|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com