Cecil Moore wrote:
"But the Method Of Moments used by NEC for antenna radiation patterns
calculates the interference at a point in space based on radiation from
different elementary dipole sections of the antenna."

Completely logical and it works. Interference or vector sum?

Terman illustrates radiation from an elementary doublet (dipole) , and
it is mostly at right angles to the antenna axis, on page 865 of his
1955 opus. On page 866 he shows an actual antenna consisting of numerous
elementary doublets and on page 867 he says:
"The result is that the fields radiated from different elementary
sections of a long wire add vectorially to give a sum that depends on
direction."

Kraus devotes Chapter 14 in the 3rd edition of "Antennas" to: "The
Cylindrical Antenna and the Moment Method (MM)."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

I find this topic very interesting, including the mandrill part

We all want to have small, broadband, eficient antennas. I believe Art
is right in his original post, today we can have all these
characteristics in the same package. There is no law of physics
forbidding that. Through advances in computation power we can achieve
today in months what took decades in the past and there is much
research directed at these kinds of new antennas. Eventually
everyone will be able to choose and model his own antenna based on the
characteristics one wants, but without the cumbersome dimensions,
without significant bandwith limitations, without major efficiency
compromises. I believe the tradeoff (for it has to exist one) will be
ease of manufacturing.

Incidentally these new antennas have a lot to do with what Art
defines as equilibrium although I don't think he has a clear enough
definition. But it's all related to patterns, patterns which can be
found everywhere in nature an which can be expressed almost entirely
through matemathical formulas. Scaling of antennas is clearly
possible, despite of what the Chu-Harrington limit states ( or to be
fair, by applying them in a new way ).
I eagerly await the day when the 80 meter dipole will be replace by a
small device the size of a shoe box ( although it might be a bit
larger in the beginning ).

Regards,
Robert

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:11:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Eventually
everyone will be able to choose and model his own antenna based on the
characteristics one wants, but without the cumbersome dimensions,
without significant bandwith limitations, without major efficiency
compromises.

Hi Robert,

50 years ago they said Electricity would be so easy to produce they
would pay us to use it. They ignored Hiroshima and discovered
Chernobyl.

40 years ago they said DNA and genetics would allow us to design our
own babies. They ignored Thalidomide and discovered Dolly the sheep
that died before her time.

30 years ago they invented modeling software that would allow us to
create the Gaussian dipole (or whatever) and discovered every dipole
that came before it performed better.

Nearly 20 years ago Johnny Carson retired and we are still getting
jokes.

Not nearly 10 years ago with the Dow at 11658 and a budget surplus at
230 billion, the Republicans promised prosperity was around the corner
and their voters are now living in cardboard boxes with the Dow at
12176 and the national debt up 50%.

Scaling of antennas is clearly
possible, despite of what the Chu-Harrington limit states ( or to be
fair, by applying them in a new way ).

But you don't know how, and have never seen one either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:11:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Eventually
everyone will be able to choose and model his own antenna based on the
characteristics one wants, but without the cumbersome dimensions,
without significant bandwith limitations, without major efficiency
compromises.

Hi Robert,

50 years ago they said Electricity would be so easy to produce they
would pay us to use it. They ignored Hiroshima and discovered
Chernobyl.

40 years ago they said DNA and genetics would allow us to design our
own babies. They ignored Thalidomide and discovered Dolly the sheep
that died before her time.

30 years ago they invented modeling software that would allow us to
create the Gaussian dipole (or whatever) and discovered every dipole
that came before it performed better.

Nearly 20 years ago Johnny Carson retired and we are still getting
jokes.

Not nearly 10 years ago with the Dow at 11658 and a budget surplus at
230 billion, the Republicans promised prosperity was around the corner
and their voters are now living in cardboard boxes with the Dow at
12176 and the national debt up 50%.

Scaling of antennas is clearly
possible, despite of what the Chu-Harrington limit states ( or to be
fair, by applying them in a new way ).

But you don't know how, and have never seen one either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,

I have a pair of computer speakers sitting on my desk that completely out
perform the so called ultimate hi-fi floor mounted tower system speakers I
bought 35 years ago for the equivalent of several thousand dollars in
today's money. The old speakers still work just fine but the audio experts
have learned how to squeeze that performance out of a speaker that old audio
theory predicted couldn't possibly work. Just how does a 3 inch speaker in a
cabinet the size of a couple of books manage to produce notes from 20 Hz -
20 kHz? To be fair, the small speakers can't fill a room with sound in the
same smooth way that a larger speaker cabinet can, but for everyday use in a
small modern house or apartment they are more than adequate for the majority
of people.

It seems to me that Art and others are pursuing a similar path at RF. The
aim being to produce an antenna that punches out a signal from a physically
small area. It may not perform quite as well as a full size half or full
wavelength antenna, but it will work well enough for most people with small
gardens or limited real estate for an antenna farm.

Clearly there are considerable differences in dealing with sound waves and
RF but I believe that a principle has been established that it is possible
to 'simulate' the performance of a larger system using physically small
components. Art may not be the first to get there, but he seems to be having
a damn good try and someone, somewhere will eventually succeed.

Mike G0ULI

On Mar 31, 5:47 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message

news


On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:11:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Eventually
everyone will be able to choose and model his own antenna based on the
characteristics one wants, but without the cumbersome dimensions,
without significant bandwith limitations, without major efficiency
compromises.

Hi Robert,

50 years ago they said Electricity would be so easy to produce they
would pay us to use it. They ignored Hiroshima and discovered
Chernobyl.

40 years ago they said DNA and genetics would allow us to design our
own babies. They ignored Thalidomide and discovered Dolly the sheep
that died before her time.

30 years ago they invented modeling software that would allow us to
create the Gaussian dipole (or whatever) and discovered every dipole
that came before it performed better.

Nearly 20 years ago Johnny Carson retired and we are still getting
jokes.

Not nearly 10 years ago with the Dow at 11658 and a budget surplus at
230 billion, the Republicans promised prosperity was around the corner
and their voters are now living in cardboard boxes with the Dow at
12176 and the national debt up 50%.

Scaling of antennas is clearly
possible, despite of what the Chu-Harrington limit states ( or to be
fair, by applying them in a new way ).

But you don't know how, and have never seen one either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,

I have a pair of computer speakers sitting on my desk that completely out
perform the so called ultimate hi-fi floor mounted tower system speakers I
bought 35 years ago for the equivalent of several thousand dollars in
today's money. The old speakers still work just fine but the audio experts
have learned how to squeeze that performance out of a speaker that old audio
theory predicted couldn't possibly work. Just how does a 3 inch speaker in a
cabinet the size of a couple of books manage to produce notes from 20 Hz -
20 kHz? To be fair, the small speakers can't fill a room with sound in the
same smooth way that a larger speaker cabinet can, but for everyday use in a
small modern house or apartment they are more than adequate for the majority
of people.

It seems to me that Art and others are pursuing a similar path at RF. The
aim being to produce an antenna that punches out a signal from a physically
small area. It may not perform quite as well as a full size half or full
wavelength antenna, but it will work well enough for most people with small
gardens or limited real estate for an antenna farm.

Clearly there are considerable differences in dealing with sound waves and
RF but I believe that a principle has been established that it is possible
to 'simulate' the performance of a larger system using physically small
components. Art may not be the first to get there, but he seems to be having
a damn good try and someone, somewhere will eventually succeed.

Mike G0ULI

Mike,
I am already there. Regardless of the confidence I have in my own
findings
I have cinsented for a stanger in another state to test it in a way he
feels comfortable with.
I might also remind you that the antennas are Small full wave antennas
which vastly different
to electrically small antennas that is often written about by many
including Chu!
As far as equilibrium goes it is adviseable to go back a few hundred
years when
scientists observed a static bubble and wove a mathematical response
to their puzzle.
Most people on this thread do not have a thorough understanding of the
masters laws
which are derived around the term equilibrium. Many were agast at the
idea of adding a time variable
to Gaussian law since the correllation between a closed boundary and
equilibrium
was to complicated for them to understand. Then there were those who
disliked the idea of static particles
being electrons and wanted me to state it was a part of an electron
that passed in a straight line thru the atmosphere.
These people will go into a state of shock if I called partices by the
name of neutrinos no less.
All because of the stance they have taken that all is known about
radiation. It was the small step
that I took that scientists have been looking for for years when they
began
to lose faith in classical physics snd the laws of Newton and turned
to address numourous new sciences
for answers.Now they may retreat and bind themselves more firmly to
the classical science and the pursuit of a universal law
which Einstein seached so hard for.
As far as 'all is known' older people hate change with a vengence and
will fight to the death against it with
the short time they have left on this earth . Fortunately the younger
generation always comes along with an
inquisitiveness that cannot be suppressed and are willing to rebuild
where past structures disappear below the sands.
Small FULL WAVE radiators are here now where a single element can
supply the same gain as a planar array.
Single elements that can be made with two degrees of freedom that can
also be stacked to add an extra
degree of freedom for the smallest WiFi device. I now await the
standard comments that comes along after each of my patents,
I new that already! It is really not all that special! It was me who
gave you the idea in the first place.
Anybody can get a patent ! That was already known and invented before.
It is not my fault that people didn't make it earlier!
What use is it? We already have good antennas!
Yup. Small full wave antennas are now here that can cover all
frequencies, not just all bands!
Moxon was just a tad to late to see the new antennas for small gardens
in the U.K.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg (uk)

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:47:00 +0100, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

Hi Richard,

I have a pair of computer speakers sitting on my desk that completely out
perform the so called ultimate hi-fi floor mounted tower system speakers I
bought 35 years ago for the equivalent of several thousand dollars in
today's money.

Hi Mike,

I have a set of 30 year old Pioneers that still kick ass. The Pioneer
amp feeding any other set drives them into distortion where the
Pioneer speakers still have more range to go.

Never needed to push the amp above 4 to be heard outside.

OK, so much for the merits of qualitative reports, otherwise known as
testimonials. Proves nothing.

The old speakers still work just fine but the audio experts
have learned how to squeeze that performance out of a speaker that old audio
theory predicted couldn't possibly work.

Magnetics got better, and theory stayed the same. Performance
followed the theory's prediction of new magnetics is all. This isn't
a mystery is it?

Care to name your speakers' model and manufacturer, or did you form
the cone and wind the voice coils around a selected magnet by hand?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:47:00 +0100, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

Hi Richard,

I have a pair of computer speakers sitting on my desk that completely out
perform the so called ultimate hi-fi floor mounted tower system speakers I
bought 35 years ago for the equivalent of several thousand dollars in
today's money.

Hi Mike,

I have a set of 30 year old Pioneers that still kick ass. The Pioneer
amp feeding any other set drives them into distortion where the
Pioneer speakers still have more range to go.

Never needed to push the amp above 4 to be heard outside.

OK, so much for the merits of qualitative reports, otherwise known as
testimonials. Proves nothing.

The old speakers still work just fine but the audio experts
have learned how to squeeze that performance out of a speaker that old
audio
theory predicted couldn't possibly work.

Magnetics got better, and theory stayed the same. Performance
followed the theory's prediction of new magnetics is all. This isn't
a mystery is it?

Care to name your speakers' model and manufacturer, or did you form
the cone and wind the voice coils around a selected magnet by hand?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,

Never one to refuse a challenge.
The old speakers were a pair of Celestion Ditton 15XR's with 30 watt per
channel rating and a flat sound response output from around 20Hz to 20kHz,
104db at 1 yard driven with 1 watt. The XR stood for extended range
indicating that the speaker design had been modified and upgraded from the
original Ditton 15 specifications.
The new speakers I mentioned are a pair of Creative T20's. 14 watts per
channel from a built in amp and very nice to listen to. They don't really
compare with the Celestions for the smooth mellow sound that only seems to
come with wooden cabinets, but for the price they are excellent. Good point
about the magnets though. The super high powered magnets, ultra rigid,
lightweight fibre glass cones and developments in ported cabinet design have
all contributed to the superb performance of the T20's.

Apparently they have been out for a while now, but it was only when I was
wandering about in a PC World store that I heard a pair up and running. I
was stopped in my tracks by the sound coming out of these tiny devices and
spent a good couple of minutes looking for the subwoofer unit that I felt
sure was hidden away somewhere. There wasn't a subwoofer and after that, I
just knew I had to buy a pair.

I have no connection with Creative and in fact I am a bit annoyed with the
company's attitude to (not) providing proper sound card drivers for Windows
Vista.

Anyway, just go and check out the web reviews.

Sorry everyone else, but this bit hasn't really got anything at all to do
with antennas.

Cheers

Mike

"Mike Kaliski" wrote in
:

Apparently they have been out for a while now, but it was only when I
was wandering about in a PC World store that I heard a pair up and
running. I was stopped in my tracks by the sound coming out of these
tiny devices and spent a good couple of minutes looking for the
subwoofer unit that I felt sure was hidden away somewhere. There
wasn't a subwoofer and after that, I just knew I had to buy a pair.

I have no connection with Creative and in fact I am a bit annoyed with
the company's attitude to (not) providing proper sound card drivers
for Windows Vista.

Wait for Windows 8. It can't be worse!

Anyway, just go and check out the web reviews.

Sorry everyone else, but this bit hasn't really got anything at all to
do with antennas.

What must be really wonderful is how these speaker manufacturers have not
only managed to change resonant points, but managed to get these very
small systems to move the massive amounts of air needed with the small
speaker systems involved! Oops, sorry, I got sarcastic..

While it is true that we can get better sound from smaller speaker
systems than we have been able to in the past, we have to keep in mind
that those advances are available for the full size systems too. IOW, all
things being equal.....

No new physics are needed.

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 02:33:20 +0100, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

Hi Richard,

Never one to refuse a challenge.
The old speakers were a pair of Celestion Ditton 15XR's with 30 watt per
channel rating and a flat sound response output from around 20Hz to 20kHz,
104db at 1 yard driven with 1 watt. The XR stood for extended range
indicating that the speaker design had been modified and upgraded from the
original Ditton 15 specifications.

Hi Mike,

Pretty impressive. My own Pioneers fall 10dB below that.

The new speakers I mentioned are a pair of Creative T20's. 14 watts per
channel from a built in amp and very nice to listen to.

Good to have a recommendation there too.

They don't really
compare with the Celestions for the smooth mellow sound that only seems to
come with wooden cabinets, but for the price they are excellent. Good point
about the magnets though. The super high powered magnets, ultra rigid,
lightweight fibre glass cones and developments in ported cabinet design have
all contributed to the superb performance of the T20's.

Apparently they have been out for a while now, but it was only when I was
wandering about in a PC World store that I heard a pair up and running. I
was stopped in my tracks by the sound coming out of these tiny devices and
spent a good couple of minutes looking for the subwoofer unit that I felt
sure was hidden away somewhere. There wasn't a subwoofer and after that, I
just knew I had to buy a pair.

I would have to agree.

I have no connection with Creative and in fact I am a bit annoyed with the
company's attitude to (not) providing proper sound card drivers for Windows
Vista.

Maybe with service pack 4.

Anyway, just go and check out the web reviews.

I will.

Sorry everyone else, but this bit hasn't really got anything at all to do
with antennas.

But it does show how performance correlates to numbers to theory to
practice - something dreadfully missing in Art's contributions, if you
can call throwing claims against the wall to see what sticks as a
contribution.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Mike Kaliski wrote:

Hi Richard,

I have a pair of computer speakers sitting on my desk that completely
out perform the so called ultimate hi-fi floor mounted tower system
speakers I bought 35 years ago for the equivalent of several thousand
dollars in today's money. The old speakers still work just fine but the
audio experts have learned how to squeeze that performance out of a
speaker that old audio theory predicted couldn't possibly work. Just how
does a 3 inch speaker in a cabinet the size of a couple of books manage
to produce notes from 20 Hz - 20 kHz? To be fair, the small speakers
can't fill a room with sound in the same smooth way that a larger
speaker cabinet can, but for everyday use in a small modern house or
apartment they are more than adequate for the majority of people.

It seems to me that Art and others are pursuing a similar path at RF.
The aim being to produce an antenna that punches out a signal from a
physically small area. It may not perform quite as well as a full size
half or full wavelength antenna, but it will work well enough for most
people with small gardens or limited real estate for an antenna farm.


Nope.. there's a significant difference between the speakers and the
antenna, and that's the fact that the amateur user of the antenna is
power limited (by regulation). In the speaker case, they trade off
efficiency (acoustic watts out for electrical watts out) because
electrical watts are cheap these days (not so back in McIntosh tube amp
days...) You can tolerate a 1% efficient design that puts out 100mW of
acoustic power with 10W electrical power in. (note that 120dB SPL = 1
Watt.. a symphony orchestra, at full tilt, is about a watt of acoustic
power, and I daresay you couldn't tolerate a whole orchestra in your office)


OTOH, a 1% efficient antenna design is pretty crummy. A dipole is
probably on the order of 70% efficient (RF power radiated into the far
field vs RF power at the feedline). A mobile antenna (which everyone
will agree is not particularly efficient, even if you argue about the
actual magnitude) might be 5-10% efficient (10dB down).



As a practical matter, you can get away with a 1% efficient antenna,
particularly if you're not looking for "link reliability"... The
propagation loss between you and some arbitrary point could easily vary
by 100 dB, so you just wait until propagation is "good enough" to work
the guy with the 0.1W you radiate. Of such are "worked 300 countries on
two bedsprings" sorts of stories made. Folks work around the world on
less than a watt radiated, just not "on demand".. they keep trying until
conditions are just right and they "get lucky".

So, on that basis, you could probably fire up your 1500W amplifier into
a compact loop antenna that's a meter in diameter, and work the world,
eventually.





Clearly there are considerable differences in dealing with sound waves
and RF but I believe that a principle has been established that it is
possible to 'simulate' the performance of a larger system using
physically small components. Art may not be the first to get there, but
he seems to be having a damn good try and someone, somewhere will
eventually succeed.

Mike G0ULI