|
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 4, 2:42 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 4, 1:27 pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 4, 12:54 pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 4, 11:04 am, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Art wrote: "Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin Antenna) presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient radiators of smaller volume." Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the facts". Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Richard after all your denials regarding tipped antennas which you say is a myth we are now getting close to showing same via a computor program with optimizer which will show it is not a myth. what is the myth? they will do something different than a true vertical antenna, but probably nothing really useful. that antennas must be tipped for max vertical gain. if you want gain straight up then yes, you must tip the radiator, preferably by 90 degrees off vertical. I never thought David would finally acknowledge the mathematics even You haven't shown any mathematics to acknowledge... only bafflegab and hand waving. We then will see that the static particles that is part of Gauss is ejected from a radiator like an elevated frog, used for novelty reasons, show that radiatiation is by particles and not a wave will bring another antenna basher over to the Gaussian side. Then people will see how an eddy current applies spin to a departing particle such that it will attain a straight line trajectory for communication and the change over will become a flood and you will be left alone as an old man who cannot accept change While others are making small antennas now that it can be seen that a radiator can be any size shape or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium This being the start of this journey connecting a gaussian field in equilibrium to the mechanics of communication Art a perfect example of bafflegab, doubletalk, and downright nonsense... art can't really believe this and still be functional enough to type, so he must be still trying to pull our collective legs. David check it out to show the World why it is bafflegab, The same thing was stated when the Gaussian/Maxwell mathematics was given on this newsgroup. Be a hero and show the World why America is correct and I am in error From "Fields And Waves In Communication Electronics" Ramo, Whinnery, and Van Duzer, 2nd printing 1967... ppg 237 they have just stated the 4 classical Maxwell's equations in integral form and are explaining them in words. equation (1) is the surface integral of the vector displacement = the volume integral of the charge density.... which they explain as "Equation (1) is seen to be the familiar form of Gauss's law utilized so much in Chapter 2. Now that we are concerned with fields which are a function of time, the interpretation is that the electric flux flowing out of any closed surface _at a given instant_ is equal to the charge enclosed by the surface _at that instant_" (emphasis shown by _ x_ is THEIRS not mine). Now note art, that this shows that the classical Gauss's law that you are trying to add into the Maxwell equations is indeed already there. Also, as they point out it implicitly accounts for time variation without the need to add a specific time term to the equations. Your chance to make the July 4 a day to remember for American hams Ofcourse you can make an antenna where all lumped loads are cancelled to form an antenna in equilibrium but that would mean getting up from your couch and putting your six pack down. Not very likely Art six pack! ugh, i haven't touched a six pack in years, i much prefer real beer. is that your problem art, too many cheap six packs?? Wrong. The chapter gives NO mention of the role of static particles in radiation. of course not, the aether was firmly debunked before they wrote that. Gauss never did apply an extension to his law of statics to reveal that a radiator can be any size , shape or elevation as long as the laws of equilibrium is in effect to make a dynamic field. of course not, his law is a static law, it was maxwell that brought together the 6 equations necessary to describe waves and dynamics. This is clear indication that a radiator must be of a wavelength or more that is radiating which does not include the addition of a ground plane as part of the radiator. bull. half wave radiators are just fine, and you can get any size conductor to radiate. rest of bull snipped... enough for today, i'm going to enjoy some nice old scotch and enjoy the rest of the holiday. Woww, you have slipped back into the abyss again. Statics and radiation do not mix! Have a happy Guy Faukes day with the fireworks Art |
Radiation and dummy loads
Art Unwin wrote:
... rest of bull snipped... enough for today, i'm going to enjoy some nice old scotch and enjoy the rest of the holiday. Woww, you have slipped back into the abyss again. Statics and radiation do not mix! Have a happy Guy Faukes day with the fireworks Art Methinks that may have already been the scotch ... ;-) Anyway, my "1/2 wave" omini-vertical is a "full wave antenna!" 180 degrees of the rf wave, proper, is in the radiator--180 degrees is in the counterpoise (mirrored, of course--or, 180 degrees out of phase with the radiator (and, of course, is a radiator itself.) This is mostly due to the current unun/choke at the base of the radiator, on the coax. Else it does have a tendency to attempt to use the coax as a counterpoise ... Anyway ... yawn ... a full wave is being supported in the antenna hardware proper. Regards, JS |
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 4, 3:13 pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: ... rest of bull snipped... enough for today, i'm going to enjoy some nice old scotch and enjoy the rest of the holiday. Woww, you have slipped back into the abyss again. Statics and radiation do not mix! Have a happy Guy Faukes day with the fireworks Art Methinks that may have already been the scotch ... ;-) Anyway, my "1/2 wave" omini-vertical is a "full wave antenna!" 180 degrees of the rf wave, proper, is in the radiator--180 degrees is in the counterpoise (mirrored, of course--or, 180 degrees out of phase with the radiator (and, of course, is a radiator itself.) This is mostly due to the current unun/choke at the base of the radiator, on the coax. Else it does have a tendency to attempt to use the coax as a counterpoise ... Anyway ... yawn ... a full wave is being supported in the antenna hardware proper. Regards, JS A good way of looking at it for the layman since dividing a full wave radiation by two you get close to the correct answer except for a couple of ohms. But even that falls down with respect to a horizontal dipole which is not in equilibrium and thus corrona can form at the ends. With a quad antenna it then be comes in equilibrium where Maxwells laws apply without chinanigans. Remember ground plains are nothing but resisters carrying current and do not radiate because of zero skin depth. The FCC covers this with broadcasters b y limiting the level of ground plain resistance to I think about 2 ohms to cut down non radiative losses. All very fascinating stuff because the total circuit is then of a parallel circuit nature with the inclusion of a dampening resister. Cheers Art |
Radiation and dummy loads
Art wrote:
"On the other hand you can verify that the requirements of equilibrium is preserved within Maxwell`s laws and thus antenna computer programs such that the tilted vertical is not removed from the subject of antennas." The preceding confusion not withstanding, surely you must have aligned antenna elements to vertical or horizontal positions to maximize signal. I`ve done so countless times while optimizing microwave paths. Terman quantifies (look it up for the math, Art) signal degradation caused by misalignment on page 923 of his 1955 opus. I`ll extract one sentence: "It will be observed that the quantity (E cos psi cos theta) is the component of the field strength which has a wavefront parallel to the antenna and is polarized in the same plane as the antenna." The programs Art refers to don`t contradict either Maxwell or Terman. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Radiation and dummy loads
Not sure where you get the swr repetitive over a band of frequencies
stuff, (perhaps I don't read enough of the group messages) but to reply relative to dummy loads in general.... Yep, Dummy Loads do radiate, they just don't radiate very well. In fact, most of them are encased in a metal enclosure of some sort to provide two major functions, reducing the radiation, and to provide oil or other medium for cooling. On the other hand, your statement/question concerning whether anything that conducts also radiates, the answer is "yes" so long as it isn't shielded by something else, the skin effect helps provide that shielding (coax, with fields on the center conductor and the inside of the shield) or in a configuration that cancels the radiation with an equal and opposite radiation (twisted pairs, ladder line). Relative to carbon life forms, I've successfully loaded a tree and made (local) contacts, but the efficiency was probably near zero. Though many items may conduct and therefore radiate, their efficiency and effectivity as an antenna can be so low as to be readily compared to transmitting on a dummy load. Thus it is not unusual to hear ham conversations describing a given antenna/configuration as a dummy load... --Rick Art Unwin wrote: I am trying to understand why a low swr repetitive over a band of frequencies is considered by hams to be a dummy load.! This consistently shows up in statements by the itelligensia of this newsgroup. Following up on the logic of that idea it would suggest that if swr was totally constant ( not sure how that could be) then all radiation must be zero or self cancelling.? This thus suggests that if a log periodic antenna was unlimitted in the number of elements used would in the limit drop down to zero radiation!. So following the thinking of this group the oscillations that I show on my page unwinantennas.com/ as a progression towards zero radiation since Q eventually is going to equal zero. Is this why the decreasing oscillation is defined as a dummy load on this newsgroup? The term comes up so often that I am compelled to look for what I am missing, especially since carbon is conductive and thus in the minds of many must therefore be radiative! Ofcourse the statement bandied around that if a material is condunctive then it must radiatiate could become fact instead of an old wives tales if stated enough times. Art |
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 4, 5:15 pm, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote: "On the other hand you can verify that the requirements of equilibrium is preserved within Maxwell`s laws and thus antenna computer programs such that the tilted vertical is not removed from the subject of antennas." The preceding confusion not withstanding, surely you must have aligned antenna elements to vertical or horizontal positions to maximize signal. I`ve done so countless times while optimizing microwave paths. The difference is extremely small similar to who wins a 100 metre race but there is still one winner Terman quantifies (look it up for the math, Art) signal degradation caused by misalignment on page 923 of his 1955 opus. I`ll extract one sentence: "It will be observed that the quantity (E cos psi cos theta) is the component of the field strength which has a wavefront parallel to the antenna and is polarized in the same plane as the antenna." Yes they do! Terman does not include the eddy currents vector where computer programs based on Gauss and Maxwell and other masters do. The angle of difference is similar to that seen as the pitch angle of a helix antenna. With your love of Terman you can now state that computor programs are garbage since they promote what you call a "myth" The programs Art refers to don`t contradict either Maxwell or Terman. As I said earlier, yes they do with respect to Terman. I challenge you to find in Terman the implications of Foucault current with respect to antennas and diamagnetic materials such as aluminum gold and copper which are prime examples of material with suitable resistivity values that provide ejection or levitation effects when moved thru a magnetic field It is nothing new, The vector has been there all the time it is just that many don;'t mess with it because it is small and a devil to calculate. Richard why not give it up? You will never make the antenna, you can't operate computor programs and I suspect you cannot perform a google search, so progress beyond Terman is an impossibility for you. If eddy currents are omitted any structure thus made cannot be in equilibrium since this is the mystery "weak" force that Einstein struggled for in vain and thus drove him towards forming quantum mechanics., The masters made room for this force even tho they did not know what caused it but that vector was required to conform with equilibrium closed vector field Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 4, 5:29 pm, rick frazier wrote:
Not sure where you get the swr repetitive over a band of frequencies stuff, (perhaps I don't read enough of the group messages) but to reply relative to dummy loads in general.... This comes from the radiator listed on my page unwinantennas.com/ Yep, Dummy Loads do radiate, they just don't radiate very well. In very true fact, most of them are encased in a metal enclosure of some sort to provide two major functions, reducing the radiation, and to provide oil or other medium for cooling. On the other hand, your statement/question concerning whether anything that conducts also radiates, the answer is "yes" so long as it isn't In a very general sense this is true because most if not all materials at room temperature have resistivity which is a measure of radiation. But there are some materials that lose their resistivity at extremely low temperatures of which the best known is a super conductor shielded by something else, the skin effect helps provide that shielding (coax, with fields on the center conductor and the inside of the shield) or in a configuration that cancels the radiation with an equal and opposite radiation (twisted pairs, ladder line). I have doubts about twisted pairs which is what I use for my antennas. The reason for crossed wires for me is to cancel lumped capacitances and where the reversal of turns cancels imposed loaded inductances Thus the length of wire used consists of only distributed loads as required by Maxwells law with length being N times wavelength. I have seen reference to canceled radiation in some antenna books but if I remember correctly the cancelling effect occurs on near field radiation only. Relative to carbon life forms, I've successfully loaded a tree and made (local) contacts, but the efficiency was probably near zero. Though many items may conduct and therefore radiate, their efficiency and effectivity as an antenna can be so low as to be readily compared to transmitting on a dummy load. Thus it is not unusual to hear ham conversations describing a given antenna/configuration as a dummy load... Interesting that you refer to life forms where carbon undergoes various changes and classifications as it decays, (c13) in the extreme. Tho I have seen some strata of earth listed as a carbon but then elsewhere as a mineral which I find confusing! Ofcourse a tree consist of molecules of water which is a diamagnetic material. Thus will have particals drawn to rest upon it to radiate as well as particles released by updrafts in a rainstorm allowing the particles to return back to a suitable place in quantum form as with lightning Good posting Regards Art KB9MZ --Rick Art Unwin wrote: I am trying to understand why a low swr repetitive over a band of frequencies is considered by hams to be a dummy load.! This consistently shows up in statements by the itelligensia of this newsgroup. Following up on the logic of that idea it would suggest that if swr was totally constant ( not sure how that could be) then all radiation must be zero or self cancelling.? This thus suggests that if a log periodic antenna was unlimitted in the number of elements used would in the limit drop down to zero radiation!. So following the thinking of this group the oscillations that I show on my page unwinantennas.com/ as a progression towards zero radiation since Q eventually is going to equal zero. Is this why the decreasing oscillation is defined as a dummy load on this newsgroup? The term comes up so often that I am compelled to look for what I am missing, especially since carbon is conductive and thus in the minds of many must therefore be radiative! Ofcourse the statement bandied around that if a material is condunctive then it must radiatiate could become fact instead of an old wives tales if stated enough times. Art |
Radiation and dummy loads
Gentlemen,
Well, I'm afraid it's time to reveal the truth to Art. Now that he's hit upon the tree thing, he honestly doesn't have far to go before discovering all of our secrets. While I admit that he hasn't yet touched on the mysteries of citric acid, he will shortly, I mean, it's only a very short jump, right? Art, You have been the focus of a conspiracy. Yes, your suspicions have been correct, it was a conspiracy by those of us 'in the know'. We have been doing all that we can to deter you from your venture into these mysteries. I'm sure you can see where the world is just not ready for them as yet. That was the reason, the world is just not ready for the revelation yet. But it's time for this to end, the conspiracy thingy I mean. Congratulations, I really didn't think you would make it, but you have. I also believe you can understand that it takes time to turn this action of ours around and give you the deserved recognition you have earned. Be patient, it will happen shortly. In the mean time, you might give further thought on that citric acid (limes, lemons, etc.) thing and particle release. I knew you were 'close' when you mentioned trees! Hang on, it's coming... - 'Doc |
Radiation and dummy loads
"Art Unwin" wrote
On Jul 4, 5:29 pm, rick frazier wrote: Not sure where you get the swr repetitive over a band of frequencies stuff, (perhaps I don't read enough of the group messages) but to reply relative to dummy loads in general.... This comes from the radiator listed on my page unwinantennas.com/ _______________________ Art - The most important measure of an antenna is the amount of field intensity it can produce at a given distance in a given direction, per watt of applied r-f power. So far you have written nothing specific about this for the "Unwin" antenna. Note that a transmission line feeding a 20 dB series attenuator attached to the input of a 100% efficient antenna will show very high return loss to the r-f source ( 40 dB plus the twice the cable loss). But that antenna system will radiate little of the available EM energy, nonetheless. Could you please comment on the measured or at least the calculated RADIATION CHARACTERISTICS of your antenna, compared to a matched 1/2-wave dipole at that frequency (or an isotropic radiator), and tell us how you arrived at them? If you can do that, and your results can be scientifically duplicated by others, you will have removed the source of a lot of the skepticism you read here and in your similar threads on eHam.net. Otherwise it will be "more of the same," which (let us hope) is or should not be your goal. RF |
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 5, 8:21 am, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote On Jul 4, 5:29 pm, rick frazier wrote: Not sure where you get the swr repetitive over a band of frequencies stuff, (perhaps I don't read enough of the group messages) but to reply relative to dummy loads in general.... This comes from the radiator listed on my page unwinantennas.com/ _______________________ Art - The most important measure of an antenna is the amount of field intensity it can produce at a given distance in a given direction, per watt of applied r-f power. So far you have written nothing specific about this for the "Unwin" antenna. Note that a transmission line feeding a 20 dB series attenuator attached to the input of a 100% efficient antenna will show very high return loss to the r-f source ( 40 dB plus the twice the cable loss). But that antenna system will radiate little of the available EM energy, nonetheless. Could you please comment on the measured or at least the calculated RADIATION CHARACTERISTICS of your antenna, compared to a matched 1/2-wave dipole at that frequency (or an isotropic radiator), and tell us how you arrived at them? If you can do that, and your results can be scientifically duplicated by others, you will have removed the source of a lot of the skepticism you read here and in your similar threads on eHam.net. Otherwise it will be "more of the same," which (let us hope) is or should not be your goal. RF No.More of the same is not my goal nor is it to respond to every request. The mathematision or doctorrate type can do it solely by mathematics. The computor program is built on those mathematics. and a antenna program will ALWAYs produce radiators in equilibrium which means at an angle. Even without a optimiser you can do it on Eznec but it would be laborious but it can be done. People are enamoured with the Yagi so thay always insert planar type figures thus the program which is designed around equilibrium. If the goal is small efficient radiators then equilibrium must be present starting with a full wavelength that can then be placed in a small volume. It is the smaller efficient radiators and arrays that I have pursued since radiation per unit length is solely a measure that correlates with resistivity and it is that where my conclusions lie. Gain itself is a whole different matter cannot show it's worth |
Radiation and dummy loads
Art Unwin wrote:
... Art KB9MZ unwinantennas.com/ Art: 1) I am not including your text. 2) You have struck upon an area I sift for clues. 3) Einstein did, indeed, realize that in those "weak forces", undoubtedly, lies some important clues/finds. 4) Einstein even noted that the properties of the ether where/are "unknowable", at least at the time he made such statement(s) and to this present day. Take an aluminum disk with a hole in the center to match an old wax record and the hole the size of an old records. Tape a magnet to the phonograph arm. Place the magnet/phonograph-arm on the aluminum disk and spin it up to 78 rpm. The magnet floats ... Magnetic fields/fluxes--electric-currents generated in the aluminum disk are using "work energy" to float the magnet and maintain it at a respectable height above the disk. This is not a "negligible" phenomenon, it is used to levitate magnetic trains in Japan. In our antennas, a certain amount of power IS doing a "like" affect/effect. It IS wasting some amount of power in doing this ... it is DOING "something" we are NOT taking into account. Is this all related to the "weak forces" mentioned by Einstein? Probably. Are these forces ignored in most if not all antenna calculations (or, hidden in "magic numbers?") Yes. Will new breakthroughs in antenna design result from the exploration of these forces. I would guess that answer to be anywhere from maybe to probably ... And, there are even more of our "calculations" which ignore, or cloak in magic numbers, such "abnormalities" ... like the old maps of ancient mariners--these are areas, on these maps (antenna books, antenna software, formulas, charts, etc.) with areas which are marked with a peculiar notation, "In these areas lie monsters!" And they are shunned and made "fun" of by most the members of this newsgroup; strange, if you ask me ... The future holds the truths (much like the X-Files! grin) Regards, JS |
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 5, 10:20 am, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: ... Art KB9MZ unwinantennas.com/ Art: 1) I am not including your text. 2) You have struck upon an area I sift for clues. 3) Einstein did, indeed, realize that in those "weak forces", undoubtedly, lies some important clues/finds. 4) Einstein even noted that the properties of the ether where/are "unknowable", at least at the time he made such statement(s) and to this present day. Take an aluminum disk with a hole in the center to match an old wax record and the hole the size of an old records. Tape a magnet to the phonograph arm. Place the magnet/phonograph-arm on the aluminum disk and spin it up to 78 rpm. The magnet floats ... Magnetic fields/fluxes--electric-currents generated in the aluminum disk are using "work energy" to float the magnet and maintain it at a respectable height above the disk. This is not a "negligible" phenomenon, it is used to levitate magnetic trains in Japan. In our antennas, a certain amount of power IS doing a "like" affect/effect. It IS wasting some amount of power in doing this ... it is DOING "something" we are NOT taking into account. Is this all related to the "weak forces" mentioned by Einstein? Probably. Are these forces ignored in most if not all antenna calculations (or, hidden in "magic numbers?") Yes. Will new breakthroughs in antenna design result from the exploration of these forces. I would guess that answer to be anywhere from maybe to probably ... And, there are even more of our "calculations" which ignore, or cloak in magic numbers, such "abnormalities" ... like the old maps of ancient mariners--these are areas, on these maps (antenna books, antenna software, formulas, charts, etc.) with areas which are marked with a peculiar notation, "In these areas lie monsters!" And they are shunned and made "fun" of by most the members of this newsgroup; strange, if you ask me ... The future holds the truths (much like the X-Files! grin) Regards, JS Well you are spot on in general terms but the numbers are there. Farady, newton and others recognised that the Universe is within a bounday and from this vectors form. Each of the masters used this theorem ie thrust and counter thrust in ALL oif l their work So they would calculate all forces around a point until a polygon of vectors were formed and where it was a closed circuit which signified equilibrium.Now all the masters aproached the laws of electromagnetism in the same way and each with the final check with respect to equilibrium as the final check. All of the masters aproached electromagnetics from different perspectives and there were a lot of them. But every one of them came up with a polygon of vectors that did not complete the circle tho all had the same missing vector space. So they included this space us a vector the creation of which was unknown but certainly present otherwise equilibrium would not prevail. Foucault showed the rotative force, Corriolis, in his work with the long pendulum which is why on my page I used a ploy from the pendulum to dampen the response of the antenna vibrations. IN YOUR CASE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THE AETHER. But the eather can never be found since boundaries within the universe exist with each other like a bubble bath since our universe is just one bubble of many just like a mass of frogs spawn. Getting back to the weak force which is a vector of small length and angle in the big picture of things such as with eddy current brakes as you pointed out, but in the bigger scheme of things the same forces act on earth as with a tornado where magnetic fields are huge where elevation easily occurres within the vortex. In England after a heavy storm it is not unusual to find vlumps of frogs that had fallen from the sky because they consist of water a diamagnetic material, that is drawn up into the sky and fall when their temperature falls to a certain point. So with electromagnetism it can now be shown that the weak force searched for by physicist is a direct result from a magnetic fieldor force always makes a reactionary magnetic field or force but the originating magnetic field quickly overwelms the reactionary field (eddy current) which mask their presence. However ,when the fields are time varying as with high frequency within the tank circuit the time constant of the circuit makes them more apparent and thus must be included in any laws revolving around equilibrium. The importance of this finding to me is that where the yagi is formed around collective coupling and recoupling to infinity, radiators or arrays based on a border based on equilibrium achieves maximum radiation as a system where the coupling system can never get to infinity. A small difference ofcource but one has finality where the other does not. You may not follow my writing as it is always poor but hopefully you will see a small smigeon of scientific discovery in what I am presenting and how this weak force search by all finally comes into play because of the inter phase changes that occur in a tank circuit..Now I know it is impossible for some on this forum that cannot possibly follow the above b ut I do take delight when they do make a "authorative" posting as part of free speech which highlights the degree of expertise they reallyhave despite the self perceived qualities that they seek for to impress.By the way John I do have problems with the validation aspect of posting possibly because of spot eye problems. Does this affect you in any way?I can never get thru ia just one try Best regards Art |
Radiation and dummy loads
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 8:21 am, "Richard Fry" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote On Jul 4, 5:29 pm, rick frazier wrote: Not sure where you get the swr repetitive over a band of frequencies stuff, (perhaps I don't read enough of the group messages) but to reply relative to dummy loads in general.... This comes from the radiator listed on my page unwinantennas.com/ _______________________ Art - The most important measure of an antenna is the amount of field intensity it can produce at a given distance in a given direction, per watt of applied r-f power. So far you have written nothing specific about this for the "Unwin" antenna. Note that a transmission line feeding a 20 dB series attenuator attached to the input of a 100% efficient antenna will show very high return loss to the r-f source ( 40 dB plus the twice the cable loss). But that antenna system will radiate little of the available EM energy, nonetheless. Could you please comment on the measured or at least the calculated RADIATION CHARACTERISTICS of your antenna, compared to a matched 1/2-wave dipole at that frequency (or an isotropic radiator), and tell us how you arrived at them? If you can do that, and your results can be scientifically duplicated by others, you will have removed the source of a lot of the skepticism you read here and in your similar threads on eHam.net. Otherwise it will be "more of the same," which (let us hope) is or should not be your goal. RF No.More of the same is not my goal nor is it to respond to every request. The mathematision or doctorrate type can do it solely by mathematics. The computor program is built on those mathematics. and a antenna program will ALWAYs produce radiators in equilibrium which means at an angle. Even without a optimiser you can do it on Eznec but it would be laborious but it can be done. People are enamoured with the Yagi so thay always insert planar type figures thus the program which is designed around equilibrium. If the goal is small efficient radiators then equilibrium must be present starting with a full wavelength that can then be placed in a small volume. It is the smaller efficient radiators and arrays that I have pursued since radiation per unit length is solely a measure that correlates with resistivity and it is that where my conclusions lie. Gain itself is a whole different matter cannot show it's worth in other words, he hasn't, he won't, and he doesn't care... therefore, more of the same handwaving and meaningless bafflegab. he doesn't have the math background to present his theory in any kind of a coherent form, nor of course could he ever measure his neutrino/carbon vortex crud because it doesn't exist, so he keeps going back to the same old crap... its not even funny any more, just sad. |
Radiation and dummy loads
Art Unwin wrote:
... IN YOUR CASE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THE AETHER. But the eather can never be found since boundaries within the universe exist with each other like a bubble bath since our universe is just one bubble of many just like a mass of frogs spawn. ... Best regards Art If we are not equally open to all areas mentioned in your last post, I would at least grant you the right, interest, etc. in your explorations--there is "something" there alright ... Your quoted text, above, I see different. The "universe" is like a hollow sphere. This spheres structure is penetrated by a LOT of holes. Just inside the spheres structure is a rubber bladder (balloon if you will.) This rubber bladder is under pressure, until it has expanded out though the holes in the spheres structure and formed spheres made from the material of the rubber bladder. In one of those lies our universe ... Sorry I could not think of a better way to suggest this idea in time for this post ... previously I have only held it as a mental picture to myself ... Regards, JS |
Radiation and dummy loads
Art Unwin wrote:
... IN YOUR CASE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THE AETHER. But the eather can never be found ... Best regards Art And, you are correct: Aether = Eather = Ether The first two I just consider "old world", and/or English spellings. Since we Americans have "murdered" the Queens English, why not this word also? grin Regards, JS |
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 5, 11:47 am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 8:21 am, "Richard Fry" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote On Jul 4, 5:29 pm, rick frazier wrote: Not sure where you get the swr repetitive over a band of frequencies stuff, (perhaps I don't read enough of the group messages) but to reply relative to dummy loads in general.... This comes from the radiator listed on my page unwinantennas.com/ _______________________ Art - The most important measure of an antenna is the amount of field intensity it can produce at a given distance in a given direction, per watt of applied r-f power. So far you have written nothing specific about this for the "Unwin" antenna. Note that a transmission line feeding a 20 dB series attenuator attached to the input of a 100% efficient antenna will show very high return loss to the r-f source ( 40 dB plus the twice the cable loss). But that antenna system will radiate little of the available EM energy, nonetheless. Could you please comment on the measured or at least the calculated RADIATION CHARACTERISTICS of your antenna, compared to a matched 1/2-wave dipole at that frequency (or an isotropic radiator), and tell us how you arrived at them? If you can do that, and your results can be scientifically duplicated by others, you will have removed the source of a lot of the skepticism you read here and in your similar threads on eHam.net. Otherwise it will be "more of the same," which (let us hope) is or should not be your goal. RF No.More of the same is not my goal nor is it to respond to every request. The mathematision or doctorrate type can do it solely by mathematics. The computor program is built on those mathematics. and a antenna program will ALWAYs produce radiators in equilibrium which means at an angle. Even without a optimiser you can do it on Eznec but it would be laborious but it can be done. People are enamoured with the Yagi so thay always insert planar type figures thus the program which is designed around equilibrium. If the goal is small efficient radiators then equilibrium must be present starting with a full wavelength that can then be placed in a small volume. It is the smaller efficient radiators and arrays that I have pursued since radiation per unit length is solely a measure that correlates with resistivity and it is that where my conclusions lie. Gain itself is a whole different matter cannot show it's worth in other words, he hasn't, he won't, and he doesn't care... therefore, more of the same handwaving and meaningless bafflegab. he doesn't have the math background to present his theory in any kind of a coherent form, nor of course could he ever measure his neutrino/carbon vortex crud because it doesn't exist, so he keeps going back to the same old crap... its not even funny any more, just sad. David, at this stage in life it would very difficult for me to go thru the math from the start in the exercise of adding a a radiator and a time varying field to a Gaussian field to show it is the same asMaxwell equation, very few of us are. But when you come across a theorem that makes sense to you it is gravy added when a mathematician comes along to supply the mathematics which you can follow in part. Then when antenna computor programs supply the ingredients of such an analysis which proves the same you have to get excited. When you then apply what is revealed in such a trail and succeed in making a smaller antenna that anybody has made you stop questioning what you have found. As an aside, where do you view the atributes of an antenna with near constant SWR reponse would find most use. I know most will jump to dummy load but this I ask in serious form. |
Radiation and dummy loads
Art wrote:
"The computer program is built on those mathematics, and an antenna program will ALLWAYS produce radiators in equalibrium which means at an angle." Arnold B. Bailey disagrees in "TV and Other Receiving Antennas". On page 367 he writes: "The directional action of a rod antenna best can be analyzed by considering the rod as consisting of many tiny sections, connected together to form a metallic circuit. A typical small segment X - X is shown in Fig. 7-28 B; its position in a half-wave center-fed antenna is indicated in part (A) of the figure. Each tiny section may be taken sufficiently short compared to a wavelength so that the electromagnetic wave acts practically instantaneously throughout one section, and hence induces a substantially uniform current in that section. Such a short antenna segment has a simple directional response pattern, indicated in Fig. 7-28B, which is basic for all directivity calculations, since all antenns may be considered to be made up of these tiny segments. This fundamental response pattern varies as the cosine of the angle (which we shall call theta) between the direction of the incoming wave and the perpendicular through the center of the segment X - X, as indicated in part (B) of the figure. If E stands for the value of the field intensity (strength of the electric vector), then we can characterize the directional response by the relation Ecos theta, which gives us the relative magnitude of E for any wave direction relative to the antenna." You probably have seen the figure-eight pattern of a dipole antenna and are already aware that maximum response is broadside to the antenna at its center. If the antenna is tilted away from the perpendicular its response is diminished. Other antennas have a similar response as all are made up of elemental segments. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Radiation and dummy loads
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 11:47 am, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 8:21 am, "Richard Fry" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote On Jul 4, 5:29 pm, rick frazier wrote: Not sure where you get the swr repetitive over a band of frequencies stuff, (perhaps I don't read enough of the group messages) but to reply relative to dummy loads in general.... This comes from the radiator listed on my page unwinantennas.com/ _______________________ Art - The most important measure of an antenna is the amount of field intensity it can produce at a given distance in a given direction, per watt of applied r-f power. So far you have written nothing specific about this for the "Unwin" antenna. Note that a transmission line feeding a 20 dB series attenuator attached to the input of a 100% efficient antenna will show very high return loss to the r-f source ( 40 dB plus the twice the cable loss). But that antenna system will radiate little of the available EM energy, nonetheless. Could you please comment on the measured or at least the calculated RADIATION CHARACTERISTICS of your antenna, compared to a matched 1/2-wave dipole at that frequency (or an isotropic radiator), and tell us how you arrived at them? If you can do that, and your results can be scientifically duplicated by others, you will have removed the source of a lot of the skepticism you read here and in your similar threads on eHam.net. Otherwise it will be "more of the same," which (let us hope) is or should not be your goal. RF No.More of the same is not my goal nor is it to respond to every request. The mathematision or doctorrate type can do it solely by mathematics. The computor program is built on those mathematics. and a antenna program will ALWAYs produce radiators in equilibrium which means at an angle. Even without a optimiser you can do it on Eznec but it would be laborious but it can be done. People are enamoured with the Yagi so thay always insert planar type figures thus the program which is designed around equilibrium. If the goal is small efficient radiators then equilibrium must be present starting with a full wavelength that can then be placed in a small volume. It is the smaller efficient radiators and arrays that I have pursued since radiation per unit length is solely a measure that correlates with resistivity and it is that where my conclusions lie. Gain itself is a whole different matter cannot show it's worth in other words, he hasn't, he won't, and he doesn't care... therefore, more of the same handwaving and meaningless bafflegab. he doesn't have the math background to present his theory in any kind of a coherent form, nor of course could he ever measure his neutrino/carbon vortex crud because it doesn't exist, so he keeps going back to the same old crap... its not even funny any more, just sad. David, at this stage in life it would very difficult for me to go thru the math from the start in the exercise of adding a a radiator and a time varying field to a Gaussian field to show it is the same asMaxwell equation, very few of us are. But when you come across a theorem that makes sense to you it is gravy added when a mathematician comes along to supply the mathematics which you can follow in part. Then when antenna computor programs supply the ingredients of such an analysis which proves the same you have to get excited. When you then apply what is revealed in such a trail and succeed in making a smaller antenna that anybody has made you stop questioning what you have found. As an aside, where do you view the atributes of an antenna with near constant SWR reponse would find most use. I know most will jump to dummy load but this I ask in serious form. I already gave you the quote that shows that Gauss's Law is part of Maxwell's equations already, you need no math for that. and since all the antenna design programs are based on Maxwell's equations they of course comply with Gauss's law... nothing exciting there. the only use for a constant swr is to keep modern transceivers, that don't have a tuner, happy. swr has no correlation to performance of an antenna as far as gain or f/b or takeoff angle, things that are important to antenna design. i can take any antenna and give it a flat swr, there used to be a tuner on the market that did just that, until the league lab x-rayed it and found it was nothing but a dummy load potted in epoxy. the funny thing is, people liked it because it did exactly as it claimed, gave a perfect match across a wide frequency range... they didn't care that it turned a good percentage of their power into heat. so air cooled dummy loads as antennas can work, as long as you don't have anything better to compare it to... but I do, so I don't want one. |
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 5, 1:10 pm, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote: "The computer program is built on those mathematics, and an antenna program will ALLWAYS produce radiators in equalibrium which means at an angle." Arnold B. Bailey disagrees in "TV and Other Receiving Antennas". On page367 he writes: "The directional action of a rod antenna best can be analyzed by considering the rod as consisting of many tiny sections, connected together to form a metallic circuit. A typical small segment X - X is shown in Fig. 7-28 B; its position in a half-wave center-fed antenna is indicated in part (A) of the figure. Each tiny section may be taken sufficiently short compared to a wavelength so that the electromagnetic wave acts practically instantaneously throughout one section, and hence induces a substantially uniform current in that section. Such a short antenna segment has a simple directional response pattern, indicated in Fig. 7-28B, which is basic for all directivity calculations, since all antenns may be considered to be made up of these tiny segments. This fundamental response pattern varies as the cosine of the angle (which we shall call theta) between the direction of the incoming wave and the perpendicular through the center of the segment X - X, as indicated in part (B) of the figure. If E stands for the value of the field intensity (strength of the electric vector), then we can characterize the directional response by the relation Ecos theta, which gives us the relative magnitude of E for any wave direction relative to the antenna." You probably have seen the figure-eight pattern of a dipole antenna and are already aware that maximum response is broadside to the antenna at its center. If the antenna is tilted away from the perpendicular its response is diminished. Other antennas have a similar response as all are made up of elemental segments. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Richard, I understand where you are coming from since all these books say the same thing. This says that the majority wins and thus is all known. Well I disagree with that philosophy but I reckonise it. So I am pushing my findings until I Art Unwin comes to rest with a majoritory. Since I have an antenna that duplicates those facts I can only hope that Industry sees something that they want since money in this world is the driving force. I am thinking of placing a sample of a tipped antenna on m y page b ut I fear that all will then blaime the computor program and or Maxwells laws. You just can't make horses drink! Art |
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 5, 1:32 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 11:47 am, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 8:21 am, "Richard Fry" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote On Jul 4, 5:29 pm, rick frazier wrote: Not sure where you get the swr repetitive over a band of frequencies stuff, (perhaps I don't read enough of the group messages) but to reply relative to dummy loads in general.... This comes from the radiator listed on my page unwinantennas.com/ _______________________ Art - The most important measure of an antenna is the amount of field intensity it can produce at a given distance in a given direction, per watt of applied r-f power. So far you have written nothing specific about this for the "Unwin" antenna. Note that a transmission line feeding a 20 dB series attenuator attached to the input of a 100% efficient antenna will show very high return loss to the r-f source ( 40 dB plus the twice the cable loss). But that antenna system will radiate little of the available EM energy, nonetheless. Could you please comment on the measured or at least the calculated RADIATION CHARACTERISTICS of your antenna, compared to a matched 1/2-wave dipole at that frequency (or an isotropic radiator), and tell us how you arrived at them? If you can do that, and your results can be scientifically duplicated by others, you will have removed the source of a lot of the skepticism you read here and in your similar threads on eHam.net. Otherwise it will be "more of the same," which (let us hope) is or should not be your goal. RF No.More of the same is not my goal nor is it to respond to every request. The mathematision or doctorrate type can do it solely by mathematics. The computor program is built on those mathematics. and a antenna program will ALWAYs produce radiators in equilibrium which means at an angle. Even without a optimiser you can do it on Eznec but it would be laborious but it can be done. People are enamoured with the Yagi so thay always insert planar type figures thus the program which is designed around equilibrium. If the goal is small efficient radiators then equilibrium must be present starting with a full wavelength that can then be placed in a small volume. It is the smaller efficient radiators and arrays that I have pursued since radiation per unit length is solely a measure that correlates with resistivity and it is that where my conclusions lie. Gain itself is a whole different matter cannot show it's worth in other words, he hasn't, he won't, and he doesn't care... therefore, more of the same handwaving and meaningless bafflegab. he doesn't have the math background to present his theory in any kind of a coherent form, nor of course could he ever measure his neutrino/carbon vortex crud because it doesn't exist, so he keeps going back to the same old crap... its not even funny any more, just sad. David, at this stage in life it would very difficult for me to go thru the math from the start in the exercise of adding a a radiator and a time varying field to a Gaussian field to show it is the same asMaxwell equation, very few of us are. But when you come across a theorem that makes sense to you it is gravy added when a mathematician comes along to supply the mathematics which you can follow in part. Then when antenna computor programs supply the ingredients of such an analysis which proves the same you have to get excited. When you then apply what is revealed in such a trail and succeed in making a smaller antenna that anybody has made you stop questioning what you have found. As an aside, where do you view the atributes of an antenna with near constant SWR reponse would find most use. I know most will jump to dummy load but this I ask in serious form. I already gave you the quote that shows that Gauss's Law is part of Maxwell's equations already, you need no math for that. and since all the antenna design programs are based on Maxwell's equations they of course comply with Gauss's law... nothing exciting there. the only use for a constant swr is to keep modern transceivers, that don't have a tuner, happy. swr has no correlation to performance of an antenna as far as gain or f/b or takeoff angle, things that are important to antenna design. i can take any antenna and give it a flat swr, there used to be a tuner on the market that did just that, until the league lab x-rayed it and found it was nothing but a dummy load potted in epoxy. the funny thing is, people liked it because it did exactly as it claimed, gave a perfect match across a wide frequency range... they didn't care that it turned a good percentage of their power into heat. so air cooled dummy loads as antennas can work, as long as you don't have anything better to compare it to... but I do, so I don't want one. David ,Gauss did a lot of work in his life time for which he is recognised. Are you saying that the "Gaussian law of static" was a prime mover of Maxwells laws. If this is so why does not Maxwells laws provide the role of particles in radiation? From my view point Gauss's contribution was supplied in other ways that did not include the statics law but then I look forward to you showing me where I am wrong |
Radiation and dummy loads
"Art Unwin" wrote in message
... On Jul 5, 1:32 pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 11:47 am, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 8:21 am, "Richard Fry" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote On Jul 4, 5:29 pm, rick frazier wrote: Not sure where you get the swr repetitive over a band of frequencies stuff, (perhaps I don't read enough of the group messages) but to reply relative to dummy loads in general.... This comes from the radiator listed on my page unwinantennas.com/ _______________________ Art - The most important measure of an antenna is the amount of field intensity it can produce at a given distance in a given direction, per watt of applied r-f power. So far you have written nothing specific about this for the "Unwin" antenna. Note that a transmission line feeding a 20 dB series attenuator attached to the input of a 100% efficient antenna will show very high return loss to the r-f source ( 40 dB plus the twice the cable loss). But that antenna system will radiate little of the available EM energy, nonetheless. Could you please comment on the measured or at least the calculated RADIATION CHARACTERISTICS of your antenna, compared to a matched 1/2-wave dipole at that frequency (or an isotropic radiator), and tell us how you arrived at them? If you can do that, and your results can be scientifically duplicated by others, you will have removed the source of a lot of the skepticism you read here and in your similar threads on eHam.net. Otherwise it will be "more of the same," which (let us hope) is or should not be your goal. RF No.More of the same is not my goal nor is it to respond to every request. The mathematision or doctorrate type can do it solely by mathematics. The computor program is built on those mathematics. and a antenna program will ALWAYs produce radiators in equilibrium which means at an angle. Even without a optimiser you can do it on Eznec but it would be laborious but it can be done. People are enamoured with the Yagi so thay always insert planar type figures thus the program which is designed around equilibrium. If the goal is small efficient radiators then equilibrium must be present starting with a full wavelength that can then be placed in a small volume. It is the smaller efficient radiators and arrays that I have pursued since radiation per unit length is solely a measure that correlates with resistivity and it is that where my conclusions lie. Gain itself is a whole different matter cannot show it's worth in other words, he hasn't, he won't, and he doesn't care... therefore, more of the same handwaving and meaningless bafflegab. he doesn't have the math background to present his theory in any kind of a coherent form, nor of course could he ever measure his neutrino/carbon vortex crud because it doesn't exist, so he keeps going back to the same old crap... its not even funny any more, just sad. David, at this stage in life it would very difficult for me to go thru the math from the start in the exercise of adding a a radiator and a time varying field to a Gaussian field to show it is the same asMaxwell equation, very few of us are. But when you come across a theorem that makes sense to you it is gravy added when a mathematician comes along to supply the mathematics which you can follow in part. Then when antenna computor programs supply the ingredients of such an analysis which proves the same you have to get excited. When you then apply what is revealed in such a trail and succeed in making a smaller antenna that anybody has made you stop questioning what you have found. As an aside, where do you view the atributes of an antenna with near constant SWR reponse would find most use. I know most will jump to dummy load but this I ask in serious form. I already gave you the quote that shows that Gauss's Law is part of Maxwell's equations already, you need no math for that. and since all the antenna design programs are based on Maxwell's equations they of course comply with Gauss's law... nothing exciting there. the only use for a constant swr is to keep modern transceivers, that don't have a tuner, happy. swr has no correlation to performance of an antenna as far as gain or f/b or takeoff angle, things that are important to antenna design. i can take any antenna and give it a flat swr, there used to be a tuner on the market that did just that, until the league lab x-rayed it and found it was nothing but a dummy load potted in epoxy. the funny thing is, people liked it because it did exactly as it claimed, gave a perfect match across a wide frequency range... they didn't care that it turned a good percentage of their power into heat. so air cooled dummy loads as antennas can work, as long as you don't have anything better to compare it to... but I do, so I don't want one. David ,Gauss did a lot of work in his life time for which he is recognised. Are you saying that the "Gaussian law of static" was a prime mover of Maxwells laws. If this is so why does not Maxwells laws provide the role of particles in radiation? From my view point Gauss's contribution was supplied in other ways that did not include the statics law but then I look forward to you showing me where I am wrong well, your point of view is wrong. |
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 5, 4:15 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 1:32 pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 11:47 am, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 8:21 am, "Richard Fry" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote On Jul 4, 5:29 pm, rick frazier wrote: Not sure where you get the swr repetitive over a band of frequencies stuff, (perhaps I don't read enough of the group messages) but to reply relative to dummy loads in general.... This comes from the radiator listed on my page unwinantennas.com/ _______________________ Art - The most important measure of an antenna is the amount of field intensity it can produce at a given distance in a given direction, per watt of applied r-f power. So far you have written nothing specific about this for the "Unwin" antenna. Note that a transmission line feeding a 20 dB series attenuator attached to the input of a 100% efficient antenna will show very high return loss to the r-f source ( 40 dB plus the twice the cable loss). But that antenna system will radiate little of the available EM energy, nonetheless. Could you please comment on the measured or at least the calculated RADIATION CHARACTERISTICS of your antenna, compared to a matched 1/2-wave dipole at that frequency (or an isotropic radiator), and tell us how you arrived at them? If you can do that, and your results can be scientifically duplicated by others, you will have removed the source of a lot of the skepticism you read here and in your similar threads on eHam.net. Otherwise it will be "more of the same," which (let us hope) is or should not be your goal. RF No.More of the same is not my goal nor is it to respond to every request. The mathematision or doctorrate type can do it solely by mathematics. The computor program is built on those mathematics. and a antenna program will ALWAYs produce radiators in equilibrium which means at an angle. Even without a optimiser you can do it on Eznec but it would be laborious but it can be done. People are enamoured with the Yagi so thay always insert planar type figures thus the program which is designed around equilibrium. If the goal is small efficient radiators then equilibrium must be present starting with a full wavelength that can then be placed in a small volume. It is the smaller efficient radiators and arrays that I have pursued since radiation per unit length is solely a measure that correlates with resistivity and it is that where my conclusions lie. Gain itself is a whole different matter cannot show it's worth in other words, he hasn't, he won't, and he doesn't care... therefore, more of the same handwaving and meaningless bafflegab. he doesn't have the math background to present his theory in any kind of a coherent form, nor of course could he ever measure his neutrino/carbon vortex crud because it doesn't exist, so he keeps going back to the same old crap... its not even funny any more, just sad. David, at this stage in life it would very difficult for me to go thru the math from the start in the exercise of adding a a radiator and a time varying field to a Gaussian field to show it is the same asMaxwell equation, very few of us are. But when you come across a theorem that makes sense to you it is gravy added when a mathematician comes along to supply the mathematics which you can follow in part. Then when antenna computor programs supply the ingredients of such an analysis which proves the same you have to get excited. When you then apply what is revealed in such a trail and succeed in making a smaller antenna that anybody has made you stop questioning what you have found. As an aside, where do you view the atributes of an antenna with near constant SWR reponse would find most use. I know most will jump to dummy load but this I ask in serious form. I already gave you the quote that shows that Gauss's Law is part of Maxwell's equations already, you need no math for that. and since all the antenna design programs are based on Maxwell's equations they of course comply with Gauss's law... nothing exciting there. the only use for a constant swr is to keep modern transceivers, that don't have a tuner, happy. swr has no correlation to performance of an antenna as far as gain or f/b or takeoff angle, things that are important to antenna design. i can take any antenna and give it a flat swr, there used to be a tuner on the market that did just that, until the league lab x-rayed it and found it was nothing but a dummy load potted in epoxy. the funny thing is, people liked it because it did exactly as it claimed, gave a perfect match across a wide frequency range... they didn't care that it turned a good percentage of their power into heat. so air cooled dummy loads as antennas can work, as long as you don't have anything better to compare it to... but I do, so I don't want one. David ,Gauss did a lot of work in his life time for which he is recognised. Are you saying that the "Gaussian law of static" was a prime mover of Maxwells laws. If this is so why does not Maxwells laws provide the role of particles in radiation? From my view point Gauss's contribution was supplied in other ways that did not include the statics law but then I look forward to you showing me where I am wrong well, your point of view is wrong. O.K. you sound like you have the facts in front of you so I have no alternative to do some research on the matter. You could have saved me a lot of work if you pointed to a book or something but I will dig anyway. I will be gone for a while to see if I can find what you are looking at. But then you have a reputation for lying so you may have nothing but bluster! |
Radiation and dummy loads
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 4:15 pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 1:32 pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 11:47 am, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 8:21 am, "Richard Fry" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote On Jul 4, 5:29 pm, rick frazier wrote: Not sure where you get the swr repetitive over a band of frequencies stuff, (perhaps I don't read enough of the group messages) but to reply relative to dummy loads in general.... This comes from the radiator listed on my page unwinantennas.com/ _______________________ Art - The most important measure of an antenna is the amount of field intensity it can produce at a given distance in a given direction, per watt of applied r-f power. So far you have written nothing specific about this for the "Unwin" antenna. Note that a transmission line feeding a 20 dB series attenuator attached to the input of a 100% efficient antenna will show very high return loss to the r-f source ( 40 dB plus the twice the cable loss). But that antenna system will radiate little of the available EM energy, nonetheless. Could you please comment on the measured or at least the calculated RADIATION CHARACTERISTICS of your antenna, compared to a matched 1/2-wave dipole at that frequency (or an isotropic radiator), and tell us how you arrived at them? If you can do that, and your results can be scientifically duplicated by others, you will have removed the source of a lot of the skepticism you read here and in your similar threads on eHam.net. Otherwise it will be "more of the same," which (let us hope) is or should not be your goal. RF No.More of the same is not my goal nor is it to respond to every request. The mathematision or doctorrate type can do it solely by mathematics. The computor program is built on those mathematics. and a antenna program will ALWAYs produce radiators in equilibrium which means at an angle. Even without a optimiser you can do it on Eznec but it would be laborious but it can be done. People are enamoured with the Yagi so thay always insert planar type figures thus the program which is designed around equilibrium. If the goal is small efficient radiators then equilibrium must be present starting with a full wavelength that can then be placed in a small volume. It is the smaller efficient radiators and arrays that I have pursued since radiation per unit length is solely a measure that correlates with resistivity and it is that where my conclusions lie. Gain itself is a whole different matter cannot show it's worth in other words, he hasn't, he won't, and he doesn't care... therefore, more of the same handwaving and meaningless bafflegab. he doesn't have the math background to present his theory in any kind of a coherent form, nor of course could he ever measure his neutrino/carbon vortex crud because it doesn't exist, so he keeps going back to the same old crap... its not even funny any more, just sad. David, at this stage in life it would very difficult for me to go thru the math from the start in the exercise of adding a a radiator and a time varying field to a Gaussian field to show it is the same asMaxwell equation, very few of us are. But when you come across a theorem that makes sense to you it is gravy added when a mathematician comes along to supply the mathematics which you can follow in part. Then when antenna computor programs supply the ingredients of such an analysis which proves the same you have to get excited. When you then apply what is revealed in such a trail and succeed in making a smaller antenna that anybody has made you stop questioning what you have found. As an aside, where do you view the atributes of an antenna with near constant SWR reponse would find most use. I know most will jump to dummy load but this I ask in serious form. I already gave you the quote that shows that Gauss's Law is part of Maxwell's equations already, you need no math for that. and since all the antenna design programs are based on Maxwell's equations they of course comply with Gauss's law... nothing exciting there. the only use for a constant swr is to keep modern transceivers, that don't have a tuner, happy. swr has no correlation to performance of an antenna as far as gain or f/b or takeoff angle, things that are important to antenna design. i can take any antenna and give it a flat swr, there used to be a tuner on the market that did just that, until the league lab x-rayed it and found it was nothing but a dummy load potted in epoxy. the funny thing is, people liked it because it did exactly as it claimed, gave a perfect match across a wide frequency range... they didn't care that it turned a good percentage of their power into heat. so air cooled dummy loads as antennas can work, as long as you don't have anything better to compare it to... but I do, so I don't want one. David ,Gauss did a lot of work in his life time for which he is recognised. Are you saying that the "Gaussian law of static" was a prime mover of Maxwells laws. If this is so why does not Maxwells laws provide the role of particles in radiation? From my view point Gauss's contribution was supplied in other ways that did not include the statics law but then I look forward to you showing me where I am wrong well, your point of view is wrong. O.K. you sound like you have the facts in front of you so I have no alternative to do some research on the matter. You could have saved me a lot of work if you pointed to a book or something but I will dig anyway. I will be gone for a while to see if I can find what you are looking at. But then you have a reputation for lying so you may have nothing but bluster! i quoted you chapter and verse, there's nothing else i can do. |
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 5, 5:49 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 4:15 pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 1:32 pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 11:47 am, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 5, 8:21 am, "Richard Fry" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote On Jul 4, 5:29 pm, rick frazier wrote: Not sure where you get the swr repetitive over a band of frequencies stuff, (perhaps I don't read enough of the group messages) but to reply relative to dummy loads in general.... This comes from the radiator listed on my page unwinantennas.com/ _______________________ Art - The most important measure of an antenna is the amount of field intensity it can produce at a given distance in a given direction, per watt of applied r-f power. So far you have written nothing specific about this for the "Unwin" antenna. Note that a transmission line feeding a 20 dB series attenuator attached to the input of a 100% efficient antenna will show very high return loss to the r-f source ( 40 dB plus the twice the cable loss). But that antenna system will radiate little of the available EM energy, nonetheless. Could you please comment on the measured or at least the calculated RADIATION CHARACTERISTICS of your antenna, compared to a matched 1/2-wave dipole at that frequency (or an isotropic radiator), and tell us how you arrived at them? If you can do that, and your results can be scientifically duplicated by others, you will have removed the source of a lot of the skepticism you read here and in your similar threads on eHam.net. Otherwise it will be "more of the same," which (let us hope) is or should not be your goal. RF No.More of the same is not my goal nor is it to respond to every request. The mathematision or doctorrate type can do it solely by mathematics. The computor program is built on those mathematics. and a antenna program will ALWAYs produce radiators in equilibrium which means at an angle. Even without a optimiser you can do it on Eznec but it would be laborious but it can be done. People are enamoured with the Yagi so thay always insert planar type figures thus the program which is designed around equilibrium. If the goal is small efficient radiators then equilibrium must be present starting with a full wavelength that can then be placed in a small volume. It is the smaller efficient radiators and arrays that I have pursued since radiation per unit length is solely a measure that correlates with resistivity and it is that where my conclusions lie. Gain itself is a whole different matter cannot show it's worth in other words, he hasn't, he won't, and he doesn't care... therefore, more of the same handwaving and meaningless bafflegab. he doesn't have the math background to present his theory in any kind of a coherent form, nor of course could he ever measure his neutrino/carbon vortex crud because it doesn't exist, so he keeps going back to the same old crap... its not even funny any more, just sad. David, at this stage in life it would very difficult for me to go thru the math from the start in the exercise of adding a a radiator and a time varying field to a Gaussian field to show it is the same asMaxwell equation, very few of us are. But when you come across a theorem that makes sense to you it is gravy added when a mathematician comes along to supply the mathematics which you can follow in part. Then when antenna computor programs supply the ingredients of such an analysis which proves the same you have to get excited. When you then apply what is revealed in such a trail and succeed in making a smaller antenna that anybody has made you stop questioning what you have found. As an aside, where do you view the atributes of an antenna with near constant SWR reponse would find most use. I know most will jump to dummy load but this I ask in serious form. I already gave you the quote that shows that Gauss's Law is part of Maxwell's equations already, you need no math for that. and since all the antenna design programs are based on Maxwell's equations they of course comply with Gauss's law... nothing exciting there. the only use for a constant swr is to keep modern transceivers, that don't have a tuner, happy. swr has no correlation to performance of an antenna as far as gain or f/b or takeoff angle, things that are important to antenna design. i can take any antenna and give it a flat swr, there used to be a tuner on the market that did just that, until the league lab x-rayed it and found it was nothing but a dummy load potted in epoxy. the funny thing is, people liked it because it did exactly as it claimed, gave a perfect match across a wide frequency range... they didn't care that it turned a good percentage of their power into heat. so air cooled dummy loads as antennas can work, as long as you don't have anything better to compare it to... but I do, so I don't want one. David ,Gauss did a lot of work in his life time for which he is recognised. Are you saying that the "Gaussian law of static" was a prime mover of Maxwells laws. If this is so why does not Maxwells laws provide the role of particles in radiation? From my view point Gauss's contribution was supplied in other ways that did not include the statics law but then I look forward to you showing me where I am wrong well, your point of view is wrong. O.K. you sound like you have the facts in front of you so I have no alternative to do some research on the matter. You could have saved me a lot of work if you pointed to a book or something but I will dig anyway. I will be gone for a while to see if I can find what you are looking at. But then you have a reputation for lying so you may have nothing but bluster! i quoted you chapter and verse, there's nothing else i can do. The two laws of Gauss used in Maxwell are not laws with respect to particles. I am now researching Heaviside to see if there is some derivitation there But now I see you are playing games.It is just not true! I see that Feynman got the Nobel prize for describing the particals as Bosuns and "w:"which is a very long way from the gauusian trail of static particles! So I will stop there as you are just playing games with the truth The bottom line is that the magnetic field created by Foucault current is the weak force in the Classic model and it was me that found it where Einstein and others failed. You just can't take that fact away from me. Really that is how it should have been with Maxwell and Heaviside and now me being born in the UK it is just a natural progression Eat your heart out Art Unwin KB9MZ unwinantennas.com/ |
Radiation and dummy loads
" But now I see you are playing games.It is just not true! I see that Feynman got the Nobel prize for describing the particals as Bosuns and "w:"which is a very long way from the gauusian trail of static particles! So I will stop there as you are just playing games with the truth The bottom line is that the magnetic field created by Foucault current is the weak force in the Classic model and it was me that found it where Einstein and others failed. You just can't take that fact away from me. Really that is how it should have been with Maxwell and Heaviside and now me being born in the UK it is just a natural progression Eat your heart out Art Unwin KB9MZ unwinantennas.com/" Art, You may be fond of the idea that you are being persecuted because of your being English, or from the UK, how ever you want to put it. If so, then I'm sorry to disappoint you, but your birth place has very little to do with how, I would suspect, most people think of you. (I'm also sure that part of the 'problem' has to do with translating between "King's/Queen's" English and what is spoken in the USA. Sorry 'bout that, but that's normal for any two languages. It works in the other direction too, so you are not alone.) You are your own worst enemy as far as being taken seriously. You probably have no difficulty in 'following' your train of reasoning, but us 'lesser' people do have that problem. How about helping us with that problem? I have a suspicion that it will take a lot of time and work on your part (as in book sized volume?). But, unless you want it to take 'for ever' for you to be understood, it's going to take that effort. If we can't follow your train of logic, you're just not gonna sell many tickets to ride that train. So, it's up to you. - 'Doc (I came to the realization that I wasn't ever going to be in the same 'class' as Einstein, Maxwell, and Heaviside a long time ago. And quite frankly, it doesn't bother me. Sort of like winning the lottery, first I have to buy a ticket, and I'm too cheap. What abilities I have just don't 'lean' in that direction.) |
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 6, 7:14 pm, wrote:
Doc most posters who disagree with Art on this thread at least put up an alternative to Art's claim's, you on the other hand have nothing to offer as usual, so instead you attack the man as you did in times past to no effect. The fellow ******* who used to follow are no longer around, you are on your own!. In my neck of the woods Doc's who are not on top of their subjects are known as quack's, so I suggest before you post again you bone up on the subject in question, or are you so far out of your depth that you are only able to attack the man?. |
Radiation and dummy loads
Art wrote:
"If this is so, why do not Maxwell`s laws provide the role of particles in radiation?" Maxwell`s equarions adequately describe electrical behavior without resort to particles. Art should read "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith, Jr. Its first chapter is: "A Brief History of Electrical Knowledge". Maxwell`s equations are covered in Chapter 38, "The Mechanism of Radiation". On page 9, Griffirh wrote: "Maxwell studied deeply the equations he had written and noted that they were similar in form to equations which were used to express the motion of waves in water. This made it clear to him that electromagnetic waves could exist, and he was able to calculate the speed at which they would travel. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 6, 11:30 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Art wrote: "If this is so, why do not Maxwell`s laws provide the role of particles in radiation?" Maxwell`s equarions adequately describe electrical behavior without resort to particles. Art should read "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith, Jr. Its first chapter is: "A Brief History of Electrical Knowledge". Maxwell`s equations are covered in Chapter 38, "The Mechanism of Radiation". On page 9, Griffirh wrote: "Maxwell studied deeply the equations he had written and noted that they were similar in form to equations which were used to express the motion of waves in water. This made it clear to him that electromagnetic waves could exist, and he was able to calculate the speed at which they would travel. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI And did he mention the role of stati cs or particles in radiation? I keep on reading that radiation is not fully understood in present day books! Give me a book that does understand and provide the role of particles and then make us all happy |
Radiation and dummy loads
Art wrote:
"I keep reading that radiatiation is not fully understood in present day books!" Maybe so, but it is good enough for near perfect design of practical antennas. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Radiation and dummy loads
Richard Harrison wrote:
Art wrote: "I keep reading that radiatiation is not fully understood in present day books!" Maybe so, but it is good enough for near perfect design of practical antennas. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI It could be said also that it is good enough for practical design of near perfect antennas. All of Art's voo-doo theory cannot hold even a candle to either concept! Dean -- W4IHK |
Radiation and dummy loads
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 6, 11:30 am, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Art wrote: "If this is so, why do not Maxwell`s laws provide the role of particles in radiation?" Maxwell`s equarions adequately describe electrical behavior without resort to particles. Art should read "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith, Jr. Its first chapter is: "A Brief History of Electrical Knowledge". Maxwell`s equations are covered in Chapter 38, "The Mechanism of Radiation". On page 9, Griffirh wrote: "Maxwell studied deeply the equations he had written and noted that they were similar in form to equations which were used to express the motion of waves in water. This made it clear to him that electromagnetic waves could exist, and he was able to calculate the speed at which they would travel. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI And did he mention the role of stati cs or particles in radiation? particles are not necessary, so of course not. I keep on reading that radiation is not fully understood in present day books! which books? quotes please, not hand waving. i have given you quotes, now you provide the ones that your theory is based on. Give me a book that does understand and provide the role of particles and then make us all happy go back to one of the aetherist's and you can have all the particles propagating waves that you want... but they still won't work like your neutrino/carbon things hopping off diamagnetic materials. |
Radiation and dummy loads
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 5, 11:47 am, "Dave" wrote: David, at this stage in life it would very difficult for me to go thru the math from the start in the exercise of adding a a radiator and a time varying field to a Gaussian field to show it is the same asMaxwell equation, very few of us are. At this stage of my life, Arthur, it has become very difficult for me to take you seriously. Dave K8MN |
Radiation and dummy loads
derek wrote:
On Jul 6, 7:14 pm, wrote: Doc most posters who disagree with Art on this thread at least put up an alternative to Art's claim's, you on the other hand have nothing to offer as usual, so instead you attack the man as you did in times past to no effect. The fellow ******* who used to follow are no longer around, you are on your own!. In my neck of the woods Doc's who are not on top of their subjects are known as quack's, so I suggest before you post again you bone up on the subject in question, or are you so far out of your depth that you are only able to attack the man?. Arthur doesn't provide specifics. He doesn't provide the math. He is short on fact and long on misspelled pontification. Excuse me if I don't accept his wild claims at face value. If he can't explain them (and the burden of proof is on him), why should any of us be bothered? Dave K8MN |
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 6, 12:49 pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Art wrote: "I keep reading that radiatiation is not fully understood in present day books!" Maybe so, but it is good enough for near perfect design of practical antennas. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI But it does not lead to a path of small antennas! I think it is really odd that hams defy or disbelieve what a antenna optimizer supplies Why are they not attacking computor programs? Or describe where they are wrong Yup, they believe sll is known and THEY are the masters |
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 6, 1:57 pm, Dave Heil wrote:
derek wrote: On Jul 6, 7:14 pm, wrote: Doc most posters who disagree with Art on this thread at least put up an alternative to Art's claim's, you on the other hand have nothing to offer as usual, so instead you attack the man as you did in times past to no effect. The fellow ******* who used to follow are no longer around, you are on your own!. In my neck of the woods Doc's who are not on top of their subjects are known as quack's, so I suggest before you post again you bone up on the subject in question, or are you so far out of your depth that you are only able to attack the man?. Arthur doesn't provide specifics. He doesn't provide the math. He is short on fact and long on misspelled pontification. Excuse me if I don't accept his wild claims at face value. If he can't explain them (and the burden of proof is on him), why should any of us be bothered? Dave K8MN Everything that I have done has been shared on this newsgroup. The mathematics have been shown. A array in equilibrium has been shown and over checked independently on this newsgroup An antenna was sent to a member of this newsgroup for verification A page has been supplied with how to make it. David ,you are just another lemming that has arrived apon the scene |
Radiation and dummy loads
derek, I would suggest that my post was not a personal attack (unlike yours), instead, it was an attempt to try to show Art an aspect of his behavior that he probably doesn't realize is showing up. And as has already been pointed out, how can anyone prove or disprove 'proof' that has not been presented? To this point, all I have seen is opinions, and in some cases, some fairly imaginative opinions. About the "Doc", it's a user name, and nickname. Doesn't mean that I'm a doctor of anything. And I have never claimed to be. I didn't pick it, it was given to me. If I can learn to 'live' with it, you can too. And if you can't, then that's too bad. 'Nuff of that. - 'Doc |
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 6, 2:24 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Everything that I have done has been shared on this newsgroup. =0.0543 Not enough content to be usable. The mathematics have been shown. =0 A array in equilibrium has been shown and over You won't even define how you apply the term equilibrium, much less show an example of it. checked independently on this newsgroup I assume you refer to the skewed element antenna. IE: the one I called the cluster@#$%... :( You know, the one with six skewed elements that gave less gain than a well tuned 3 el yagi? An antenna was sent to a member of this newsgroup for verification And the report on it's performance has not been received. Where's the beef? You are not even supplying a textured vegetable patty as a substitute.. :/ A page has been supplied with how to make it. I sure don't see one shown at: http://unwinantennas.com/ David ,you are just another lemming that has arrived apon the scene Kinda like Doktor MIT? I guess he drowned in the last migration.. He seems to have disappeared from the scene. Chortle... :/ But can't say I blame him really. |
Radiation and dummy loads
Art Unwin wrote: On Jul 3, 5:16 pm, Art Unwin wrote: You know John, since America gives the 'right to bear arms' you would think that the population would understand that a projectile must have rotation to follow a straight line trajectory. Hi Art, The American Constitution does not "give" rights. It simply attempts to prevent government from eliminating them. Under the influence of gravity, sub-orbital ballistic projectiles generally follow a parabolic trajectory. Isssac Newton's laws of motion apply without caveat. ac6xg |
Radiation and dummy loads
Jim Kelley wrote:
... Hi Art, The American Constitution does not "give" rights. It simply attempts to prevent government from eliminating them. Under the influence of gravity, sub-orbital ballistic projectiles generally follow a parabolic trajectory. Isssac Newton's laws of motion apply without caveat. ac6xg No constitution or law can EVER give rights ... You are born with all the rights possible. Unless you are under a constitution or law(s) which remove some (or all) of your rights--you have every damn one of them! And unless there is a clear majority of a govt's citizens which support that constitution/laws, you are witness to an unjust constitution/law(s) ... As our constitution notes, these are God given rights--no man may ever take them away--you CAN agree to a contract NOT to exercise some of your rights to the betterment of all. Men get together and form govt's and agree to create laws which limit their rights--FOR THE GOOD OF ALL. When that no longer is happening, it is time to reform, re-elect or even go as far as a revolution to restore just rights ... our constitution makes that a duty for Americans, and requires us to remain ever vigilant in the protection of our rights. If you believe laws give or protect your rights--you already have lost them to a guy on the street playing craps ... Regards, JS |
Radiation and dummy loads
On Jul 7, 3:22 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: On Jul 3, 5:16 pm, Art Unwin wrote: You know John, since America gives the 'right to bear arms' you would think that the population would understand that a projectile must have rotation to follow a straight line trajectory. Hi Art, The American Constitution does not "give" rights. It simply attempts to prevent government from eliminating them. Under the influence of gravity, sub-orbital ballistic projectiles generally follow a parabolic trajectory. Isssac Newton's laws of motion apply without caveat. ac6xg It followsa straight line trajectory in two dimensions out of three The weak force othewise known as the magnetic field of the eddy current overcpmes or neutralises gravity while applying spin such gravitation has little or no effect on the trajectory as it is projected with spin. This can be seen with elevation experiments |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com