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


Tell you what... Instead of tweaking you further, I'll just sit back
and
watch the show. Take all the time you want.
I have enough confidence in known "living in the past" theory to see
that what you are trying to achieve, "full size performance and
efficiency
from a very small radiator" is not going to pan out how you expect it
to.
Good luck in the contest.
But when you are ready to divulge the reports of the comparision and
tests, don't be overly offended when people ask pertinent questions
about possible feedline radiation and other sorts of RF augmentation,
intentional, or not. Evasion of these questions will invoke my
tweaking
reflex, which could get ugly to passersby. :/
MK

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 23:19:39 -0600, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

It`s there if you look. Kraus is a certified master. In the newest
edition, the 3rd, of "Antennas" is found on page 12:

Hi Richard,

It takes Laport only 3 pages to name three references for the math
(Stratton, Skilling, and Kraus); provide the equation; and directly
state at the bottom of page 3:
"directly proportional to the current and to the
continuing on top of page 4:
"length of the doublet..."

No requirement for resonance, no mention of Q, the only resistance is
that of free space, nothing about equilibrium, just a straight answer.
The math has been confirmed by experiment, and it is duplicated in
models that are fully consistent with all scientific enquiry for the
past three centuries which exhibit every quality of the math and the
quotation above. The text has been made FREELY available here. No
need to purchase.

There are no pages with pictures to color, so reading that far can be
tough to master for one finding it difficult to search this out:
I have searched quite a bit for evidence that states that performance
of antennas can be rated by it's size.
"Quite a bit" sets the standard for the whimpering of whipped dog
denial. If just a teensy-weensy bit more effort were made, it is
obvious the complete investment in antennas the size of a
cracker-jacks box would collapse like the home-loan industry.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 6:02 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



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

no, it wasn't me that said that, you said that a half wave dipole was an
example of your equilibrium gaussian antenna. don't put words in my
mouth,
i don't think any antenna is in 'equilibrium' if it is working right,
there
is always a flow of power either in or out... equilibrium means not going
anywhere, i want my antennas to radiate and receive, not just sit there
and
look pretty!

David, please plonk me again under my new server.
Thanks
Art

why, you don't like someone to point out inconsistencies in your rantings?
i'll probably keep you un-plonked for a bit, wx is bad this weekend, no big
contests, and tx5c hasn't landed yet to listen to that zoo, so i could use
some entertainment.

On Mar 7, 11:19 pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
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

But you arer forgettfull Richard, my antenna is a full wavelength
which meets
Maxwells requirements, it is just that the volume is small despite the
wavelength.
It is also not in conflict with "antenna basics" alluded to above. I
don't
understandwhat the beef is. Why are so many hams alarmed at the idea?
Regards
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 11:19 pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
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

But you arer forgettfull Richard, my antenna is a full wavelength
which meets
Maxwells requirements, it is just that the volume is small despite the
wavelength.
It is also not in conflict with "antenna basics" alluded to above. I
don't
understandwhat the beef is. Why are so many hams alarmed at the idea?
Regards
Art

its called 'experience' by most and 'knowledge' by those in the know.

Art wrote:
"---my antenna is a full wavelength which meets Maxwell`s requirements,
it is just that the volume is small despite the wavelength."

In 1949, I worked at the KPRC-KXYZ broadcast plant. Another operator
there, J.L. Davis, W5LIT had a new 1949 Ford in which he installed a
surplus ART-13 and a PE-103 dynamotor. For an antenna he wound wire turn
by turn on a bamboo pole until it was resonant on a slice of the
75-meter band.

When J.L. modulated, Q in the coil produced a tip corona on the first
good peak and modulation became loud without a receiver.

The 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book on page 16-13 says this about
continuously loaded antennas: "The general approach has been to use a
coil made from heavy wire (#14 or larger), with length-to-diameter
ratios as high as 21. British experimeters have reported good results
with 8-foot overall length on the 1.8- and 3.5 MHz bands. The idea of
making the entire antenna out of one section of coil has been tried with
some success."

Art`s antenna containing a "full wavelength" of wire would likely
feature a greater loss than J.L.`s 1/4-wave resonant coil from simply a
greater length of wire while both have peactances balanced to zero.
Art`s lower Q would probably kill the corona, increase the bandwidth,
while losing the gain that a fullwave straight conductor enjoys.

Cecil can probably report on results of continuously loaded mobile
antennas versus a bug catcher loaded whip in the California shoot-outs.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Mar 8, 10:21 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"---my antenna is a full wavelength which meets Maxwell`s requirements,
it is just that the volume is small despite the wavelength."

In 1949, I worked at the KPRC-KXYZ broadcast plant. Another operator
there, J.L. Davis, W5LIT had a new 1949 Ford in which he installed a
surplus ART-13 and a PE-103 dynamotor. For an antenna he wound wire turn
by turn on a bamboo pole until it was resonant on a slice of the
75-meter band.

When J.L. modulated, Q in the coil produced a tip corona on the first
good peak and modulation became loud without a receiver.

The 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book on page 16-13 says this about
continuously loaded antennas: "The general approach has been to use a
coil made from heavy wire (#14 or larger), with length-to-diameter
ratios as high as 21. British experimeters have reported good results
with 8-foot overall length on the 1.8- and 3.5 MHz bands. The idea of
making the entire antenna out of one section of coil has been tried with
some success."

Art`s antenna containing a "full wavelength" of wire would likely
feature a greater loss than J.L.`s 1/4-wave resonant coil from simply a
greater length of wire while both have peactances balanced to zero.
Art`s lower Q would probably kill the corona, increase the bandwidth,
while losing the gain that a fullwave straight conductor enjoys.

Cecil can probably report on results of continuously loaded mobile
antennas versus a bug catcher loaded whip in the California shoot-outs.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

There are no loads on my antenna so your statements are irrelavent
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Mar 8, 10:21 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"---my antenna is a full wavelength which meets Maxwell`s requirements,
it is just that the volume is small despite the wavelength."

In 1949, I worked at the KPRC-KXYZ broadcast plant. Another operator
there, J.L. Davis, W5LIT had a new 1949 Ford in which he installed a
surplus ART-13 and a PE-103 dynamotor. For an antenna he wound wire turn
by turn on a bamboo pole until it was resonant on a slice of the
75-meter band.

When J.L. modulated, Q in the coil produced a tip corona on the first
good peak and modulation became loud without a receiver.

The 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book on page 16-13 says this about
continuously loaded antennas: "The general approach has been to use a
coil made from heavy wire (#14 or larger), with length-to-diameter
ratios as high as 21. British experimeters have reported good results
with 8-foot overall length on the 1.8- and 3.5 MHz bands. The idea of
making the entire antenna out of one section of coil has been tried with
some success."

Art`s antenna containing a "full wavelength" of wire would likely
feature a greater loss than J.L.`s 1/4-wave resonant coil from simply a
greater length of wire while both have peactances balanced to zero.
Art`s lower Q would probably kill the corona, increase the bandwidth,
while losing the gain that a fullwave straight conductor enjoys.

Cecil can probably report on results of continuously loaded mobile
antennas versus a bug catcher loaded whip in the California shoot-outs.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

There are no loads on my antenna so your statements are irrelavent
Art

the whole antenna is a load.

Art,
"Why are so many hams alarmed at the idea?"
Because of the way you describe things, words used for a distinction
between things that just don't make sense. At least that's why I
'wonder' at times. After seeing your 'methods' of doing/saying
things, you just don't 'alarm' me much. You DO make me 'wonder'
though...
- 'Doc

On Mar 9, 7:16 am, wrote:
Art,
"Why are so many hams alarmed at the idea?"
Because of the way you describe things, words used for a distinction
between things that just don't make sense. At least that's why I
'wonder' at times. After seeing your 'methods' of doing/saying
things, you just don't 'alarm' me much. You DO make me 'wonder'
though...
- 'Doc

You may be right We will just have to wait and see how things turn
out.
If it works then I am smart and if it is useless then I fit what
everybody
thinks of me. No damage done either way.