"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

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

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 -

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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