the proper explanations--however, "what was" and "still is" was/is seen by all--both those who thought the spiritual/supernatural were responsible--and those who attempted to explain it by "science." Such is, STILL, as it is today, we are all looking at the same thing, some of these things are, indeed, working--and working quite well--although, explanations may vary as to the "why" and "how"... No radical changes or discoveries need to be had--just logical explanations had for what already is and has always been ... errors in our present thinking are quite obvious and abundant ... "true" explanations few and far between ... We just now need to refine our math and knowledge to reflect the true world--accurately ... Regards, JS |
New antenna
"John Smith" opined:
... Until the above is accounted for and sorted into a logical theorem, present "antenna science" looks as if a bunch of African witch doctors are implementing it! Admittedly, some progress is being made, however, little of that ever sees the light of day here ... __________ Then how do you account for the measured performance and commercial success of antenna systems that for the last 60+ years have implemented the antenna engineering principles originating from sources you have ridiculed in your post? RF |
New antenna
On 15 Oct, 12:38, art wrote:
On 14 Oct, 16:55, "Jimmie D" wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... art wrote: ... Time to mow the grass for the last time and empty the gas tank for the winter. Art KB9MZ Be lazy--just dump a bit of gas stabilizer in! ;-) JS And crank it once a month Jimmie Finally got the aluminium sheets secured and now I have to find a microphone so I can work some low power over the next two weeks. I am anxious to see if it will duplicale the bottom antenna of a stack where the capacitor/antenna bleeds off noise to the ground. Antenna will stay sitting on the ground until I get a feel of how it reacts in the coming days of showers. It is set up as a cloud burner at the moment so I should get some contacts. All bands seem to be active so I will put a chair in the yard and play Maybe even take a photo for the record! Plenty of harmonics so most bands should be available Art Art- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - With 2 4 foot square alum panels 4 foot apart with circular polarised 160M antenna in the capacitive field.All bands were S0 with 160M very active with strong signals. Could hear noise and some static crashes from a distance but none that affected S meter position. Early days yet but would appear I am duplicating lower antenna of a stack since the S meter was at rest when no signal present. Haven't got the rotor connected but by listening to nets on 160M it strongly suggests it is directive along the axis of the windings as expected. Storms this coming week so I should be able to determine antenna functions better. At present I have minimal experience on the top band. Have not yet installed jumpers for other bands nor installed a varometer at the feed point but still have time before the snow flies Regards Art Unwin KB9MZ |
New antenna
Richard Fry wrote:
... Then how do you account for the measured performance and commercial success of antenna systems that for the last 60+ years have implemented the antenna engineering principles originating from sources you have ridiculed in your post? RF I said what I meant and meant what I said. Our present formulas/equations leave much to be desired and apply only within narrow constraints of construction and design. However, when dealing with these antennas of strictly limited proportions and design (long wire, dipole, 1/4-1/2 monopole, etc.) these "approximations" are usually adequate ... stray too far from "conventional" and you find they begin to fall apart around the edges. JS |
New antenna
On Oct 20, 9:52 pm, art wrote:
With 2 4 foot square alum panels 4 foot apart with circular polarised 160M antenna in the capacitive field.All bands were S0 with 160M very active with strong signals. Could hear noise and some static crashes from a distance but none that affected S meter position. Early days yet but would appear I am duplicating lower antenna of a stack since the S meter was at rest when no signal present. Art Unwin KB9MZ Sounds fairly grim if you plan to transmit using that device.. Lots of loss somewhere. :( This is not a good development, being this seems to be the second faulty unit you have produced in row. Or should I say stack... Please reboot and try again. MK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com