Antenna physical size
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 19, 7:27 am, Michael Coslo wrote:

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the antenna, I'm nowhere near
ready to model it. So as to not make any ignorant mistakes, the antenna
is counter-wound inductors, correct? and they are concurrently wound, as
in they sort of weave against each other? And this is a full wave
antenna? Do you use enameled wire, or what is the insulation? I'm
assuming that this might be important in regards to VF.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

I think you should forget the whole idea. We have another expert
on line that can voutch for the fact that it is just a dummy load.
He joins the majority and I am only one,.....who actually has one no
less.!


What up Art? I'm trying to find out what the idea is behind this
antenna, not disrespect it.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Antenna physical size
 

On Mar 19, 1:50 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 19, 7:27 am, Michael Coslo wrote:
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the antenna, I'm nowhere near
ready to model it. So as to not make any ignorant mistakes, the antenna
is counter-wound inductors, correct? and they are concurrently wound, as
in they sort of weave against each other? And this is a full wave
antenna? Do you use enameled wire, or what is the insulation? I'm
assuming that this might be important in regards to VF.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

I think you should forget the whole idea. We have another expert
on line that can voutch for the fact that it is just a dummy load.
He joins the majority and I am only one,.....who actually has one no
less.!

What up Art? I'm trying to find out what the idea is behind this
antenna, not disrespect it.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

I have use std house wiring,enamelled magnet wire and simple buried
dog wire.
which I believe has the lowest insulation. Min wire I have used is #22
because the wire is not meant to support anything so 100%
of fused value seems to be o.k.
I have taken the windings off of the former but it is lacking in
strength.
I am using a wood lathe so that I can wind at 90 overlap of the wire
which will leave small holes
and will be stronger.
I made a machine to do this in the U.k. before I came over which had
no holes and was made of glass fibre tape.
I sold the machine which I used for lampshades before I came ove.
Prior to that shades were of monofiliament wound in single direction.
The machine was really for making an equivalent fuel containers on
the Atlas rocket so I made one for myself out of bycycle chain and
infra red heaters and mad some pocket money.
All of these I have tuned up with 100 watts

Antenna physical size
 

On Mar 19, 2:41 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 19, 1:50 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:



Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 19, 7:27 am, Michael Coslo wrote:
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the antenna, I'm nowhere near
ready to model it. So as to not make any ignorant mistakes, the antenna
is counter-wound inductors, correct? and they are concurrently wound, as
in they sort of weave against each other? And this is a full wave
antenna? Do you use enameled wire, or what is the insulation? I'm
assuming that this might be important in regards to VF.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

I think you should forget the whole idea. We have another expert
on line that can voutch for the fact that it is just a dummy load.
He joins the majority and I am only one,.....who actually has one no
less.!

What up Art? I'm trying to find out what the idea is behind this
antenna, not disrespect it.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

I have use std house wiring,enamelled magnet wire and simple buried
dog wire.
which I believe has the lowest insulation. Min wire I have used is #22
because the wire is not meant to support anything so 100%
of fused value seems to be o.k.
I have taken the windings off of the former but it is lacking in
strength.
I am using a wood lathe so that I can wind at 90 overlap of the wire
which will leave small holes
and will be stronger.
I made a machine to do this in the U.k. before I came over which had
no holes and was made of glass fibre tape.
I sold the machine which I used for lampshades before I came ove.
Prior to that shades were of monofiliament wound in single direction.
The machine was really for making an equivalent fuel containers on
the Atlas rocket so I made one for myself out of bycycle chain and
infra red heaters and mad some pocket money.
All of these I have tuned up with 100 watts

Why not just wind a mirror image on your wlky talky antenna:
That way you are not using your body as a heat sink!s

Antenna physical size
 

Owen Duffy wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote in
:

Alternatively, wind the wire onto a mandrill.

Or would that be a mandrel?

The hard part of winding it on a mandrill is getting it to stand still.

Dave K8MN

Antenna physical size
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 2:41 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

this must be the explanation for art's antenna design prowess, and probably
a bunch of the other less than coherent contributors in here.
http://science.slashdot.org/article....11242&from=rss

Antenna physical size
 

Dave Heil wrote:
Owen Duffy wrote:

Ian White GM3SEK wrote in
:

Alternatively, wind the wire onto a mandrill.


Or would that be a mandrel?


The hard part of winding it on a mandrill is getting it to stand still.

That's why you need the mandrel.. you whack the mandrill over the head
(pretty hard), then, while it's stunned, you quickly wind the wire on it.

Of course, you need to move fast to remove your winding before the
mandrill regains consciousness. They're pretty big and strong, and have
BIG teeth.


On the other hand, if you are winding on a Mandrell, they understand
spoken language. You might be able to just explain what you're doing,
and she (or he) might sit still for the process. Mandrells also have
much smaller teeth than mandrills, and aren't nearly as strong, so if
they do object during the winding process, your risk of injury is less.

Antenna physical size
 

On Mar 11, 10:29 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
If Kraus said "The radiation is perpendicular to the accelleration"
then the book is worthless.

Balanis says, speaking of an infinitesimal dipole:
"Integrating the complex Poynting vector over a closed
sphere, ... results in the power (real and imaginary)
directed in the radial direction. Any transverse
components of power density, ... will not be captured by
the integration even though they are part of the overall
power."

Apparently, Kraus' assertion is a result of the integration
math and does not necessarily correspond to reality.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Another point to reckon with is the tilted folded dipole
The experiment the Naval departgment under took when comparing
antennas.
The results showed that antennas tipped away from parallelism to the
ground
provided best results for their use which concentrated on receiving.
All existing antennas were removed and replaced by tilted radiators.
Thus their tests showed that tipped radiators was not a "myth" as
stated by this group
and also radiationis not primarily at right angles to a radiator.Is
the Navy at fault by not conforming
to Kraus's and other expert teachings and aligning themselves to
facts attained in the field.
As Reagan stated "Trust but verify" The same goes for students who
suck up what the experts
and professors state without verifying from first principles. Choice
of answers will
allow memorisation to pass the exam but not to arrive at the cusp of
new discoveries!
Art Unwin...KB9MZ..xg (uk)

Antenna physical size
 

Art wrote:
"If Kraus said "The radiation is perpendicular to the acceleration" then
the book is worthless."

Art scoffs at Kraus and Art scoffs at experience with antenna
orientation for best reception. So that readers aren`t mislead, olease
refer to page one of Terman`s 1955 opus:

"---radio waves. travel with the velocity of light and consist of
magnetic and electric fields at right angles to each other and also at
right angles to the direction of travel." Then check page 923:

"--- E is the field strength of the wave in volts per meter, Psi is the
angle between the plane of polarization and the wire in which the
voltage is induced" ---It will be observed that the quantity E cos Psi
cos theta is the component of the field strength which has a wavefront
parallel to the antenna and is polarized in the same plane as the
antenna."

He who scoffs at Terman is at great peril.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Antenna physical size
 

On Mar 25, 12:36 pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"If Kraus said "The radiation is perpendicular to the acceleration" then
the book is worthless."

Art scoffs at Kraus and Art scoffs at experience with antenna
orientation for best reception. So that readers aren`t mislead, olease
refer to page one of Terman`s 1955 opus:

"---radio waves. travel with the velocity of light and consist of
magnetic and electric fields at right angles to each other and also at
right angles to the direction of travel." Then check page 923:

"--- E is the field strength of the wave in volts per meter, Psi is the
angle between the plane of polarization and the wire in which the
voltage is induced" ---It will be observed that the quantity E cos Psi
cos theta is the component of the field strength which has a wavefront
parallel to the antenna and is polarized in the same plane as the
antenna."

He who scoffs at Terman is at great peril.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

But ham radio and the Navy have proved him wrong with the T2FD
testing !
Computor programs designed around Maxwell's laws also prove him wrong.
I suggest you study the under pinnings, if any, by Terman of that
particular point
and then share the "proof" with all of us. Again, you have two vectors
for the
electric and magnetic field at right angles to each other. Using your
own brain
please tell as where the curl vector MUST be to prove your case.
Ofcourse you can
read a lot of books and select a diagram of the vectors involved that
solidifies your position
but I don't think you will find one anywhere. Your HIT and MYTH
aproaches just doesn't work out.

Antenna physical size
 

Richard Harrison wrote:
He who scoffs at Terman is at great peril.

If radiation was *only* perpendicular to the antenna,
wouldn't the beam width be fixed to the length of
the antenna? Wouldn't cloverleaf patterns be
impossible? What am I missing?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com