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