Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Part 2 Is it possible to ask questions here?
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Part 2 Is it possible to ask questions here?
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Part 2 Is it possible to ask questions here?
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Part 2 Is it possible to ask questions here?
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Part 2 Is it possible to ask questions here?
"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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Part 2 Is it possible to ask questions here?
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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.) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |