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?
So is it possible that the circuit (current)
returns along the path down the center of the radiator which is
bordered by decaying electrons which thus would prevent
radiation?
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?
What exacly preventing such a circuit becoming a reality?
Why does current go up the radiator in the first place
knowing it has nowhere to go?
Just a silly question for the self perceived experts
Best regards and waiting in unabaited attention to responses
by the experts, as I can't find it in the books which tell all
that is known.
Your friend and eager listener
Art KB9MZ.....XG

"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?
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?
So is it possible that the circuit (current)
returns along the path down the center of the radiator which is
bordered by decaying electrons which thus would prevent
radiation?
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?
What exacly preventing such a circuit becoming a reality?
Why does current go up the radiator in the first place
knowing it has nowhere to go?
Just a silly question for the self perceived experts
Best regards and waiting in unabaited attention to responses
by the experts, as I can't find it in the books which tell all
that is known.
Your friend and eager listener
Art KB9MZ.....XG

Art

You should know better (and I should know better for responding). :-}

The signal going down the centre would cancel the
signal going up the outside and nothing would be radiated except heat due to
the electrical impedence and resistance of the antenna conductor.

What keeps the two paths separated? A simple experiment with a length of
solid copper rod and a similar length of copper water pipe will demonstrate
that what you suggest doesn't in fact happen. Both will display similar
radiation characteristics and no sign of reverse current flows down the
centre of the rod or the inside bore of the tube. The only difference in
characteristics will be caused by a difference in the outer dimensions of
the copper rod and tube. At high enough frequencies, the tube will act as a
waveguide, but that's a completely different matter altogether.

Why does a light bulb glow? How do the photons know what direction to travel
in?

If electrons are raised to a higher energy level (usually referred to as
moved to occupy a higher orbital shell) by the input of energy, after a
short period, they will return to their original energy state, emitting a
photon to carry away the excess energy. The energy of the photon being
directly in proportion to the energy input in the first place.

This has been verified repeatedly in published laboratory experiments. The
photons are
emitted at around 300,000 Km/sec at right angles from the surface of the
conductor. They don't need to 'know' which way to go or to be sucked out by
some mystic force. Neither do we need degenerate or decaying electrons to
direct the flow. An electron is an electron and nothing else. All electrons
are inherently the same. When they form part of an atom, they can absorb or
emit photons to balance the energy in the atom. The photon is not part of
the electron, it is just the manifestation of temporarily stored, excess
energy, being emitted to restore the atom back to its lowest energy state.

Mike G0ULI

On 10 Nov, 19:17, "Mike Kaliski" 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?
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?
So is it possible that the circuit (current)
returns along the path down the center of the radiator which is
bordered by decaying electrons which thus would prevent
radiation?
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?
What exacly preventing such a circuit becoming a reality?
Why does current go up the radiator in the first place
knowing it has nowhere to go?
Just a silly question for the self perceived experts
Best regards and waiting in unabaited attention to responses
by the experts, as I can't find it in the books which tell all
that is known.
Your friend and eager listener
Art KB9MZ.....XG

Art

You should know better (and I should know better for responding). :-}

The signal going down the centre would cancel the
signal going up the outside and nothing would be radiated except heat due to
the electrical impedence and resistance of the antenna conductor.

What keeps the two paths separated? A simple experiment with a length of
solid copper rod and a similar length of copper water pipe will demonstrate
that what you suggest doesn't in fact happen. Both will display similar
radiation characteristics and no sign of reverse current flows down the
centre of the rod or the inside bore of the tube. The only difference in
characteristics will be caused by a difference in the outer dimensions of
the copper rod and tube. At high enough frequencies, the tube will act as a
waveguide, but that's a completely different matter altogether.

Why does a light bulb glow? How do the photons know what direction to travel
in?

If electrons are raised to a higher energy level (usually referred to as
moved to occupy a higher orbital shell) by the input of energy, after a
short period, they will return to their original energy state, emitting a
photon to carry away the excess energy. The energy of the photon being
directly in proportion to the energy input in the first place.

This has been verified repeatedly in published laboratory experiments. The
photons are
emitted at around 300,000 Km/sec at right angles from the surface of the
conductor. They don't need to 'know' which way to go or to be sucked out by
some mystic force. Neither do we need degenerate or decaying electrons to
direct the flow. An electron is an electron and nothing else. All electrons
are inherently the same. When they form part of an atom, they can absorb or
emit photons to balance the energy in the atom. The photon is not part of
the electron, it is just the manifestation of temporarily stored, excess
energy, being emitted to restore the atom back to its lowest energy state.

Mike G0ULI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike I want to wait until some of the others present there thoughts
but one thing I have to comment on. The term is an electron is an
electron
and nothing else! I won't argue on the nomenclature of an electron
but must point out that an electrons has different properties!
You can have an electron that is bound to an atom via it's orbit
and that word bound cannot be underestimated. You can also have free
electrons
that attach themselves within to what we understand as matter.You can
also have
static particles where there are several states of decay right down
to a particle with chemical atributes but no electric atributes.
Now everybody brings photons into this picture that I will not comment
on
but as far as electrons one must state the electrons status before
debating
property changes that some suggest are foisted upon them.Lets wait to
see
what the others present though you didn't refer to the fact that if
the
circuit is always on the surface with respect to time then the
radiation
should be the same as a full size radiator. But that can wait.
Somebody may yet refer to a description from a book !
Best regards
Art

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

"Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message
...

Art, I'm not sure if you read my entire post.

and he wouldn't understand it even if he did.


Where can I find a copy of your work? I have gone through the archives but
no luck.

you won't. he hasn't published anything other than handwaving distortions
and misconceptions based on some weird distortion of gauss's law and his
concept of 'equilibrium', which he can't define either. you will be happier
when you add him and anyone who responds to him to your kill file.

"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

On Nov 11, 2:35 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:


Hi Stefan
If you search "John E Davis" you will find the link. He
made the post's regarding the math on March 10-11-14 and 15 the
heading is re gaussian statics law

Derek

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.)

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

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