On Mar 7, 6:13 pm, Brian Kelly wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:09 pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Mar 7, 4:45 pm, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....

On Mar 7, 2:08 pm, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
I disagree. Laws written are all based on the assumption of
equilibrium and that includes
Maxwell's laws. These laws hav e zero refernce to size as such though
many would seek

because contrary to what those male enhancement product adds tell you, size
doesn't matter.

for the word volume. Pertinent factors are wave length of frequency in
The problem here is that amateur radio is wellded to the yagi design
which is not one of equilibrium

WAIT JUST ONE GOSH DARN MINUTE! you have said in the past that the simple
half wave dipole WAS a prefect example of equilibrium! NOW it isn't???
have you had a new revelation while i had your old email address plonked??

David,
You admit to not understanding the term "equilibrium" so what do you
care what I say and in what content.
If you consider a half wave dipole as being in equilibrium you have to
consider the electrical circuit
consisting of a capacitance from the antenna to ground or the route
thru the center of of the radiator, both of thes circuits
can be considered as being in equilibrium. However, on this newsgroup
a fractional wavelength radiator is considered as an open circuit for
some reason and thus under those circumstances the half wave dipole is
not in equilibrium.
Now your views on radiation is all over the place so it is very hard
for me to determine the context of what you say.
Art

Long before we rode our dinosaurs to club meetings the bright lights
had completely agreed that the strength of radio signals at far off
places was a function of the integral of i·dl where dl is the bigness
of the aerial. Maybe it's in Sears and Zemansky. I dunno . . nor do I
really care.

w3rv

Nothing wrong with that with respect to yagis it just doesn't refer to
all antennas

On Mar 7, 11:46 am, Jim Lux wrote:
wrote:
I have searched quite a bit for evidence that states that performance
of antennas can be rated by it's size. Formulas do not refere to
radiator size or volume
and aparture is referenced to gain. I understand that sort of thinking
based on Yagi design
but the idea that all small radiators are inefficient is rather
ludicrouse. My work, based on
the sciences of the masters, show that a efficient radiator can be any
size,shape and
configuration as long as it
is in equilibrium . Period
No where can I find reference to "size" in what the masters state
Regards
Art

The work by Chu (Journal of Applied Physics, p1163, v19, Dec 1948) and
subsequently by Harrington (IEEE Trans Ant & Prop, V18#6, Nov 1965,
p896) , Thiele (IEEE Trans on Ant and Prop, v51, #6, June 2003, p1263)
and later others, discusses fundamental limits on performance. Watch
out, though, for the assumptions in the constraints (e.g. whether the
device attached to the feedpoint is reciprocal), and, of course, where
the boundary of the system is.

Watch out also for the definition of "Q", which in this context is the
ratio of stored to disspated/radiated energy, not the ratio of center
frequency/bandwidth.

In short, there is a tradeoff between Q, directivity, and size. And,
because high Q implies high stored energy, for physically realizable
antennas with loss, efficiency is in the mix too.

Googling "chu harrington limit" often turns up useful stuff.

Googled Chu harrington and find that his work is basically empirical
around known arrangements.
When he brought the question of Q into the picture he made the
statement that small antennas
are usually of a low impedance which is correct empirically with
respect to existing designs but it is not exclusive
when dealing with all radiators that can be made that comply with
Maxwells laws. As I have said before it is implicite in Maxwells laws
that a efficient radiator can be any size shape or configuration as
long as it complies with Maxwells law.
In my case my small antenna can have any impedance value for
equilibrium and it is quite easy to have a resistive impedance in the
hundreds of ohms as well as minuit impedances. I conform to 50 ohms
purely because of component availability. As another aside my small
antennas
have a much wider bandwidth than any other available! As far as gain
or energy transmitted that all depends on what frequencies get thru
the bandpass filter and in no way directs out of pass energy to be be
redirected to band pass status and augment energy transmitted. Stored
energy has no relationship to Q in my mind since it goes around or
circulates as with a tank circuit energy that lies within the pass
bandof the tank circuit filter.
To summate, my antenna design is considered small yet complies with
Maxwells laws and yet does not have a narrow bandwidth or low
impedance thus Chu's comments cannot be inclusive of all radiators.
Best regards
Art

On Mar 7, 5:54 pm, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"I sisagree."

Most correspondents here know from experience that radiation efficacy
falls in too-short antennas.Terman refers to E.A. Laport`s "Radio
Antenna Engineering". Laport has charted Degree-amperes versus Field
Strength or radiation resistance to which Field Strength is
proportional.

Laport gives an example on page 23:
"A straight vertical radiator of height 30 degrees or less has a
radiation resistance Rr following the equation
Rr = Go squared.
where Go is the electrical height in radians (One radian is 57.3
degrees.)

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Note. that applies to a particular straight antenna and not to all
radiators as a whole.
Maxwell does not state that a radiator must be straight or any
particular shape for his law
to be applicable.
Art

On Mar 7, 7:29 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

When he brought the question of Q into the picture he made the
statement that small antennas
are usually of a low impedance which is correct empirically with
respect to existing designs but it is not exclusive
when dealing with all radiators that can be made that comply with
Maxwells laws.

I take it your version is gifted and suffers not from a low Q... :/

As I have said before it is implicite in Maxwells laws
that a efficient radiator can be any size shape or configuration as
long as it complies with Maxwells law.

Sure it can. Common knowledge. It's also common knowledge
that the trick with building a small efficient antenna is not really
the size of the radiator itself, it's actually getting power to that
small radiator.


In my case my small antenna can have any impedance value for
equilibrium and it is quite easy to have a resistive impedance in the
hundreds of ohms as well as minuit impedances. I conform to 50 ohms
purely because of component availability. As another aside my small
antennas
have a much wider bandwidth than any other available!

As previously noted, you have reinvented the air cooled dummy
load. Your performance specs sure seem to mimic one anyway.. :/

As far as gain
or energy transmitted that all depends on what frequencies get thru
the bandpass filter and in no way directs out of pass energy to be be
redirected to band pass status and augment energy transmitted. Stored
energy has no relationship to Q in my mind since it goes around or
circulates as with a tank circuit energy that lies within the pass
bandof the tank circuit filter.
To summate, my antenna design is considered small yet complies with
Maxwells laws and yet does not have a narrow bandwidth or low
impedance thus Chu's comments cannot be inclusive of all radiators.
Best regards
Art

As far as the rest, my cat has mittens.. :/
BTW, you need to define "equilibrium".
After several months you still are lagging at this task.
MK

On Mar 7, 5:09 pm, Art Unwin wrote:


David,
You admit to not understanding the term "equilibrium" so what do you
care what I say and in what content.

I don't think anyone here really knows how you define that word
as it pertains to your antenna design.
Once I saw where you said it meant the antenna was resonant,
"eham?" but that seems to change with the direction of the wind
and the amount of snowfall on the ground.
MK

On Mar 7, 8:32 pm, wrote:
On Mar 7, 5:09 pm, Art Unwin wrote:



David,
You admit to not understanding the term "equilibrium" so what do you
care what I say and in what content.

I don't think anyone here really knows how you define that word
as it pertains to your antenna design.
Once I saw where you said it meant the antenna was resonant,
"eham?" but that seems to change with the direction of the wind
and the amount of snowfall on the ground.
MK

What is your real p;roblem? You have not seen my antenna and obviously
dont understand the mathematics
and you are not an engineer, Yet you have made so many comments and
opinions that berate the design and seem un willing to wait until the
independent review comes in. On top of that you want help with the
word equilibrium!.
Give me a break.You should have pursued an education instead of
bragging how often you quit going to school
then you would not appear so ignorant about antennas. Treat it as a
hobby and forget about the being an expert side of things, for you it
is to late. And yes the antenna is resonant but rezonance does not
always equate to equilibrium.
With respect to feeding a small antenna it is not that difficult
especially if you choose a resonance of 50 ohm
resistive. With respect to your world beating antenna that is so easy
when you get rid of those loading antics
that you use. I know you can work all you can hear but what about all
that your inefficient antenna is n0lt hearing?
Art

On Mar 7, 9:36 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:32 pm, wrote:

On Mar 7, 5:09 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

David,
You admit to not understanding the term "equilibrium" so what do you
care what I say and in what content.

I don't think anyone here really knows how you define that word
as it pertains to your antenna design.
Once I saw where you said it meant the antenna was resonant,
"eham?" but that seems to change with the direction of the wind
and the amount of snowfall on the ground.
MK

What is your real p;roblem? You have not seen my antenna and obviously
dont understand the mathematics
and you are not an engineer, Yet you have made so many comments and
opinions that berate the design and seem un willing to wait until the
independent review comes in. On top of that you want help with the
word equilibrium!.
Give me a break.You should have pursued an education instead of
bragging how often you quit going to school
then you would not appear so ignorant about antennas. Treat it as a
hobby and forget about the being an expert side of things, for you it
is to late. And yes the antenna is resonant but rezonance does not
always equate to equilibrium.
With respect to feeding a small antenna it is not that difficult
especially if you choose a resonance of 50 ohm
resistive. With respect to your world beating antenna that is so easy
when you get rid of those loading antics
that you use. I know you can work all you can hear but what about all
that your inefficient antenna is n0lt hearing?
Art

Art wrote:
"No where can I find reference to "size" in what the masters state."

It`s there if you look. Kraus is a certified master. In the newest
edition, the 3rd, of "Antennas" is found on page 12:
"The basic equation of radiation may be expressed simply as
IL=QV, where
I=time changing current
L=length of current element
Q=charge,C
V=time change of velocity or acceleration
Thus, time changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates.
For steady-state harmonic radiation, we usually focus on current. For
transients or pulses, we focus on charge."

The above is the beginning of the chapter on "Antenna Basics". Everyone
interested in antennas needs ready access to this important book.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 6:09 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 7, 4:45 pm, "Dave" wrote:







"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

On Mar 7, 2:08 pm, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
I disagree. Laws written are all based on the assumption of
equilibrium and that includes
Maxwell's laws. These laws hav e zero refernce to size as such though
many would seek

because contrary to what those male enhancement product adds tell you,
size
doesn't matter.

for the word volume. Pertinent factors are wave length of frequency in
The problem here is that amateur radio is wellded to the yagi design
which is not one of equilibrium

WAIT JUST ONE GOSH DARN MINUTE! you have said in the past that the
simple
half wave dipole WAS a prefect example of equilibrium! NOW it isn't???
have you had a new revelation while i had your old email address
plonked??

David,
You admit to not understanding the term "equilibrium" so what do you
care what I say and in what content.
If you consider a half wave dipole as being in equilibrium you have to
consider the electrical circuit
consisting of a capacitance from the antenna to ground or the route
thru the center of of the radiator, both of thes circuits
can be considered as being in equilibrium. However, on this newsgroup
a fractional wavelength radiator is considered as an open circuit for
some reason and thus under those circumstances the half wave dipole is
not in equilibrium.
Now your views on radiation is all over the place so it is very hard
for me to determine the context of what you say.
Art

Long before we rode our dinosaurs to club meetings the bright lights
had completely agreed that the strength of radio signals at far off
places was a function of the integral of i·dl where dl is the bigness
of the aerial. Maybe it's in Sears and Zemansky. I dunno . . nor do I
really care.

w3rv

Antennas for All Applications, 3rd Edition, Kraus & Marhefka, McGraw-Hill,
page 12.

Begin quote

Regardless of antenna type, all involve the same basic principle that
radiation is produced by accelerated (or decelerated) charge. The basic
equation of radiation may be expressed simply as

IL = Qv (A m / s)

where

I = time-changing current, A/s
L = length of current element, m
Q = charge, C
v = time change of velocity which equals the acceleration of the charge, m/s

Thus, time-changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates. For
steady-state harmonic variation, we usually focus on current. For transients
or pulses, we focus on charge. The radiation is perpendicular to the
acceleration, and the radiated power is proportional to the square of IL or
Qv.

end quote

Cheers,
John

On Mar 7, 9:36 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:32 pm, wrote:

On Mar 7, 5:09 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

David,
You admit to not understanding the term "equilibrium" so what do you
care what I say and in what content.

I don't think anyone here really knows how you define that word
as it pertains to your antenna design.
Once I saw where you said it meant the antenna was resonant,
"eham?" but that seems to change with the direction of the wind
and the amount of snowfall on the ground.
MK

What is your real p;roblem?

Dunno..The price of motor fuel? Ammunition prices keep
going up? My butt itches? I dunno..
I'll ponder this further and get back to you.

You have not seen my antenna and obviously
dont understand the mathematics
and you are not an engineer, Yet you have made so many comments and
opinions that berate the design and seem un willing to wait until the
independent review comes in.

What mathematics? You haven't given any. Not a bit
that I recall. You only talk about winding loads of thin
22 gauge wire onto a form about the size of a shoe box
or two, and and mutter something about a garbage can lid,
and that freaking "E" word over and over..
I guess I missed all the math you providing on this marvel
of engineering.

Who said I can't wait? I'm in no hurry. Take all the time you
want.
If you can turn a turd into a diamond, I'll be the first to applaud.
I'm not going to hold my breath though..

On top of that you want help with the
word equilibrium!.

I'm well aware of how most normal people define the word.
I want to know how you define it.
You use it in nearly every post, but you seem to refuse to
define how it applies to an antenna system.

Give me a break.You should have pursued an education instead of
bragging how often you quit going to school
then you would not appear so ignorant about antennas.

Art, you kill me. At least I have an excuse...
What is yours?

Treat it as a
hobby and forget about the being an expert side of things, for you it
is to late.

I don't need to be an expert to smell a turd.
How come an self proclaimed expert like you can't smell one?

And yes the antenna is resonant but rezonance does not
always equate to equilibrium.

Well, does it always equate to?
This may or may not be a trick question...
This is a fine example of the silly crap you pull that compels
me to tweak your differential every once in a while.
You can't answer a straight question without using some form
of bafflegab to try to confuse the questioner, or to imply
that he/she must surely be brain dead to even ask the
question in the first place.

With respect to feeding a small antenna it is not that difficult
especially if you choose a resonance of 50 ohm
resistive.

How are you going to choose this value when the 160m antenna
is the size of a shoebox? Seems to me you are going to get
what you get, and then have to match to it.
If your design is that small and requires no matching...
Oh, forget it...
Art, you are killing me with your voodoo logic.. I succumb..

With respect to your world beating antenna that is so easy
when you get rid of those loading antics
that you use.

What in the world are you babbling about now?
Which one of antennas are you referring to?
None of my antennas require loading "antics" except
my mobile whips.
All my others are manly full size antennas which require
no loading antics, equilibrium, or quivers in the force
to function properly.

I know you can work all you can hear but what about all
that your inefficient antenna is n0lt hearing?
Art

How would you know what I can work? You don't ever get
on the air. How do you know I even get on the air?
I might just leave it on all day and do nothing but look at the
lights and blinky things for all you know.
Also, I hate to break it to a whiney horses ass like you,
but none of my home antennas are inefficient.
Not a one. And I'd wager my mobile antenna is more
efficient than your shoe box sized 160m device.
I'm curious... Being you are so educated, how come a
dumbass uneducated hick like me has a bit better writing
skills than you? And English was probably my least
liked subject to boot... I slept through most all of
those classes as I recall.
Yet you spell resonance as rezonance.
You almost make me feel gifted in some way. :/
MK