"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??

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. 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. 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.
In addition, all laws only refer to distributed loads as a function
of radiation and equilibrium and where lumped loads have no part in
the equations. Equilibrium is also the datum proof where the charge
within a conductor must be zero so that the law of Newton can be
preserved ( action and reaction)
By using the law of statics you find the importance of ":equilibrium"
that
Maxwell purloined as well as a new aproach to the sequences involved
in radiation
There is no question that the laws of Maxwell are not correct because
each law he purloined
included this stipulation as well as the extension to the gaussian law
of statics which
supplies the picture that Maxwell's laws are lacking. It is these same
particles alluded in Gaussian law
that are the true carriers of communication in radio where they are
ejected from the radiator surface with spin provided by the opresence
of eddy currents. Without the applied spin you cannot have a straight
line trajectory.
Ofcourse you can supply another reason why nature included particles
in communication which would really thrill me to bits.
But I am very pleased you are returning to written laws for proof even
tho you misinterprete them. On the other hand you can verify that the
requirement of equilibrium is preserved within Maxwells laws and thus
antenna computer programs such that the tilted vertical
is not removed from the subject of antennas. It was me that
speculated that these same particles were neutrinos that are radio
active and thus subject to decay that obtain a weak magnetic field
from entry to the earth's magnetic field which are present in the
billions per square metre on our native earth. It is also the
wavelength data that supplies the information regarding the parallel
tank circuit which is a pertinent part of all radiation. All these
items I have found to intersect like a jigsaw puzzle that adequately
describes the mechanics of radiation which hither to was unknown.
Unless ofcourse you have studies that are contrary to the above. If
you have, take them to the International conference on small antennas
organised in San Diego U.S.next week by the American IEEE where you
can drink in the applause of the World's experts
Regards
unwinantennas.com/

"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.

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

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

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

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

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