Cecil Moore wrote:

...
There are a host of applications that simply cannot be dummied
down to the lumped circuit level. I am unable to teach my dog
to look at the clock and tell whether it is dinnertime or not.
Is that my fault or hers? The answer is more complicated than
one might think at first glance.

Well, sure. But you are bragging about the intelligence of your
dog--you are not likely to find that in a ng--often. ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

Gene Fuller wrote:
Therefore, your proof that my "Incorrect" assertion is incorrect is
itself incorrect.

Please answer the question. It is known that
Re(ExH*)/2 = 0 for pure standing waves all up and
down the line. If E and H* are both non-zero, how
can Re(ExH*)/2 be zero?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
The E-field and H-field of an EM wave can certainly
be represented as an exponential function when the
EM wave is normal to the reference plane. Think
about it. Hecht used that feature in his book.

Totally ducking the issue, as usual.

No, I'm waiting for an answer from you. It is known
that Re(ExH*)/2=0 for pure standing waves all up
and down the line. Since E and H* are not zero all
up and down the line, how is that possible?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

art wrote:

You have called me a liar and a fool but are not willing to raise a
few thousand dollars to prove that I do not have a 160M antenna on the
top of my tower, that I am a fool and a liar Money is waiting for you
and your backers just by y showing I do not have a 160M antenna
sitting on my tower. You have some gall to call me names and then
backslide when asked to prove your point.
No, I am not going to insult you, your own actions show what manner of
man you are.
Art Unwin...KB9MZ....xg(uk)

Art, I've asked you to provide information on your 160m antenna twice
previously. You referred me to an eham tower of babel after the first
and responded something about not operating on 160 for the second.

I'll ask you for the third time: Would you explain your 160m antenna
for us? Do you believe it to be as good or better than a full-sized
inverted L over an extensive radial field? Have I wasted time, effort
and money in installing my inverted L when an 18 foot antenna would have
done the same job?

Dave K8MN

On 17 Jan, 20:43, Dave Heil wrote:
art wrote:
You have called me a liar and a fool but are not willing to raise a
few thousand dollars to prove that I do not have a 160M antenna on the
top of my tower, that I am a fool and a liar Money is waiting for you
and your backers just by y showing I do not have a 160M antenna
sitting on my tower. You have some gall to call me names and then
backslide when asked to prove your point.
No, I am not going to insult you, your own actions show what manner of
man you are.
Art Unwin...KB9MZ....xg(uk)

Art, I've asked you to provide information on your 160m antenna twice
previously. *You referred me to an eham tower of babel after the first
and responded something about not operating on 160 for the second.

I'll ask you for the third time: *Would you explain your 160m antenna
for us? *Do you believe it to be as good or better than a full-sized
inverted L over an extensive radial field? *Have I wasted time, effort
and money in installing my inverted L when an 18 foot antenna would have
done the same job?

Dave K8MN

Dave,
Over the years many have asked that same question and I have answered
it many times.
When ever a newbie comes along they always ask the same question
without looking back at my past posts since they want to argue. Now it
is you who is starting the post with a caustic comment regarding the
"tower of Babel" but at no time have you or any newbie initiated a
discussion before making a insult to follow the crowd. What do you
think I should do when you call my writing "babel"? Now the computor
programs state that a tilted element provides more horizontal gain
than a horizontal element. This was followed up independently on this
newsgroup.No debate regarding the coroberation
So should we all dump the antenna computor programs? Many hams say
they did this or did that and produced better than sliced bread. Hams
respond that you didn't measure on the range properly so give me the
math. I started off with the math which was corroberated by a doctor
working for a space agency. Guess what? He got plastered for "poor"
mathematics.
This group cannot debate any thing which is why only a few dominate
the group now. Past experts have left!So I ask you"how should this
group be run"?
Art

Gene Fuller wrote:
The phasor has nothing to do with spatial direction of the field vector.

Sorry, but The IEEE Dictionary disagrees with you.
In the description of the Poynting vector, it says:
"E and H are the electric and magnetic field vectors
in phasor notation ..."

I have prepared a graph of a snapshot in time of
a forward wave and reflected wave of equal magnitudes.
When the waves are superposed at the reference plane,
the total E-field and total H-field are 180 degrees
out of phase. The graph is at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/EHSuper.JPG
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 17 Jan, 20:44, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

...
On 17 Jan, 18:25, "AI4QJ" wrote:





"art" wrote in message

...

your whole posting is just silly. First you accuse me of lieing now
you want to provoke me with stupidity. You need to upgrade to a
understanding of a tank circuit.Yes, it is used in your transmitter.
Google it and study it. Free speech is great but it also reveals your
mentality. And you are just bull ****ing in the absence of knoweledge."

OK art, I notice a great improvement in your having only 3 spelling errors
in 5 sentences. You are a fool. If your postings could ever be elevated to
the level of mere stupidity, then it might be possible to correct your
misconceptions. However, one cannot deal with true insanity by any
rational
approach such as that. You do not drive me to use Google; you drive me to
dictionary.com so I can find the words appropriate to describe the idiocy
of
your ravings. However, it isn't worth the effort so I will leave you mired
in your intellectual wasteland, reading your postings from time to time
for
the entertainment value of comic relief. For the sake of the hobby I will
continue point out the fairy-tale nature of your postings lest the casual
reader of this newsgroup ever get the wrong impression of what the typical
ham radio operator thinks is antenna "theory".

AI4QJ

:No, I am not going to insult you,

I'm sure you have had you fill of hurling insults at me tonite. Just part of
the entertainment.

:your own actions show what manner of:
:man you are.

Pot Kettle Black

Tell me how a 1/4W tank circuit in my transmitter works, art.

AI4QJ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have one in your transmitter and you don't know how it works so
you ask me.
Why? You can ask KB9..... or the MI5. If you cross post they will get
back to you.
I promise.They miss you. Maybe one of the above is actually you!

art wrote:

...
Dave,
Over the years many have asked that same question and I have answered
it many times.

Yeah Art, I have notice the exact same thing. I think he is one of
those "special people." Most likely, took "special classes" when he was
in school. We should probable just ignore this fact--indeed, we should,
most likely, just ignore him ...

When ever a newbie comes along they always ask the same question
without looking back at my past posts since they want to argue. Now it
is you who is starting the post with a caustic comment regarding the
"tower of Babel" but at no time have you or any newbie initiated a
discussion before making a insult to follow the crowd. What do you
think I should do when you call my writing "babel"? Now the computor
programs state that a tilted element provides more horizontal gain
than a horizontal element. This was followed up independently on this
newsgroup.No debate regarding the coroberation
So should we all dump the antenna computor programs? Many hams say
they did this or did that and produced better than sliced bread. Hams
respond that you didn't measure on the range properly so give me the
math. I started off with the math which was corroberated by a doctor
working for a space agency. Guess what? He got plastered for "poor"
mathematics.
This group cannot debate any thing which is why only a few dominate
the group now. Past experts have left!So I ask you"how should this
group be run"?
Art

Yes, but all that is probably just a factor/side-effect of the special
classes he which he was "initiated" with.

You'd be better looking for more "intellectual fields" to plant your
ideas in ...

Warm regards,
JS

On 17 Jan, 13:30, wrote:
On Jan 17, 2:13*pm, art wrote:





On 17 Jan, 09:51, Cecil Moore wrote:

art wrote:
How can one focus so long on travelling and standing waves when the
radiation portion
of the subject has not been explained? If waves is the subject it
cannot be discussed coherently if you cannot describe the mechanism of
radiation, ...

The mechanism of radiation is pretty simple from a quantum
electrodynamic standpoint. Accelerated electrons emit
photons. Some of the photons escape the antenna. The
energy lost by the escaping photons must be replaced
by the source. QED. :-)

Art, if you would replace electrons with photons in
your blast-off theory, you will be closer to the facts.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

If it concentrated on
say, a simple parallel circuit, a very simple circuit then the
absolute physics of what is being discussed would be an immense help
in explaining this wave discussion.ARRL states that an antenna is a
simple parallel circuit

Here is my civil response: For this discussion there is little benefit
in using lumped component theory. The standing wave stores energy in
an antenna in a manner similar to energy stored in an inductor and a
capacitor in a resonant component circuit but it is not very useful to
use lumped components when explaining why a standing wave cannot be
used to measure delay in a coil, for example.

Further questions that challenge your (and the ARRL's) simplified
model:

Is the resonant circuit dependent on the capacitance and inductance of
the antenna or its length?

If your answer is "both", (which it is), why does it happen to be
both?

Why does 1/4WL of the length of the antenna just happen to be a
resonant point of the capacitance (in x _farads) and inductance (in y-
henries) of the antenna?

Why physically is that so? Nature is telling you something there.

You should understand that concept well before you get to the
radiation of particles (and they WILL be photons).

AI4QJ

but this concentration on antenna workings is



blind siding every body as well as providing a means for twisting the
discussion because the makings of radiation is not known.
Why not illustrate waves in a simple parallel circuit so that
observers can partake in this discussion which, if it ever comes to
closure, could then be used to demonstrate their effect on radiation?
Onlookers are more than willing to partake in the discussion but
presently they are on the side lines because as presented it is
limited to only those whose intent is to argue without obtaining
closure and their feeding habits are insatiable as you are finding
out.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why are you asking me all these questions?
Can't you read a book?
Why not ask an expert on Eham and then come back
armed for an arguement. At the moment you are un armed
and defenceless. By the way the money is still out there.
It is not such a large amount but it will pay for lunch
while you crow about proving me a liar or you could be crying
about how you were dethroned instead. T'was you who made
that foolish statement in the first place. Somebody stated
that they had a 160M antenna on the top of their tower which
isaparently is rediculous. Now a small amount of money is
being mentioned and now you have second thoughts.
A 160M antenna is crazy for those who believe all is known about
antennas
and you perceive yourself as an expert.What are you waiting
for,chicken wings?

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:17:44 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:



Feynman is not generally available, but he is certainly held by many
of those stumbling over the terms of their own invention.



Thanks for the response, Richard.

I had consulted Feynman's Volumes I and II prior to posting and saw
nothing there to support the idea that an EM wave performs work in
moving through a region of free space. Hence, my original post.

73,
Chuck NT3G




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----