| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Part of Too Many
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:05:56 -0400, "W3CQH"
wrote: Double winding - in which direction and spaced how far apart in each direction? On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: Wind a close coil any diameter with it until half the wire is used then change direction and come back without changing wire winding direction and wind the wire on top of the first coil where you finish with two wires to feed. Put a variometer in series with it and then get on the air. Now this is not exactly in equilibrium because one coil is a larger diameter than the other. Nor is the wire pre twisted pair which nullifies near field noise to my thinking. Now you have a helix style antenna but without the helix. Coat the antenna with an alkyd type solution before you slide it off the tube since the inside coil must be exposed the same way the outside coil is exposed Take one wavelength of zip cord. Wrap it around any diameter form, as distinctly specified above by the authur. Half the wire is used going, and half the wire is used returning by specification of the zip cord, as distinctly specified above by the authur. There is no change in winding direction as zip cord guarantees this by physical attachment, as specified above by the authur. Both wires are wrapped without changing direction, as distinctly specified above by the author. There is no pre twisting for the same reason (which might nullifie near field noise to his thinking - an asset to almost anyone else, but go figure), as specified above by the authur. It is exactly in equilibrium because both coils are the same diameter, as distinctly specified above by the authur. There is no need for coating as there is no inside coil, this is guaranteed by the physical construction of zip cord. Zip cord also guarantees equal lengths of going/returning lengths of conductor. Short one end of the zip cord paired conductors to make the gussian loop, as distinctly specified above by the authur. Feed the other end of the zip cord paired conductors to emit the neutrons' weak force, as distinctly specified above by the authur. Performance will follow the principal physics of this weak force and provide an intensely weak signal. If your listeners experience received signal levels greater than -40dB compared to a standard (non-gussian) dipole, then you have not followed instructions distinctly quoted above from the authur. Careful attention to detail can achieve increased performances of up to -60dB below traditional designs (indistinctly specified by the authur). Take care to note that this design is impossible to model as it violates every software package's capacity to allow closely spaced wires. There are absolutely no software products, nor freely available packages that perform this analysis - you are now in faith based alchemy. Any claims to the contrary (contradicting this faith based illusion) are delusional. This level of delusion can be confirmed by the whole absence of reference, citation, or offering of results of double-blind testing. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Part of Too Many
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:41:15 -0700, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:05:56 -0400, "W3CQH" wrote: Double winding - in which direction and spaced how far apart in each direction? On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: Wind a close coil any diameter with it until half the wire is used then change direction and come back without changing wire winding direction and wind the wire on top of the first coil where you finish with two wires to feed. Put a variometer in series with it and then get on the air. Now this is not exactly in equilibrium because one coil is a larger diameter than the other. Nor is the wire pre twisted pair which nullifies near field noise to my thinking. Now you have a helix style antenna but without the helix. Coat the antenna with an alkyd type solution before you slide it off the tube since the inside coil must be exposed the same way the outside coil is exposed Take one wavelength of zip cord. Wrap it around any diameter form, as distinctly specified above by the authur. Half the wire is used going, and half the wire is used returning by specification of the zip cord, as distinctly specified above by the authur. There is no change in winding direction as zip cord guarantees this by physical attachment, as specified above by the authur. Both wires are wrapped without changing direction, as distinctly specified above by the author. Not that I have any confidence in Art's antenna design. But you wind a cylinder with zip cord from left to right, with the left end pair being the feed and the right pair shorted (as if a single 2W wire) then the 'return winding' will essentially be wrapped in the opposite direction. |
Part of Too Many
"Tehrasha Darkon" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:41:15 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:05:56 -0400, "W3CQH" wrote: Double winding - in which direction and spaced how far apart in each direction? On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: Wind a close coil any diameter with it until half the wire is used then change direction and come back without changing wire winding direction and wind the wire on top of the first coil where you finish with two wires to feed. Put a variometer in series with it and then get on the air. Now this is not exactly in equilibrium because one coil is a larger diameter than the other. Nor is the wire pre twisted pair which nullifies near field noise to my thinking. Now you have a helix style antenna but without the helix. Coat the antenna with an alkyd type solution before you slide it off the tube since the inside coil must be exposed the same way the outside coil is exposed Take one wavelength of zip cord. Wrap it around any diameter form, as distinctly specified above by the authur. Half the wire is used going, and half the wire is used returning by specification of the zip cord, as distinctly specified above by the authur. There is no change in winding direction as zip cord guarantees this by physical attachment, as specified above by the authur. Both wires are wrapped without changing direction, as distinctly specified above by the author. Not that I have any confidence in Art's antenna design. But you wind a cylinder with zip cord from left to right, with the left end pair being the feed and the right pair shorted (as if a single 2W wire) then the 'return winding' will essentially be wrapped in the opposite direction. Well if you do wrap in one direction and then immediately wrap in the opposite direction upon each other, I wonder what the cancellation db figures are. On the other hand if you should wrap in the reverse direction with some substantial spacing, I could imagine that there might be some gain although very small?? |
Part of Too Many
"Tehrasha Darkon" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:41:15 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:05:56 -0400, "W3CQH" wrote: Double winding - in which direction and spaced how far apart in each direction? On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: Wind a close coil any diameter with it until half the wire is used then change direction and come back without changing wire winding direction and wind the wire on top of the first coil where you finish with two wires to feed. Put a variometer in series with it and then get on the air. Now this is not exactly in equilibrium because one coil is a larger diameter than the other. Nor is the wire pre twisted pair which nullifies near field noise to my thinking. Now you have a helix style antenna but without the helix. Coat the antenna with an alkyd type solution before you slide it off the tube since the inside coil must be exposed the same way the outside coil is exposed Take one wavelength of zip cord. Wrap it around any diameter form, as distinctly specified above by the authur. Half the wire is used going, and half the wire is used returning by specification of the zip cord, as distinctly specified above by the authur. There is no change in winding direction as zip cord guarantees this by physical attachment, as specified above by the authur. Both wires are wrapped without changing direction, as distinctly specified above by the author. Not that I have any confidence in Art's antenna design. But you wind a cylinder with zip cord from left to right, with the left end pair being the feed and the right pair shorted (as if a single 2W wire) then the 'return winding' will essentially be wrapped in the opposite direction. BTW if you split the 2 zip cord wires apart you could construct a loop antenna, in just about any configuration you wished. |
Part of Too Many
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:06:27 +0000 (UTC), Tehrasha Darkon
wrote: On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: Wind a close coil any diameter with it until half the wire is used then change direction and come back without changing wire winding direction then the 'return winding' will essentially be wrapped in the opposite direction. The authur is quite distinct. Zip cord perfectly enforces the original specification of winding direction. Any confusion that results is not expressed by the explicit statement from that authur above. Further, results of supremely weak performance confirms this and has been experienced by many (including Guss himself) for more than 3 centuries now. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Part of Too Many
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:22:43 -0400, "W3CQH"
wrote: I could imagine that there might be some gain although very small?? -60dB gain is quite substantial - even if small. All antennas have gain. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Part of Too Many
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:25:30 -0400, "W3CQH"
wrote: BTW if you split the 2 zip cord wires apart you could construct a loop antenna, in just about any configuration you wished. We aren't talking about "any" antenna, just those with superior weak force performance due to neutron emission. It's all there on the page, just read it! 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Part of Too Many
On Jul 10, 11:06 am, Tehrasha Darkon wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:41:15 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:05:56 -0400, "W3CQH" wrote: Double winding - in which direction and spaced how far apart in each direction? On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: Wind a close coil any diameter with it until half the wire is used then change direction and come back without changing wire winding direction and wind the wire on top of the first coil where you finish with two wires to feed. Put a variometer in series with it and then get on the air. Now this is not exactly in equilibrium because one coil is a larger diameter than the other. Nor is the wire pre twisted pair which nullifies near field noise to my thinking. Now you have a helix style antenna but without the helix. Coat the antenna with an alkyd type solution before you slide it off the tube since the inside coil must be exposed the same way the outside coil is exposed Take one wavelength of zip cord. Wrap it around any diameter form, as distinctly specified above by the authur. Half the wire is used going, and half the wire is used returning by specification of the zip cord, as distinctly specified above by the authur. There is no change in winding direction as zip cord guarantees this by physical attachment, as specified above by the authur. Both wires are wrapped without changing direction, as distinctly specified above by the author. Not that I have any confidence in Art's antenna design. But you wind a cylinder with zip cord from left to right, with the left end pair being the feed and the right pair shorted (as if a single 2W wire) then the 'return winding' will essentially be wrapped in the opposite direction. Correct. And if zip wire is used then you are adding a lumped load which is a violation with respect to equilibriu, |
Part of Too Many
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:21:56 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: Not that I have any confidence in Art's antenna design. But you wind a cylinder with zip cord from left to right, with the left end pair being the feed and the right pair shorted (as if a single 2W wire) then the 'return winding' will essentially be wrapped in the opposite direction. Correct. And if zip wire is used then you are adding a lumped load which is a violation with respect to equilibriu, The zip cord is in true equilibrium for any winding. What you describe is twisting and this violates equilibrium. That won't work, and Guss has demonstrated this three centuries ago. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Part of Too Many
Take care to note that this design is impossible to model as it
violates every software package's capacity to allow closely spaced wires. There are absolutely no software products, nor freely available packages that perform this analysis - you are now in faith based alchemy. Any claims to the contrary (contradicting this faith based illusion) are delusional. This level of delusion can be confirmed by the whole absence of reference, citation, or offering of results of double-blind testing. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC You could always use a lumped element model, but be sure a balun is not included, in order to maximize radiation from the coaxial feedline shield. Frank |
Part of Too Many
Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:05:56 -0400, "W3CQH" wrote: Double winding - in which direction and spaced how far apart in each direction? On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: Wind a close coil any diameter with it until half the wire is used then change direction and come back without changing wire winding direction and wind the wire on top of the first coil where you finish with two wires to feed. Put a variometer in series with it and then get on the air. Now this is not exactly in equilibrium because one coil is a larger diameter than the other. Nor is the wire pre twisted pair which nullifies near field noise to my thinking. Now you have a helix style antenna but without the helix. Coat the antenna with an alkyd type solution before you slide it off the tube since the inside coil must be exposed the same way the outside coil is exposed Take one wavelength of zip cord. Wrap it around any diameter form, as distinctly specified above by the authur. Half the wire is used going, and half the wire is used returning by specification of the zip cord, as distinctly specified above by the authur. There is no change in winding direction as zip cord guarantees this by physical attachment, as specified above by the authur. Both wires are wrapped without changing direction, as distinctly specified above by the author. There is no pre twisting for the same reason (which might nullifie near field noise to his thinking - an asset to almost anyone else, but go figure), as specified above by the authur. It is exactly in equilibrium because both coils are the same diameter, as distinctly specified above by the authur. There is no need for coating as there is no inside coil, this is guaranteed by the physical construction of zip cord. Zip cord also guarantees equal lengths of going/returning lengths of conductor. Short one end of the zip cord paired conductors to make the gussian loop, as distinctly specified above by the authur. Feed the other end of the zip cord paired conductors to emit the neutrons' weak force, as distinctly specified above by the authur. Performance will follow the principal physics of this weak force and provide an intensely weak signal. If your listeners experience received signal levels greater than -40dB compared to a standard (non-gussian) dipole, then you have not followed instructions distinctly quoted above from the authur. Careful attention to detail can achieve increased performances of up to -60dB below traditional designs (indistinctly specified by the authur). Take care to note that this design is impossible to model as it violates every software package's capacity to allow closely spaced wires. There are absolutely no software products, nor freely available packages that perform this analysis - you are now in faith based alchemy. Any claims to the contrary (contradicting this faith based illusion) are delusional. This level of delusion can be confirmed by the whole absence of reference, citation, or offering of results of double-blind testing. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC All other faults about Arts antenna ignored it is obvious he has not considered the losses of the cable he is using to fabricate his antenna. Zipcord is far from being a very good transmission line. I have melted it while tuning a 75 watt transmitter into a light bulb. The graphs on his website show pretty much what one would expect feeding power into a very lossy cable. Yep it looks like he built himself a very poor dummy load. As a matter of fact I believe his discription of his wonder antenna very closly describes a method of jury rigging an emergency dummy load. The only thing else needed is a bucket of water. Jimmie |
Part of Too Many
Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:21:56 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: Not that I have any confidence in Art's antenna design. But you wind a cylinder with zip cord from left to right, with the left end pair being the feed and the right pair shorted (as if a single 2W wire) then the 'return winding' will essentially be wrapped in the opposite direction. Correct. And if zip wire is used then you are adding a lumped load which is a violation with respect to equilibriu, The zip cord is in true equilibrium for any winding. What you describe is twisting and this violates equilibrium. That won't work, and Guss has demonstrated this three centuries ago. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Now wait just a minute, Richard. I think it may depend on the zip cord you use. Some of the zip cord, when close wound, will have more dielectric between the interturn wires than between the 2 wires of the zip cord itself. Of course it _can_ be rebalanced if the air gap impressed into the plastic during manufacturing is the correct depth. tom K0TAR |
Part of Too Many
On Jul 10, 5:51 pm, JIMMIE wrote:
Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:05:56 -0400, "W3CQH" wrote: Double winding - in which direction and spaced how far apart in each direction? On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: Wind a close coil any diameter with it until half the wire is used then change direction and come back without changing wire winding direction and wind the wire on top of the first coil where you finish with two wires to feed. Put a variometer in series with it and then get on the air. Now this is not exactly in equilibrium because one coil is a larger diameter than the other. Nor is the wire pre twisted pair which nullifies near field noise to my thinking. Now you have a helix style antenna but without the helix. Coat the antenna with an alkyd type solution before you slide it off the tube since the inside coil must be exposed the same way the outside coil is exposed Take one wavelength of zip cord. Wrap it around any diameter form, as distinctly specified above by the authur. Half the wire is used going, and half the wire is used returning by specification of the zip cord, as distinctly specified above by the authur. There is no change in winding direction as zip cord guarantees this by physical attachment, as specified above by the authur. Both wires are wrapped without changing direction, as distinctly specified above by the author. There is no pre twisting for the same reason (which might nullifie near field noise to his thinking - an asset to almost anyone else, but go figure), as specified above by the authur. It is exactly in equilibrium because both coils are the same diameter, as distinctly specified above by the authur. There is no need for coating as there is no inside coil, this is guaranteed by the physical construction of zip cord. Zip cord also guarantees equal lengths of going/returning lengths of conductor. Short one end of the zip cord paired conductors to make the gussian loop, as distinctly specified above by the authur. Feed the other end of the zip cord paired conductors to emit the neutrons' weak force, as distinctly specified above by the authur. Performance will follow the principal physics of this weak force and provide an intensely weak signal. If your listeners experience received signal levels greater than -40dB compared to a standard (non-gussian) dipole, then you have not followed instructions distinctly quoted above from the authur. Careful attention to detail can achieve increased performances of up to -60dB below traditional designs (indistinctly specified by the authur). Take care to note that this design is impossible to model as it violates every software package's capacity to allow closely spaced wires. There are absolutely no software products, nor freely available packages that perform this analysis - you are now in faith based alchemy. Any claims to the contrary (contradicting this faith based illusion) are delusional. This level of delusion can be confirmed by the whole absence of reference, citation, or offering of results of double-blind testing. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC All other faults about Arts antenna ignored it is obvious he has not considered the losses of the cable he is using to fabricate his antenna. Zipcord is far from being a very good transmission line. I have melted it while tuning a 75 watt transmitter into a light bulb. The graphs on his website show pretty much what one would expect feeding power into a very lossy cable. Yep it looks like he built himself a very poor dummy load. As a matter of fact I believe his discription of his wonder antenna very closly describes a method of jury rigging an emergency dummy load. The only thing else needed is a bucket of water. Jimmie My transmission line is Andrews..7/8 'dia. I dont use zip cord You say the graphs depict a very lossy cable, can you give me a reference that points to that? Always willing to learn And another point, where does this notion come from that a closed circuit of one WL will always creat feed line radiation? I have been of the opinion that with a balance to unbalanced jobby at the antenna there is no radiation at all from the feed line and if you use open wire the jobby is not required. Another point where can a dummy load be found with several resonant points and anti resonant points with poor SWR in between? Another point what is the real capacitance of zip cord per foot? Seems like somebody is not seeing that as a lumped load ....curious. Another point I can model two helix antennas, one LCP and one RCP connected at one end and so could Kraus and so can the space engineers! The idea you cannot model close spaced lines when unlimited segments are available seems to be inaccurate to me. The idea thatr two helix antennas provide negative gain means somebody is drinking. Note the idea that radiation can some how be cancelled seems wrong to me. I just can't see two particles with like magnetic fields cancelling each other Seem like a lot of wierd speculation is going on with nothing to suggest that they are reasonable. |
Part of Too Many
On Jul 10, 6:56*pm, Article Unwin wrote:
The idea thatr two helix antennas provide negative gain means somebody is drinking. The idea that anyone would confuse your design with that of the helix used in a conventional manner, would mean someone is drunk. *hic* Note the idea that radiation can some how be cancelled seems wrong to me. I just can't see two particles with like magnetic fields cancelling each other Who cares about all that irrelevant jibber jabber. It means nada in the overall big picture of the universe in the land of Obama. Your loading losses are what's going to ruin your day at the test track. Your antenna is pretty much nothing but a perverted, *very* inefficient thin 22 gauge wire loading coil fed on the low frequency of 1.8-2.0 mhz in your recent case. Any delusions of performance grandeur would tend to imply that the designer must be drunk. *hic* Seem like a lot of wierd speculation is going on with nothing to suggest that they are reasonable. Yep, that's your "Articles" alright... Weird speculation backed by nothing to suggest the speculation is reasonable. Onward through the fog. :/ |
Part of Too Many
Art Unwin wrote: On Jul 10, 5:51 pm, JIMMIE wrote: Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:05:56 -0400, "W3CQH" wrote: Double winding - in which direction and spaced how far apart in each direction? On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: Wind a close coil any diameter with it until half the wire is used then change direction and come back without changing wire winding direction and wind the wire on top of the first coil where you finish with two wires to feed. Put a variometer in series with it and then get on the air. Now this is not exactly in equilibrium because one coil is a larger diameter than the other. Nor is the wire pre twisted pair which nullifies near field noise to my thinking. Now you have a helix style antenna but without the helix. Coat the antenna with an alkyd type solution before you slide it off the tube since the inside coil must be exposed the same way the outside coil is exposed Take one wavelength of zip cord. Wrap it around any diameter form, as distinctly specified above by the authur. Half the wire is used going, and half the wire is used returning by specification of the zip cord, as distinctly specified above by the authur. There is no change in winding direction as zip cord guarantees this by physical attachment, as specified above by the authur. Both wires are wrapped without changing direction, as distinctly specified above by the author. There is no pre twisting for the same reason (which might nullifie near field noise to his thinking - an asset to almost anyone else, but go figure), as specified above by the authur. It is exactly in equilibrium because both coils are the same diameter, as distinctly specified above by the authur. There is no need for coating as there is no inside coil, this is guaranteed by the physical construction of zip cord. Zip cord also guarantees equal lengths of going/returning lengths of conductor. Short one end of the zip cord paired conductors to make the gussian loop, as distinctly specified above by the authur. Feed the other end of the zip cord paired conductors to emit the neutrons' weak force, as distinctly specified above by the authur. Performance will follow the principal physics of this weak force and provide an intensely weak signal. If your listeners experience received signal levels greater than -40dB compared to a standard (non-gussian) dipole, then you have not followed instructions distinctly quoted above from the authur. Careful attention to detail can achieve increased performances of up to -60dB below traditional designs (indistinctly specified by the authur). Take care to note that this design is impossible to model as it violates every software package's capacity to allow closely spaced wires. There are absolutely no software products, nor freely available packages that perform this analysis - you are now in faith based alchemy. Any claims to the contrary (contradicting this faith based illusion) are delusional. This level of delusion can be confirmed by the whole absence of reference, citation, or offering of results of double-blind testing. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC All other faults about Arts antenna ignored it is obvious he has not considered the losses of the cable he is using to fabricate his antenna. Zipcord is far from being a very good transmission line. I have melted it while tuning a 75 watt transmitter into a light bulb. The graphs on his website show pretty much what one would expect feeding power into a very lossy cable. Yep it looks like he built himself a very poor dummy load. As a matter of fact I believe his discription of his wonder antenna very closly describes a method of jury rigging an emergency dummy load. The only thing else needed is a bucket of water. Jimmie My transmission line is Andrews..7/8 'dia. I dont use zip cord No but the antenna is made of zip cord. You say the graphs depict a very lossy cable, can you give me a reference that points to that? The fact that the VSWR keeps decreasing with an increase in frequency is characteristic of a lossy transmission line, In this case a lossy antenna. Always willing to learn And another point, where does this notion come from that a closed circuit of one WL will always creat feed line radiation? Where do you get the notion I had that notion I have been of the opinion that with a balance to unbalanced jobby at the antenna there is no radiation at all from the feed line and if you use open wire the jobby is not required .. Another point where can a dummy load be found with several resonant points and anti resonant points with poor SWR in between? Yes but the anti resonant points are not very pronounced. Like I said its a poor dummy load. A poor dummy load because it still has reactive components. Its still a better dummy load than an antenna. The idea you cannot model close spaced lines when unlimited segments are available seems to be inaccurate to me. The idea thatr two helix antennas provide negative gain means somebody is drinking. Who said you have two helix antennas, They certainly are not as defined by Kraus or anyone else. A helix antenna is more than wire wrapped on a stick. Note the idea that radiation can some how be cancelled seems wrong to me. I just can't see two particles with like magnetic fields cancelling each other. The fields created by a moving charged particle can easily cancel that of a like particle, they just have to be moving in opposite directions. Wire wound reduced inductance resistors have been made wind the wire and connecting it much as you have in your antenna. Again you discribe a dummy load Seem like a lot of wierd speculation is going on with nothing to suggest that they are reasonable. Perhaps you forget I actually made your antenna. All it did was get warm. It worked best when the input to the transmission line was shorted and fed as a random length of wire. Since you claimed it worked on VHF I actually attemted to make a contact using it. I live less than 5 miles from a repeater and can usually get into it with milli watts on a hand held. I couldnt get into it with your antenna with 10 watts. I was afraid to use more power as i may put my radio at risk. The fact that I could place it in a metal locker and operate it with little change in VSWR indicates most of the power is being consumed by a resistive load. The signal is being radiated but most of it is being changed to infra-red radiation first. If you dont believe me just build the thing and test it for yourself comparing it to a simple dipole. I also tested it on an Anritsu antenna analyzer. The results were very similar to what you posted on your website so I am assuming you did something similar to get your waveforms. These waveforms are also very similar to the waveforms of the improvised dummy load I mentioned so I could equally assume you are a troll and practical joker. Jimmie |
Part of Too Many
On Jul 10, 7:15 pm, wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:56 pm, Article Unwin wrote: The idea thatr two helix antennas provide negative gain means somebody is drinking. The idea that anyone would confuse your design with that of the helix used in a conventional manner, would mean someone is drunk. *hic* Note the idea that radiation can some how be cancelled seems wrong to me. I just can't see two particles with like magnetic fields cancelling each other Who cares about all that irrelevant jibber jabber. It means nada in the overall big picture of the universe in the land of Obama. Your loading losses are what's going to ruin your day at the test track. Your antenna is pretty much nothing but a perverted, *very* inefficient thin 22 gauge wire loading coil fed on the low frequency of 1.8-2.0 mhz in your recent case. Any delusions of performance grandeur would tend to imply that the designer must be drunk. *hic* Seem like a lot of wierd speculation is going on with nothing to suggest that they are reasonable. Yep, that's your "Articles" alright... Weird speculation backed by nothing to suggest the speculation is reasonable. Onward through the fog. :/ There has got to be a reason for Richard and you doing all this. I know Richard wants me dead but how does that satisfy you? |
Part of Too Many
On Jul 10, 8:25*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
There has got to be a reason for Richard and you doing all this. Doing all what? I'm just commenting on your various jibber jabber. I know Richard wants me dead but how does that satisfy you? I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. Classified you know... |
Part of Too Many
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:56:24 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: Seem like a lot of wierd speculation is going on with nothing to suggest that they are reasonable. Speculation is, what speculations "seems." Your appeal here for validation suffers from its thin content and over elaborate speculation. Ultimately, this speculation of yours collapses from many faults, two of which are enough to describe: 1. This is due to the lack of equilibrium by your own admission of twisting the line in flagrant contradiction to how you described its construction. 2, You cannot defend against the poor performance of Weak Forces that dominate your own design; by your own stated purpose and admission. This is obvious on the face of it. These demonstrate the superiority of conventional dipoles and the experience of millions of users for three centuries confirms this. This last observation is NOT speculative, but clear proof supported by a reservoir of data. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Part of Too Many
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:59:27 -0700 (PDT), JIMMIE
wrote: Since you claimed it worked on VHF I actually attemted to make a contact using it. I live less than 5 miles from a repeater and can usually get into it with milli watts on a hand held. I couldnt get into it with your antenna with 10 watts. I was afraid to use more power as i may put my radio at risk. This confirms at best -40dB of gain attributable to the authur's design in comparison to a conventional design. If Jimmie failed at anything approaching the perfection of the authur's design, is that it does not exhibit an even greater figure of -60dB - however, it is implied in Jimmie's hesitation to raise power lest the authur's design burst into flames due to the Weak Forces dominating the lack of conventional radiation. Seeing that the authur has admittedly and expressly designed this antenna to optimize the Weak Force, it would be surprising that any other outcome would be expected. For these past few months he has offered no other results of measurement, again admitting that he has no "laboratory" (equal even to Jimmie's resources). Hence it follows, that only speculation is available in the authur's defense. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Part of Too Many
Art wrote:
"Another point I can model two helix antennas one LCP and one RCP connected at one and and so could Kraus and so can space engineers." Art should look at page 66 of the 3rd edition of Kraus` "Antennas". Fig. 3-8(c) is the axial-mode helix, an end-fire or traveling-wave antenna. Here the diameter of the coil is a significant portion of a wavelength and the distance between turns (6 are shown) ia 1/4 WL. Large loops (turns) are required to make radiation broadside to the loop instead of having a null there as in small loops. One would usually not characterize the axial mode helix as small, though two of them wound in opposite directions will indeed peoduce both both circular polarizations. Such an HF structure wouldn`t fit in two ordinary shoe boxes. Small-diameter coils produce linear polarizations in parallel with the coil axis. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Part of Too Many
On Jul 11, 11:33 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Art wrote: "Another point I can model two helix antennas one LCP and one RCP connected at one and and so could Kraus and so can space engineers." Art should look at page 66 of the 3rd edition of Kraus` "Antennas". Fig. 3-8(c) is the axial-mode helix, an end-fire or traveling-wave antenna. Here the diameter of the coil is a significant portion of a wavelength and the distance between turns (6 are shown) ia 1/4 WL. Large loops (turns) are required to make radiation broadside to the loop instead of having a null there as in small loops. One would usually not characterize the axial mode helix as small, though two of them wound in opposite directions will indeed peoduce both both circular polarizations. Such an HF structure wouldn`t fit in two ordinary shoe boxes. Small-diameter coils produce linear polarizations in parallel with the coil axis. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI That ius correct but I am interested in small antennas so I wound both helixes on the same former and at the same time. Since like magnetic particles cannot collide I must assume that no radiation is being lost. The largest diameter I have used so far ius about a foot. The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the flatest one that I have made was 8'" by 12" by a wire thickness which can be wound up in a roll and put in a sock no less. I am not a lier! |
Part of Too Many
Art wrote:
"The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the flatest one I have made was 8" by 12" by a wire size which can be wound up in a roll and put in a sock no less." From its size, I would expect its performance to be less than that of a dipole made from two "hamsticks". But, that may be enough. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Part of Too Many
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message ... Art wrote: "The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the flatest one I have made was 8" by 12" by a wire size which can be wound up in a roll and put in a sock no less." From its size, I would expect its performance to be less than that of a dipole made from two "hamsticks". But, that may be enough. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Except for Richard H's academic approach this thread has been hilarious--even beats Leno. LOL. Walt, W2DU |
Part of Too Many
On Jul 11, 5:41 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message ... Art wrote: "The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the flatest one I have made was 8" by 12" by a wire size which can be wound up in a roll and put in a sock no less." From its size, I would expect its performance to be less than that of a dipole made from two "hamsticks". But, that may be enough. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Except for Richard H's academic approach this thread has been hilarious--even beats Leno. LOL. Walt, W2DU Fine Walter. Urge people not to make one based on your professional experience. With Richards pile of books on which to stand you can make a mighty strong case based on the antennas you have personally built. Experts said the same about the Rhode Island antenna but the ham in the street seems to be happy with it.! Ofcourse you can show your academic ability in telling the group WHY it "cannot possibly work:" or wait for another expert to state ":why" to save face. Both of you state it can't work, won't work or the whole thing is a myth. Don't you feel you owe the group a professional explanation on which you are basing your findings? And I don't mean because YOU said it but on the basis of mathematics or something of similar kind. After all this time I have been studying this thing I could still be in error and I would welcome a professional expose if it would save trouble for the posters and where I can sincerely apologise for my aproach to this antenna which nobody has faulted with explanation as yet. Is this "don't make it guys" a pure professional aproach designed to save your fellow friends from harm or is it an emotional thing that you are pushing in response to you book writings being dissed? I presented a series of graphs that I measured with this antenna on unwinantennas.com so you could comment about that even tho you may have been looking for other information that was not there.You could also state to the many naysayers why you ,as a professional and a judge ,why it reflect a dummy load and the implication of the oscillations. All these would earn you respect that could overcome your anger at somebody daring to question your writings in public and certainly would do something to negate your present passion for hate. Can you do that for your fellow hams or is there some delight in seeing them struggle and spend while you are laughing at alll. Be a real ham and help your fellow hams after all the hobby is more than making money from them. As far as only Richard being academic I would remind you he is only quoting from books all of which do not address this design so his comments are speculative to say the least where he does not share the professional underpinnings of his speculations given with a sneer. |
Part of Too Many
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 11, 5:41 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote: "Richard Harrison" wrote in message ... Art wrote: "The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the flatest one I have made was 8" by 12" by a wire size which can be wound up in a roll and put in a sock no less." From its size, I would expect its performance to be less than that of a dipole made from two "hamsticks". But, that may be enough. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Except for Richard H's academic approach this thread has been hilarious--even beats Leno. LOL. Walt, W2DU Fine Walter. Urge people not to make one based on your professional experience. With Richards pile of books on which to stand you can make a mighty strong case based on the antennas you have personally built. Experts said the same about the Rhode Island antenna but the ham in the street seems to be happy with it.! Ofcourse you can show your academic ability in telling the group WHY it "cannot possibly work:" or wait for another expert to state ":why" to save face. Both of you state it can't work, won't work or the whole thing is a myth. Don't you feel you owe the group a professional explanation on which you are basing your findings? And I don't mean because YOU said it but on the basis of mathematics or something of similar kind. After all this time I have been studying this thing I could still be in error and I would welcome a professional expose if it would save trouble for the posters and where I can sincerely apologise for my aproach to this antenna which nobody has faulted with explanation as yet. Is this "don't make it guys" a pure professional aproach designed to save your fellow friends from harm or is it an emotional thing that you are pushing in response to you book writings being dissed? I presented a series of graphs that I measured with this antenna on unwinantennas.com so you could comment about that even tho you may have been looking for other information that was not there.You could also state to the many naysayers why you ,as a professional and a judge ,why it reflect a dummy load and the implication of the oscillations. All these would earn you respect that could overcome your anger at somebody daring to question your writings in public and certainly would do something to negate your present passion for hate. Can you do that for your fellow hams or is there some delight in seeing them struggle and spend while you are laughing at alll. Be a real ham and help your fellow hams after all the hobby is more than making money from them. As far as only Richard being academic I would remind you he is only quoting from books all of which do not address this design so his comments are speculative to say the least where he does not share the professional underpinnings of his speculations given with a sneer. Art, I have never said your antennas don't work, and I have not seen your graphs. In fact I've never commented one way of the other concerning your antennas. I did make one negative comment concerning your dialogs with the others, but I have not commented on the content of your rhetoric. Furthermore, I was not privy to any of the Dr. Davis posts, even though you have accused me of siding against him. If you doubt this just go back and check the various posts around the era when Dr. Davis is said to have posted and you'll not find any of my posts concerning him or the discussions concerning him. And you have mistaken one Richard for the other. Richard C is the one who began the comedy in this thread, while Richard H is the one who posted academically. Are you aware of these two distinguished posters on this thread? Walt, W2DU |
Part of Too Many
On Jul 11, 8:20 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 11, 5:41 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote: "Richard Harrison" wrote in message ... Art wrote: "The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the flatest one I have made was 8" by 12" by a wire size which can be wound up in a roll and put in a sock no less." From its size, I would expect its performance to be less than that of a dipole made from two "hamsticks". But, that may be enough. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Except for Richard H's academic approach this thread has been hilarious--even beats Leno. LOL. Walt, W2DU Fine Walter. Urge people not to make one based on your professional experience. With Richards pile of books on which to stand you can make a mighty strong case based on the antennas you have personally built. Experts said the same about the Rhode Island antenna but the ham in the street seems to be happy with it.! Ofcourse you can show your academic ability in telling the group WHY it "cannot possibly work:" or wait for another expert to state ":why" to save face. Both of you state it can't work, won't work or the whole thing is a myth. Don't you feel you owe the group a professional explanation on which you are basing your findings? And I don't mean because YOU said it but on the basis of mathematics or something of similar kind. After all this time I have been studying this thing I could still be in error and I would welcome a professional expose if it would save trouble for the posters and where I can sincerely apologise for my aproach to this antenna which nobody has faulted with explanation as yet. Is this "don't make it guys" a pure professional aproach designed to save your fellow friends from harm or is it an emotional thing that you are pushing in response to you book writings being dissed? I presented a series of graphs that I measured with this antenna on unwinantennas.com so you could comment about that even tho you may have been looking for other information that was not there.You could also state to the many naysayers why you ,as a professional and a judge ,why it reflect a dummy load and the implication of the oscillations. All these would earn you respect that could overcome your anger at somebody daring to question your writings in public and certainly would do something to negate your present passion for hate. Can you do that for your fellow hams or is there some delight in seeing them struggle and spend while you are laughing at alll. Be a real ham and help your fellow hams after all the hobby is more than making money from them. As far as only Richard being academic I would remind you he is only quoting from books all of which do not address this design so his comments are speculative to say the least where he does not share the professional underpinnings of his speculations given with a sneer. Art, I have never said your antennas don't work, and I have not seen your graphs. In fact I've never commented one way of the other concerning your antennas. I did make one negative comment concerning your dialogs with the others, but I have not commented on the content of your rhetoric. Furthermore, I was not privy to any of the Dr. Davis posts, even though you have accused me of siding against him. If you doubt this just go back and check the various posts around the era when Dr. Davis is said to have posted and you'll not find any of my posts concerning him or the discussions concerning him. And you have mistaken one Richard for the other. Richard C is the one who began the comedy in this thread, while Richard H is the one who posted academically. Are you aware of these two distinguished posters on this thread? Walt, W2DU Are you saying that one of the Richards is responsible for the ' comedy that you are enjoying and not me? Then you should have the courage to say so. Richard C I know can stand on his own feet and respond rather than you hiding behind ambiguety. At the same time I do not remember the two Richards having a discourse with each other on my antenna which if so you could have made your statement more deffinitive.! Frankly your response does not ring true and I certainly would not wish you to continue with your anger against him. But again you are intent on letting somebody know of your contempt because you haven't fully vented your anger. I suggest you put this sort of verbage to one side and view tomorrow as a new day |
Part of Too Many
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:20:07 -0400, "Walter Maxwell"
wrote: Richard C is the one who began the comedy in this thread Hmmm, If all would peruse the original post for this thread, its contents are solely derived from the original descriptions made by the authur. The analysis of Weak Force conforms to the original descriptions of the authur. The outcome of Weak Force is confirmed in ALL signal strength reports of at least -40dB. All-in-all, nothing has been denied, negated, nor diminished (except signal strength in comparison to a standard dipole); and all accounts conform to every original postulate offered by the authur. Any consequences of optimizing for neutron emission and maximization for Weak Force are perhaps not notably useful, but might interest those who demand QRP operation from their investments in linears and exotic antennas in the examination of sub-atomic particle physics. If any comedy has been observed, inferred, suggested, or implied; then its source lies wholly with the readers' misinterpretations with the authur of this new antenna as this thread has been solely devoted to affirming every proposition of this novel antenna degrading signal to observe these nuclear forces. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Part of Too Many
Since you claimed it worked on VHF I actually attemted to make a
contact using it. I live less than 5 miles from a repeater and can usually get into it with milli watts on a hand held. I couldnt get into it with your antenna with 10 watts. I was afraid to use more power as i may put my radio at risk. This confirms at best -40dB of gain attributable to the authur's design in comparison to a conventional design. If Jimmie failed at anything approaching the perfection of the authur's design, is that it does not exhibit an even greater figure of -60dB - however, it is implied in Jimmie's hesitation to raise power lest the authur's design burst into flames due to the Weak Forces dominating the lack of conventional radiation. Seeing that the authur has admittedly and expressly designed this antenna to optimize the Weak Force, it would be surprising that any other outcome would be expected. For these past few months he has offered no other results of measurement, again admitting that he has no "laboratory" (equal even to Jimmie's resources). Hence it follows, that only speculation is available in the authur's defense. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC The following code: CM Close spaced helix CE GH 1 1100 22 13.2 6 6 0.03205 0.03205 0 GH 2 1100 22 13.2 6 6 0.03205 0.03205 0 GM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 2 1 2 1100 GW 3 1 6 0 13.5 6 0 13.2 0.03205 GW 4 1 6 0 0.3 6 0 0 0.03205 GS 0 0 0.025400 GE 0 -1 0 GN -1 !free space FR 0 1 0 0 7 0.25 EX 0 4 1 0 1 0 LD 5 0 0 0 5.8001E7 !copper RP 0 19 1 1000 0 90 5.00000 1.00000 EN Produces: Input Impedance and VSWR Frequency Tag Seg. Real(Z) Imag(Z) ----------------------------------------------- 7.000000 4 2202 3.196 -1.896; **** Power Gains: Theta Pattern **** Phi=90, Freq=7, File= Helix.NOU Theta Horizontal Vertical Total Degrees dB dB dB 0.00 -76.32 -76.89 -73.59 5.00 -64.76 -57.41 -56.68 10.00 -60.01 -51.90 -51.28 15.00 -57.00 -48.60 -48.02 20.00 -54.82 -46.27 -45.70 25.00 -53.14 -44.48 -43.93 30.00 -51.78 -43.06 -42.51 35.00 -50.67 -41.89 -41.35 40.00 -49.74 -40.92 -40.39 45.00 -48.97 -40.11 -39.58 50.00 -48.31 -39.43 -38.90 55.00 -47.77 -38.86 -38.34 60.00 -47.32 -38.39 -37.87 65.00 -46.95 -38.00 -37.48 70.00 -46.67 -37.70 -37.18 75.00 -46.45 -37.47 -36.95 80.00 -46.31 -37.31 -36.79 85.00 -46.23 -37.22 -36.70 90.00 -46.22 -37.19 -36.68 73, Frank |
Part of Too Many
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 11, 8:20 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 11, 5:41 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote: "Richard Harrison" wrote in message ... Art wrote: "The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the flatest one I have made was 8" by 12" by a wire size which can be wound up in a roll and put in a sock no less." From its size, I would expect its performance to be less than that of a dipole made from two "hamsticks". But, that may be enough. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Except for Richard H's academic approach this thread has been hilarious--even beats Leno. LOL. Walt, W2DU Fine Walter. Urge people not to make one based on your professional experience. With Richards pile of books on which to stand you can make a mighty strong case based on the antennas you have personally built. Experts said the same about the Rhode Island antenna but the ham in the street seems to be happy with it.! Ofcourse you can show your academic ability in telling the group WHY it "cannot possibly work:" or wait for another expert to state ":why" to save face. Both of you state it can't work, won't work or the whole thing is a myth. Don't you feel you owe the group a professional explanation on which you are basing your findings? And I don't mean because YOU said it but on the basis of mathematics or something of similar kind. After all this time I have been studying this thing I could still be in error and I would welcome a professional expose if it would save trouble for the posters and where I can sincerely apologise for my aproach to this antenna which nobody has faulted with explanation as yet. Is this "don't make it guys" a pure professional aproach designed to save your fellow friends from harm or is it an emotional thing that you are pushing in response to you book writings being dissed? I presented a series of graphs that I measured with this antenna on unwinantennas.com so you could comment about that even tho you may have been looking for other information that was not there.You could also state to the many naysayers why you ,as a professional and a judge ,why it reflect a dummy load and the implication of the oscillations. All these would earn you respect that could overcome your anger at somebody daring to question your writings in public and certainly would do something to negate your present passion for hate. Can you do that for your fellow hams or is there some delight in seeing them struggle and spend while you are laughing at alll. Be a real ham and help your fellow hams after all the hobby is more than making money from them. As far as only Richard being academic I would remind you he is only quoting from books all of which do not address this design so his comments are speculative to say the least where he does not share the professional underpinnings of his speculations given with a sneer. Art, I have never said your antennas don't work, and I have not seen your graphs. In fact I've never commented one way of the other concerning your antennas. I did make one negative comment concerning your dialogs with the others, but I have not commented on the content of your rhetoric. Furthermore, I was not privy to any of the Dr. Davis posts, even though you have accused me of siding against him. If you doubt this just go back and check the various posts around the era when Dr. Davis is said to have posted and you'll not find any of my posts concerning him or the discussions concerning him. And you have mistaken one Richard for the other. Richard C is the one who began the comedy in this thread, while Richard H is the one who posted academically. Are you aware of these two distinguished posters on this thread? Walt, W2DU Are you saying that one of the Richards is responsible for the ' comedy that you are enjoying and not me? Then you should have the courage to say so. Richard C I know can stand on his own feet and respond rather than you hiding behind ambiguety. At the same time I do not remember the two Richards having a discourse with each other on my antenna which if so you could have made your statement more deffinitive.! Frankly your response does not ring true and I certainly would not wish you to continue with your anger against him. But again you are intent on letting somebody know of your contempt because you haven't fully vented your anger. I suggest you put this sort of verbage to one side and view tomorrow as a new day Art, I'm not angry with anyone. What gave you that notion? I have not indicated an anger, nor have I had any intent of letting anyone know of any contempt (because I have none) or that I haven't fully vented my anger. What anger? Where is this coming from? Certainly not from me. If you're addressing me with such outrageous concerns you are either mistaking me for someone else, or else you must have too many Gaussians between your ears that have addalpated your brain cells. Concerning the two Richards, check the recent posts on this thread. Walt, W2DU |
Part of Too Many
On Jul 11, 9:44 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 11, 8:20 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 11, 5:41 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote: "Richard Harrison" wrote in message ... Art wrote: "The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the flatest one I have made was 8" by 12" by a wire size which can be wound up in a roll and put in a sock no less." From its size, I would expect its performance to be less than that of a dipole made from two "hamsticks". But, that may be enough. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Except for Richard H's academic approach this thread has been hilarious--even beats Leno. LOL. Walt, W2DU Fine Walter. Urge people not to make one based on your professional experience. With Richards pile of books on which to stand you can make a mighty strong case based on the antennas you have personally built. Experts said the same about the Rhode Island antenna but the ham in the street seems to be happy with it.! Ofcourse you can show your academic ability in telling the group WHY it "cannot possibly work:" or wait for another expert to state ":why" to save face. Both of you state it can't work, won't work or the whole thing is a myth. Don't you feel you owe the group a professional explanation on which you are basing your findings? And I don't mean because YOU said it but on the basis of mathematics or something of similar kind. After all this time I have been studying this thing I could still be in error and I would welcome a professional expose if it would save trouble for the posters and where I can sincerely apologise for my aproach to this antenna which nobody has faulted with explanation as yet. Is this "don't make it guys" a pure professional aproach designed to save your fellow friends from harm or is it an emotional thing that you are pushing in response to you book writings being dissed? I presented a series of graphs that I measured with this antenna on unwinantennas.com so you could comment about that even tho you may have been looking for other information that was not there.You could also state to the many naysayers why you ,as a professional and a judge ,why it reflect a dummy load and the implication of the oscillations. All these would earn you respect that could overcome your anger at somebody daring to question your writings in public and certainly would do something to negate your present passion for hate. Can you do that for your fellow hams or is there some delight in seeing them struggle and spend while you are laughing at alll. Be a real ham and help your fellow hams after all the hobby is more than making money from them. As far as only Richard being academic I would remind you he is only quoting from books all of which do not address this design so his comments are speculative to say the least where he does not share the professional underpinnings of his speculations given with a sneer. Art, I have never said your antennas don't work, and I have not seen your graphs. In fact I've never commented one way of the other concerning your antennas. I did make one negative comment concerning your dialogs with the others, but I have not commented on the content of your rhetoric. Furthermore, I was not privy to any of the Dr. Davis posts, even though you have accused me of siding against him. If you doubt this just go back and check the various posts around the era when Dr. Davis is said to have posted and you'll not find any of my posts concerning him or the discussions concerning him. And you have mistaken one Richard for the other. Richard C is the one who began the comedy in this thread, while Richard H is the one who posted academically. Are you aware of these two distinguished posters on this thread? Walt, W2DU Are you saying that one of the Richards is responsible for the ' comedy that you are enjoying and not me? Then you should have the courage to say so. Richard C I know can stand on his own feet and respond rather than you hiding behind ambiguety. At the same time I do not remember the two Richards having a discourse with each other on my antenna which if so you could have made your statement more deffinitive.! Frankly your response does not ring true and I certainly would not wish you to continue with your anger against him. But again you are intent on letting somebody know of your contempt because you haven't fully vented your anger. I suggest you put this sort of verbage to one side and view tomorrow as a new day Art, I'm not angry with anyone. What gave you that notion? I have not indicated an anger, nor have I had any intent of letting anyone know of any contempt (because I have none) or that I haven't fully vented my anger. What anger? Where is this coming from? Certainly not from me. If you're addressing me with such outrageous concerns you are either mistaking me for someone else, or else you must have too many Gaussians between your ears that have addalpated your brain cells. Concerning the two Richards, check the recent posts on this thread. Walt, W2DU As I said I assumed that your hillarity was over my antenna. You certainly did not make it clear it was the other Richard. Maybe I am getting to sensitive to attacks and thus showing I still have possesion of some testerone. Apparently this time I can relax as I am not the one in the barrel tho that is not a good thing to say. Have a good week end Art |
Part of Too Many
On Jul 11, 11:13 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:44 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 11, 8:20 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jul 11, 5:41 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote: "Richard Harrison" wrote in message ... Art wrote: "The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the flatest one I have made was 8" by 12" by a wire size which can be wound up in a roll and put in a sock no less." From its size, I would expect its performance to be less than that of a dipole made from two "hamsticks". But, that may be enough. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Except for Richard H's academic approach this thread has been hilarious--even beats Leno. LOL. Walt, W2DU Fine Walter. Urge people not to make one based on your professional experience. With Richards pile of books on which to stand you can make a mighty strong case based on the antennas you have personally built. Experts said the same about the Rhode Island antenna but the ham in the street seems to be happy with it.! Ofcourse you can show your academic ability in telling the group WHY it "cannot possibly work:" or wait for another expert to state ":why" to save face. Both of you state it can't work, won't work or the whole thing is a myth. Don't you feel you owe the group a professional explanation on which you are basing your findings? And I don't mean because YOU said it but on the basis of mathematics or something of similar kind. After all this time I have been studying this thing I could still be in error and I would welcome a professional expose if it would save trouble for the posters and where I can sincerely apologise for my aproach to this antenna which nobody has faulted with explanation as yet. Is this "don't make it guys" a pure professional aproach designed to save your fellow friends from harm or is it an emotional thing that you are pushing in response to you book writings being dissed? I presented a series of graphs that I measured with this antenna on unwinantennas.com so you could comment about that even tho you may have been looking for other information that was not there.You could also state to the many naysayers why you ,as a professional and a judge ,why it reflect a dummy load and the implication of the oscillations. All these would earn you respect that could overcome your anger at somebody daring to question your writings in public and certainly would do something to negate your present passion for hate. Can you do that for your fellow hams or is there some delight in seeing them struggle and spend while you are laughing at alll. Be a real ham and help your fellow hams after all the hobby is more than making money from them. As far as only Richard being academic I would remind you he is only quoting from books all of which do not address this design so his comments are speculative to say the least where he does not share the professional underpinnings of his speculations given with a sneer. Art, I have never said your antennas don't work, and I have not seen your graphs. In fact I've never commented one way of the other concerning your antennas. I did make one negative comment concerning your dialogs with the others, but I have not commented on the content of your rhetoric. Furthermore, I was not privy to any of the Dr. Davis posts, even though you have accused me of siding against him. If you doubt this just go back and check the various posts around the era when Dr. Davis is said to have posted and you'll not find any of my posts concerning him or the discussions concerning him. And you have mistaken one Richard for the other. Richard C is the one who began the comedy in this thread, while Richard H is the one who posted academically. Are you aware of these two distinguished posters on this thread? Walt, W2DU Are you saying that one of the Richards is responsible for the ' comedy that you are enjoying and not me? Then you should have the courage to say so. Richard C I know can stand on his own feet and respond rather than you hiding behind ambiguety. At the same time I do not remember the two Richards having a discourse with each other on my antenna which if so you could have made your statement more deffinitive.! Frankly your response does not ring true and I certainly would not wish you to continue with your anger against him. But again you are intent on letting somebody know of your contempt because you haven't fully vented your anger. I suggest you put this sort of verbage to one side and view tomorrow as a new day Art, I'm not angry with anyone. What gave you that notion? I have not indicated an anger, nor have I had any intent of letting anyone know of any contempt (because I have none) or that I haven't fully vented my anger. What anger? Where is this coming from? Certainly not from me. If you're addressing me with such outrageous concerns you are either mistaking me for someone else, or else you must have too many Gaussians between your ears that have addalpated your brain cells. Concerning the two Richards, check the recent posts on this thread. Walt, W2DU As I said I assumed that your hillarity was over my antenna. You certainly did not make it clear it was the other Richard. Maybe I am getting to sensitive to attacks and thus showing I still have possesion of some testerone. Apparently this time I can relax as I am not the one in the barrel tho that is not a good thing to say. Have a good week end Art Ok Walter I have now read RCs post, I don't normally read his posts But I don't find his comment hillarious. I never mentioned Neutrons or zip cord and his use of zip cord does not show any evidence of the wires crossing each other from one coil to another so he is imposing a lumped load which is opposite to the intent of the design! Then he stated he had achieved equilibriumwhat ever that word means to him All in all it just doesn't make sense to me as always. I rarely can figure out what RC is trying to say since he mixes truth with lies as with a Shakesperien play, which is why I do not read him and thus hillarity has escaped me. I certainly have no idea what Franks response to RCs post signifies either What a mess occurs when one solely tries to deceive! I am ready for a couple of quiet days out of town despite the cost of Gauss |
Part of Too Many
Art wrote:
"Of course you can show your academic ability in telling the group WHY it "cannot possibly work" or wait for another expert to state "why" to save face." No one is saving face or conspiring against a new idea. You can`t break the laws of physics no matter how hard you try. Antenna performance is based on lengths of wire in the air and the currents in them. Take a broadside array for example. It is usual to drive current through all the elements of a plane in the same phase so that the fields at a distant point perpendicular to the plane of the array are additive to make a large signal. It is a matter of radiator lengths and currents. Now consider a small diameter coil as a radiator. It is called an radial mode helix because radiation is radial (perpendicular to the axis of the coil). It has two extremes. If collapsed, the coil becomes a single loop. If stretched to its maximum, the coil becomes a straight wire. If controlled so that the same magnitude and direction of current flows in all configurations, the straight-wire version of this coil should produce the greatest radiated field strength perpendicular to the coil axis in the far field. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Part of Too Many
Art Unwin wrote:
... Art Yanno, I just don't get it ... In looking back, over decades, I see that I, most likely, learned more from antennas I have built which didn't work, than the ones I built which worked extremely well ... sounds stupid on the surface, I know--but, none the less, true. There is a thread running now on the lazy h antenna--never one of my favorites. But hey, look what the guy is learning that started that thread! And, he seems determined, if it is a great antenna--he'll know by the time he is done! Many of my mistakes were in my own construction(s.) A wire crossed to the wrong point--miscalculation of lengths/inductances/capacitances/etc. Sometimes I had built and written off an antenna, only to look, at some later date, at one someone else had built (and which functioned well) to see my mistake(s.) Sometimes the antennas just didn't work as expected, and they never were going to; and, even if I came across someone claiming they had one "working", and I examined it closely, while under use--I might see they only wished it to work well. Were they "wrong?", well, yes and no ... obviously they were chatting someone up! Remove all the fun from amateur radio and you are just left with a bunch of angry "Brass Bangers!" Or, forever boy scouts at a contest ... :-) Regards, JS |
Part of Too Many
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:40:21 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: I never mentioned Neutrons You can't spell is why (neutrino). It still amounts to the same thing: an antenna designed to suppress the signal to optimize sub-atomic particles with their weak force. Further modeling has borne out how weak: varying between the -30s dB and -40s dB. No other data has been submitted to contradict what has been witnessed for three centuries by millions of operators. As I have offered throughout this thread: proof positive that an antenna optimized for the equilibrium of the Weak Force must suppress signal to qualify. By the authur's intent, design, construction details, expressed logic, and demonstration through models and in dependant testing, that suppression has left only a Weak Force. Further improvement in modeling and construction may yet achieve -60dB levels of signal degradation to achieve a superior Weak Force antenna example. This is truly deserving of a patent - except that the PTO mandates it must have some commercial gain. Can one express it as -60dB$ ? Would you be able to find a coin that small struck at the Denver Mint? The tax mil would only be -30dB$. Would one need a 1000 bay unwinantenna to equal on mil of monetary gain? What would its carbon footprint be when a Henry fed it? Ah, the infinite intrigue of Weak Force Antennas (hope the authur realizes this may lead to a trademark infringement). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Part of Too Many
Art Unwin wrote:
I am ready for a couple of quiet days out of town despite the cost of Gauss Simply priceless. Dave K8MN |
Part of Too Many
On Jul 11, 11:57 pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Art wrote: "Of course you can show your academic ability in telling the group WHY it "cannot possibly work" or wait for another expert to state "why" to save face." No one is saving face or conspiring against a new idea. You can`t break the laws of physics no matter how hard you try. Antenna performance is based on lengths of wire in the air and the currents in them. Take a broadside array for example. It is usual to drive current through all the elements of a plane in the same phase so that the fields at a distant point perpendicular to the plane of the array are additive to make a large signal. It is a matter of radiator lengths and currents. Now consider a small diameter coil as a radiator. It is called an radial mode helix because radiation is radial (perpendicular to the axis of the coil). It has two extremes. If collapsed, the coil becomes a single loop. If stretched to its maximum, the coil becomes a straight wire. If controlled so that the same magnitude and direction of current flows in all configurations, the straight-wire version of this coil should produce the greatest radiated field strength perpendicular to the coil axis in the far field. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI I don't know where you get this straight busines from. the wire will radiate no matter what shape as long as it is in equilibrium which means straight or otherwise. No law says it must be straight or else unless you can show it to me. The helix is not straight! Making a helix a full wave circuit gets rid of the counterpoise, it does not stop radiation. Kraus suggests that a helix can supply a 16 db gain which is very high but tnever the less gain can be achieved. So I do not see the point that you are silently dwelling aponto justufy that it can,t work as well as radiators MUSt be at right angles to the earths surface for maximum vertical gain. You have never explained the u nderpinnings of your statements in academic form without which there is nothing I can debate with you |
Part of Too Many
I certainly have no idea what Franks response to RCs post signifies
either What a mess occurs when one solely tries to deceive! I am ready for a couple of quiet days out of town despite the cost of Gauss The idea was to model your antenna. The code is there for anyone to verify in case I have made an error. The model results, including input impedance, and gain, are shown below the code listing. The GH card is in NEC 4 format. All other cards conform to NEC 2. 73, Frank |
Part of Too Many
On Jul 12, 12:15 pm, "Frank" wrote:
I certainly have no idea what Franks response to RCs post signifies either What a mess occurs when one solely tries to deceive! I am ready for a couple of quiet days out of town despite the cost of Gauss The idea was to model your antenna. The code is there for anyone to verify in case I have made an error. The model results, including input impedance, and gain, are shown below the code listing. The GH card is in NEC 4 format. All other cards conform to NEC 2. 73, Frank My program is not Nec based so I am not familiar with that routine., I cant model my antenna because of the pre twisted wires. I can however model a combination of two helix antennas without interweaving into one circuit. where one helix antenna is slightly larger diameter than the other My program shows instances of gain! So the question becomes is your model based on zip cord which is suggested by one and secondly what was the reason for the combimation of two antennas to shrivle away into dust or the equivalent of a dummy load. It is also suggested that antennas such as this are breaking the laws of nature so does your program show the arrival of doom ?. I am making this antenna very frequently and all these things predicted are just not happening. But then I would never use zip cord or violate the rules of nature if I was advised which one I was violating but apparently that is a secret. So Frank what is the antenna configuration etc that your program represents so that I can understand the particulars that you have so genouresly probided so all may share |
Part of Too Many
On Jul 11, 11:57 pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Art wrote: "Of course you can show your academic ability in telling the group WHY it "cannot possibly work" or wait for another expert to state "why" to save face." No one is saving face or conspiring against a new idea. You can`t break the laws of physics no matter how hard you try. Correct Please point to the particular law that I am breaking, that would really help out a lot Antenna performance is based on lengths of wire in the air and the currents in them. By performance you meam energy in vesus radiation out as with a closed arbitary border. Take a broadside array for example. It is usual to drive current through all the elements of a plane in the same phase so that the fields at a distant point perpendicular to the plane of the array are additive to make a large signal. It is a matter of radiator lengths and currents. That is for a radiator based around intercoupling of radiators not one based on radiation per unit length of radiator The "large" signal is a resuly of how the radiation is arranged. It does not create extra radiation it just removes radiation fro one arear to supplement radiation in other areas. It does not create more radiation per radiator unit length Now consider a small diameter coil as a radiator. A loop radiator or did you mean a coil? It is called an radial mode helix because radiation is radial (perpendicular to the axis of the coil). No. That is definitely not true! It has two extremes. If collapsed, the coil becomes a single loop. Wire stays the same length ala apples with apples If stretched to its maximum, the coil becomes a straight wire. Ok. still the same amount of wire If controlled so that the same magnitude and direction of current flows in all configurations, the straight-wire version of this coil should produce the greatest radiated field strength perpendicular to the coil axis in the far field. This doesn't radiate more per unit energy supplied. Ther is no total increase of radiation per energy put in. Hmm so now you are moving away from total radiation to a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation So your radiator is very lossy as much as it has gain, which adds up to total radiation per unit length You forgot to make your point. My antenna with the same wire length has the same radiation as yours does per unit length of radiator so in your casev some how the ratio root LC became smaller while the wire stayed the same lengthj! How did that happen? You are saying that a straight radiator produces more radiation per unit length than any other antenna that does not have a straight position such that the radiation per unit length reduces the efficiency of the radiator the ability of producing radiation. So this is where we part since for a given length in equilibrium root LC is always the same thus so is the radiation. Is this a law that I am violating? What does the law state? RH this is my last shot of trying to analyse what you are saying that leads to the demise of my antenna. Now be specific for once and respond to each which I have high ligted. And as a final comment describe how one helix antenna radiates more than two helix anteena made of opposite polarisation because you continue to suggest this despite the fact we have doubled the wire!. Let us come to finality with respect to what you have been pushing for the last decade, P.S I am in St Louis for a get away and it is to hot and humid to go out. Makes sense? Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Part of Too Many
John Smith wrote:
"There is a thread runnung now on the lazy H antenna--never one of my favorites.: Yes. I believe it started with the question: "Has anyone ever actually built a Lazy H for 10 or 11 meters?" Although I`ve built many antennas for 33 MHz, a frequency assigned to a company I worked for over a long period of time, none of those were Lazy H`s. I have built many Lazy H`s for several other frequency bands used for shortwave broadcasting but 10 and 11 meters are not assigned to broadcasting. The Lazy H, with a plane of phased resonant reflectors directly behind to make the array unidtrectional, is one of the most popular for shortwave broadcasting. The highest frequency band I`ve used is the 17 MHz band. Nothing significant will happen if the same 17 MHz antenna is scaled for 29 MHz. In fact our shortwave antennas were physically modeled at 450 MHz, before the first full-sized shortwave antenna was ever built, just to prove the design. Measurements on big and little antennas proved both to give the same results. I`m inclined to believe the questioner made some mistake and there is nothing wrong with a properly designed and constructed Lazy-H antenna on any frequency. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:34 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com