"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.

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!

"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.

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/

" 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.)

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?.

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

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

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

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