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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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