"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??

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

"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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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