On Mar 11, 8:42 am, "John KD5YI" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Mar 8, 12:25 am, "John KD5YI" wrote:



"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

John
If Kraus said "The radiation is perpendicular to the accelleration"
then the book is worthless.
Review the scalar quantities of a radiator. It is impossible for the
resultant to be at 90
degrees to the antenna axis. I suspect the roots of this untruth was
the invention of the
planar antenna. For maximum horizontal radiation a radiator will be
around 10 degrees
out of parallel to the earth surface, not parallel.
The king is dead, long live the king. Old books just cannot keep up to
date
Regards
Art
ie the yagi

Art -

I was actually replying to W3RV. However, since you piped up...

Have you had any books on the subject published? How about research papers?
Anything published at all? Do you have any presentations with equations
prepared to support your claim? To which companies have you sold your
expertise in this field? Have your taught any classes?

It is laughable to think anybody would consider you an authority on the
subject, much less a greater authority than Kraus or any other contributor
to this group. You really should get some psychiatric help to quell those
delusions of grandeur you have.

Cheers,
John

Let's keep to the subject and put the other comments aside.
Do you have any antenna computor programs that you have confidence in?
What are they so I can give you thr figures to prove it to yourself
Art

On Mar 11, 9:46 am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 11, 8:42 am, "John KD5YI" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Mar 8, 12:25 am, "John KD5YI" wrote:

"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

John
If Kraus said "The radiation is perpendicular to the accelleration"
then the book is worthless.
Review the scalar quantities of a radiator. It is impossible for the
resultant to be at 90
degrees to the antenna axis. I suspect the roots of this untruth was
the invention of the
planar antenna. For maximum horizontal radiation a radiator will be
around 10 degrees
out of parallel to the earth surface, not parallel.
The king is dead, long live the king. Old books just cannot keep up to
date
Regards
Art
ie the yagi

Art -

I was actually replying to W3RV. However, since you piped up...

Have you had any books on the subject published? How about research papers?
Anything published at all? Do you have any presentations with equations
prepared to support your claim? To which companies have you sold your
expertise in this field? Have your taught any classes?

It is laughable to think anybody would consider you an authority on the
subject, much less a greater authority than Kraus or any other contributor
to this group. You really should get some psychiatric help to quell those
delusions of grandeur you have.

Cheers,
John

Let's keep to the subject and put the other comments aside.
Do you have any antenna computor programs that you have confidence in?
What are they so I can give you thr figures to prove it to yourself
Art

By the way John, read the book and determine why he points to a pitch
angle for best results
Thus pitch angle is not at right angles so perhaps you can explain
that. You can't learn just by belittling facts
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
By the way John, read the book and determine why he points to a pitch
angle for best results
Thus pitch angle is not at right angles so perhaps you can explain
that.

Art, don't know if you have Balanis or not, but on page 134
of "Antenna Theory", 2nd edition, his example of a radiation
vector from an infinitesimal dipole is not perpendicular to
the dipole direction.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mar 11, 10:50 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
By the way John, read the book and determine why he points to a pitch
angle for best results
Thus pitch angle is not at right angles so perhaps you can explain
that.

Art, don't know if you have Balanis or not, but on page 134
of "Antenna Theory", 2nd edition, his example of a radiation
vector from an infinitesimal dipole is not perpendicular to
the dipole direction.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I haven't got that book but it doesn,t matter. The group will chose to
believe the
books that put it at parallel to the radiator axis. It is easier to
belittle the truth rather than put a radiator at say 12 degrees
to the earth surface and compute for max horizontal radiation. Repeat
but make the radiator parallel.
If the program agrees with you then buy it for future proof. I said
this before Cecil
but this group were frightened to explore for themselves and chose to
belittle instead.
Many were educated by remembering,few checked things out for
themselves.
Same goes for small antennas, they confuse small antennas with
electrically small antennas
big difference. Academia referrs to small electrical antennas when
discussing the subject,
My antenna is NOT electrically small. Period.
Regards
Art

I listen to the "little guy against the establishment, and I would be
willing to grant that some "establishment types" can be a little stodgy,
and sometimes "illiberal".

Bot only if those on the other side will quit pulling out the "noble and
plucky inventor", who works to advance science against establishment
ridicule.


A wiser man than myself who was himself ridiculed by some in the
"establishment" once said.....


But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all
who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed
at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown.
- Carl Sagan -


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Delaying any judgment on the antenna at hand, but starting to think that
it is looking like a tuned circuit on the end of some coax.......

In the absence of any real info, we are left guessing.

On Mar 11, 12:37 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
I listen to the "little guy against the establishment, and I would be
willing to grant that some "establishment types" can be a little stodgy,
and sometimes "illiberal".

Bot only if those on the other side will quit pulling out the "noble and
plucky inventor", who works to advance science against establishment
ridicule.

A wiser man than myself who was himself ridiculed by some in the
"establishment" once said.....

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all
who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed
at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown.
- Carl Sagan -

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Delaying any judgment on the antenna at hand, but starting to think that
it is looking like a tuned circuit on the end of some coax.......

In the absence of any real info, we are left guessing.

15 years ago I stated that radiation is in the form of pulses,all
laughed
Since then I have itemised the steps to make the small antenna, all
laughed.
The info is in the archives many many times but to my knoweledge
nobody
has tried it for themselves preferring to memorise what the books say.
Yes it does look like a tuned circuit on the end of a coax but what if
it is?
Can you comment on the tilt angle of a radiator to ground to achieve
max
horizontal polarisation? Are you equipped to ascertain the answer for
yourself?
If so then do it and explain it to all, real proof you say. Hams can't
handle theb truth
When the results come out it will prove nothing to this group as they
then will
revert to attack the method of testing or the tester himself. I
already have read
one comment that has attacked the volunteer tester and that is with
just about
zero knoweledge about antennas. How many have come forward to explain
to
others what Gauss meant by equilibrium? How many have asked what
equilibrium means?
If anybody read the instructions on how to make it in the archives and
followed them
then you wouldn't be left guessing
Art

Art wrote:
"Can you comment on the tilt angle of the radiator to the ground to
achieve max horizontal polarization?"

Vertical radiators over the earth are optimally exactly vertical. Were
it not so, broadcasters would use tillted towers.

An excercise I`ve performed countless times is microwave path
establishment and optimization. I`ve bolted the tiny dipole feed into
the dish selecting horizontal polarization over vertical polarization in
most cases.

To establish a path, I set the azimuth using a transit and Coast and
Geodetic Survey maps to aim the dish on path. To aim for the horizon as
needed for a long path, I simply use a bubble level on the feed horn.

As soon as the signal appears, optimizarion begins by refining azimuth,
elevation, and polarization for maximum limiter current in the receiver.
Never have I seen any adjustment other than azimuth make any change in
the signal received. Parallel antennas at both ends of the path are
optimum. The same is true with vertical polarization for what is
essentially free-space propagation except for the grazing near the
middle of the path.

Tilt as Art implies it is a myth.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:18:08 -0700, Art Unwin wrote:

15 years ago I stated that radiation is in the form of pulses,all
laughed Since then I have itemised the steps to make the small antenna,
all laughed.

In refutation, the proof.


The info is in the archives many many times but to my knoweledge nobody
has tried it for themselves preferring to memorise what the books say.
Yes it does look like a tuned circuit on the end of a coax but what if
it is?

Actually, if that is what it is, then fine! antennas such as that are
perfectly legit. It will almost certainly use the feedline as a large
part of the radiator. This antenna bears some resemblance to the Isotron
line of antennas. Not for everyone, for sure, but I'm not going to get
into a definition war on what comprises a "good" antenna, at least in
this case..

But unless there is something new going on - and I don't buy claims of
newfangled physics without proofs - especially physics that need to
include apparent ability of comprehension on my part, it is another
radiating feed line antenna, and not much more.


-73 de Mike N3LI -