On 10 Nov, 20:25, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...

It has been stated on this antenna newsgroup that with
short antennas the current goes up the radiator and then turns back
and goes down. If this is so then it must be radiating all the time,
yes?

Yes, as long as the sinusoidal EMF is applied to the antenna. This is a
forcing function. Let is assume a sinusoidal carrier wave is generated at
the source.

If a radiator is radiating all the time then the efficiency is the
same
as a full leght antenna. Yes?

No. The efficiency will be based on the ratio of radiation resistance to
total resistance. Shorter antennas tend to require coils that increase ohmic
resistive losses. Ground image plane losses can be huge on short mobile
80/160m mobile antennas. At lower frequencies, image plane losses can
greatly exceed radiation resistance thus lower the efficiency greatly. Yet,
the antenna is radiating 100% of the time, just not as efficiently.

This does not conform with reality Right?

Yes, it does, per above. I guess with my elementary explanation, it is not
helpful to go on the other questions since known science is contradicting
your assumption (that some people, not necessarily you-yourself believe)
antenna radiation efficiency is somehow related to the amount of time that
current is flowing in the short antenna. I am not sure if you are intending
to advocate this model or oppose it as I am not clear as to whose side you
are on in this rather curiously controversial discussion of something that I
thought was simpler. However, I am very open to expanding my horizons to new
ideas since even today, antenna theory is to me a 'black art' (meaning that
it is not fully mathematically understood by any one person that I am aware
of also there are plenty of antenna companies making money based on
empirical designs).

I am trying to conceptualize the design of your unique antenna model that
you say is based on a gaussian extension to maxwell's equations. I have read
your archives and I would like to try to understand your positions more
specifically. You can throw the math at me. Can you point me to exactly
which Gaussian extension formula I must apply to maxwell? Yes, I am familiar
with the Gaussian area integrals of E*d(A) and how to solve them...I do have
an EE degree. This area integral is actually a part of maxwell's equations
and I do not know what extension you are referring to. I understand a Dr.
Davis proved your work; can you point me to the calculations he did? That is
where I think I might learn a lot. BTW I have never used antenna modelling
programs as I do not find the analyisis of repeated antenna segments
particularly interesting. However, I may have to try it out to understand
your stuff. Know of a good program I could download? It's called EZNEC or
something like that? Thanks Art.

I am attacking present day theory on the basis of what my reseach has
revealed over the past decade. I placed it in front of my peers
ie this newsgroup for examination. It was not examined in the normal
scientific way that I am accustomed to as an engineer.

If it was, it would quickly determine if the basis of my assault on
present
dogma were correct or in error. If you have existing progams you will
know
that sometimes it runs away for UNKNOWN reasons so YOU have to
determine
what is right and what is wrong. My research points to the inclusion
of
the sino soidal properties exist at every segment point and that is
known
by all parties concerned. It was shown to be correct at some segment
points but not all! But this asumption was kept in the absence of
known
alternatives. If you refuse to review mty work and its associated
mathematics then you are assuming that all is known even tho your
assumption
prove to be in error.I accepted that there were errors made and still
are
and have now found where the problem is. At the same time the solution
I
found resolves questions that scientists have puzzled about for over
100 years.
So if my peers will not review my work then I have to place parts that
are subject to contention which is going to be a verry long task and
perhaps irratable to many but I have no other options if all consider
everything is known. Now let me make just one point. I reffered to
the helix angle being determed empirically. Well I can show how
Maxwells
determines that angle using his laws. You also can determine using any
program that the angle is the summation of all vectors involed in
radiation.
The vector is not aligned with the radiator axis so with any program
move away
from planar forms to find that angle which produces maximum gain of
a desired polarity. How many of you used that method to avoid
relying
on a empirical method? Was it already known as with all the other
facts.
How many of you knew that an array that is non planar could exceed
the
attributes of a yagi? Or is that fallacious becuase all is known and
the books
cannot be wrong in any way when you have to acknoweledge that the
present
assumptions are known to create errors. I know, ignore the facts that
you know about and put your head in the sand and I you don't care
whether
the review by Dr Davis showed I was correct. To hell with the
mathematics
we know all is known because we have books that say so.
I am getting weary of all this but I cannot let it drop since I hold
to a
regimen that all engineers follow.
Go ahead Richard you can attack me now and not the subject as you
always do.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg