Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Part 2 Is it possible to ask questions here?
"art" wrote
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? If a radiator is radiating all the time then the efficiency is the same as a full leght antenna. Yes? This does not conform with reality Right? Wrong, as regards your "reality." Using the classic definition of efficiency, an antenna of ANY length (including a point source) will radiate nearly 100% of the power it accepts from the r-f source driving it. The radiation patterns of those antennas will vary. Some will radiate more relative field in some directions and less in some directions than others will. But, disregarding dielectric and conductor I^2R losses, ALL antennas radiate ALL of the power they accept from their driving source (ie, their efficiencies are equal). So is it possible that the circuit (current) returns along the path down the center of the radiator... No, it's not possible. No matter the direction of flow along a solid conductor, alternating current tends to travel on/near its outer surface. This is due to the greater number of enclosed lines of magnetic flux generated by current flowing at/near its center, which increases the inductive reactance of the conductor in those areas. The result is a redistribution of the current to the parts of the conductor cross-section having the least reactance, ie, on and near its outer surface. Read Terman's RADIO ENGINEERS' HANDBOOK, 1943 edition, pp 30-31 for more on this (or many other sources). IF it was possible then radiation figures accepted by hams would coincide with respect to short antennas. Yes?. Then why do all the "experts" reject the notion of the circuit continueing down the center of the radiator? Because it doesn't do that. RF |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Part 2 Is it possible to ask questions here?
A lot of this 'discussion' depends on how you define 'efficiency'.
A 'point source' can be very efficient, in it's self. It can also be very inefficient when compared to another type 'source'. It's true that any antenna can radiate all of the signal getting to it. The 'catch' is just how much 'signal' is getting to it and how/ where is it being radiated. If it's going to where you want it, and if a usable amount of 'signal' gets there, then it's efficient for that particular situation. If not... then it isn't very efficient, is it? - 'Doc (With the 'proper' mind-set, you can apply the above to anything, not just antennas.) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Part 2 Is it possible to ask questions here?
If it's going to where you want it, and if a usable amount of 'signal' gets there, then it's efficient for that particular situation. If not... then it isn't very efficient, is it? - 'Doc ____________ In a pure sense, the radiator itself is. It just may not be as useful in that application as an antenna of another configuration that provides the system result being sought. RF |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Part 2 Is it possible to ask questions here?
On 11 Nov, 07:05, "Richard Fry" wrote:
If it's going to where you want it, and if a usable amount of 'signal' gets there, then it's efficient for that particular situation. If not... then it isn't very efficient, is it? - 'Doc ____________ In a pure sense, the radiator itself is. It just may not be as useful in that application as an antenna of another configuration that provides the system result being sought. RF There you go again, "may" does not affirm fact. Art |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Part 2 Is it possible to ask questions here?
"art"
There you go again, "may" does not affirm fact. _________ OK, then. A 1/2-wave dipole absolutely HAS more directivity than an isotropic radiator (and so does every other practical antenna). But when any/all of them accept the same amount of power from an r-f source, then they ALL will radiate the same total amount of power. So they are all equally efficient, by the classic definition of total power in vs. total power out. Antenna directivity/gain is not a measure of efficiency. RF |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Part 2 Is it possible to ask questions here?
On 11 Nov, 06:15, wrote:
A lot of this 'discussion' depends on how you define 'efficiency'. A 'point source' can be very efficient, in it's self. It can also be very inefficient when compared to another type 'source'. It's true that any antenna can radiate all of the signal getting to it. The 'catch' is just how much 'signal' is getting to it and how/ where is it being radiated. If it's going to where you want it, and if a usable amount of 'signal' gets there, then it's efficient for that particular situation. If not... then it isn't very efficient, is it? - 'Doc (With the 'proper' mind-set, you can apply the above to anything, not just antennas.) I like that last comment regarding mind set. Just look how people are not viewing the subject without predisposition. No onw is willing to deal only what has been proffered to the exclusion of every thing else. Everybody will use a text gained from somewhere to side line true examination. Stephan,. you wanted out I took you at your word. I don't know how many times This discussion will end the same as always, I don't understand what you are saying To heck with mathematics. Iknow what I know is correct.sSme will change the content of what I state . And as always shown in history ridicule is turned to when all other efforts fail. But nobody will question the fact that all computor programs support my addition to Gaussian law to those of Maxweell. True, other scientists concluded that radiation is created via a time varience. No body has found correllation to prove it With a legitamate addition to a known law by Gauss I have given a method where as the hows of radiation is revealed that is consistent with Maxwells laws. The mathematics have been given that support it but they have been swept aside Existing programs support it but it is left to the user to determine whether "garbage in is garbage out" or to only accept what the program supplies with the appearance with known reality and junk the rest. And make no mistake about it, when programmers placed an assumed condition to a known law they did it with deliberation. When it supplied error they covered it up by changing the program to concurr with traditional thought. This is no different to when NASA ignored what engineers told them about O rings and science was pushed aside. Mathematical laws were broken and all that deal with these programs are part and parcel of this mathematical fraud. Best regards to all Art Unwin....KB9MZ...xg |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Part 2 Is it possible to ask questions here?
Art wrote:
"But nobody will question the fact that all computer programs support my addition to Gaussian law to those of maxwell." That`s an I dare you. Roy may tell us if EZNEC needs Art`s embellishment for accuracy. Art did not answer my question of Nov 8, 10:27am in the "An instructive trick" thread. It was: "why would we use the time constant without the angular frequency?" On page 904 0f the 3rd edition of Kraus` "Antennas" is found: "The availability of computers in the 1960s provided antenna designers with an alternative. They could develop software to simulate the performance of antennas. In general, these techniques either numerically solve Maxwell`s equations by descretizing the problem using integral techniques, such as Moment Methods (MoM) as discussed in Sec. 14-11, or differential techniques, such as finite elements or finite difference-time domain." Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Part 2 Is it possible to ask questions here?
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message ... Art wrote: "But nobody will question the fact that all computer programs support my addition to Gaussian law to those of maxwell." That`s an I dare you. Gauss's law IS one of Maxwell's equations. In fact both Ramo Whinnery and Van Duzer's "Fields and Waves in Communications Electronics" (pg 237 in the 1st edition) and Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" (compare pg 2 and 33 in the 2nd edition). So every time art makes that assertion he is just showing his ignorance of the facts. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Part 2 Is it possible to ask questions here?
Dave wrote:
"Gauss`s law IS one of Maxwell`s equations." Yes. I`ve suggested Kraus to Art but he seems not to have pored through Kraus yet. On page 395 of the 3rd edition of Antennas is a table of Maxwell`s equations in integral form. One column is from Ampere, another from Faraday, and the last two are from Gauss. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Part 2 Is it possible to ask questions here?
On 11 Nov, 05:19, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote 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? If a radiator is radiating all the time then the efficiency is the same as a full leght antenna. Yes? This does not conform with reality Right? Wrong, as regards your "reality." Using the classic definition of efficiency, an antenna of ANY length (including a point source) will radiate nearly 100% of the power it accepts from the r-f source driving it. The radiation patterns of those antennas will vary. Some will radiate more relative field in some directions and less in some directions than others will. But, disregarding dielectric and conductor I^2R losses, ALL antennas radiate ALL of the power they accept from their driving source (ie, their efficiencies are equal). So is it possible that the circuit (current) returns along the path down the center of the radiator... No, it's not possible. No matter the direction of flow along a solid conductor, alternating current tends to travel on/near its outer surface. This is due to the greater number of enclosed lines of magnetic flux generated by current flowing at/near its center, which increases the inductive reactance of the conductor in those areas. The result is a redistribution of the current to the parts of the conductor cross-section having the least reactance, ie, on and near its outer surface. Read Terman's RADIO ENGINEERS' HANDBOOK, 1943 edition, pp 30-31 for more on this (or many other sources). IF it was possible then radiation figures accepted by hams would coincide with respect to short antennas. Yes?. Then why do all the "experts" reject the notion of the circuit continueing down the center of the radiator? Because it doesn't do that. RF To say that an AC current will not flow in copper unless it has clear axis access to the copper surface is balderdash. Cover the copper with an insulator with any thickness that you desire for safety incase you are in error and then drill into the center of the copper. Without a safe guard you will die! What provides resistance on the outside als skin depth can by the reverse contain current flow to the inside. You like many use the word "tends" with respect to external current flow. The word "tends" does not make the current passage an undeniable fact. Yet you have hung your hat on that premise. I repeat...balderdash Art |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Dumb Questions - Part II FRS | Equipment | |||
Dumb Questions - Part II FRS | Equipment | |||
WTB Zenith part/part radio | Swap | |||
WTB Transoceanic Part/Part radio | Boatanchors | |||
BEWARE SPENDING TIME ANSWERING QUESTIONS HERE (WAS Electronic Questions) | Antenna |