On Jul 1, 2:39 pm, John Smith wrote:
Dave wrote:
...
no, he's not... its the cosmic equilibrium between his fictitious particles
and the attraction of them the diamagnetic materials that makes antennas
work... of course he can't explain why ferromagnetic materials also work as
antennas, but that hasn't stopped him from spewing his garbage all over this
group. if you keep scratching your head while you try to figure out what he
is talking about you will run out of hair before you even get to first base.

Actually, there is only one alternative--the ether ... something which I
wish they will explore with new techniques ... Something (ether) which
even Einstein acknowledged. However, why Art would "waltz" around
something which is already being explored/argued, and cloak that
"waltzing" in an unfamiliar term(s) is simply beyond me ... unless ones'
point is obsfucation.

Regards,
JS

I have no knoweledge of that but I would like to follow up. Can you
give me some pointers on the subject so I may obtain some further
knowledge
For my part everything that I have stated can be proven and known to
exist
It is the hands of most hams who are interest in antenna programs to
follow
the trail that I point to with respect to arrays in equilibrium for
which the programs
are made from, instead of direction to planar arrays which I suspect
that Maxwell
and others new nothing about

On Jul 1, 2:58 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
With the above in hand it can be seen
that Foucault current generates a field that elevates particles that
have attained a weak magnetic field by entering the earths system
which provides for their rejection or ejection. Per Newtons Law the
weak forces
involved (Fermi) create an oscillation of the radiator which is a
mirror image of arriving impulses upon a radiuator with the same
natural resonance.

Hi Art -

You have a unique way of making simple notions seem utterly
ridiculous. :-)

ac6xg

Jim
You are now doing your job as a teacher and a ham not a physicist.
The first two jobs are about repeating what is in the books parrot
fashion
and to prevent change . A physicist, which you are not, accepts
the
possibility that all is not known and is willing to question or debate
a
subject instead of exercising free speech without substance.
Using what education you have on the subject state in clear terms as
to why
what you are refering to is ridiculous so your posts have some meaning
that
others can follow inteligently
Regards
Art

Art Unwin wrote:

...
I have no knoweledge of that but I would like to follow up. Can you
give me some pointers on the subject so I may obtain some further
knowledge

What part the ether being acknowledged by Einstein? Colleges, papers,
physicists exploring the existence/properties of the ether? What? You
can't read? You can't use Google? You missed my posts quoting
Einsteins last mention of the ether? Help me out here ...

For my part everything that I have stated can be proven and known to
exist

I would even accept the arrls' material is what "really exists" (this
material will only need to be revised if and when the existence of the
ether can be known for certain and its' properties exploited though new
designs--mostly.) And, is in line with all presently accepted
theory--up to the point where the discussions begin of whether light
(and therefore rf) is composed of waves and/or particles or some
phenomenon which exhibits both of these characteristics but is separate
in existence, in some way. AND, whether rf/light "shoots" across a true
"nothing" or "strikes the chords of the ether" and transverses a media
which we can not see and know its properties, yet?"

What? You are introducing a "third theory" which does not deal with
shooting photons and nothing (well, you can shoot light waves through
gases and glass, obviously!), or waves and a media?

It would seem to me your "equilibrium" must either deal with a "nothing"
or an ether ...

In my mind, all antenna theory revolves around a few simple truths:

1) The antennas ELECTRICAL length relates DIRECTLY to what frequencies
it is efficient at.

2) Antennas are subject to laws of ac resistance.

3) Antennas are subject to knows laws of inductance.

4) Antennas are subject to know laws of capacitance.

5) All of the above, in one form or another, contribute to and define an
antenna impedance.

Some of us just wonder if the ether exists, and whether knowing its'
properties, if so, might give one a break through into antenna designs
not yet even though of ...

It is the hands of most hams who are interest in antenna programs to
follow
the trail that I point to with respect to arrays in equilibrium for
which the programs
are made from, instead of direction to planar arrays which I suspect
that Maxwell
and others new nothing about

Except for a few hams, most notable Cecil, Richard Clark, Walter
Maxwell, etc., most are the "appliance users" and/or "brass pounders of
yesteryear." What remains is ill suited to find anything other than a
rare contact on contest/field-day, or perhaps a new keying device
capable of creating one more character per minute ...

You will forgive me if I examine your motives, if pure of heart, I am
sure they will stand as fitting ...

No Art, I think you are confused and using an "equilibrium" to keep from
coming to terms with that, or you are "obsfucating us, with intent!"

But then, I could just be confused myself ...

Regards,
JS

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 1, 2:58 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:

With the above in hand it can be seen
that Foucault current generates a field that elevates particles that
have attained a weak magnetic field by entering the earths system
which provides for their rejection or ejection. Per Newtons Law the
weak forces
involved (Fermi) create an oscillation of the radiator which is a
mirror image of arriving impulses upon a radiuator with the same
natural resonance.

Hi Art -

You have a unique way of making simple notions seem utterly
ridiculous. :-)

ac6xg


Jim
You are now doing your job as a teacher and a ham not a physicist.

I don't have a job on the internet, Art. I was just speaking plainly
and honestly.

ac6xg

On Jul 1, 5:35 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 1, 2:58 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:

With the above in hand it can be seen
that Foucault current generates a field that elevates particles that
have attained a weak magnetic field by entering the earths system
which provides for their rejection or ejection. Per Newtons Law the
weak forces
involved (Fermi) create an oscillation of the radiator which is a
mirror image of arriving impulses upon a radiuator with the same
natural resonance.

Hi Art -

You have a unique way of making simple notions seem utterly
ridiculous. :-)

ac6xg

Jim
You are now doing your job as a teacher and a ham not a physicist.

I don't have a job on the internet, Art. I was just speaking plainly
and honestly.

ac6xg

But you supplied no substanc! You did not share what you were talking
about
or a point of contention just a use of free speech as in graphitty If
you had
knowledge of what I was speaking off then you could have delved in and
explain your comments
but you are deficient. I don't have time to teach a parrot another
line
Art

Dave wrote:
a parabolic reflector fed with a feedhorn. no 'elements', just a
hole in a pipe and a big curved plate. you need to define the
parameters a bit more.

OK, maximum gain for a single frequency, free space, sidelobes and
back-front ratio not important. Not concerned about number of elements -
only minimum total material length. Doesn't need to be rotatable - this
is a purely theoretical exercise.

Parabolic reflector sounds good but it's a bit hard to quantify for the
purposes of minimising total material length. Perhaps one could use a
wire mesh dish. Would that use more or less material than a Yagi? I
would imagine that a phased array radar could use the wire mesh approach
but the same questions would apply as for the parabolic reflector. Same
for corner reflectors.
Arrays of driven elements may be promising but the few such antennae
that I've simulated so far, use more material than Yagis for the same gain.

Alan

Wimpie wrote:

There is no optimum antenna design that fits everything. Some factors:

This a theoretical exercise - see my reply to Dave.
Alan

On Jul 1, 4:37 pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

...

I have no knoweledge of that but I would like to follow up. Can you
give me some pointers on the subject so I may obtain some further
knowledge

What part the ether being acknowledged by Einstein? Colleges, papers,
physicists exploring the existence/properties of the ether? What? You
can't read? You can't use Google? You missed my posts quoting
Einsteins last mention of the ether? Help me out here ...

For my part everything that I have stated can be proven and known to
exist

I would even accept the arrls' material is what "really exists" (this
material will only need to be revised if and when the existence of the
ether can be known for certain and its' properties exploited though new
designs--mostly.) And, is in line with all presently accepted
theory--up to the point where the discussions begin of whether light
(and therefore rf) is composed of waves and/or particles or some
phenomenon which exhibits both of these characteristics but is separate
in existence, in some way. AND, whether rf/light "shoots" across a true
"nothing" or "strikes the chords of the ether" and transverses a media
which we can not see and know its properties, yet?"

What? You are introducing a "third theory" which does not deal with
shooting photons and nothing (well, you can shoot light waves through
gases and glass, obviously!), or waves and a media?

It would seem to me your "equilibrium" must either deal with a "nothing"
or an ether ...

In my mind, all antenna theory revolves around a few simple truths:

1) The antennas ELECTRICAL length relates DIRECTLY to what frequencies
it is efficient at.

2) Antennas are subject to laws of ac resistance.

3) Antennas are subject to knows laws of inductance.

4) Antennas are subject to know laws of capacitance.

5) All of the above, in one form or another, contribute to and define an
antenna impedance.

Some of us just wonder if the ether exists, and whether knowing its'
properties, if so, might give one a break through into antenna designs
not yet even though of ...

It is the hands of most hams who are interest in antenna programs to
follow
the trail that I point to with respect to arrays in equilibrium for
which the programs
are made from, instead of direction to planar arrays which I suspect
that Maxwell
and others new nothing about

Except for a few hams, most notable Cecil, Richard Clark, Walter
Maxwell, etc., most are the "appliance users" and/or "brass pounders of
yesteryear." What remains is ill suited to find anything other than a
rare contact on contest/field-day, or perhaps a new keying device
capable of creating one more character per minute ...

You will forgive me if I examine your motives, if pure of heart, I am
sure they will stand as fitting ...

No Art, I think you are confused and using an "equilibrium" to keep from
coming to terms with that, or you are "obsfucating us, with intent!"

But then, I could just be confused myself ...

Regards,
JS

John if you have no comprehension of equilibrium you will never be
able to define aether
Equilibrium is the essence of the universe confined to an arbitary
boundary where all forces about a point equals zero.
If they were not equal zero then the boundary breaks and we break from
equilibrium untill all forces equal zero
This is what Newton means when he made the statement Every action has
an equal and opposite reaction.
Before you can even think of the so called aether then the confining
boundary of all boundaries must be determined which is where some say
GOD sits. The sun sits in its own arbitary boundary where heat
byproducts exist with the sun itself. When the position of the sun
shifts within its boundary then equilibrium is lost and equilibrium is
only then retained by removal of excess forces that detract from
equilibrium. It is commonly understood that it is nuclear byproduct
that upset equilibrium until the p-roduct is removed from within the
arbitary boundary. These are known as Neutrinos which are displaced
particles with nuclear content such that they have not fully decayed.
These particles when released from the arbitary border have next to
zero orbital spin such that their exit is of scattered form
but their numbers are in the billions per square metre. But they do
have an affinity to diamagnetic materials which appears to be the most
common mass of our universe. since as a substance it does not absorb
free electons to rotate with said mass i.e. it rests upon the
surfaces.It is these very same particles illustrated in Gaussian law
of statics where the arbitary field is in equilibrium..
See. you cannot escape from the term equilibrium while in our universe
but you can ignore it until equilibrium is broken and where your
future is unknown. Hopefully the earths pole will move back from
Siberia so that all do not have to worry.We have no people skilled in
physics so there will be no debate other than the use of free speech
without content
Regards
Art
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 1, 4:37 pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
the use of free speech
without content
Regards
Art

Exactly what art is best at!

"Alan Peake" wrote in message
...


Dave wrote:
a parabolic reflector fed with a feedhorn. no 'elements', just a
hole in a pipe and a big curved plate. you need to define the
parameters a bit more.

OK, maximum gain for a single frequency, free space, sidelobes and
back-front ratio not important. Not concerned about number of elements -
only minimum total material length. Doesn't need to be rotatable - this is
a purely theoretical exercise.

Parabolic reflector sounds good but it's a bit hard to quantify for the
purposes of minimising total material length. Perhaps one could use a
wire mesh dish. Would that use more or less material than a Yagi? I
would imagine that a phased array radar could use the wire mesh approach
but the same questions would apply as for the parabolic reflector. Same
for corner reflectors.
Arrays of driven elements may be promising but the few such antennae
that I've simulated so far, use more material than Yagis for the same
gain.

Alan


length is not a property of 'material'. mass, volume, their ratio, density,
conductivity, color, hardness, etc, are properties that can be measured.
'theoretically' the best antenna is a conductor from the source to the
receiver. a parabolic reflector can have area and thickness, therefore
volume, but the area is variable depending on how thick or thin you can make
it. any wire can be made into a parabolic reflector by smashing it thin
enough, witness the reflectors used on deep space satellites that are
extremely thin and light. or the metallic coating of a telescope mirror
that may be only a few atoms thick and yet yields tremendous gain. phased
arrays for radar get better as you remove more material from the surface
they are built from, the more holes, the better the pattern can be... so
less is more. arrays of driven elements, like the lpda, while looking
impressive and using lots of material, perform poorly at a single frequency,
but have the advantage of performing equally poorly over a wide range of
frequencies. designing antennas is a game of tradeoffs.... bandwidth for
gain, size for efficiency, gain for size, add in weight or some other
constraint like diameter and length of tubing, or dollars worth of
materials, and you add a whole new dimension. and then you need
'practicality'. as our friend art has found, you can feed parameters into
an optimizer program and let it run wild and get a supergain antenna that
fits in a shoebox, but try to build it and you get an air cooled dummy
load... or something that only induces currents on the support structure or
feedline.

the first step of engineering an antenna is to constrain the design with
practical measures... frequency range, size, weight, wind load area, cost.
then research possible alternative designs. then tweak the possible designs
carefully to see if they can be adjusted for your specific use. but be very
careful, if you suddenly find the tweaked design providing much larger gains
or varying greatly from the starting point, back up and see what has
happened... something is wrong. the most common problem is that someone
takes a standard yagi and puts it into an optimizer and sets it for 'max
gain' at one frequency, with no other constraints. the optimizer chugs
along and the gain goes up, and up, and up, and up!!! but when you look at
the results there are several elements bunched around the driven element and
the feedpoint impedance has gone down to a fraction of an ohm. don't apply
for a patent like art, throw it out and start over with more reasonable
constraints. give it a range of frequencies, constrain the feedpoint
impedance to a useful range, limit the element spacing, the total boom
length, etc, until it gives you something slightly tweaked for your specific
application but not off in left field.