|
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... |
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
On Apr 10, 3:58 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: 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. Aaah but then sometimes fairy tales come true. If you think art has cut and run because his claims are false I suggest you think again, more likely he has "finally"come to the realization he is wasting his time with people whose eyes are blinkered by the ghosts of the past and reject anything that is not written in a book. The time for disclosure is coming closer and I forecast that when it comes the so called guru's on this group will choke on their word's. Derek |
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
|
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
On Apr 11, 9:11 am, wrote:
Aaah but then sometimes fairy tales come true. A Cinderella story this is not... Cinderella (French: Cendrillon) is a popular fairy tale embodying a classic folk tale myth-element of unjust oppression/triumphant reward. Thousands of variants are known throughout the world. The word "cinderella" means one who unexpectedly achieves recognition or success after a period of obscurity and neglect. If you think art has cut and run because his claims are false I suggest you think again, more likely he has "finally"come to the realization he is wasting his time with people whose eyes are blinkered by the ghosts of the past and reject anything that is not written in a book. The time for disclosure is coming closer and I forecast that when it comes the so called guru's on this group will choke on their word's. Derek Where is the beef? He sent the antenna to be tested by a ham on this group. Have the tests been completed? No mention yet.. Either he hasn't had time, the snow hasn't melted, or the tests have been completed, but the results not divulged by Art. Take your pick. BTW, I don't blame the tester if he hasn't had time to mess with it.. It's not really his job to do Art's work anyway.. Prior Art has only himself for this dilemma of credibility. A normal person would build the thing and compare it to a known reference. Repeatably, over a period of time over various paths, etc. They would not expect other people to do their work for them. If he can mount his miracle device on a tower, it seems to me he should be capable of also installing a 1/2 wave dipole at the appx same mounting height to act as a reference antenna. I assume his device is horizontally polarized. If not, he can use a reference monopole. He talks of receiving DX with this device. I would hope so.. It's fairly common knowledge that even a very small antenna can be a good receive antenna on that low freq. You have such a high overall level that atmospheric noise is going to be the limiting factor, rather than efficiency of the antenna. The S/N ratio will not be much less than a full size antenna under normal semi noisy conditions. Maybe not any less, unless the noise level is very low. My 44x44 inch diamond MW loop is very good at receiving, and it can provide fairly good signal levels. But I'd never be foolish enough to suggest it would make for an efficient transmitting antenna. But judging by the description he provides of his shoe box size antenna using 22 gauge wire, it's quite possible that my MW loop would out transmit his antenna on 160m. After all, it's bigger, and using a whole lot less turns to tune the antenna. When Art was listening to his DX, why did he not contact the station and request a signal report? Cat got his tongue? 0r maybe he did, and the failure to communicate was just too great for him to bear, much less divulge to the world. Only the shadow knows for sure. Why did Art not have a full size antenna up to have on the air comparisons with said DX station? Or any station for that matter.. Does he fear rejection of his antenna by said DX station? It shouldn't really be an issue, being transmitting is not required to compare the two. But you have to at least take the initiative to put up a reference antenna. Whining to rraa is not going to get it done. Woe is Art. How was the performance of the miracle antenna when you tried it? How did it compare to a full size reference antenna? Did you see the same inefficient type of performance from your version as Art described? How many people have actually been able to hear you through the noise using such an antenna? Do you cheat and let the feed line the bulk of the radiating? Do you actually work 160m at all? Oh, you say you haven't tried it at all, but just like to further the propagation of fairy tales... I get it now. In other words, you about as full of @#$% as he is? I've been choking on his bafflegab for quite a while, so that would be addfing nothing new to add to the program. :/ The only thing you have left is to prove us naysayers wrong. Better get busy. The tooth fairy is not going to do your work for you and stick it under your pillow while you count the sheep. I've already tried small antennas. Except for my mobile where I have no choice, I have no use for small antennas. I don't like having to repeat most everything I say two or three times to get a message through the noise. I tried a half size dipole on 160m, using heavy high Q loading coils. It would have eaten Arts miracle whip for lunch. But to me, it was an inferior radiating device, and was dismantled after only a short time of testing. But Art is going to beat that 120 ft long high Q loaded antenna with a shoe box sized mass of 22 gauge wire, wound in what I consider a perverted manner... Chortle....You slay me, you really do. |
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
|
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
Art Unwin wrote:
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)( Make sure the door hits you in the ass. tom K0TAR |
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
On Apr 11, 11:59 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
Your forecasting ability would be better served if you actually did something. Hi Richard I put your suggestion back to you, give me a convincing argument as to why Art's antenna would not be viable, apart from the knee jerk reaction it was designed by Art therefore it cannot be viable. Derek |
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
|
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
Derek wrote:
"---give me a convincing argument as to why Art`s antenna should not be viable,---." It may be viable. Light bulb thansmissions have been detected over considerable distances. From clues, Art`s antenna is a full wavelength of small wire coiled to make a dipole. If equilibrium means two equal coils are used to make the dipole, each contains one half wavelength of wire. Each coil fits (almost) in a shoebox. Such a dipole doesn`t radiate as a fullwave antenna, although Art`s clue is that his antenna doesn`t radiate perpendicular to the axis. That would be true for a straight fullwave antenna remote from ground. Terman says on page 868 of his 1955 opus: "The result is a directional pattern in which the maximum of radiation occurs at an angle with respect to the wire axis which is the case shown in Fig. 23-6 is approximately 64 degrees (see Fig. 23-4a)." I`d wager Art`s antenna radiates more as a halfwave dipole radiates. I posted an excerpt earlier that said that experimenters had found a short insulating whip could be wound with almost twice the resonant length of wire to make the short whip resonant at about half the frequency for a conducting pole of the whip`s length. British hams were quoted as saying the results were good when heavy wire was used for the coil. One can imagine making a dipole with two such quarterwave pole lengths which is my guess as to what Art did, except for the heavy wire. A continuous small diameter coil is a radial mode helix, not an axial mode helix. It will radiate radially or perpendicularly like a length of wire replacing the axis of the coil. Its radiating length is only about half the length of wire wound into the coil using the experimental results. A full wavelength of wire continuously loading a half wavelength dipole would have about twice the loss resistance of a straight wire dipole. This explains the wide bandwidth Art clains for his antenna. Efficiency is radiation resistance over total resistance, (loss + radiation resistance). Radiation resistances for the straight and coiled dipoles are about the same but the higher loss of the coiled antenna makes it something of a dummy load. Low efficiency does not make such antennas not "viable". B&W has many satisfied customers for its resistance loaded folded dipole. Bandwidth can trump efficiency. Art`s antenna may find similar favor. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
On Apr 12, 12:56 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
Art has modeled them all too. I think modeling is how he gets started with these things. That freaking optimizer program that shows him how to build a skewed 6 element antenna with the performance of the usual 3 element. What a breakthrough... :/ I called that particular antenna the "cluster%$#@".... Then then he abandoned that one and decided to go with the coil antenna he's pushing now. Viable? Sure it's viable if you don't mind a puny signal. Note the Isotron.. To me, not a whole heck of a lot different than what Art proposes. Arts version may be slightly inferior though.. And some people do buy and use them.. Mostly ones with yards the size of clothes closets and have no other choice but to try small antennas of that ilk. I doubt any of those users really feel like they are setting the woods on fire. I knew a guy here locally that ran one for a while on 75m. He was able to radiate, but a vast majority of the people on frequency could not hear him. I think he retired that antenna after a while. I suspect he ran out of hair to pull out... And as mentioned, quite a few QSO's have been made using dummy load light bulbs. Usually by accident when they forgot to flip the switch to the real antenna... Is a light bulb viable as an antenna? I suppose.. But don't try to claim it is an efficient radiator. To sum.. Art suffers delusions of grandeur induced by various modeling program optimizers. This can happen to anyone. But... most people will verify if the data is true by comparing to known reference antennas. Art does not do this. He places unflinching blind trust into these programs. And they have led him astray from reality. Woe is Art. |
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
wrote:
Note the Isotron.. I suspect that the Isotron performs best when the feedline is radiating like crazy. So the question is: Has anyone ever tried to maximize feedline radiation? Seems that is what the Carolina Windom has done by accident. Can it be done on purpose? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
|
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
In article ,
Cecil Moore wrote: I suspect that the Isotron performs best when the feedline is radiating like crazy. That's consistent with the installation instructions that state that it must be mounted on a metal mast. So the question is: Has anyone ever tried to maximize feedline radiation? Seems that is what the Carolina Windom has done by accident. Can it be done on purpose? Use a simple wire or rod radiator tied to the center conductor of the coax, no radiator tied to the shield, and a length of feedline which is an even multiple of a halfwave (at the exterior shield's velocity-of-propagation) back to ground or the transmitter, serving as a counterpoise? -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
|
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
Cecil Moore wrote in news:taSLj.2051$%V7.192
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net: wrote: The word "cinderella" means one who unexpectedly achieves recognition or success after a period of obscurity and neglect. A very appropriate name for my dog obtained from the dog pound. Kudos Cecil! - 73 d eMike N3LI - |
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
On Apr 13, 1:56 am, Richard Clark wrote:
.. I have modeled ALL of Art's contraptions. I doubt that, if you had modeled the antenna described in Art's posts of the 17 march onward you "may" have changed your opinion but then that would go against the grain would it not. Your problem is you have allowed your antagonism towards Art cloud your judgment, one has only to look at your post's to see that no matter what Art claim's are you will rubbish them as you have consistently for the last year or so that I have followed this group. Derek |
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
On Apr 13, 10:21 am, Mike Coslo wrote:
Anxiously awaiting that test report..... You should have built one, you would not have been disappointed. I predict that Denny is feeling like the cat who got the cream right at this moment. Derek |
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
Dave Platt wrote:
Use a simple wire or rod radiator tied to the center conductor of the coax, no radiator tied to the shield, and a length of feedline which is an even multiple of a halfwave (at the exterior shield's velocity-of-propagation) back to ground or the transmitter, serving as a counterpoise? Seems to me, the "ground" would cause reflections, turn that "even multiple of a halfwave" into a standing-wave antenna, and maybe be more efficient than an Isotron? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
wrote in message ... On Apr 13, 10:21 am, Mike Coslo wrote: Anxiously awaiting that test report..... You should have built one, you would not have been disappointed. have YOU built one? and if so, have you compared it with a full size antenna?? and what were your results??? |
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
In article ,
Cecil Moore wrote: Use a simple wire or rod radiator tied to the center conductor of the coax, no radiator tied to the shield, and a length of feedline which is an even multiple of a halfwave (at the exterior shield's velocity-of-propagation) back to ground or the transmitter, serving as a counterpoise? Seems to me, the "ground" would cause reflections, turn that "even multiple of a halfwave" into a standing-wave antenna, and maybe be more efficient than an Isotron? Better be careful about that dreaded word "efficient", especially in the context of small antennas - Art might take umbrage. On the basis of the usual "power radiated, divided by power input", the type I suggested *might* be more efficient than an Isotron... but only because its losses might be lower. Most of the Isotron designs I've seen pictured, have a tuned circuit of some sort at the feedpoint (e.g. a big air-wound coil and a metal-plate capacitor), and there will no doubt be some losses in this tuned circuit. I don't know which antenna would have more directional gain at its primary lobe, or which one would have a stronger signal in whatever specific angle its operator found most useful at any particular moment. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com