wrote:

I especially liked the experts who wouldn't use a B&W antenna under
any circumstance because it was inefficient. Even when the uses
included ALE, frequent frequency changes, and use in hostile
environments. They just gotta squeeze every last db out of a piece of
wire.


Any "expert" who doesn't consider the application is no expert at all,
and certainly not even a competent engineer. Who are these people you're
speaking of, and why do you consider them "experts"?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On 17 Oct, 21:56, Roy Lewallen wrote:
wrote:

I especially liked the experts who wouldn't use a B&W antenna under
any circumstance because it was inefficient. Even when the uses
included ALE, frequent frequency changes, and use in hostile
environments. They just gotta squeeze every last db out of a piece of
wire.

Any "expert" who doesn't consider the application is no expert at all,
and certainly not even a competent engineer. Who are these people you're
speaking of, and why do you consider them "experts"?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Interesting aproach as to what a good engineer is.
It goes without saying that the application has to be considered, even
Yogi Bear
would have come up with a better one than that and he is not an
engineer.
As an engineer myself I consider a engineer or "expert" is one that
will consider
anything unless science has definitely ruled it out and that doesn't
neccesarily
include what has been written before the question arises. Natuarally
that means
not ruling out trying ANYTHING unless one considers their minds
developed enough
that it is satisfactory to go thru the thought processes only.
On that basis this newsgroup is full of fake " experts"!
Art KB9MZ

Roy Lewallen wrote:

...
speaking of, and why do you consider them "experts"?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

YEAH!

And besides, "Where's the beef?" ;-)

JS

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.

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

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.........

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

"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

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

"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