On 12 Jan, 20:15, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"Christopher Cox" wrote in message

...

Me, nah, I hold little or no knowledge on the subject of antenna's. I have
lurked here for a very long time and have posted on occasion. I have a few
pet projects on topic, an OCF with a vertical radiator and I am toying
with a phase fed pair of quads.

What prompted me to post was the tone of yours. I do not hold any great
education, but know some very notable and brilliant people. I do O.k. for
myself and have found that actions produce better results than words. Just
thought that piece of wisdom applied here.

Once you understand the difference between standing waves, (which has no
real power itself but which stores the reactive VA power into that power
which is is eventually dissipated in "radiation resitance" dissipating into
free space as radiation power), and traveling waves, which do have real
power that is also disspated into that same type of radiation power through
the radiation resistance, an interesting question becomes "what is the
nature of this so-called radiation resistance which dissipates the power of
a forward wave or the stored power in a standing wave?". We feed power into
the antenna as electric current and then it exits the antenna as radiation..
Maxwell's equations (in spite of what art theorizes) says that the power has
been converted to an EM wave. So, electric current, which is not an EM wave
consisting of photons and propagating into space, is converted into a
different form of radiation energy that IS an EM and does consist of phtons
and waves. When this conversion occurs and energy is transmitted into free
space, we attempt to quantify this net loss to our generator with familiar
terms, i.e. current or voltage dissipated into "radiation resistance".
However, we all know there is no actual physical component known as a
radiation resistor. Conceptualizing how this power conversion works goes
back to maxwell: "why" is there a time varying EM magnetic and electric
field (external waves and photons) generated by the flow of current? Well,
it could be described as nature's tendency to maintain equilibrium. If a
change is made to a conductor by putting a current through it, nature
"objects" and fights back by setting up an EM wave that tends to cancel out
the incoming current pulse. But no matter what, I will always easily have
enough energy in my forcing function (current or voltage) to overcome
nature's objection and send a net outflow of energy occuring as radiation
theoretically equal to what I inputted.

Art's unusual theories apparently have something to do with this same
conversion of electric currents on the antenna to the radiated energy that
propagates through space. Art believes he has made discoveries that augment
the maxwell equations and solved the nystery as to how this power is
converted from amps to radiation. He essentially takes advantage of the fact
that scientists and hobbyists (at least on THIS board) have not done a good
job conceptualizing what actually happens during the process of converting
electric current from a generator to a radiated wave into free space. Our
rather feeble invention of the radiation "resistor" helps us in the design
of our antennas but it is not conceptually correct; a resistor is obviously
dissipated as heat, not radiation (other than infrared heat). So how,
physically does amps/volts in a conductor dissipates as radiation? That is a
good question. And Art will give you a very UNacceptable answer to that
question. No, the current particles do not fall out of the ends of the
antenna and get levitated as galactic particles; this is the sort of thing,
frankly, that you might hear from children. However, Arthur has been very
persistent and I believe that over time persistance CAN overcome handicaps
in both inteligence and education, at least on rare occaisions so I have
tried to cooperate with Mr. Art up to now. That is, until *I read into the
poor attitude and tone of his posings on this thread "Education". Indeed, he
attacks even people such as myself who have attempted to encourage him. Now
I see him for what he is...a simple crank of no relevance to the the
scientific community out of his own choosing. He has no "small' 160m antenna
on his tower (so he is a fibber),

I interupt your post at this point only since you are expressing your
views as in free speech
but to be a fibber, a lier in other words is a deliberate untruth. At
the moment I do not have the smallest antenna for 160M on my tower
since the radiator is around 18 foot long and tipped at an angle to
reflect what the computer states. I suppose I will have to make one
that will fit into a 1 foot cubed carton to satisfy the term small. We
have plenty of hams in this community plus repeaters so you can come
yourself or ask a surragate to inspect on your behalf. It is a fold
over tower so close examination is possible and I have all the
necessary equipment to measure impedance or what have you. I also have
on hand a loop style antenna for 20 M made on a hoola hoop, so I could
convert that to 160M. On top of thatJohn has just rigged up Vincent's
antenna that every body decries.
If he were willing I could describe modifications for the same antenna
constructed for a smaller size plus without the need for ground to
avoid the comments applied to Vincents antenna . I have never met John
but I believe him to be honest
So I will supply him the details if he wants them and he can report
results to you without pre inspection from myself. On the other hand I
can build a small 160 M antenna and send it to hime by post office
mail which he can play, with and report upon.
Disagreement and suppression is one thing but a lier I am not! Either
way I will now make a 160M small antenna incase it becomes desired.
Yes I am very hurt by this barb and will work hard in full filling my
side of what I have discussed. It may finish up a bit bigger than a
foot since I have no idea how small it can be made but it will be
small for shipping via the post office.It will be made of#22 wire so
that it can also be tested for heat resistance, the bain of the EH
antenna as well as Vincent's and many others. I haven't tested for
that but see no problems as #22 should be able to handle normal use
Art Unwin KB9MZ






to him he doesn't know the difference between a
standing wave and a traveling wave, is not familair with present models and
their difficulties. If point zero is at the beginning, Mr. art is at -7 and
he refuses to learn any tools that he needs to advance. I too would like a
better conceptualization of why/what and how maxwells EM fields work and how
the power conversion physically occurs on an antenna but for now I am stuck,
along with everyone else, using the radiation resistance model. For all of
its conceptual drawbacks, it works just fine mathematically. One key to
better understanding (my opinion only) may be in more recent exotic physics
models such as dark matter interactions with EM fields but that is way
beyond any understanding I have at this point; that is why I previously took
an interest in art's theory but which eventually went nowhere (too bad). I
don't criticize him for that; he just needs to sharpen his tools a bit and
take a completely different path if he is to succeed (but I predict he will
not). Levitation of galactic particles in my opinion is not the path to
success.

AI4QJ

art wrote:

At
the moment I do not have the smallest antenna for 160M on my tower
since the radiator is around 18 foot long and tipped at an angle to
reflect what the computer states. I suppose I will have to make one
that will fit into a 1 foot cubed carton to satisfy the term small.

That's great, Art. How's it working out for you? Did you work J5C over
the past couple of nights? Did you snag G3JMJ's loud signal this evening?

I can load my 6m beam on 160m, but it doesn't work well at all. I use a
slightly long inverted L with a series vacuum variable and nearly 6,000
feet of buried radials. There's a three inch short, tapped coil to
ground at the feed point in order to match the antenna to the RG-213 I
feed it with. The antenna isn't small and it isn't elegant.

I'm willing to listen to your ideas about how I can equal the signal
from that inverted L by using a much smaller antenna. Why don't you
post information on such a creation?

Dave K8MN

On 12 Jan, 23:02, Dave Heil wrote:
art wrote:
At
the moment I do not have the smallest antenna for 160M on my tower
since the radiator is around 18 foot long and tipped at an angle to
reflect what the computer states. I suppose I will have to make one
that will fit into a 1 foot cubed carton to satisfy the term small.

That's great, Art. *How's it working out for you? *Did you work J5C over
the past couple of nights? *Did you snag G3JMJ's loud signal this evening?

I can load my 6m beam on 160m, but it doesn't work well at all. *I use a
slightly long inverted L with a series vacuum variable and nearly 6,000
feet of buried radials. *There's a three inch short, tapped coil to
ground at the feed point in order to match the antenna to the RG-213 I
feed it with. *The antenna isn't small and it isn't elegant.

I'm willing to listen to your ideas about how I can equal the signal
from that inverted L by using a much smaller antenna. *Why don't you
post information on such a creation?

Dave K8MN

Re Antennas and sharing. Checkout E ham forum
Art

On Jan 13, 9:31 am, art wrote:
On 12 Jan, 23:02, Dave Heil wrote:



art wrote:
At
the moment I do not have the smallest antenna for 160M on my tower
since the radiator is around 18 foot long and tipped at an angle to
reflect what the computer states. I suppose I will have to make one
that will fit into a 1 foot cubed carton to satisfy the term small.

That's great, Art. How's it working out for you? Did you work J5C over
the past couple of nights? Did you snag G3JMJ's loud signal this evening?

I can load my 6m beam on 160m, but it doesn't work well at all. I use a
slightly long inverted L with a series vacuum variable and nearly 6,000
feet of buried radials. There's a three inch short, tapped coil to
ground at the feed point in order to match the antenna to the RG-213 I
feed it with. The antenna isn't small and it isn't elegant.

I'm willing to listen to your ideas about how I can equal the signal
from that inverted L by using a much smaller antenna. Why don't you
post information on such a creation?

Dave K8MN

Re Antennas and sharing. Checkout E ham forum
Art

Arthur don't be so silly. As a fellow over-the-edge old fart
mechanical engineer you've obviously missed some some fundamentals.

Back in the day the IEEE and the ASME came to an agreement: They
wouldn't fiddle with Mohr's Circles if we didn't fiddle with
electromagnetic wave mechanics. You're in violation Arthur so so knock
it off.

How many countries do you have confirmed on 160?

Brian w3rv

On 13 Jan, 17:00, Brian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:31 am, art wrote:





On 12 Jan, 23:02, Dave Heil wrote:

art wrote:
At
the moment I do not have the smallest antenna for 160M on my tower
since the radiator is around 18 foot long and tipped at an angle to
reflect what the computer states. I suppose I will have to make one
that will fit into a 1 foot cubed carton to satisfy the term small.

That's great, Art. *How's it working out for you? *Did you work J5C over
the past couple of nights? *Did you snag G3JMJ's loud signal this evening?

I can load my 6m beam on 160m, but it doesn't work well at all. *I use a
slightly long inverted L with a series vacuum variable and nearly 6,000
feet of buried radials. *There's a three inch short, tapped coil to
ground at the feed point in order to match the antenna to the RG-213 I
feed it with. *The antenna isn't small and it isn't elegant.

I'm willing to listen to your ideas about how I can equal the signal
from that inverted L by using a much smaller antenna. *Why don't you
post information on such a creation?

Dave K8MN

Re Antennas and sharing. Checkout E ham forum
Art

Arthur don't be so silly. As a fellow over-the-edge old fart
mechanical engineer you've obviously missed some some fundamentals.

Back in the day the IEEE and the ASME came to an agreement: They
wouldn't fiddle with Mohr's Circles if we didn't fiddle with
electromagnetic wave mechanics. You're in violation Arthur so so knock
it off.

How many countries do you have confirmed on 160?

Brian w3rv- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I have stated before I am not active anymore
Art

On Jan 13, 8:34 pm, art wrote:
On 13 Jan, 17:00, Brian Kelly wrote:



On Jan 13, 9:31 am, art wrote:

On 12 Jan, 23:02, Dave Heil wrote:

art wrote:
At
the moment I do not have the smallest antenna for 160M on my tower
since the radiator is around 18 foot long and tipped at an angle to
reflect what the computer states. I suppose I will have to make one
that will fit into a 1 foot cubed carton to satisfy the term small.

That's great, Art. How's it working out for you? Did you work J5C over
the past couple of nights? Did you snag G3JMJ's loud signal this evening?

I can load my 6m beam on 160m, but it doesn't work well at all. I use a
slightly long inverted L with a series vacuum variable and nearly 6,000
feet of buried radials. There's a three inch short, tapped coil to
ground at the feed point in order to match the antenna to the RG-213 I
feed it with. The antenna isn't small and it isn't elegant.

I'm willing to listen to your ideas about how I can equal the signal
from that inverted L by using a much smaller antenna. Why don't you
post information on such a creation?

Dave K8MN

Re Antennas and sharing. Checkout E ham forum
Art

Arthur don't be so silly. As a fellow over-the-edge old fart
mechanical engineer you've obviously missed some some fundamentals.

Back in the day the IEEE and the ASME came to an agreement: They
wouldn't fiddle with Mohr's Circles if we didn't fiddle with
electromagnetic wave mechanics. You're in violation Arthur so so knock
it off.

How many countries do you have confirmed on 160?

Brian w3rv- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I have stated before I am not active anymore

Not hardly. You pounced on my post within minutes. Strikes me as
rather "active" eh?

So I'll rephrase the question: How many countries did you work on 160
when you "were active"?

Art

Brian dit-dit beep-beep w3rv . . .

On 13 Jan, 17:00, Brian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:31 am, art wrote:





On 12 Jan, 23:02, Dave Heil wrote:

art wrote:
At
the moment I do not have the smallest antenna for 160M on my tower
since the radiator is around 18 foot long and tipped at an angle to
reflect what the computer states. I suppose I will have to make one
that will fit into a 1 foot cubed carton to satisfy the term small.

That's great, Art. *How's it working out for you? *Did you work J5C over
the past couple of nights? *Did you snag G3JMJ's loud signal this evening?

I can load my 6m beam on 160m, but it doesn't work well at all. *I use a
slightly long inverted L with a series vacuum variable and nearly 6,000
feet of buried radials. *There's a three inch short, tapped coil to
ground at the feed point in order to match the antenna to the RG-213 I
feed it with. *The antenna isn't small and it isn't elegant.

I'm willing to listen to your ideas about how I can equal the signal
from that inverted L by using a much smaller antenna. *Why don't you
post information on such a creation?

Dave K8MN

Re Antennas and sharing. Checkout E ham forum
Art

Arthur don't be so silly. As a fellow over-the-edge old fart
mechanical engineer you've obviously missed some some fundamentals.

Back in the day the IEEE and the ASME came to an agreement: They
wouldn't fiddle with Mohr's Circles if we didn't fiddle with
electromagnetic wave mechanics. You're in violation Arthur so so knock
it off.

How many countries do you have confirmed on 160?

Brian w3rv- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not in violation in my opinion. My theory may not be "exactly"
correct
as I have no way of looking at particles. But if you Google every
little bit, line by line it has enough agreed tangibles that it can
be taken as serious. You yourself know that I have been sharing the
details for a very, very long time. I also have shared everything
and described everything, nothing has been hidden and all explained
several times
Nobody has faulted anything one little bit! Pretty much all has been
the
slandering of me. I really do not understand that if this is a
newsgroup on antennas
why those knoweledgable in the state of the art instead of getting
angry with me doesn't debate it point by point where an error provides
a stop to the debate.
Ofcourse 'error' means so many different things with this group I
don't see a long thread.
I certainly do not have the patience to post thousands of times as
Cecil is able so I should easily be forces to go away as others have
done. Well, if you try very hard that I cannot take anymore. When you
have received an education one must always take advantage of it by
pursuit of the truth regardless of the regimen. I cannot see why I
should be expelled from intruding into physics by those you insist
that all is known about antennas otherwise you are a heritic.
Art

On Jan 13, 9:18 pm, art wrote:
On 13 Jan, 17:00, Brian Kelly wrote:



On Jan 13, 9:31 am, art wrote:

On 12 Jan, 23:02, Dave Heil wrote:

art wrote:
At
the moment I do not have the smallest antenna for 160M on my tower
since the radiator is around 18 foot long and tipped at an angle to
reflect what the computer states. I suppose I will have to make one
that will fit into a 1 foot cubed carton to satisfy the term small.

That's great, Art. How's it working out for you? Did you work J5C over
the past couple of nights? Did you snag G3JMJ's loud signal this evening?

I can load my 6m beam on 160m, but it doesn't work well at all. I use a
slightly long inverted L with a series vacuum variable and nearly 6,000
feet of buried radials. There's a three inch short, tapped coil to
ground at the feed point in order to match the antenna to the RG-213 I
feed it with. The antenna isn't small and it isn't elegant.

I'm willing to listen to your ideas about how I can equal the signal
from that inverted L by using a much smaller antenna. Why don't you
post information on such a creation?

Dave K8MN

Re Antennas and sharing. Checkout E ham forum
Art

Arthur don't be so silly. As a fellow over-the-edge old fart
mechanical engineer you've obviously missed some some fundamentals.

Back in the day the IEEE and the ASME came to an agreement: They
wouldn't fiddle with Mohr's Circles if we didn't fiddle with
electromagnetic wave mechanics. You're in violation Arthur so so knock
it off.

How many countries do you have confirmed on 160?

Brian w3rv- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not in violation in my opinion. My theory may not be "exactly"
correct
as I have no way of looking at particles. But if you Google every
little bit, line by line it has enough agreed tangibles that it can
be taken as serious. You yourself know that I have been sharing the
details for a very, very long time. I also have shared everything
and described everything, nothing has been hidden and all explained
several times
Nobody has faulted anything one little bit! Pretty much all has been
the
slandering of me. I really do not understand that if this is a
newsgroup on antennas
why those knoweledgable in the state of the art instead of getting
angry with me doesn't debate it point by point where an error provides
a stop to the debate.
Ofcourse 'error' means so many different things with this group I
don't see a long thread.
I certainly do not have the patience to post thousands of times as
Cecil is able so I should easily be forces to go away as others have

A few years back I worked Cecil on 7.037 and he had

done. Well, if you try very hard that I cannot take anymore. When you
have received an education one must always take advantage of it by
pursuit of the truth regardless of the regimen. I cannot see why I
should be expelled from intruding into physics by those you insist
that all is known about antennas otherwise you are a heritic.
Art

On Jan 13, 8:18 pm, art wrote:

Nobody has faulted anything one little bit!

I can fault almost everything that spews out of your keyboard,
but I don't have the heart to constantly shred the delusions of a
whiny old fart.
And I'm basically a dumb ass uneducated redneck.
Doesn't that bother you, being you are so superior to us
meager amateurs?

As one example, your spew of needing a full wavelength radiator
in order to be one with the force... What a crock of dung...
I can whip you more with my little stick if you decide that you
like it..
Pick one of your goofball theories and expound to your hearts
delight.
I bet this uneducated dumbass can rip it to shreds with only a
small amount of pondering needed.
Try me, if you don't believe it. I suspect you will be chicken
though.
MK

art wrote:
On 12 Jan, 23:02, Dave Heil wrote:
art wrote:
At
the moment I do not have the smallest antenna for 160M on my tower
since the radiator is around 18 foot long and tipped at an angle to
reflect what the computer states. I suppose I will have to make one
that will fit into a 1 foot cubed carton to satisfy the term small.
That's great, Art. How's it working out for you? Did you work J5C over
the past couple of nights? Did you snag G3JMJ's loud signal this evening?

I can load my 6m beam on 160m, but it doesn't work well at all. I use a
slightly long inverted L with a series vacuum variable and nearly 6,000
feet of buried radials. There's a three inch short, tapped coil to
ground at the feed point in order to match the antenna to the RG-213 I
feed it with. The antenna isn't small and it isn't elegant.

I'm willing to listen to your ideas about how I can equal the signal
from that inverted L by using a much smaller antenna. Why don't you
post information on such a creation?

Re Antennas and sharing. Checkout E ham forum

I know what others have said, Art. I asked if you'd share your ideas.
You have often dealt in non-specifics. I'd like to see how you think a
small antenna can be made to equal the performance of the full-sized
inverted L.

Dave K8MN