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