| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The pursuit of the all band antenna
It can be seen that a fixed radfiator hasd a primary frequency and
then some harmonic frequencies. The spacing and the resonant points of an antenna resides in the amount of resistance in the cuircuit from zero upto a critical point as with a tank circuit. This resistance value has the action of bringing the radiator vibrational amplitude to zero where it then takes of to a diminishing value compared to other componenents in the circuit to the point that where the radiator is resonant the contained resistance has negnigable effect. Thus one can make a folded dipole with a variable resistance in the radfiating circuit such that the main resonant point can be determined as well as the spacing between the harmonic frequencies. In addition, if the radiator consists of increased induntance designs such as contra windings then the distance between the resonance point and the harmonic points begin to decrease. Thus using the above one can now make a all band antenna where the resonance points line up with the desired frequencies. An easy way to accomplish this is to wind wire on a dielectris from end to end and back again several times until one has wound at least two wave lengths on the former and then feeding the arrangement at the beginning and ending wire points. Using a mfj 259 one can then determine the spacings of the resonant point by stretching the windins as well as adding the required variable resister. Note. the resistance absorbs the energy between resonance points and diminishes in effect as the point of resonance is aproached. For more understanding of the radiation format of radiators review the circumstances of voltage overshoot with respect to tank circuits The above will provide an alternate discussion thread that will take away the current tunnel vision aproach with respect to "black boxes" and bring the newsgroup back to the advancement of antenna techniques if it is that that peeks one's interests. By the way, it is the ELECTROMAGNETIC field that launches the particles from the radiating surface and it is the MECHANICAL REACTIVE FORCE that provides the mechanical resonance of the radiator WHICH JOINS THE THEORIES OF NEWTON AND . MAXWELL that Einstein struggled for in vain. For those that feel that mechanical laws of Newton cannot be used with respech to electrical subjects( ala Roy) here is a chance for you to prove your point. Regards Art Unwin, a limey no less |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
art,
Wideband antennas already are available with no need for the "tank circuit/equilibrium" concepts, design methods and limited band segments you think must apply. The link below describes one: a commercial HF antenna that has essentially the same radiation pattern from 2-30 MHz with an SWR less than 2.5:1 without a tuner, and is nearly 100% efficient throughout that range. Not too usable for most hams, but that will be due to economic and real estate issues, not to the (real) laws of physics. http://www.antenna.be/tci-501.pdf RF |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:03:23 -0800 (PST), art
wrote: For those that feel that mechanical laws of Newton cannot be used with respech to electrical subjects( ala Roy) here is a chance for you to prove your point. Hi Arthur, Newton's law: F = M · A these FMA terms a F is force in Newton; M is mass in kilogram; A is acceleration in meter / second / second. We can compute the force on a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna accelerated by earth's gravity field: F = 10 kilogram · 9.8 · meter / second / second or (reduced): 98 kilogram · meter / second / second When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Mass doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Acceleration due to gravity doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. There are only two variables to find Force in Newton's laws. How much does 100 Watts change Mass or Gravity? I really don't expect you can answer that because it is too simple: one or both numbers provided above will be different, that is all. Can you give us something as specific as I have? In other words, for 100 Watts applied to a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna, will its Mass change to 11 kilogram or 9 kilogram? Or will gravity change to 9 · meter / second / second or 8 · meter / second / second? Only one or two very specific numbers have to shift here. Can you tell us which or how much? This is, after all, your topic, your math, your profession, and your chance to prove your point. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On 20 Dec, 11:41, "Richard Fry" wrote:
art, Wideband antennas already are available with no need for the "tank circuit/equilibrium" concepts, design methods and limited band segments you think must apply. This IS a log periodic design which provides for close segments of resonance limited only by the number of elements aplicable for a frequency spread. I not only THINK that limited band spread applies, I KNOW for sure that it does when considering impedance changes with respect to frequency. This operates on the same principle of multi elements of different lengths as opposed to a mechanically lengthened radiator presently on sale for amateurs. You are dwelling too much on old teachings in a book that was around when you were young. The next generation will leap frog you as newer books with fresh concepts are printed. This will give lie that all is known about antennas! The antenna I described does the same thing while mounted on the top of the tower where consideration of ground plane is not an issue and where TOA can be varied by tilting, the latter becomming increasingly in use in present day communications. Your education in radiation tho limited is commensurate with your age and experience,certainly not up to par for the future generation but enough to satisfy your particular life expectancy segment. |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On 20 Dec, 12:29, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:03:23 -0800 (PST), art wrote: For those that feel that mechanical laws of Newton cannot be used with respech to electrical subjects( ala Roy) here is a chance for you to prove your point. Hi Arthur, Newton's law: F = M · A these FMA terms a F is force in Newton; M is mass in kilogram; A is acceleration in meter / second / second. We can compute the force on a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna accelerated by earth's gravity field: F = 10 kilogram · 9.8 · meter / second / second or (reduced): 98 kilogram · meter / second / second When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Mass doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Acceleration due to gravity doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. There are only two variables to find Force in Newton's laws. How much does 100 Watts change Mass or Gravity? I really don't expect you can answer that because it is too simple: one or both numbers provided above will be different, that is all. Can you give us something as specific as I have? In other words, for 100 Watts applied to a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna, will its Mass change to 11 kilogram or 9 kilogram? Or will gravity change to 9 · meter / second / second or 8 · meter / second / second? Only one or two very specific numbers have to shift here. Can you tell us which or how much? This is, after all, your topic, your math, your profession, and your chance to prove your point. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC No |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:46:22 -0800 (PST), art
wrote: Only one or two very specific numbers have to shift here. Can you tell us which or how much? This is, after all, your topic, your math, your profession, and your chance to prove your point. No Then there's your proof that Newton's law doesn't work. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:44:37 -0800 (PST), art
wrote: I not only THINK that limited band spread applies, I KNOW for sure that it does when considering impedance changes with respect to frequency. Hi Arthur, Richard's example resonates from over a 10:1 region in the HF (in other words ALL HF). They have published their data, they have published their design. You are not going to do that, are you? I mean like specific frequencies, specific SWR measurements, specific antenna dimensions, specific radiation gains. You are not going to offer us that, are you? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
art wrote:
On 20 Dec, 12:29, Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:03:23 -0800 (PST), art wrote: For those that feel that mechanical laws of Newton cannot be used with respech to electrical subjects( ala Roy) here is a chance for you to prove your point. Hi Arthur, Newton's law: F = M · A these FMA terms a F is force in Newton; M is mass in kilogram; A is acceleration in meter / second / second. We can compute the force on a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna accelerated by earth's gravity field: F = 10 kilogram · 9.8 · meter / second / second or (reduced): 98 kilogram · meter / second / second When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Mass doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Acceleration due to gravity doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. There are only two variables to find Force in Newton's laws. How much does 100 Watts change Mass or Gravity? I really don't expect you can answer that because it is too simple: one or both numbers provided above will be different, that is all. Can you give us something as specific as I have? In other words, for 100 Watts applied to a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna, will its Mass change to 11 kilogram or 9 kilogram? Or will gravity change to 9 · meter / second / second or 8 · meter / second / second? Only one or two very specific numbers have to shift here. Can you tell us which or how much? This is, after all, your topic, your math, your profession, and your chance to prove your point. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC No ....he replied, "I cannot." Art leaves the leapfrogging in knowledge to future generations. Dave K8MN |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
art wrote:
It can be seen that a fixed radfiator hasd a primary frequency and then some harmonic frequencies. The spacing and the resonant points of an antenna resides in the amount of resistance in the cuircuit from zero upto a critical point as with a tank circuit. This resistance value has the action of bringing the radiator vibrational amplitude to zero where it then takes of to a diminishing value compared to other componenents in the circuit to the point that where the radiator is resonant the contained resistance has negnigable effect. Thus one can make a folded dipole with a variable resistance in the radfiating circuit such that the main resonant point can be determined as well as the spacing between the harmonic frequencies. In addition, if the radiator consists of increased induntance designs such as contra windings then the distance between the resonance point and the harmonic points begin to decrease. Thus using the above one can now make a all band antenna where the resonance points line up with the desired frequencies. An easy way to accomplish this is to wind wire on a dielectris from end to end and back again several times until one has wound at least two wave lengths on the former and then feeding the arrangement at the beginning and ending wire points. Using a mfj 259 one can then determine the spacings of the resonant point by stretching the windins as well as adding the required variable resister. Note. the resistance absorbs the energy between resonance points and diminishes in effect as the point of resonance is aproached. For more understanding of the radiation format of radiators review the circumstances of voltage overshoot with respect to tank circuits The above will provide an alternate discussion thread that will take away the current tunnel vision aproach with respect to "black boxes" and bring the newsgroup back to the advancement of antenna techniques if it is that that peeks one's interests. By the way, it is the ELECTROMAGNETIC field that launches the particles from the radiating surface and it is the MECHANICAL REACTIVE FORCE that provides the mechanical resonance of the radiator WHICH JOINS THE THEORIES OF NEWTON AND . MAXWELL that Einstein struggled for in vain. For those that feel that mechanical laws of Newton cannot be used with respech to electrical subjects( ala Roy) here is a chance for you to prove your point. Regards Art Unwin, a limey no less All multi-band antennas are a compromise. The only "all band antenna" that exists is an isotropic radiator. |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
Smash wrote:
All multi-band antennas are a compromise. The only "all band antenna" that exists is an isotropic radiator. But the isotropic radiator doesn't exist. It's a theoretical construct. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On 20 Dec, 13:41, Dave Heil wrote:
art wrote: On 20 Dec, 12:29, Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:03:23 -0800 (PST), art wrote: For those that feel that mechanical laws of Newton cannot be used with respech to electrical subjects( ala Roy) here is a chance for you to prove your point. Hi Arthur, Newton's law: F = M · A these FMA terms a F is force in Newton; M is mass in kilogram; A is acceleration in meter / second / second. We can compute the force on a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna accelerated by earth's gravity field: F = 10 kilogram · 9.8 · meter / second / second or (reduced): 98 kilogram · meter / second / second When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Mass doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Acceleration due to gravity doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. There are only two variables to find Force in Newton's laws. How much does 100 Watts change Mass or Gravity? I really don't expect you can answer that because it is too simple: one or both numbers provided above will be different, that is all. Can you give us something as specific as I have? In other words, for 100 Watts applied to a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna, will its Mass change to 11 kilogram or 9 kilogram? Or will gravity change to 9 · meter / second / second or 8 · meter / second / second? Only one or two very specific numbers have to shift here. Can you tell us which or how much? This is, after all, your topic, your math, your profession, and your chance to prove your point. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC No ...he replied, "I cannot." Art leaves the leapfrogging in knowledge to future generations. Dave K8MN- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If you want to get 'by' then by all means read all the technical books that reflect the times, that makes you a follower. If you want to go beyond the books then you have to do the research and that makes you a leader. If you place your research in front of a panel of experts in the field and then get accepted, it then has a place in future books thus providing a stepping stone for those that follow. This newsgroup is for followers of present day books. By the way, "no" does not equate to "cannot" in any language It only equates for those who wish to jump the Grand Canyon in two strides. |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
"Smash" wrote in message ... All multi-band antennas are a compromise. The only "all band antenna" that exists is an isotropic radiator. not worth responding to art... but this statement is incorrect. an isotropic radiator doesn't have to be 'all band' or even wide banded. 'isotropic' says nothing about frequency dependence at all, only about directivity. |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On 20 Dec, 13:30, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:44:37 -0800 (PST), art wrote: I not only THINK that limited band spread applies, I KNOW for sure that it does when considering impedance changes with respect to frequency. Hi Arthur, Richard's example resonates from over a 10:1 region in the HF (in other words ALL HF). They have published their data, they have published their design. You are not going to do that, are you? I mean like specific frequencies, specific SWR measurements, specific antenna dimensions, specific radiation gains. You are not going to offer us that, are you? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC No. This group is for book followers. I have placed it in front of a panel of my peers consisting of professors knoweledgable in the field. You are welcome to follow the descriptions/instructions that I have provided over the years if you have an ounce of inquisitiveness but your niche in life is to mock and not enquire. Go back to the thread of a thousand postings and go around the circle once more while injecting snakes and ladders that go no where. Remember, it took you several months to accept that the adition of a time variable to Gaussian law results in the same law stated by Maxwell. I haven't got the time to provide a thread of a 1000 postings to satisfy anybody that takes that long to absorb every step into new territory absent a book. Art |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:05:54 -0800 (PST), art
wrote: They have published their data, they have published their design. You are not going to do that, are you? I mean like specific frequencies, specific SWR measurements, specific antenna dimensions, specific radiation gains. You are not going to offer us that, are you? No. Hi Arthur, Then you don't have anything to offer, do you? What a mooch. **** IRONIC CONTENT FOLLOWS ***** Let's try this theory on for size. Arthur, I have an antenna the size of a pin head that works 160M with 20 dB gain, when I operatered it from my basement. It uses the Earth's magnetic lines of force to penetrate soil, rock, and constructions. By using ultraminiature plates at right angles, the Poindexter Vectrod takes on a helical twist that steers through electron orbits to escape the resistorance of nucklei (wich everyone nose is 100,000 times larger) thus reducing gain by 5 or 3 divisions. It is provened by Faradsay laws which came before Gus the mangetic plumber patended the north and south poles. If you cannot prove this, then goe and warshipyour old dead gods and put bernt oferings at there feeet because nonething isreally none but low so eventhough fo' you to go say you no it, it no so - whoa! so woe, how po'. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
art wrote:
On 20 Dec, 13:41, Dave Heil wrote: art wrote: On 20 Dec, 12:29, Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:03:23 -0800 (PST), art wrote: For those that feel that mechanical laws of Newton cannot be used with respech to electrical subjects( ala Roy) here is a chance for you to prove your point. Hi Arthur, Newton's law: F = M · A these FMA terms a F is force in Newton; M is mass in kilogram; A is acceleration in meter / second / second. We can compute the force on a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna accelerated by earth's gravity field: F = 10 kilogram · 9.8 · meter / second / second or (reduced): 98 kilogram · meter / second / second When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Mass doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Acceleration due to gravity doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. There are only two variables to find Force in Newton's laws. How much does 100 Watts change Mass or Gravity? I really don't expect you can answer that because it is too simple: one or both numbers provided above will be different, that is all. Can you give us something as specific as I have? In other words, for 100 Watts applied to a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna, will its Mass change to 11 kilogram or 9 kilogram? Or will gravity change to 9 · meter / second / second or 8 · meter / second / second? Only one or two very specific numbers have to shift here. Can you tell us which or how much? This is, after all, your topic, your math, your profession, and your chance to prove your point. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC No ...he replied, "I cannot." Art leaves the leapfrogging in knowledge to future generations. Dave K8MN- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If you want to get 'by' then by all means read all the technical books that reflect the times, that makes you a follower. If you want to go beyond the books then you have to do the research and that makes you a leader. So, here's your chance to lead, Art. You've been offered a precious opportunity to enlighten those reading this newsgroup. You've declined. If you place your research in front of a panel of experts in the field and then get accepted, it then has a place in future books thus providing a stepping stone for those that follow. What "panel of experts" has accepted your research, Art? This newsgroup is for followers of present day books. Then, pray tell, what is a superior being such as yourself doing here among the followers? By the way, "no" does not equate to "cannot" in any language It only equates for those who wish to jump the Grand Canyon in two strides. I didn't write anything about the word equating. I added words to it. Dave K8MN |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
art wrote:
Art Unwin, a limey no less Should have said "******" instead of "limey". |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
Dave wrote:
"Smash" wrote in message ... All multi-band antennas are a compromise. The only "all band antenna" that exists is an isotropic radiator. not worth responding to art... but this statement is incorrect. an isotropic radiator doesn't have to be 'all band' or even wide banded. 'isotropic' says nothing about frequency dependence at all, only about directivity. Kinda my point, actually... :-/ |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
Dave Heil wrote:
art wrote: On 20 Dec, 13:41, Dave Heil wrote: art wrote: On 20 Dec, 12:29, Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:03:23 -0800 (PST), art wrote: For those that feel that mechanical laws of Newton cannot be used with respech to electrical subjects( ala Roy) here is a chance for you to prove your point. Hi Arthur, Newton's law: F = M · A these FMA terms a F is force in Newton; M is mass in kilogram; A is acceleration in meter / second / second. We can compute the force on a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna accelerated by earth's gravity field: F = 10 kilogram · 9.8 · meter / second / second or (reduced): 98 kilogram · meter / second / second When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Mass doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Acceleration due to gravity doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. There are only two variables to find Force in Newton's laws. How much does 100 Watts change Mass or Gravity? I really don't expect you can answer that because it is too simple: one or both numbers provided above will be different, that is all. Can you give us something as specific as I have? In other words, for 100 Watts applied to a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna, will its Mass change to 11 kilogram or 9 kilogram? Or will gravity change to 9 · meter / second / second or 8 · meter / second / second? Only one or two very specific numbers have to shift here. Can you tell us which or how much? This is, after all, your topic, your math, your profession, and your chance to prove your point. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC No ...he replied, "I cannot." Art leaves the leapfrogging in knowledge to future generations. Dave K8MN- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If you want to get 'by' then by all means read all the technical books that reflect the times, that makes you a follower. If you want to go beyond the books then you have to do the research and that makes you a leader. So, here's your chance to lead, Art. You've been offered a precious opportunity to enlighten those reading this newsgroup. You've declined. If you place your research in front of a panel of experts in the field and then get accepted, it then has a place in future books thus providing a stepping stone for those that follow. What "panel of experts" has accepted your research, Art? This newsgroup is for followers of present day books. Then, pray tell, what is a superior being such as yourself doing here among the followers? By the way, "no" does not equate to "cannot" in any language It only equates for those who wish to jump the Grand Canyon in two strides. I didn't write anything about the word equating. I added words to it. Dave K8MN In the past, I've tried to buy books published in the future, but they're not being printed any more. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On Dec 21, 2:31 pm, Smash wrote:
Should have said "******" instead of "limey". Ahh so thats what your doing with your other hand, nothing quite like multi-tasking is there |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On Dec 20, 2:44 pm, art wrote:
Your education in radiation tho limited is commensurate with your age and experience,certainly not up to par for the future generation but enough to satisfy your particular life expectancy segment. I don't recall reading anything about your level of education in things RF. I seem to recall you are a retired mechanical engineer dabbling with things RF in your spare time. It seems fairly obvious to me that your education in radiation can't even deal with the present tense, much less the future. I would strongly consider this before braying like a jackass to every person you talk to that *does* have an education in things RF. But it is possible that if you do that, you will lose much of the entertainment value that you provide. :/ So go ahead.. Make our day with even more RF bafflegab. Like I once said, you make the EH antenna guy look fairly sane by comparison. :/ MK |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On Dec 20, 6:20 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
**** IRONIC CONTENT FOLLOWS ***** Let's try this theory on for size. Arthur, I have an antenna the size of a pin head that works 160M with 20 dB gain, when I operatered it from my basement. It uses the Earth's magnetic lines of force to penetrate soil, rock, and constructions. By using ultraminiature plates at right angles, the Poindexter Vectrod takes on a helical twist that steers through electron orbits to escape the resistorance of nucklei (wich everyone nose is 100,000 times larger) thus reducing gain by 5 or 3 divisions. It is provened by Faradsay laws which came before Gus the mangetic plumber patended the north and south poles. If you cannot prove this, then goe and warshipyour old dead gods and put bernt oferings at there feeet because nonething isreally none but low so eventhough fo' you to go say you no it, it no so - whoa! so woe, how po'. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Dang.. This is scary.. You mimic Art's bafflegab to a tee... MK |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On Dec 20, 5:45*pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
Smash wrote: All multi-band antennas are a compromise. The only "all band antenna" that exists is an isotropic radiator. But the isotropic radiator doesn't exist. It's a theoretical construct. Roy Lewallen, W7EL The best all band antenna I used was in my novice days... A 100 watt light bulb on the end of a pair roughly 33 foot wires strung up through a tree... Worked a dozen states one afternoon on 15 and 40, then worked the locals on 80 that night... The Knightkit T-100 loaded up just fine on that all band antenna... I don't think it was isotropic, but it sure did blink when being keyed.. The neighbors came over wondering why it was Christmas in September.... That was cycle 19... What a great time we had... denny / k8do |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On Dec 21, 5:01*am, wrote:
On Dec 20, 2:44 wrote: Your education in radiation tho limited is commensurate with your age and experience,certainly not up to par for the future generation but enough to satisfy your particular life expectancy segment. I don't recall reading anything about your level of education in things RF. I seem to recall you are a retired mechanical engineer dabbling with things RF in your spare time. It seems fairly obvious to me that your education in radiation can't even deal with the present tense, much less the future. I would strongly consider this before braying like a jackass to every person you talk to that *does* have an education in things RF. But it is possible that if you do that, you will lose much of the entertainment value that you provide. *:/ So go ahead.. Make our day with even more RF bafflegab. Like I once said, you make the EH antenna guy look fairly sane by comparison. * :/ MK |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On Dec 20, 12:03*pm, art wrote:
It can be seen that a fixed radfiator hasd a primary frequency and then some harmonic frequencies. The spacing and the resonant points of an antenna resides in the amount of resistance in the cuircuit from zero upto a critical point as with a tank circuit. This resistance value has the action of bringing the radiator vibrational amplitude to zero where it then takes of to a diminishing value compared to other componenents in the circuit to the point that where the radiator is resonant the contained resistance has negnigable effect. Thus one can make a folded dipole with a variable resistance in the radfiating circuit such that the main resonant point can be determined as well as the spacing between the harmonic frequencies. In addition, if the radiator consists of increased induntance designs such as contra windings then the distance between the resonance point and the harmonic points begin to decrease. Thus using the above one can now make a all band antenna where the resonance points line up with the desired frequencies. An easy way to accomplish this is to wind wire on a dielectris from end to end and back again several times until one has wound at least two wave lengths on the former and then feeding the arrangement at the beginning and ending wire points. Using a mfj 259 one can then determine the spacings of the resonant point by stretching the windins as well as adding the required variable resister. Note. the resistance absorbs the energy between resonance points and diminishes in effect as the point of resonance is aproached. For more understanding of the radiation format of radiators review the circumstances of voltage overshoot with respect to tank circuits The above will provide an alternate discussion thread that will take away the current tunnel vision aproach with respect to "black boxes" and bring the newsgroup back to the advancement of antenna techniques if it is that that peeks one's interests. By the way, it is the ELECTROMAGNETIC field that launches the particles from the radiating surface and it is the MECHANICAL REACTIVE FORCE that provides the mechanical resonance of the radiator *WHICH JOINS THE THEORIES OF NEWTON AND . MAXWELL that Einstein struggled for in vain. Somebody has beat you to it. Theories, like advice, are free so they exist everywhere. At least this one has some math (though fallacious) behind it: See: http://www.allanstime.com/UFT_private/final2.htm The Fundamental Field Equation The following equation is fundamental in understanding how the force fields interact and come together for this new unified field theory: D = (E/c*G)/A2* where D is the relativistic density, E is the energy of the unified field, c is the velocity of light, G is the universal gravitational constant, and the last part of the equation, / A2*, will be explained below. D and E are tensors with eigenvalues and quantum states associated therewith. *"A2" should read "capital Pi, sub-2" Density Dependence, D The density D is the dependent variable; changes in the energy (energy flow in and out of a region) cause changes in the density. For example, the energy flow to and/or away from any space-time continuum along the diallel lines determines the corresponding change in the density in that space-time continuum. Appreciating the energy field at the particle as well as in a region is central to the understanding of this theory. The energy can come from any of the force fields. For example, both equations apply: E = mc2, where m is the relativistic mass and E = hv, where "h" is Planck's constant "v" is the electromagnetic frequency of the photon. Energy can come from the other force fields as well. Later we will see some spectacular and very important examples of this interplay of the force fields. Parallel Component (A2) A dimensional analysis of the above equation reveals that A2 has dimensions of length, time and mass as the force fields interact. The forward slash "/" denotes being parallel in the unified field theory's mass-space-time continuum along the local diallel lines. The "sub-2" on the "A" denotes the energy coming in or going out in the mass-space- time continuum along the diallel lines in the local environment or region. Combining the energy with this term we have E/Pi2. Hence, we see that this denotes the energy per mass, per length and per time taken in the parallel direction of the local diallel lines. The quantity in the denominator of equation(1), cG, is the normalizing factor, so that the dependent variable, D, is the density factor taken in the parallel direction of the diallel lines. It is the density that is the principal resultant output after combining the energy from the force fields. Since the subscript "sub-2" denotes the energy from all sources coming into or going out of the local environment or region, a "sub-1" is implied for the energy, E, and the resulting density, D, as the recipients of the net energy coming in along the diallel lines into the environment or region. |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:44:31 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote: Hey, any theory that "Explains how whales communicate over very long distances using ULF frequencies" can't be all bad. I wonder if the whales communicate in phase or if they are shifted? Does this suggest this topic is deeper than whale shift? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On 21 Dec, 12:39, wrote:
On Dec 20, 12:03*pm, art wrote: It can be seen that a fixed radfiator hasd a primary frequency and then some harmonic frequencies. The spacing and the resonant points of an antenna resides in the amount of resistance in the cuircuit from zero upto a critical point as with a tank circuit. This resistance value has the action of bringing the radiator vibrational amplitude to zero where it then takes of to a diminishing value compared to other componenents in the circuit to the point that where the radiator is resonant the contained resistance has negnigable effect. Thus one can make a folded dipole with a variable resistance in the radfiating circuit such that the main resonant point can be determined as well as the spacing between the harmonic frequencies. In addition, if the radiator consists of increased induntance designs such as contra windings then the distance between the resonance point and the harmonic points begin to decrease. Thus using the above one can now make a all band antenna where the resonance points line up with the desired frequencies. An easy way to accomplish this is to wind wire on a dielectris from end to end and back again several times until one has wound at least two wave lengths on the former and then feeding the arrangement at the beginning and ending wire points. Using a mfj 259 one can then determine the spacings of the resonant point by stretching the windins as well as adding the required variable resister. Note. the resistance absorbs the energy between resonance points and diminishes in effect as the point of resonance is aproached. For more understanding of the radiation format of radiators review the circumstances of voltage overshoot with respect to tank circuits The above will provide an alternate discussion thread that will take away the current tunnel vision aproach with respect to "black boxes" and bring the newsgroup back to the advancement of antenna techniques if it is that that peeks one's interests. By the way, it is the ELECTROMAGNETIC field that launches the particles from the radiating surface and it is the MECHANICAL REACTIVE FORCE that provides the mechanical resonance of the radiator *WHICH JOINS THE THEORIES OF NEWTON AND . MAXWELL that Einstein struggled for in vain. Somebody has beat you to it. Theories, like advice, are free so they exist everywhere. At least this one has some math (though fallacious) behind it: See: http://www.allanstime.com/UFT_private/final2.htm The Fundamental Field Equation The following equation is fundamental in understanding how the force fields interact and come together for this new unified field theory: *D = (E/c*G)/A2* where D is the relativistic density, E is the energy of the unified field, c is the velocity of light, G is the universal gravitational constant, and the last part of the equation, / A2*, will be explained below. *D and E are tensors with eigenvalues and quantum states associated therewith. *"A2" should read "capital Pi, sub-2" Density Dependence, D The density D is the dependent variable; changes in the energy (energy flow in and out of a region) cause changes in the density. For example, the energy flow to and/or away from any space-time continuum along the diallel lines determines the corresponding change in the density in that space-time continuum. Appreciating the energy field at the particle as well as in a region is central to the understanding of this theory. The energy can come from any of the force fields. For example, both equations apply: E = mc2, where m is the relativistic mass and E = hv, where "h" is Planck's constant "v" is the electromagnetic frequency of the photon. Energy can come from the other force fields as well. Later we will see some spectacular and very important examples of this interplay of the force fields. Parallel Component (A2) A dimensional analysis of the above equation reveals that A2 has dimensions of length, time and mass as the force fields interact. The forward slash "/" denotes being parallel in the unified field theory's mass-space-time continuum along the local diallel lines. The "sub-2" on the "A" denotes the energy coming in or going out in the mass-space- time continuum along the diallel lines in the local environment or region. Combining the energy with this term we have E/Pi2. Hence, we see that this denotes the energy per mass, per length and per time taken in the parallel direction of the local diallel lines. The quantity in the denominator of equation(1), cG, is the normalizing factor, so that the dependent variable, D, is the density factor taken in the parallel direction of the diallel lines. It is the density that is the principal resultant output after combining the energy from the force fields. Since the subscript "sub-2" denotes the energy from all sources coming into or going out of the local environment or region, a "sub-1" is implied for the energy, E, and the resulting density, D, as the recipients of the net energy coming in along the diallel lines into the environment or region.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The main hang up in the trend to alternate aproaches to Newton such as the relatavistic aproach is the inability to bring gravity into the picture based on the laws of Newton, and without gravity one cannot have a unified theory which is the holy grail of today. The theory provided presented nothing that combined electro magnetic forces with those of gravitation. The article presented provided two theories both of which depend on the other and without connection to any known principles of science. Thus without a solid starting point based on known science there cannot be a meaningful review and would never be accepted as such.( The theory has not qualified for a review as yet) My aproach is based on existing laws where equilibrium and gravity is inherrent which is a solid starting point to provide a trail that connects to electro magnetic fields ( the stated parameters for a unified theory which presently has not been achieved). The mathematical trail is so simple it is somewhat audacious in that by adding a time varient to a law that is based on gravity and equilibrium per Newtonian terms we have found a direct link to the laws of Maxwell. But that really is not the pot of gold !It is the trail rules with respect to equilibrium that provides the advances in science which shows that a radiator can be of any size or shape or elevation pattern but also an array of such elements which, being in equilibrium, requires just one feed point thus obtaining gain over any other array while occupying a smaller volume. So theories are fine but if you cannot use them in actuality to provide an advance in science then they are just words without justification. I am comfortable with my 160 meter antenna on top of my tower that has no equal with respect gain versus volume occupied, all of which is a direct derivative of the law of Gauss. The same goes for the resonant points which is the subject of this thread since it also duplicates the tank circuit around which the connection of gravity and magnetic fields exists. By doing this the universal theory is again given a morsel of reality with respect to existing laws. Everybody have a merry Xmas. And try not to be overbearing to those gathered around you Art |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
art wrote:
The main hang up in the trend to alternate aproaches to Newton such as the relatavistic aproach is the inability to bring gravity into the picture based on the laws of Newton, and without gravity one cannot have a unified theory which is the holy grail of today. The theory provided presented nothing that combined electro magnetic forces with those of gravitation. The article presented provided two theories both of which depend on the other and without connection to any known principles of science. Thus without a solid starting point based on known science there cannot be a meaningful review and would never be accepted as such.( The theory has not qualified for a review as yet) My aproach is based on existing laws where equilibrium and gravity is inherrent which is a solid starting point to provide a trail that connects to electro magnetic fields ( the stated parameters for a unified theory which presently has not been achieved). I think you might be on to something, Art. I believe gravity is at work, lowering the radiation angle of my big tribander. Everybody have a merry Xmas. And try not to be overbearing to those gathered around you Art Why, Merry Christmas, Art. Those gathered around me (not because of gravity, but because of common affection) will be quite safe as long as none of them expounds on crackpot antenna theory. Dave K8MN |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On 21 Dec, 16:23, Dave Heil wrote:
art wrote: The main hang up in the trend to alternate aproaches to Newton such as the relatavistic aproach is the inability to bring gravity into the picture based on the laws of Newton, and without gravity one cannot have a unified theory which is the holy grail of today. The theory provided presented nothing that combined electro magnetic forces with those of gravitation. The article presented provided two theories both of which depend on the other and without connection to any known principles of science. Thus without a solid starting point based on known science there cannot be a meaningful review and would never be accepted as such.( The theory has not qualified for a review as yet) My aproach is based on existing laws where equilibrium and gravity is inherrent which is a solid starting point to provide a trail that connects to electro magnetic fields ( the stated parameters for a unified theory which presently has not been achieved). I think you might be on to something, Art. *I believe gravity is at work, lowering the radiation angle of my big tribander. Everybody have a merry Xmas. And try not to be overbearing to those gathered around you Art Why, Merry Christmas, Art. * Because that was the beginning of what is good in this world. Even his cruel death can not stop the ground swell. Maybe the comming nuclear bomb on his birth place may bring good reason for speedier change! Those gathered around me (not because of gravity, but because of common affection) will be quite safe as long as none of them expounds on crackpot antenna theory. Now I see why you upset people Dave K8MN- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On 21 Dec, 18:57, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"art" wrote in message ... On 21 Dec, 12:39, wrote: (snip) Have you read anything by Professor Gabriel Oyibo? No. I am just a retired mechanical engineer which puts me at the bottom of the totem pole with respect to most subjects, especially physics and radiation where we have a large amount of experts in those fields residing on this very newsgroup. I do have Plank's lectures and an assortment of fields and waves type of thing plus the normal radio and electrical engineering reference books and ofcourse many of the Terman books which I imagine is normal for most G.E. engineers who worked in the industrial controls area. Today I worked on repairing a 50 inch plasma set for a change thus getting away from antennas. Art |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:52:30 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:
Another solution to GUT from a supposed "Nobel Prize nominee": Gij, j=0 See Uniting Waves: Intro to Grand Unified Theorem GAGUT Hi Dan, I see you can field questions on gravity where Arthur faltered. Perhaps you can respond to: On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:03:23 -0800 (PST), art wrote: For those that feel that mechanical laws of Newton cannot be used with respech to electrical subjects( ala Roy) here is a chance for you to prove your point. Hi Arthur, Newton's law: F = M · A these FMA terms a F is force in Newton; M is mass in kilogram; A is acceleration in meter / second / second. We can compute the force on a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna accelerated by earth's gravity field: F = 10 kilogram · 9.8 · meter / second / second or (reduced): 98 kilogram · meter / second / second When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Mass doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Acceleration due to gravity doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. There are only two variables to find Force in Newton's laws. How much does 100 Watts change Mass or Gravity? I really don't expect you can answer that because it is too simple: one or both numbers provided above will be different, that is all. Can you give us something as specific as I have? In other words, for 100 Watts applied to a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna, will its Mass change to 11 kilogram or 9 kilogram? Or will gravity change to 9 · meter / second / second or 8 · meter / second / second? Only one or two very specific numbers have to shift here. Can you tell us which or how much? This is, after all, your topic, your math, your profession, and your chance to prove your point. It seemed to be a very simple question at the time. There are only two variables and if Arthur is right about Newton, then one of them must change when we add power. In fact, if Arthur is right about gravity, it can be the only variable that changes - the question then becomes: How much? Given gravity is one of the weakest forces in the Universe, then adding 100W to it should peg the meter. One has to wonder how that went unnoticed in 120 years of transmission - especially with some of those Megawatt LW stations. If you can't help him, then you can join us in a very long line that Arthur has just stepped into, deep at the back somewhere outside the fire door, down the alley, around the block a couple times, and disappearing into a side street in Keokuk, Iowa (you two might run into Mitt Romney there). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
art wrote:
... gravity and magnetic fields exists. By doing this the universal theory is again given a morsel of reality with respect to existing laws. Everybody have a merry Xmas. And try not to be overbearing to those gathered around you Art I find it interesting so many "speak" of gravity as a "pulling force" when, in all actuality, it is a "pushing force" ... The earth is like a "bubble" in a "liquid ether", just like a bubble of air in water, the water is a force applying pressure to the bubble--but then, it is all how you look at it ... Regards, JS |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:52:30 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote: Another solution to GUT from a supposed "Nobel Prize nominee": Gij, j=0 See Uniting Waves: Intro to Grand Unified Theorem GAGUT Hi Dan, I see you can field questions on gravity where Arthur faltered. Perhaps you can respond to: On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:03:23 -0800 (PST), art wrote: For those that feel that mechanical laws of Newton cannot be used with respech to electrical subjects( ala Roy) here is a chance for you to prove your point. Hi Arthur, Newton's law: F = M · A these FMA terms a F is force in Newton; M is mass in kilogram; A is acceleration in meter / second / second. We can compute the force on a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna accelerated by earth's gravity field: F = 10 kilogram · 9.8 · meter / second / second or (reduced): 98 kilogram · meter / second / second When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Mass doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Acceleration due to gravity doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. There are only two variables to find Force in Newton's laws. How much does 100 Watts change Mass or Gravity? I really don't expect you can answer that because it is too simple: one or both numbers provided above will be different, that is all. Can you give us something as specific as I have? In other words, for 100 Watts applied to a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna, will its Mass change to 11 kilogram or 9 kilogram? Or will gravity change to 9 · meter / second / second or 8 · meter / second / second? Only one or two very specific numbers have to shift here. Can you tell us which or how much? This is, after all, your topic, your math, your profession, and your chance to prove your point. It seemed to be a very simple question at the time. There are only two variables and if Arthur is right about Newton, then one of them must change when we add power. In fact, if Arthur is right about gravity, it can be the only variable that changes - the question then becomes: How much? Given gravity is one of the weakest forces in the Universe, then adding 100W to it should peg the meter. One has to wonder how that went unnoticed in 120 years of transmission - especially with some of those Megawatt LW stations. If you can't help him, then you can join us in a very long line that Arthur has just stepped into, deep at the back somewhere outside the fire door, down the alley, around the block a couple times, and disappearing into a side street in Keokuk, Iowa (you two might run into Mitt Romney there). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard While gravity is often quoted as exhibiting the weakest force of the four major forces, that force appears to exhibit effects at far longer ranges than the other three. Certain physical theorists have hypothesised that this might be because we only see one aspect of gravity in our three/four (take your pick) dimensional universe. At any substantial physical distance from a point, gravitational force exerted per unit area is generally the largest force observed. Gravity interacts relatively weakly with matter and even less with the other three forces, so I would expect that any effect would be at the limits of measurement, even with high transmitter powers. Certain 'fringe experimental' groups claim to have found evidence of a reduction in gravitational attraction in the presence of rotating, high powered electromagnetic fields. This would appear to form the basis of proposed 'practical' flying saucer designs by such groups. Some conventional scientifically monitored experiments have shown apparent slight reductions in gravitational attraction, but whether the effect is real, or the measuring instruments were affected in some way by the presence of extreme electromagnetic fields is a moot point. Most of the proposed designs seem to require rather elaborate and expensive, large structures to be built to create the required fields. I think we can all see where this might be leading... When the additional 'hidden' dimensions demanded by string theory are factored in, it is entirely possible (even probable) for such effects to occur but not necessarily on a humanly observable scale. Gravity may seem to be the weakest force here on earth, but at cosmic scales it rules supreme. Mike G0ULI |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
Mike Kaliski wrote:
... Gravity may seem to be the weakest force here on earth, but at cosmic scales it rules supreme. Mike G0ULI You mean, like, has constructed everything we can see, even to the greatest distances observed by our most powerful telescopes? And, even ourselves? Really? :-) Regards, JS |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Mike Kaliski wrote: ... Gravity may seem to be the weakest force here on earth, but at cosmic scales it rules supreme. Mike G0ULI You mean, like, has constructed everything we can see, even to the greatest distances observed by our most powerful telescopes? And, even ourselves? Really? :-) Regards, JS Could be, but I prefer to believe I am just naturally attractive. ;-) Merry Xmas Mike G0ULI |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:13:42 -0000, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote: While gravity is often quoted as exhibiting the weakest force of the four major forces, that force appears to exhibit effects at far longer ranges than the other three. Hi Mike, Without pursuing the other three (you may resolve this in response), the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between those bodies being acted upon. This is the same relation to radiated power (in this case 100W) and the same two bodies (if we are doing substitutions) if they are located in the far field. In the near field, the force of radiation varies to the third power, and in the very close field this power is substantial: if that remote body is resonant, and in that near field, then it can absorb at least half of that power or more. Unfortunately, those who want to hoist Newton's corpse on their shoulders for a parade celebrating their powers of insight; they cannot offer that gravity is tweaked even by a thousandth part - and a thousandth part is easily measured. ... At any substantial physical distance from a point, gravitational force exerted per unit area is generally the largest force observed. This is, no doubt, a reference to nuclear forces where electric and magnetic dominate in geometries larger than a bacteria. Perhaps Arthur's levitating particles that dance to RF and leap off the antenna are fried virii. Unfortunately, for Arthur's levitating particles, the RF would have to be tuned to several thousand THz. (Art, a sunlamp would do the same thing cheaper.) ...Gravity may seem to be the weakest force here on earth I dare say that any subjective test of that would invert the "sense" of your statement. , but at cosmic scales it rules supreme. The human response aside, at cosmic scales you have cosmic mass in relation to less than cosmic scale. That is, comparing two galaxies' gravities is necessarily heavily leveraged with billions of suns, and yet the distance between the two centers (of galaxies) is probably on the order of 100's to 1000's of either galaxy's radius. Newton would shrug that off as being unremarkable - still only square law stuff. Newton would probably have expressed the force within 20% on the first pass. Push those two galactic systems to the edges of the cosmos will only reduce that force by the square law (it certainly won't increase it). However, none of this answers how gravity can be an all band antenna's friend as much as Arthur would like to have them wed. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
Mike Kaliski wrote:
... Could be, but I prefer to believe I am just naturally attractive. ;-) Merry Xmas Mike G0ULI Love the logic ... but, the pun? OUCH! ;-) Merry Christmas Mike, JS |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On 22 Dec, 19:48, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:13:42 -0000, "Mike Kaliski" wrote: While gravity is often quoted as exhibiting the weakest force of the four major forces, that force appears to exhibit effects at far longer ranges than the other three. Hi Mike, Without pursuing the other three (you may resolve this in response), the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between those bodies being acted upon. *This is the same snip. *Unfortunately, for Arthur's levitating particles, the RF would have to be tuned to several thousand THz. Can you substantiate the above statement? My understanding is that it only takes a moderate magnetic field to levitate a free electron, which is a world of difference from what you are saying Art However, none of this answers how gravity can be an all band antenna's friend as much as Arthur would like to have them wed. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:14:07 -0800 (PST), art
wrote: My understanding is that it only takes a moderate magnetic field to levitate a free electron, which is a world of difference from what you are saying Hi Arthur, The difference is I have experience in the matter, you don't. All you have to go on are books. Let's just take one very simple example about magnetic fields and electrons: The Magnetron! Do you know what's in a Magnetron? I doubt it. You will have to look it up in one of your books, whereas I've held on in my hands while servicing a transmitter. So, already knowing you haven't got a clue about what is in a Magnetron, then I will tell you. Cathode, Anode, and Magnet - nothing else to get in the way. So, there you have your magnet, and it is whopping big one too with a whopping bloody field that goes waaaaaaaay beyond what you call moderate (moderate is about 12 orders of magnitude toooooo small in comparison!). Does this magnet rip electrons right out of the metal? It would rip apart the metal first before that happened. And yet electrons fly from Cathode to Anode ONLY when the Cathode is HEATED! What is more, the magnet is utterly unnecessary for those electrons to flow. Ever wonder why Cathodes (or filaments) are heated? Well, in this case (as in all other cases) because the Magnet doesn't have the oomph to pull the electrons off the cold, cold Cathode. If a magnet can't do it, electrons are certainly not going to jump off an antenna - not unless there is sufficient potential to cause corona. Even then they don't go very far - not even a foot. Corona doesn't measurably add to DX unless you are at sea signaling by semaphore. Now, can you tell us what a "work function" is? If you could, then this nonsense about levitating electrons would collapse. I will give you a week to do your research. :-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
The pursuit of the all band antenna
"Mike Kaliski" wrote in message ... "Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:52:30 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote: Another solution to GUT from a supposed "Nobel Prize nominee": Gij, j=0 See Uniting Waves: Intro to Grand Unified Theorem GAGUT Hi Dan, I see you can field questions on gravity where Arthur faltered. Perhaps you can respond to: On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:03:23 -0800 (PST), art wrote: For those that feel that mechanical laws of Newton cannot be used with respech to electrical subjects( ala Roy) here is a chance for you to prove your point. Hi Arthur, Newton's law: F = M · A these FMA terms a F is force in Newton; M is mass in kilogram; A is acceleration in meter / second / second. We can compute the force on a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna accelerated by earth's gravity field: F = 10 kilogram · 9.8 · meter / second / second or (reduced): 98 kilogram · meter / second / second When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Mass doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that Acceleration due to gravity doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much. There are only two variables to find Force in Newton's laws. How much does 100 Watts change Mass or Gravity? I really don't expect you can answer that because it is too simple: one or both numbers provided above will be different, that is all. Can you give us something as specific as I have? In other words, for 100 Watts applied to a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna, will its Mass change to 11 kilogram or 9 kilogram? Or will gravity change to 9 · meter / second / second or 8 · meter / second / second? Only one or two very specific numbers have to shift here. Can you tell us which or how much? This is, after all, your topic, your math, your profession, and your chance to prove your point. It seemed to be a very simple question at the time. There are only two variables and if Arthur is right about Newton, then one of them must change when we add power. In fact, if Arthur is right about gravity, it can be the only variable that changes - the question then becomes: How much? Given gravity is one of the weakest forces in the Universe, then adding 100W to it should peg the meter. One has to wonder how that went unnoticed in 120 years of transmission - especially with some of those Megawatt LW stations. If you can't help him, then you can join us in a very long line that Arthur has just stepped into, deep at the back somewhere outside the fire door, down the alley, around the block a couple times, and disappearing into a side street in Keokuk, Iowa (you two might run into Mitt Romney there). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard While gravity is often quoted as exhibiting the weakest force of the four major forces, that force appears to exhibit effects at far longer ranges than the other three. Certain physical theorists have hypothesised that this might be because we only see one aspect of gravity in our three/four (take your pick) dimensional universe. At any substantial physical distance from a point, gravitational force exerted per unit area is generally the largest force observed. Gravity interacts relatively weakly with matter and even less with the other three forces, so I would expect that any effect would be at the limits of measurement, even with high transmitter powers. Certain 'fringe experimental' groups claim to have found evidence of a reduction in gravitational attraction in the presence of rotating, high powered electromagnetic fields. This would appear to form the basis of proposed 'practical' flying saucer designs by such groups. Some conventional scientifically monitored experiments have shown apparent slight reductions in gravitational attraction, but whether the effect is real, or the measuring instruments were affected in some way by the presence of extreme electromagnetic fields is a moot point. Most of the proposed designs seem to require rather elaborate and expensive, large structures to be built to create the required fields. I think we can all see where this might be leading... When the additional 'hidden' dimensions demanded by string theory are factored in, it is entirely possible (even probable) for such effects to occur but not necessarily on a humanly observable scale. Gravity may seem to be the weakest force here on earth, but at cosmic scales it rules supreme. Mike G0ULI this is because there is LOTS of matter in the universe. while each little piece of matter creates a weak field when you add them all up it creates a large field. As a sidelight, there is (at least as far as we know so far) no, 'negative' pole of gravity... that is, every piece of matter equally attracts every other piece. with electric fields or magnetic fields, there are opposite polarities that tend to mask each other (superposition anyone???). so while you could get higher forces with less electric charge, separating them takes more work and the farther away you get the separated charges tend to hide each other so the field falls off faster. it is also hard to clump lots of the same charge together in one place to create a large force since like charges repel each other. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com