Distributed capacitance and antennas
 

On 7 Nov, 19:16, Walter Maxwell wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:38:23 -0800, art wrote:
On 7 Nov, 12:43, art wrote:
On 7 Nov, 12:27, Richard Clark wrote:

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:51:33 -0800, art wrote:
Distributed resistance is easy, it changes the energy to heat,
stores it and releases it according to its time constant
What is the time constant of 50 Ohms?
Go away Richard. You never answer questions

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:12:15 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:04:38 -0800, art wrote:
Shorten your post and just type one line. I Richard, can show the error of your mathematics
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²

To my one line answer to your question, as you asked, you promised to
show the error of my math (found in your copy of J&J)
and
What is the time constant of 50 Ohms?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard stop badgering me I am straight and have a family.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So Radio hams, professional and amateur. Does distributed store
energy like other capacitors or is it an animal by another name?
Does it store photons for later distribution of radiation?
Do photons eat the electrons while they are being stored by the
capacitor
Do the electrons jump up and down because they know an inductance is
ahead?
These questions are very important in determining what radiation is
all about.
And yes I hear waves are often mentioned. Is this the three
dimensional
wave that is created in the pond when the static particles fall off
the antenna
in a circular type pattern? Antenna books say the pattern is a figure
eight!
How can that be? When the energy removes itself from distributed
capacitance
do the photon march along the antenna in an orderly fashion? or do
they rush out
as if the movie in the capacitor is over? Last of all has anybody seen
a photon
and photographed it? I suppose if you believe in ghosts then you could
well
believe in photons that float in the night. You can't see them but
there
really is a chill in the air. So back to the original question,
What does distributed capacitance do with the oncomming sino soidal
wave?
Does it let it through unharmed so that we have a time varience that
is needed
for radiation per the radio books?
Art

Art, I suggested a few weeks ago that you could make a killing in writing humorous lines for either Jay Leno
or Dave Letterman. But I guess you had no luck finding an opening in the field.

Ah, but Art, are you aware of the writers' strike now ongoing? Those writers are on strike, so what are Leno
and Letterman going to do without 'em? They're going to go insane trying to come up on their own with the
funny stuff they normally get from their writers. So there's yer chance, Art, go fer it! Yer all geared up fer
it as demonstrated in yer writings in the threads here on rraa. Don't miss this golden opportunity! We'll all
be listening as Leno and Letterman read yer jewels.

Walt, W2DU- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gee Walter don'tyou consider yourself lucky to have got out of
hospital or what ever it was to get asylum.
Why don't YOU write a book and send it to Leno? Ofcourse like other
people they wont believe it
and look at it like a joke. Call it Reflections #4 1/2 that should get
a laugh
By the way stop that heavy drinking otherwise that asylum will be
beckoning you again and you will have to deal with those elephant
droppings again.
Art

Distributed capacitance and antennas
 

"art"
Of course there is no radiation off the ends. What ever is sitting on
the antenna can only fall off one side or the other.
_____________

Not that I agree with your theory of why this happens, but note that you
have now acknowledged a condition that you had disputed just a bit less than
3 hours earlier in this thread.

Quoting from that post of yours, "Antenna books say the pattern is a figure
eight! How can that be?"

RF

Distributed capacitance and antennas
 

On 8 Nov, 06:58, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" Of course there is no radiation off the ends. What ever is sitting on
the antenna can only fall off one side or the other.

_____________

Not that I agree with your theory of why this happens, but note that you
have now acknowledged a condition that you had disputed just a bit less than
3 hours earlier in this thread.

Quoting from that post of yours, "Antenna books say the pattern is a figure
eight! How can that be?"

RF

No. I asked a question as to how that can be To which I later
theorised that
one can have "sliding" electrons as well as those that are pushed over
board.
The matter of "sliding" comes into play when you have a tipping force
to
overcome the tenacity of inertia in the face of a moving fulcrum.
But when you get down to the mathematical analysis it becomes obvious
that the summation of all vectors involved with radiation produces a
vector that does not align with the radiating axis which reinforces
the notion of "sliding electrons" or should I say sliding staic or
passive particles?
Still waiting for you to point to the error in Dr Davis's mathematics
such that the existing radiation theory can stay intact !.
I would point out that all computor programs on radiation show that
for maximising radiation of a particular polarity the summation
vector of all vectors involved with radiation is different to that
of the axis of the radiator which forces a shift in parallelism
to the earth's surface. This is an evolution of Gaussian law
which provides further insight to the laws of Maxwell who somehow
overlooked the connection between dynamic and static forces.
If the Gaussian mathematics is at fault then by logic all
computor programs must be suspect.
The tipping point is that computor programs ingnored a condition
that must be imposed if one is to view Maxwells collections
as a series of laws. It was this error which lead to viewing
the sino soidal shape of electrical current as constituting
the time varience required per Lorentz and others for the
production of radiation where as the time varience factor
is that obtained by the time constant of energy release of
distributed inductance and capacitance. The saving grace for
computor programing was its adherrence to the conservation
of energy theorem, energy in equals energy out which is
basically what the leanings of Gauss was.
Sowith elements that are resonant olone and in their entirety in a
array
produces a smaller array than that for a planar array such as a yagi.
On top of the reduction of element spacings it allows for helices
or the action of "slow waves" to reduce the htree dimensions of
freedom for any array down to a size of a half wave per side
noting at the same time one has only to feed one element and
yet gain the aperature presented by a stack of beams with
separate feed points
So I believe it behooves all to reexamine the mathematics
because if they are correct thben the rewards are humoungua.
Or play with your computor programs with non planar
radiating elements
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg

Distributed capacitance and antennas
 

"art" wrote
No. I asked a question as to how that can be To which I later
theorised etc etc
___________

That was an interesting read. I suggest you send your work to the
IEEE to see what they make of it. If it all goes your way, you will
have earned parity with all the "masters" you refer to so frequently.

RF

Distributed capacitance and antennas
 

On 8 Nov, 11:37, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote No. I asked a question as to how that can be To which I later
theorised etc etc

___________

That was an interesting read. I suggest you send your work to the
IEEE to see what they make of it. If it all goes your way, you will
have earned parity with all the "masters" you refer to so frequently.

RF

That cannot be done. There are legitimate guru's on this net
and very near the top I would put Richard despite his arrogance,
jeering and painfull use of english.
But the fact is that those endowed with a knoweledge of radiation
have been bitten so many times by wishfull thinking of new antennas
that they have wandered firmly into the camp that all is known
and now dismiss all without the thought aplied that they are capable
of
I first started talk of radiation occurring in pulsatic form
on this forum many years ago when I first applied myself to the
science of antennas. This mere notion of mine started off this
adventure
where every adjective is being used to describe me.
However as somebody who came from the docklands of East Londonyou
are given the natural ability of sticking to your guns regardless
of what it does to your self esteem. I suspect I will go to my grave
before my work is taken seriously. And that is a shame. Not for me
but for the continuance of ham radio where we can again convince all
that ham radio is still at the cusp of new discoveries and have a
useful purpose in society. I am not asking for recognition of any sort
since as a former cockney I can handle adversity regardless how it is
formed
I can take it and I surely can give it out.( I remember Goring and his
bombers)
Regards
Art KB9MZ...XG (uk)

Distributed capacitance and antennas
 

Stefan Wolfe wrote:

Hello Art, this is an easy one that any amateur could answer and which I
would think is well below your level of the physics (so the reason for your
question confuses me): If the antenna is perfectly resonant, then it, as a
total charge distribution system or "circuit", has a time constant of zero.
At any point along the length of the antenna, there are time constants that
could apply, RC or R/L depending upon reactivity of the section in question.
But you are asking about the distributed capacitance; what does that mean,
let's say in terms of any point at a designated distance from feed point?
Where do you want to calculate the time constant? Otherwise, once the
antenna is resonant either by design or by the addition of reactive
components (such as a coil in the center), as a whole it is a resonant
circuit where reactive impedances cancel out and you are only left with
resistance (ohmic + radiation resistance) and the time constant of the whole
circuit must be zero.

In a resonant circuit containing R, L, and C, there most definitely is a
time constant. Related to Q, it describes the time taken for the circuit
to respond to a transient. The higher the Q, the longer the time
constant, and the longer it takes the circuit to come to equilibrium
after a step or sinusoid is applied, and to decay after it's removed.
Failure to understand this has resulted in some very poorly designed
audio filters for CW, among other things.

The reactances in a resonant circuit cancel only at a single frequency.
That means if you apply a sinusoidal signal at the resonant frequency
for a very long time, and don't change anything about it (phase,
amplitude, frequency, or waveshape), the resonant circuit will act like
a resistor. But it won't under any other circumstances. As soon as you
say "time constant", you're speaking of the response to a changing, not
steady state sinusoidal, signal. And the response of the resonant
circuit containing L and C to any change in the signal will be very
different from the response of a resistor. And it will exhibit a time
constant. (This can bee seen in the time domain equations for i(t) and
v(t) which contain an exponential term multiplying the sinusoidal term.
The time constant is in the exponent. See any text on electrical
circuits for more detail.)

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Distributed capacitance and antennas
 

On 10 Nov, 19:36, Roy Lewallen wrote:
Stefan Wolfe wrote:

Hello Art, this is an easy one that any amateur could answer and which I
would think is well below your level of the physics (so the reason for your
question confuses me): If the antenna is perfectly resonant, then it, as a
total charge distribution system or "circuit", has a time constant of zero.
At any point along the length of the antenna, there are time constants that
could apply, RC or R/L depending upon reactivity of the section in question.
But you are asking about the distributed capacitance; what does that mean,
let's say in terms of any point at a designated distance from feed point?
Where do you want to calculate the time constant? Otherwise, once the
antenna is resonant either by design or by the addition of reactive
components (such as a coil in the center), as a whole it is a resonant
circuit where reactive impedances cancel out and you are only left with
resistance (ohmic + radiation resistance) and the time constant of the whole
circuit must be zero.

In a resonant circuit containing R, L, and C, there most definitely is a
time constant. Related to Q, it describes the time taken for the circuit
to respond to a transient. The higher the Q, the longer the time
constant, and the longer it takes the circuit to come to equilibrium
after a step or sinusoid is applied, and to decay after it's removed.
Failure to understand this has resulted in some very poorly designed
audio filters for CW, among other things.

Agreed to. Especially the reference to equilibrium.
You are the first to acknoweledge that tenent

The reactances in a resonant circuit cancel only at a single frequency.
That means if you apply a sinusoidal signal at the resonant frequency
for a very long time, and don't change anything about it (phase,
amplitude, frequency, or waveshape), the resonant circuit will act like
a resistor.

Hold it right there.
Ohio state university placed that as a added assumtion to Maxwells
laws
and as you well know that it started to produce errors. This is the
reason that "moments" was brought into calculations because of the
way it averages or deals with errors. I suspect that an engineer
said get rid of that assumption if it doesn't work but like the saga
of the "O ring" with Nasa enegineers were ignored. This was at the
time I was wrestling with fortran and punched cards for computor
generated
BOM's that put me off of programming per say.You and others bandy
with
the words inductance and capacitance but you must know or should know
that both of these will not allow a sino soidal voltage or current
to pass intact thus one has to review where the time varience factor
comes from.especially when the used premise was found to be faulty.


But it won't under any other circumstances. As soon as you
say "time constant", you're speaking of the response to a changing, not
steady state sinusoidal, signal. And the response of the resonant
circuit containing L and C to any change in the signal will be very
different from the response of a resistor. And it will exhibit a time
constant. (This can bee seen in the time domain equations for i(t) and
v(t) which contain an exponential term multiplying the sinusoidal term.
The time constant is in the exponent. See any text on electrical
circuits for more detail.)

I cannot look at texts for an answer because
the texts use a prohibited method by adding a premise to a law.
You take the sinosoidal wave shape as the time varient despite
the errors it produces where as I do not. I do accept the laws
of Maxwell as stated as laws without the need to change things
because of outside pressures especially when it is accepted that
it produces errors by all concerned.



Roy Lewallen, W7EL- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Distributed capacitance and antennas
 

On 10 Nov, 19:12, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ps.com...

How does distributed capacitance harvest the energy given
in sino soidal form and later release it in the same form
that it was harvested in?
Same question, but now look at distributed inductance and
how that works!
Distributed resistance is easy, it changes the energy to heat,
stores it and releases it according to its time constant but
the books don't tell me.about the other things!
Like the time constant of distributed capacitance
Art

Hello Art, this is an easy one that any amateur could answer and which I
would think is well below your level of the physics (so the reason for your
question confuses me): If the antenna is perfectly resonant, then it, as a
total charge distribution system or "circuit",
has a time constant of zero.
Where on earth did you get that from?
The circuit has two components that will not allow the sino soidal
circuit to pass intact
and radiation occurs because of a time varient.
So if the sino soidal current is changed to something else
then we have to look for an alternative for the time varience factor.
You have to start from a strong footing and you are not


At any point along the length of the antenna, there are time constants that
could apply, RC or R/L depending upon reactivity of the section in question.
But you are asking about the distributed capacitance; what does that mean,
let's say in terms of any point at a designated distance from feed point?
Where do you want to calculate the time constant? Otherwise, once the
antenna is resonant either by design or by the addition of reactive
components (such as a coil in the center), as a whole it is a resonant
circuit where reactive impedances cancel out and you are only left with
resistance (ohmic + radiation resistance) and the time constant of the whole
circuit must be zero.

You may neutralise the effect of components but you can't get rid of
the components themselves. They still have properties that come into
play with respect to the circuit

Best Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......Xg

Distributed capacitance and antennas
 

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:

In a resonant circuit containing R, L, and C, there most definitely is a
time constant. Related to Q, it describes the time taken for the circuit
to respond to a transient. The higher the Q, the longer the time constant,
and the longer it takes the circuit to come to equilibrium after a step or
sinusoid is applied, and to decay after it's removed. Failure to
understand this has resulted in some very poorly designed audio filters
for CW, among other things.

But Roy, I must first clear up that we are talking about apples and oranges.
I was referencing a sinusoidal source of a frequency that is resonant to the
circuit. You are talking about a transient can be treated as the sum of
sinusoids which will not be resonant at the same curcuit. I was also
referring to the antenna as a L-C-R circuit that does have time constants
along its lengths (but I was asking 'where' along the length) but as a
whole system the time contant of the antenna, when fed by a signal at
resonant frequency is zero.
. . .

You've lost me. What is the meaning of a "time constant" in steady
state? What effect does it have? With a single frequency of constant
amplitude, how could you tell whether a circuit, resonant or not, has a
"time constant"? How could you measure it?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Distributed capacitance and antennas
 

On 11 Nov, 01:54, Roy Lewallen wrote:
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:

In a resonant circuit containing R, L, and C, there most definitely is a
time constant. Related to Q, it describes the time taken for the circuit
to respond to a transient. The higher the Q, the longer the time constant,
and the longer it takes the circuit to come to equilibrium after a step or
sinusoid is applied, and to decay after it's removed. Failure to
understand this has resulted in some very poorly designed audio filters
for CW, among other things.

But Roy, I must first clear up that we are talking about apples and oranges.
I was referencing a sinusoidal source of a frequency that is resonant to the
circuit. You are talking about a transient can be treated as the sum of
sinusoids which will not be resonant at the same curcuit. I was also
referring to the antenna as a L-C-R circuit that does have time constants
along its lengths (but I was asking 'where' along the length) but as a
whole system the time contant of the antenna, when fed by a signal at
resonant frequency is zero.
. . .

You've lost me. What is the meaning of a "time constant" in steady
state? What effect does it have? With a single frequency of constant
amplitude, how could you tell whether a circuit, resonant or not, has a
"time constant"? How could you measure it?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is this a prelude to your normal comment when you walk away?
This I don't understand is a cop out but I will answer you anyway.
The meaning of time constant. You are aware that the addition of
other things that was not part of Maxwells laws such as the assumption
of
a sino soidal current at every point taken for the calculation
produced errors.
As one who sells the NEC work you must know that.
If it produces errors then the assumption is in correct yet Maxwells
laws are based
on radiation from the time varient phenomina. Thus it behooves all to
impose the correct or alternative time varient.An alternative time
varient is exposed
when one adds a time varient to the law of statics which is shown to
equal
or be the same as Maxwells laws( see the math in the archives.
Using Gauss's method of analysis which is based around flux and an
arbitary field
shows radiation is formed in pulses during times that equilibrium is
broken
and the arbitary borders fracture momentarily. The only way therefore
is the
circuit is one of a tank circuit. The tank circuit mby use of the
radiators constituent
capacitance and inductance revolves the time constant associated with
a sino soidal
property and with the syncroness of energy release according to the
time constant
of the energy storage imposes a time varient. Now the math is there so
next we
allow a computor program with unknown viability to compare with
Gauss's law
extension that I imposed.
What does this show?
Using the optimiser version it allways migrates to a non planar form
and not the planar form
which scientists have mimiced from the yagi. Doing this it supplies
the angle for a helix
that is mathematically supplied by Maxwell where prior to this it was
emperically found.
One can overcheck this by placing a non planar form into any passive
antenna program
and it verifies the results of a Gaussian apoproach. Since using the
time varience
associated with a sino soidal produces errors and the time constant
of heat storage release
does not produce errors to Maxwells laws it behooves all to review the
significance of what I did
which is to add a time variable to the same proven situation that
Gauss applied for statics.
a proven method which does not violate Maxwells laws.
.. For your part you can examine the mathematical aproach taken for
error since it is at the core
of what I present. If you wish to modify it so it conforms with the
books I will give
it a fair hearing without defaulting to the "all is known" syndrome.I
cannot agree to adding
any assumptions to Maxwells laws since that delegitamises any law as
we know it.
Science demands impartial examination without imposing pre supposed
conditions or the
involvement of personal feelings since it is continually found that
what is unlikely to happen
does actually happen!
Questions to ask yourself.
How is it that Maxwell defined the angle for a helix that matches
thatfound by Kraus empirically
by not using the time varient assumptions that we presently used
associated with the sino soidal
wave?
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG