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/