"Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote in message
m...
Tom,I agree with much of what you say but the problem goes much deeper
than that, and much of the blame rests with academics taught.
Let us look at what is called by some as a 'simple dipole'.
The dipole is very inefficient radiator.
The only claim that you can place on it is that it is has a low
impedance
at resonance...Period. There is no calculation available in any of the
touted books that maximum gain per unit length is design related to a
dipole! The dipole is only a reference that other antennas can be
related to even tho it is a very inefficient radiator per unit length.
Over time academics have made the dipole as something very efficient
about which every advance must be related .
That Tom is very incorrect and it is that which is what prevents the
emergence of new ideas that push the envelope. If one just spouts what
is in present day books then they are just followers that suck up the
dipole aproach which thus prevents them from contributing anything
that pushes out the envelope. Education
can only take you so far and it is dependent on those who have
received an education to push the envelope further. If one doesn't do
this then they are just quoting things that were told to them or they
read in some book and thus are not equiped to pushing the envelope.
Until the simple dipole is shead of its illusionary powers by the
academics who write the books newcomers can only copy, and not
progress. Ofcourse, academics who just memorise can still attack
people, those who do not agree with them, in a personal way in the
hope that a raucous crowd of peasants will echo the academics trash
around the Gillotine.

Regards
Art





Gain and efficecey have nothing to do with each other

Efficency is based on how much of your signal your antenna turns into heat
compared to the amount radiated and nothing more. Gain is based of how your
antenna shapes the pattern. The fact is a simple dipole will often service
more area than high gain antennas. The high gain antenna just uses radiation
that would normally go some where you are not interested in to intensifies
the signal in an area where you want to communicate. Art this is a fact you
really need to understand. Dont feel bad about it though, I believe gain was
a very poor word chosen to discribe the effect of an antenna on the shape of
its field. Gain typically means to amplify which is something an antenna can
not do. This all means that it is possible that a simple dipole is more
efficent than a Yagi_Uda antenna with 10 dbd of gain. The dipole may be
slighly more effeicent due to less losses coupling to the feed line. Mind
you this will be a very small diference in losses when comparing well
designed antennas.

Unless you are willing to give demonstrative proof of your ideas you should
not insult us that that hold dear our beliefs and theories by refering to us
as raucous crowd of peasants. I you are unwilling to prove your points you
only appear as a fool. Our belefs and theories have been tested over many
years and have found to be true as far as they have been tested, your ideas
have not been tested by you at all. You assign words new meanings that are
not typical of those discussing antennas and expect others to understand
you. You ask for critical opinon of your ideaas but become angry when
someone disagrees with you. If you really think you have some kind of new
break through put your money where yiur mouth is and demonstrate them or go
join the free power bunch, they will love and embrace you and take your
money..

"Jimmy" wrote in message
. com...

"Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote in message
m...
Tom,I agree with much of what you say but the problem goes much deeper
than that, and much of the blame rests with academics taught.
Let us look at what is called by some as a 'simple dipole'.
The dipole is very inefficient radiator.
The only claim that you can place on it is that it is has a low
impedance
at resonance...Period. There is no calculation available in any of the
touted books that maximum gain per unit length is design related to a
dipole! The dipole is only a reference that other antennas can be
related to even tho it is a very inefficient radiator per unit length.
Over time academics have made the dipole as something very efficient
about which every advance must be related .
That Tom is very incorrect and it is that which is what prevents the
emergence of new ideas that push the envelope. If one just spouts what
is in present day books then they are just followers that suck up the
dipole aproach which thus prevents them from contributing anything
that pushes out the envelope. Education
can only take you so far and it is dependent on those who have
received an education to push the envelope further. If one doesn't do
this then they are just quoting things that were told to them or they
read in some book and thus are not equiped to pushing the envelope.
Until the simple dipole is shead of its illusionary powers by the
academics who write the books newcomers can only copy, and not
progress. Ofcourse, academics who just memorise can still attack
people, those who do not agree with them, in a personal way in the
hope that a raucous crowd of peasants will echo the academics trash
around the Gillotine.

Regards
Art





Gain and efficecey have nothing to do with each other

Oooooops I have been pushing radiation efficiency per unit length for so
long my fingers gave up on me and wrote gain


Efficency is based on how much of your signal your antenna turns into heat
compared to the amount radiated and nothing more. Gain is based of how
your
antenna shapes the pattern. The fact is a simple dipole will often service
more area than high gain antennas. The high gain antenna just uses
radiation
that would normally go some where you are not interested in to intensifies
the signal in an area where you want to communicate. Art this is a fact
you
really need to understand. Dont feel bad about it though, I believe gain
was
a very poor word chosen to discribe the effect of an antenna on the shape
of
its field. Gain typically means to amplify which is something an antenna
can
not do. This all means that it is possible that a simple dipole is more
efficent than a Yagi_Uda antenna with 10 dbd of gain. The dipole may be
slighly more effeicent due to less losses coupling to the feed line. Mind
you this will be a very small diference in losses when comparing well
designed antennas.

Unless you are willing to give demonstrative proof of your ideas you
should
not insult us that that hold dear our beliefs and theories by refering to
us
as raucous crowd of peasants. I you are unwilling to prove your points you
only appear as a fool.
So am a fool.. so what

Our belefs and theories have been tested over many
years and have found to be true as far as they have been tested, your
ideas
have not been tested by you at all.

Oh not so...I tried to share it with the group many times and always called
me a fool
so I must be one. As for my ideas being tested ofcourse they have and I laid
out the money
and did the walk

You assign words new meanings that are

so if you have trouble by me not using typical word then ask questions,
I think for myself
not typical of those discussing antennas and expect others to understand
you.

Geez What started all this,are you a buddy of the doctor or something?

I declared a antenna with a patent infact two of them,they did not attract
attention
but at least I did my thing.And yes I have another one going plus I am
hoping to publish it
this year. Yes it may bomb out as far as interest goes but I am meeting my
own objectives,
if amateurs are not willing to explore or go beyond the accepted way of
thinking well to them it is a hobby
.. If you do try to push the envelope then you will inevitably focus on thing
that are not the norm. If you feel I should present them all to you in a
take and not give aproach tough I tried that a few times on this group
and experts like the Doctor and Shakespeare just wanted to laugh off the
thought of any new ideas and more like minds jumped on the bandwaggon for a
free laugh. This cruelty has happened many times before with other
people...just think of the erudite members that we have lost in just the
last two months which really doesn't matter to appliance operators but for
me who is interested in the technical side.....well I miss them

You ask for critical opinon of your ideaas but become angry when
someone disagrees with you.

Yes if I feel their attempt was dishonourable, I am English I can't think of
running away. If this is the time for me to die then so be it but I will not
be cowed.

If you really think you have some kind of new
break through put your money where yiur mouth is and demonstrate them or
go
join the free power bunch, they will love and embrace you and take your
money..Well go and read my past patents some cost me money and some cost
company money
now you have an opportunity to do the walk instead of following the Doctor
and Shakespeare
over a cliff. Now you could turn on Yuri he has the guts to stand up for
himself even if it apears that he is alone., Maybe he will be an easy target
for you but I doubt it

When I said 'peasants' I was refering to the likes of the Doctor and
Richard hic Shakespeare who just love to attack people or complain they
don't understand
or a posting is so meaningless and of course Richard has placed nasty
comments about
pretty much everybody and he hasn't jumped on me yet ,but ofcourse the
Doctor quickly got back on the net
to do his thing. I don't know if I have ever responded to you before but if
you think the hat was meant for or fitted you then I apologise. I do not
intend to be nasty but I do not hesitate to respond in kind
Best regards
Art

Jimmy wrote:
"Efficiency is based on how much of your signal your antenna turns into
heat compared to the amount radiated and nothing more."

With some reshuffle of terms, Terman seems to agree. On page 893 of his
1955 edition:

"The efficiency of the antenna as a radiator is the ratio: Rradiation
/ Rradiation + Rloss----."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:04:24 GMT, "Jimmy"
wrote:
Gain and efficecey have nothing to do with each other

Hi Jimmy,

In the classic sense, this is very true.

However, when we look at gain integrated over all dimensions, we
arrive at the concept of the isotropic reference. As a basis of
comparison (skip the sophistry of there being no such physical device)
this too reveals how gain and efficiency can be compared.

In other words, with gain you can play the numbers to claim efficiency
by sweeping the bad news under the carpet if you simply ignore the
integration factor. A prime example is the recent glowing reports of
the cfa. The "inventor" claims that his "FCC" tests reveal a gain of
his antenna over the standard monopole, through substitution with an
actual broadcast band, licensed transmitter.

Well, perhaps in the direction of the nearby tower it was supposed to
replace. When you look in every other direction, and step well away
from the source (say, like were the listeners actually live and
listen); then it is a different game altogether. Only 20 miles out
and you find the cfa 30dB down into the mud compared to FCC standard
charts (I won't go deeply into the fact that the comparison BC station
had a ****-poor antenna itself 10dB down from those same charts).

True, no one did a helicopter flyover to vindicate the cfa's
redemption of superb cloud warming capabilities, but that was not
where the listening audience lives. Further, given that the cfa's
poor performance conformed to modeling along the testing scenario, it
was hardly an indictment of the models that they did not reveal the
glow in the sky.

So, when you see claims based against gain tied to arguments of
efficiency (apply any special terminology you wish) ask the hard
questions and observe the answers. Do they respond with technical
specifications that answer the issue, or are they laden with conflict
and personality?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC