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

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

"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

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

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