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

"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

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, 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

"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

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

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