Radiation and dummy loads
 

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 3, 11:08 am, 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.!

Has nothing to do with it. SWR and antenna efficiency are
not related. Also SWR and common mode currents, or
the lack of are not related.

This
consistently shows up in statements by the itelligensia of this
newsgroup.

Not by me. But I can't hardly spell itelligensia without help,
much less be one..
A man has to know his limitations.

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.?

That is Art logic...

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.

Could I interest your cat in a pair of fuzzy mittens?

Is this why the decreasing oscillation is defined as a dummy load on
this newsgroup?

No.

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!

If Star Trek is to be believed, you are a carbon unit.
Tie a shielded feed line to your big toe and get back to
us on the amount of DX worked.
I'll even grant you the benefit of a doubt, and let you ground
your other toe to a suitable ground rod, radials, etc if needed
for proper operation of the carbon unit miracle whip.

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.

I think it would hurt to see that statement repeated too many
times regardless if true or not.

The problem with your antenna will not be explained using fairy
tales and perceptions of what you think other hams might think.
All you need is regular old proven textbook theory which is available
to most anyone. If you have burned all your books in a past
fit of intellectual rage, maybe you should consider stocking up on
a few new ones. You can buy them online and have them delivered
via UPS, USPS, and other freight carriers. So you don't even have
to step outside the front door to gain this new perspective on the
"Unwin" antenna.

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 3, 12:25 pm, wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:08 am, 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.!

Has nothing to do with it. SWR and antenna efficiency are
not related. Also SWR and common mode currents, or
the lack of are not related.

This
consistently shows up in statements by the itelligensia of this
newsgroup.

Not by me. But I can't hardly spell itelligensia without help,
much less be one..
A man has to know his limitations.

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.?

That is Art logic...

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.

Could I interest your cat in a pair of fuzzy mittens?

Is this why the decreasing oscillation is defined as a dummy load on
this newsgroup?

No.

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!

If Star Trek is to be believed, you are a carbon unit.
Tie a shielded feed line to your big toe and get back to
us on the amount of DX worked.
I'll even grant you the benefit of a doubt, and let you ground
your other toe to a suitable ground rod, radials, etc if needed
for proper operation of the carbon unit miracle whip.

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.

I think it would hurt to see that statement repeated too many
times regardless if true or not.

The problem with your antenna will not be explained using fairy
tales and perceptions of what you think other hams might think.
All you need is regular old proven textbook theory which is available
to most anyone. If you have burned all your books in a past
fit of intellectual rage, maybe you should consider stocking up on
a few new ones. You can buy them online and have them delivered
via UPS, USPS, and other freight carriers. So you don't even have
to step outside the front door to gain this new perspective on the
"Unwin" antenna.

You did not present any logical thiknking on the subjet
Following the logic of my posting it shows a clear conflict between
normal thinking and mine. On on side we have the standard statement
that if it is conductive then it is radiative a pretty common
statement on this news group
Yet a dummy load is conductive ie carbon but is not considered
radiative, a clear conflict
My point of view which is objected to is that radiation is a measure
of the resistivity of the
current carrying material because that alone creates eddy current
depth sometimes refer to skin depth
dependent on the depth of current flow. Now eddy currents varies in
all current carrying members
where as carbon eddy production properties are minimal to zero even
tho it curries current, which is why it
it is chosen for a dummy load ie carbon does not produce a skin depth
of eddy current.
Thus the common thinking of a dummy load does not radiate or a current
carrying member always radiates
presents a problem In my thinking as neutrinos particle which is a
type of carbon because it is a side product of fusion
Thus by my definition a carbon byproduct will never rest on a carbon
product as a "free" electron
thus radiation cannot occur! The conclusion of the above logic is that
a superconducting member
cannot radiate because resistivity is zero. On the other side of the
coin copper has resistivity thus must be able to radiate
regardless of its resistivity contentand the swr figure represents the
deviating frequency of the oscillating radiation which is in a direct
opposition to the general thinking of today.Now your logic is a direct
representation of the level of education you have attained
i.e.did not complete hight school. Since there are members who have
exceeded this level on the group I assume there will be a
stepped ascention in the level of logic where both you and I will
benefit.
Art

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Art Unwin wrote:
...
Yet a dummy load is conductive ie carbon but is not considered
radiative, a clear conflict
...
Art

Naaa ... NOT even close!

Dummy Load = A man carrying a BIG round rock downhill. grin

Regards,
JS

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 3, 1:13 pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
...
Yet a dummy load is conductive ie carbon but is not considered
radiative, a clear conflict
...
Art

Naaa ... NOT even close!

Dummy Load = A man carrying a BIG round rock downhill. grin

Regards,
JS

John
I wanted a succession of logic starting from the bottom with respect
to education
and finishing on some hight lights and intuition with respect to
antennas and radiation
which is what this forum is for. You are entering much to early since
we all know that
the level of education and achievements with subsequent promotions
come with a rush
ONLY after a ham person retires from a mundane working life. You have
been to college and are still working
so there are many posters awaiting their rightfull positioin to post
and should not be pushed aside
at this early point.. Shame for shame hi hi Go back to the prior
posting to check and see whether the logic presented if any
is a close match to yours and then retreat until later. Note with
respect to logic I placed myself at the bottom to see if my logic will
survive by the time we get to the self perceived experts and who
amoungst them spoke out of turn!
Regards
Art

Radiation and dummy loads
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 3, 12:25 pm, wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:08 am, 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.!

Has nothing to do with it. SWR and antenna efficiency are
not related. Also SWR and common mode currents, or
the lack of are not related.

This
consistently shows up in statements by the itelligensia of this
newsgroup.

Not by me. But I can't hardly spell itelligensia without help,
much less be one..
A man has to know his limitations.

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.?

That is Art logic...

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.

Could I interest your cat in a pair of fuzzy mittens?

Is this why the decreasing oscillation is defined as a dummy load on
this newsgroup?

No.

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!

If Star Trek is to be believed, you are a carbon unit.
Tie a shielded feed line to your big toe and get back to
us on the amount of DX worked.
I'll even grant you the benefit of a doubt, and let you ground
your other toe to a suitable ground rod, radials, etc if needed
for proper operation of the carbon unit miracle whip.

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.

I think it would hurt to see that statement repeated too many
times regardless if true or not.

The problem with your antenna will not be explained using fairy
tales and perceptions of what you think other hams might think.
All you need is regular old proven textbook theory which is available
to most anyone. If you have burned all your books in a past
fit of intellectual rage, maybe you should consider stocking up on
a few new ones. You can buy them online and have them delivered
via UPS, USPS, and other freight carriers. So you don't even have
to step outside the front door to gain this new perspective on the
"Unwin" antenna.

You did not present any logical thiknking on the subjet

just following your lead i guess.

Following the logic of my posting it shows a clear conflict between
normal thinking and mine.

ah, so that is it. your logic is not normal thinking.

In my thinking as neutrinos particle which is a
type of carbon because it is a side product of fusion

is this an example of your abnormal thinking? seems pretty strange that a
small uncharged particle that passes through most matter as if it weren't
there could be a type of carbon which is an atom.

Thus by my definition a carbon byproduct will never rest on a carbon
product as a "free" electron
thus radiation cannot occur!

i just loaded up some graphite from a pencil (another form of carbon) and it
did indeed radiate.

The conclusion of the above logic is that
a superconducting member
cannot radiate because resistivity is zero.

Whoa! then what about the guy that has patented a superconductive
antenna??? you aren't going to tell me now that they issue patents for
things that don't work????

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Art Unwin wrote:

...
Regards
Art

Sorry Art. Just couldn't resist. That was one of my great Elmers'
favorite jokes ... as a younger man, I failed to find as much humor in
it as I do today--strange, huh? Maybe Alzheimer Disease is that way ...
grin

Regards,
JS

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 3, 3:02 pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

...

Regards
Art

Sorry Art. Just couldn't resist. That was one of my great Elmers'
favorite jokes ... as a younger man, I failed to find as much humor in
it as I do today--strange, huh? Maybe Alzheimer Disease is that way ...
grin

Regards,
JS

thats o.k. john. we quickly got back on track in terms of succession

Radiation and dummy loads
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 3, 12:25 pm, wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:08 am, Art Unwin wrote:

Following the logic of my posting it shows a clear conflict between
normal thinking and mine.

The operative words being "normal thinking and mine (Art's)"

That about sums it up.

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Dale Parfitt wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 3, 12:25 pm, wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:08 am, Art Unwin wrote:

Following the logic of my posting it shows a clear conflict between
normal thinking and mine.

The operative words being "normal thinking and mine (Art's)"

That about sums it up.

Well, yes and no ...

When you consider that the "normal IQ" is between 100-110 for the USA,
as a whole, and depending on the area in question (a survey onboard a
quality campus would blow that out of the water--and an IQ of 120+ used
to automatically qualify you for OTS (other qualifications
pending/applying) ... one could come up with a scenario(s) where
"normal" is not, necessarily, all that desirable ...

Regards,
JS