Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

Having made small full wave antenna with a swr in Sino soidal form
ie reactance which is quite normal I decided to get back to basics
and
view it as a pendulum ala a tank circuit equivalent
lwhere lengthening the pendulum changes the peried.with consequent
damping
via incresing of "slow wave"
Doing this to the antenna structure provided an antenna that did not
exceed
a swr of 4 from 2 mhz upto a 100 Mhz.plus ( very few deviations above
3:1)
What the dampening did was to smooth out the resistive and reactive
values
to produce a response very similar to a log periodic except, of
course. it was
a small full wave electric antenna with a omni directional response.
( it can be made directional)
Tried it also on the local TV stations (60 miles away) and it worked
extremely well
such that it looked like HDTV! Again this points out the requirement
for equilibrium
of antennas in tank circuit form. With care, an antenna can now be
made
with extremely flat response for ALL frequencies since the impedance
can be made near constant.By the way the antenna took 200 watts key
down for 1 min
without any hint of failure.( the impedance reference value was 50
ohms
and a MFJ 259B was used tho any datum impedance can be chosen)
Whether my theories are correct or not with respect to academia, to
have such antennas
in practice where responses can be measured it would behove hams to
replicate them
and allow the academics to follow up later. Will now modify some
rubber duckies
for the local police force to extend the distance range as our county
is quite large.
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG (uk)

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 07:50:35 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

By the way the antenna took 200 watts key
down for 1 min
without any hint of failure.

Nobody answered, hmmm?

Try again at night and see if airplanes use it as a beacon.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

On Apr 8, 4:55 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 07:50:35 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
By the way the antenna took 200 watts key
down for 1 min
without any hint of failure.

Nobody answered, hmmm?

Our cat has equal length mittens
and a symmetrical color scheme. :/
It's in equilibrium. Maybe I oughta fire
up the old rig, hook up some gator clips
to her legs, and see how she radiates from
2-100 mhz.. :+
I suspect if I place her on a steel patio table
as a ground plane/reflecting device, that would
increase the gain to the point that a government
grant surely would be inevitable. :)
They would probably make me cover boy
of QST for the next April edition.

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 16:37:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

a government grant surely would be inevitable. :)

But just think of this constant Z response to infinity!

No more Gamma Matching to (don't stare into the) Gamma raze.

No more changing jX in X-raze either.

Can we afford the connector adapter (and does Wireman carry it)?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

On Apr 8, 7:37 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 16:37:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
a government grant surely would be inevitable. :)

But just think of this constant Z response to infinity!

No more Gamma Matching to (don't stare into the) Gamma raze.

No more changing jX in X-raze either.

Can we afford the connector adapter (and does Wireman carry it)?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard
Over the years you have insulted my work as I have shared most of it
with my fellow hams.
I shared with all the details of my antenna work and in this thread I
have shared with all
how I utelised the connection between mechanical laws and electrical
laws of Maxwell Gauss
Newton and the proof with respect to radiation. This last thread
proves the existence of the universal
law where I used the mechanical laws of the pendulum and applied them
to the electrical laws
which produced the antenna. It is this proof that I have provided
which is the most important step
in my work.Considering that Einstein spent his whole life searching
for this and eventually turned
away from the classics to those of relativity makes me very proud of
my work.
I shared it with hams because of their love with respect to antennas
but that is a love of the past.
I am extremely disapointed that hams did not go on this jorney with me
or even supply encouragement.
However I am now at the end of my quest and thus will retreat from
this newsgroup where it appears
emotion has overtaken the the employment of skill to pursue the holy
grail that most have given up.
Regards to all as I depart where I will not be privey to your replies
and can thus concentrate on other matters.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG an east ender from the UK)(

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 08:16:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Over the years you have insulted my work as I have shared most of it
with my fellow hams.

No Arthur, you are simply confused about the distinction between
criticism of stupidity and your effort to prove it.

Your effort is all well and good, but it does not elevate stupidity to
the ranks of academic achievement; and neither does robbing textbooks,
and slurring your fellow hams remove the tarnish from your theories.

I will not be privey to your replies
and can thus concentrate on other matters.

Oh, something tells me you will be privy to this - enjoy! (privey
indeed. One would think when you use a Briticism, you would know how
to spell it - and for that matter, what it means!)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

Art Unwin, KB9MZ wrote:
"Regards to all as I depart----."

Would Art cut and run if his claim of an antenna for HF that deployed in
the size of two shoe boxes and that performed as well as an antenna that
deployed to a significant fraction of a wavelength were so? I think not.
It has always been a fairy tale.

Truth is, a small antenna has a small radiation resistance. Ratio of the
radiation resistance to the antenna`s total resistance predicts its
efficiency. Available materials mean we must use large antennas to get
efficiency.

Don`t go away mad, Art. Your stories are entertaining and make us think.
Just don`t expect baloney to pass unchallenged.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

Really? http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/prioritymyth.htm


"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 7:37 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 16:37:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
a government grant surely would be inevitable. :)

But just think of this constant Z response to infinity!

No more Gamma Matching to (don't stare into the) Gamma raze.

No more changing jX in X-raze either.

Can we afford the connector adapter (and does Wireman carry it)?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard
Over the years you have insulted my work as I have shared most of it
with my fellow hams.
I shared with all the details of my antenna work and in this thread I
have shared with all
how I utelised the connection between mechanical laws and electrical
laws of Maxwell Gauss
Newton and the proof with respect to radiation. This last thread
proves the existence of the universal
law where I used the mechanical laws of the pendulum and applied them
to the electrical laws
which produced the antenna. It is this proof that I have provided
which is the most important step
in my work.Considering that Einstein spent his whole life searching
for this and eventually turned
away from the classics to those of relativity makes me very proud of
my work.
I shared it with hams because of their love with respect to antennas
but that is a love of the past.
I am extremely disapointed that hams did not go on this jorney with me
or even supply encouragement.
However I am now at the end of my quest and thus will retreat from
this newsgroup where it appears
emotion has overtaken the the employment of skill to pursue the holy
grail that most have given up.
Regards to all as I depart where I will not be privey to your replies
and can thus concentrate on other matters.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG an east ender from the UK)(

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

Art - It's spring time! Lets Go Fishin' .


"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 7:37 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 16:37:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
a government grant surely would be inevitable. :)

But just think of this constant Z response to infinity!

No more Gamma Matching to (don't stare into the) Gamma raze.

No more changing jX in X-raze either.

Can we afford the connector adapter (and does Wireman carry it)?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard
Over the years you have insulted my work as I have shared most of it
with my fellow hams.
I shared with all the details of my antenna work and in this thread I
have shared with all
how I utelised the connection between mechanical laws and electrical
laws of Maxwell Gauss
Newton and the proof with respect to radiation. This last thread
proves the existence of the universal
law where I used the mechanical laws of the pendulum and applied them
to the electrical laws
which produced the antenna. It is this proof that I have provided
which is the most important step
in my work.Considering that Einstein spent his whole life searching
for this and eventually turned
away from the classics to those of relativity makes me very proud of
my work.
I shared it with hams because of their love with respect to antennas
but that is a love of the past.
I am extremely disapointed that hams did not go on this jorney with me
or even supply encouragement.
However I am now at the end of my quest and thus will retreat from
this newsgroup where it appears
emotion has overtaken the the employment of skill to pursue the holy
grail that most have given up.
Regards to all as I depart where I will not be privey to your replies
and can thus concentrate on other matters.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG an east ender from the UK)(

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

On Apr 9, 10:16 am, Art Unwin wrote:


Richard
Over the years you have insulted my work as I have shared most of it
with my fellow hams.
I shared with all the details of my antenna work and in this thread I
have shared with all
how I utelised the connection between mechanical laws and electrical
laws of Maxwell Gauss
Newton and the proof with respect to radiation. This last thread
proves the existence of the universal
law where I used the mechanical laws of the pendulum and applied them
to the electrical laws
which produced the antenna. It is this proof that I have provided
which is the most important step
in my work.

The only problem is writing out personal theories is not "proof".
You have not proved anything here. You have only offered
your theory.

Considering that Einstein spent his whole life searching
for this and eventually turned
away from the classics to those of relativity makes me very proud of
my work.

What does Einstein have to do with small 160m antennas?

I shared it with hams because of their love with respect to antennas
but that is a love of the past.

I don't love antennas. Period. They are mechanical devices.
I also do not get sentimental about antennas, or antenna theory.

I am extremely disapointed that hams did not go on this jorney with me
or even supply encouragement.

Not my job.. If you want to design and use such a device, that's
up to you. You already know what type of antennas I prefer.
Full sized ones.
I have zero use for small sub par antennas.
Besides, I thought you had a ham already testing one.
I imagine most are still quivering with excitement waiting for
the report of that version..

However I am now at the end of my quest and thus will retreat from
this newsgroup where it appears
emotion has overtaken the the employment of skill to pursue the holy
grail that most have given up.

Another day, another $2.31....

Regards to all as I depart where I will not be privey to your replies
and can thus concentrate on other matters.

Oh well.. add another day, and another $2.31...