|
I'm in the process of compiling a "Tide
Table" for Art. The period is fairly predictable, it's the variations that are a bit tricky, haven't got a handle on all those, yet. Observations would be appreciated... 'Doc Art has period? That would 'splain it. My wife gets puzzling when she gets the period. We just have a full moon, maybe tides are tied with periods, so mark your calendahs. F%$#& Sopranos are on! Sure beats medium impedance Q tip circuits (circus?), whatever, fugettaboutit. One has to first comprehend the current distribution in the loading coils, then can proceed to other charted waters. Bada BUm |
Art, KB9MZ wrote:
"Now go back to your books since your memory is poor and check out what restrictions apply." My statement was: "A parallel resonant circuit is a high impedance (low admittance)." I reaffirm that statement. It assumes a high-quality circuit. It is general and nonspecific. It is not all-inclusive. It allows exceptions. In the ideal case, only perfect inductance and capacitance comprise the circuit. Z = XL/R. As R goes to zero, Z goes to infinity. The impedance of a parallel resonant circuit is: Q(XL). Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Well you are too far gone down memory lane, you are unable to focus for any
length of time and can't remember things or what you have said in the past.No wonder you keep close to books, your memory has gone. Now go back to your book and see that the high impedance comes from a parallel circuit with lumped components to which radiation is not considered and there is no length to the connections between them. It does not mean that a radiating antenna which is in a parallel configuration will have a high impedance., It can have a high impedance or even a low impedance and you must account for distributed loads in any of your calculations to determine whether it will be high or low when the bandpass array is resonant. Now you probably will not find that statement in a book so you are in the hole with no way of getting out. You just blew it and you are stuck with the statements you made including the one that states that such an arrangement violates all the laws of nature as well as remembering what post you are responding to. Or is that deliberate because you found it embarrasing to think of responding to it, as you have not got the ability to speak in fractured English like Shakespeare which allows for a lot of wriggle room. I leave it at that and maybe while you are still alive somebody will be kind to you and explain that which you cannot comprehend or if you are still around in a couple of years you may be able to read it for yourself when it is in print. I didn't really expect that you could come up with anything of detail, just words Bye "Richard Harrison" wrote in message ... Art, KB9MZ wrote: "Now go back to your books since your memory is poor and check out what restrictions apply." My statement was: "A parallel resonant circuit is a high impedance (low admittance)." I reaffirm that statement. It assumes a high-quality circuit. It is general and nonspecific. It is not all-inclusive. It allows exceptions. In the ideal case, only perfect inductance and capacitance comprise the circuit. Z = XL/R. As R goes to zero, Z goes to infinity. The impedance of a parallel resonant circuit is: Q(XL). Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 06:11:32 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote: fractured English like Shakespeare Art, Why do you hate Brits so? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard, Art doesn't dislike 'Brits', in fact he identifies with them! Art does seem to have an adversion to people who have had a formal education, (you can 'see' that from his seeming allergy to anything out of books). I don't think that Art realizes that it would be impossible for an average person to learn the present knowledge base of electronics (or most any field) by experimentation, the average person wouldn't live long enough. Reading 'those' books is a necessity, not an option. I also think, from just observing Arts attitudes from his postings, that Art has a 'problem' of a physical nature. His attitude changes periodically, and that period is fairly rhythmic. That's not a 'put down', I'm not making fun of Art. It is an easily verified observation, based on over 20 years of experience in a 'sort of' related job where I had to deal with similar people. I'm saying this with honest and well meaning intentions in the hopes that Art will do something about it, if possible. And that's it. I won't make any more comments about Art... 'Doc PS - And just as a reminder, the "Doc" has no formal meaning, it's just a nick name. |
Yuri, ...Ah, I don't think it's the same thing Yuri. 'Doc |
Art, KB9MZ wrote:
"It does not mean that a radiating antenna which is in the parallel configuration will have a high impedance." Parallel configuration can mean several things. I will take it to mean the antenna shares some of the characteristics of a parallel resonant circuit. Experience is that an end-fed 1/2-wave antenna has a high feedpoint resistance while an end-fed 1/4-wave antenna has a low feedpoint resistance. Since Art is hunting discrepancies, 1/2-wave and 1/4-wave are only approximate wavelengths. Resonant lengths in an antenna are shorter than free-space wavelengths due to reduced velocity along a wire and due to capacitive effects near the open-circuit at the end of the wire. For a given power input to the antenna, the feedpoint voltage rises as the feedpoint impedance rises. See Ohm`s law. In 1949 I worked in a broadcast plant where two stations shared the same tower. Both had frequencies, 950 KHz and 1320 KHz, that were higher than the 1/4-wavelength frequency of the tower which was designed for the previous occupant of the plant. Its frequency was around 740 KHz. The 1/2-wave resonant frequency of the tower might have been around 1480 KHz. The high length of the tower was still enough to make it a high impedance at its operating frequencies. 1320 KHz is emanating from that that tower as I type. It is hot as a pistol. Big arcs can be drawn at the base of the tower. Art`s question was: "What is it about parallel circuits that makes them unsuitable?" Like Johnny Carson, I may have given the answer before revealing the Question. A parallel resonant circuit shares the high impedance trait with an end-fed wire near 1/2-wave long. A series resonant circuit shares the low impedance trait with and end-fed wire near 1/4-wave long. A 1/4-wave series resonant circuit antenna with an open-circuit end produces a low impedance at its driven end through an impedance inversion caused by the reflected energy arriving back at the drive point. Radiation and other resistance prevent the reflected wave from causing a complete short-circuit at the drive point. When I say a radiating antenna in the parallel configuration (Art`s words) will have a high impedance (the 1/2-wave repeats high impedance caused by the open circuit), it will mean that its radiation resistance has grown with its length and its reactance will be zero if the antenna length has reached 2nd resonance, or the reactance is non-zero between resonant lengths. High and low are relative terms. The questions should be, how high? or how low? Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Mark Keith" wrote in message om... "aunwin" wrote in message news:U2w2c.130951$4o.169497@attbi_s52... No Cecil it is not about transmission lines it is about a parallel circuit that radiates. Where did he mention transmission lines? I thought he was comparing a 1/2 wave dipole to a full wave dipole as far as circuit description... Most of this group are Americans so they all read a book for a formula that might fit what we are talking about. All? I think not, Art... One trots out a simple formula for the Q of a parallel circuit and yells Eureeeeeka and they all follow like Lemmings hooking themselves on this formula that they found in a book. They did? I guess I missed it... It is a really simple formula but did anybody think for themselves? I can ONLY think for myself. I have failed to master the art of thinking for others... Ofcourse they didn't, its a simple formula so all that is needed is to parrot it out and follow people who yell loudly that they know what they are talking about. I have no idea what you are talking about... Roy and Shakespeare started it off years ago, yes Wes and many others followed suit and Walter, well he said nothing. I thought Shakespeare was an old fart that lived in England. How did he join this illustrious grouping of Americans? Now I ask you Cecil they trot out this formula for Q, it is in books so they feel safe or it would not be in a book right? Right? Now I ask you Cecil if you make an antenna array and you decide that you require an input Z for this array what other values do you need for this very simple formula bearing in mind that is a parallel circuit containing a capacitor of unknown value a inductance of unknown value and then come up with an air of knoweledge. Why are the values unknown? But even discarding that question, what is the big deal about designing a parallel circuit? I've done it many, many times. The formula for Q never even entered my skull. I really don't even need inductance or cap values. Why? Cuz I'm the wizard of burdine street....:/ I work from sense of smell. :) But I'll give you a hint as it applies to a base fed 10m 1/2 wave vertical. The usual cap value is appx 50 pf. Didn't need no stinkin formula to come up with that...Dang...I must surely be cracked to work the way I do... Isn't it crazy ? On top of all that they use a formula that is in a book without determining where it comes from and what it is relevant to and what the simple values represent. I'm curiuous...Who was the American that offered this formula for parallel circuits? I must have missed it. Reg saw the problem a long while ago but I think he looked to the sky, shook his head and maybe snickered to himself. I think Reg does that nearly every day. If the wine and "entertainment" is good, he may even snicker out loud... I am sure he knows that when you use a formula you can't pick and choose what you insert in a formula. If you are thinking impedance, resistance or whatever and you have a huge physical circuit that contains yards and yards of members that radiate as well as connecting to other passive circuits one would figure that these radiating members would have an impact on this simple circuit that was in a book. What simple circuit? What book? And right from the beginning none of them know how long these members are and what diameter and the configuration is even tho they keep spewing their technical garbage because after all they are experts and thus they determine who is right or wrong, whether they be manufacturers, antenna designers or learning amateurs. Why do we not know what diameter and the configuration is? Who's fault is this? So tell me Cecil the parallel circuit is in a book and for years I have tried to get people to think for themselves but they can't because this simple formula is in a book so any thinking goes out the window. Can we spell broke record? Art, again, I ONLY think for myself. You couldn't afford my price to think for you, or any others... I don't think for free. Besides, I don't need any extra leads or wiring coming out of my ears, mouth, or my other skull openings... I find it unbelievable that so many technical people this side of the pond did not even think of looking beyond a book that has this formula in it with only three components and not one thought about inserting figures into it and resolving things for themselves. I will find it amazing if anyone can understand what the heck you are harping about...Frankly, all this extended diatribe is confusing to most I think. Double so, if you are an ignorant redneck like me... Yup the idea of figuring out all those resistances was too much for them so they sat back and trotted out phrases from a book that referred to a simple bandpass circuit possibly the size of a finger nail and then sat back and said it was good enough for a 160 meter antenna as we can ignore the wire or radiating members up there as being inconsequential. As previously noted. It's hard to understand what the heck you are talking about. I remember no such thing ocurring...Thread name? I ask you Cecil as one who has also also bore the brunt of uneducated attacks what were they taught at school over here that allowed them to bandy this formula around without understanding what it means. Cecil was attacked? Did he survive? Did the formula survive? No, don't tell me it is beyond anybody to provide a reasonable explanation Ok, I won't... all they care about is crowding around Madame Guilliotine and cheering as somebody gets killed. http://www.stud.hh.se/org/hasp/02/gala/6.html I see them cheering and crowding around her, but I see no body... Gentlemen if I can call you that No, I'm a redneck. Most "gentlemen" shave their legs, and eat quiche energy bars... go now back to your books and figure out the pertinent figures that is needed for this simple formula Why? Will there be a test? and then think about all those nasty things Nasty? Whoa daddy, stand back....He's hurling a nasty... you have said O and by the way remember you can add a shunt resistance if the impedance ratio gets a bit high but then you will have to go back to a book to find out where to put it, He will? What if he doesn't own the book? I could tell you but I will refrain, a couple of years to figure it out may be beneficial Typical....What, is this some big dark secret? I think we should rename this group, rec.radio.peyton.place :/ MK Once upon a time I went to see a demonstration of a device that was suppose to generate more power than it consumed. Not that I thought the device had a snow flakes chance in hell of working but I find thse sorts of event entertaining. Whenever questioned the guy making the presentation would either spout endless techno-babble, blame his failure on the media and power companies, take it as an attack on his religion, or just claim the person questioning him was being rude. For a few hundred dollars you may invest now in a device that will be worth hundreds of thousands in the future as soon as I iron out this one little problem, he says. Trouble is I am not sure if this guy is an out an out fraud or someone who jsut doesnt understand you cant create enery from nothing. Sound like anyone we know? |
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message ... Art, KB9MZ wrote: "It does not mean that a radiating antenna which is in the parallel configuration will have a high impedance." Parallel configuration can mean several things. I will take it to mean the antenna shares some of the characteristics of a parallel resonant circuit. So now 'WILL' can now be read as 'CAN' with respect to impedance 'EXCEPT' in the case of circuitry where radiation is ignored At last,..... at last.... even tho grudgingly. So now you cannot use that as a reason for me to lie about my having an antenna in parallel form You CAN have a low resistance of 1 ohm or you CAN have one 1000 ohms so play your silly games about me being a lier, don't hold your breath, have no integrity and also a thief, all of which have been thrown at me because I stated I have a rotatable beam for 160 meters that has a moveable 5 khz pass band. Now you have the problem of explaining to people that you can have a parallel arrangement for an antenna and we were wrong to focuss on the high impedance aproach to accuse Art of lying and all the other accusations that was thrown at him. Now ask the people involved why they refused to check for themselves or do they have a backup technical augument. You made a point about the loop dipole well the patent office accepted it as viable even tho my writing was not clear because they had a samplke. The University of Illinois accepted it for review ( Yes I spoke also to the professor of Log periodic fame as well, very interesting person) The antenna director in charge or general Boss stated my claims were confirmed. So the antenna experts in this group don't understand how it functions so immediately get in to gear to attack. Didn't Walter lead the last attack on a guy, any attempt to squash inovation. Now I can rest peacefully seeing that you are exposed for what you are. Now when you see the next antenna in print you can chant what all followers say....Well I knew that all the time, at least that is my experience when I come up with something. The problem is that some people get degrees by choice of multiple answers with a circular sweep of a pencil to make a dot, first principles don't matter diddly as it is in a book written just like that.. |
I have often stated that I suffer from Manic Depression and some other
defects and yes some have made fun of it. But I do not work at a post office and do not carry a gun with me at all times for when I get angry. And yes I do try to control manic thoughts. I did not choose the illnes but I have chosen to live with it the best I can. It is for that reason I decided to focus on antennas as a way of removing myself from a bed. Yes it was very hard to concentrate and learn especially when reading Field and Wave books but now I can atleast venture outside and play with antennas. Now you have a fresh bunch of information to ridicule, have at it. "'Doc" wrote in message ... Richard, Art doesn't dislike 'Brits', in fact he identifies with them! Art does seem to have an adversion to people who have had a formal education, (you can 'see' that from his seeming allergy to anything out of books). I don't think that Art realizes that it would be impossible for an average person to learn the present knowledge base of electronics (or most any field) by experimentation, the average person wouldn't live long enough. Reading 'those' books is a necessity, not an option. I also think, from just observing Arts attitudes from his postings, that Art has a 'problem' of a physical nature. His attitude changes periodically, and that period is fairly rhythmic. That's not a 'put down', I'm not making fun of Art. It is an easily verified observation, based on over 20 years of experience in a 'sort of' related job where I had to deal with similar people. I'm saying this with honest and well meaning intentions in the hopes that Art will do something about it, if possible. And that's it. I won't make any more comments about Art... 'Doc PS - And just as a reminder, the "Doc" has no formal meaning, it's just a nick name. |
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:09:08 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote: Art, KB9MZ wrote: "It does not mean that a radiating antenna which is in the parallel configuration will have a high impedance." Parallel configuration can mean several things. I will take it to mean the antenna shares some of the characteristics of a parallel resonant circuit. Does not lead to: You CAN have a low resistance of 1 ohm or you CAN have one 1000 ohms Parallel resonant circuits exhibit a high impedance, there are no other interpretations. ( Yes I spoke also to the professor of Log periodic fame as well, very interesting person) "Broadband Logarithmically Periodic Antenna Structures," 1957 IRE National Convention Record, Part 1. Dwight E. Isbell, U.S. Patent No. 3,210,767 teaches: "...directivity... was better than 9db over isotropic." "Advantageously, however, the antennas of the invention need no adjusting for their performance over a wide band width compared to the parasitic types...." "The longest dipole element should be approximately 0.47 wavelength long." It is difficult to mis-interpret this patent as it is only 5 pages long with two of those pages as illustrations, and the last page is less than half full of text. We may note many design issues that Art has taken umbrage of having been pointed out repeatedly 1.) half wave, full size dipoles (series resonant structures); 2.) wide bandwidth as an advantage; 3.) comparison to standards, in this case isotropic; 4.) no loads or components adding to complexity (no adjustments); 5.) Dwight Isbell learned his craft from books and instructors who wrote those ( -gasp!- ) books (he was a graduate student with R. H. DuHamel); 6.) Such information as we have about his design are found in ( -gasp!- ) books; 7.) furthermore, Mr. Isbell has never exhibited Netourette's Syndrome in these messages posted here. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard Clark wrote:
Parallel resonant circuits exhibit a high impedance, there are no other interpretations. What if the coil 'Q' was 0.001? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 13:35:39 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: What if the coil 'Q' was 0.001? Art would probably claim a patent on it for TPI efficiency. |
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:09:08 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote: The following excerpt is lifted directly from the Patent database for patent 5,625,367 at: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=IN/unwin-art So the antenna experts in this group don't understand how it functions We need only observe that public record, to observe an obvious error: "To increase the directivity of such an antenna, a parasitic reflector element, usually tuned to a frequency slightly higher than the driver resonant frequency, can be placed parallel to the driver element along the boom. For further increased directivity, one or more director elements, usually tuned to frequencies slightly lower than the driver resonant frequency, can be placed at various distances along the boom on the other side of the driver element and parallel to the driver element." the patent office accepted it as viable even tho my writing was not clear because they had a samplke. Well, um, yes, perhaps.... Is this samplke patented too? The source of your grief with books, trade magazines, periodicals, seminars, professionally juried papers, reports, educators, instructors, hams, engineers, citizen banders, Boy Scouts, and the rest appears to be in the near universality of their teaching that directors are tuned higher and reflectors are tuned lower than the driven element. Such inversions are consistent in your writings tho' with the backwards interpretations of Q, Series/Parallel resonance, Efficiency (did I forget anything?). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard Clark wrote:
This is a product of your shortfall of experience and instruction. I can construct a bandpass circuit using only resistors and capacitors. There is NOTHING resonant there. Are you not aware that resistors and capacitors possess inductance? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"Are you not aware that resistors and capacitors possess inductance?" Richard Clark well knows that. I`d wager he was thinking of curtailing low-frequency transmission with a small coupling capacitance. He could then limit high-frequency response with a large capacitance shunting the transmission path. Or, he could have been thinking of a gyrator. With both high-frequwncy and low-frequencies limited, a band-pass filter results. Op-amp gain and feedback produce a rich variety of response tailoring possibilities. I bought and installed a Thordarson resonant equalizer in one of the 2A3 amplifiers I used to build long ago. It`s amazing the difference passband slopes can make in the sound. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:09:08 GMT, "aunwin" wrote: The following excerpt is lifted directly from the Patent database for patent 5,625,367 at: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=IN/unwin-art So the antenna experts in this group don't understand how it functions We need only observe that public record, to observe an obvious error: "To increase the directivity of such an antenna, a parasitic reflector element, usually tuned to a frequency slightly higher than the driver resonant frequency, can be placed parallel to the driver element along the boom. For further increased directivity, one or more director elements, usually tuned to frequencies slightly lower than the driver resonant frequency, can be placed at various distances along the boom on the other side of the driver element and parallel to the driver element." the patent office accepted it as viable even tho my writing was not clear because they had a samplke. Well, um, yes, perhaps.... Is this samplke patented too? I feel I have to answer this diatribe The error refered to above was made by me and at least one person made a huge meal out of it in poast posts. After I did my initial experiments I decided I wanted it in the record. Past experience on this ney showed that change is not readily accepted but I felt strongly enough on what I had found so a patent write up seemed logical. The cost of a patent is upwards of $10.000 which if one never had a patent some will pay. That was not the situation in my case. So I decided to try and do all the work myself. The main thing in patents are the claims , the claims and the claims and in legal matters that is what everything revolves around if your intent is to make money which is not my intent. The patent office requires you to give a disertation on prior art and also a portion where what you are claiming is something new. Yes I made an error with regard to yagi elements, an overcheck by somebody would have revealed that but I omitted to do that and obviously these portions of a patent aplication didn,t bother the patent office either. The patent office did ask for explanation and proof which tho costly I provided. They changed one claim and made it very restrictive with my permission as my desires was for record only and not for investment purposes and the patent was granted. So yes I made an error, I have stated this many times on this thread but it is a usefull tool to attack me even if not relavent. I have rejected any sugestions regarding making money from this or promoting it but I do defend the work that went into it as I do with with my present work which arouses anger as it is a fresh aproach to antennas. The source of your grief with books, trade magazines, periodicals, seminars, professionally juried papers, reports, educators, instructors, hams, engineers, citizen banders, Boy Scouts, and the rest appears to be in the near universality of their teaching that directors are tuned higher and reflectors are tuned lower than the driven element. Such inversions are consistent in your writings tho' with the backwards interpretations of Q, Series/Parallel resonance, Efficiency (did I forget anything?). With respect to my comments on books and the portions that people extract from them to present themselves as experts. It is not books themselves that I attack After allone must review the past to see the future. They provide the information that allows one to forge ahead AFTER you have received your education and not to provide one with an anchor that prevents thoughts of pushing the envelope. In this thread experts picked on a simple formula from a book as their anchor but they only trotted out the formula without care of the restrictions involved, This simple formula you will find pretty much in every technical book where filters are being discussed. The formula assumes that the little circuit does not radiate and the parts of the circuit are stuck together without connecting links such that radiation could be ignored. When I used that same circuit to make an antenna then I could not ignore the fact that connecting wires will radiate and thus any formula applied must include the radiating parts when using this simple formula, I saw no way around it. And the inclusion of the radiating parts thus did not duplicate the path of high impedance that unfolds with a simple parallel filter circuit where radiation is ignored. Actually I found that high impedance was not now a cast iron fact tho it did oftern result in high impedance hich was manageble. I then bought a professional computor program which as large enought to overcome errors that smaller programs can provide. The program came out with the same answers. So then I took even another step and made a antenna with accordance to the figures and again the answers proved O.K. I then computed another parallel circuit from a different filter form to see if all of this was one large error and by golly that worked as it should and I got on the air (160 metres) with the antenna in the horizontal position so it rotated and also in the vertical position ( it is smaller than normal wavelength designed antennas) and had some very nice QSO . The bottom line is that the antenna workes great and if the experts are totaly correct in resisting the idea I put before them then I have found an excelent placebo which does not account for the contacts made around the country and where I have yet to reqire an amplihier ( I do have one with 8877) So for the benefit for some readers who have just happened on this attack I am using the antenna that I describe. With respect to the patent antenna above people in this town have made them by themselves as I am not in any business mode just a sharing mode with fellow experimenters. For the umpteeth time , Yes I, made an error when I said that directer length and reflector lengths on a yagi as the wrong way around. I apologise profusely for misguiding people on what a yagi looks like, an error that would NOT occured if I shelled out $10,000 to lawyers instead of tackling the job myself. I agree that yagi directors are usually shorter than the driven element and a reflector is usually longer than the driven element, I was in error when I wrote otherwise. Best Regards Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG st73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:16:28 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote: I feel I have to answer this diatribe The usage of the word "diatribe" is an emotional attack on the simple statements of fact. Yes I made an error with regard to yagi elements, an overcheck by somebody would have revealed that but I omitted to do that and obviously these portions of a patent aplication didn,t bother the patent office either. Hence the Patent Office does not confer any judgement of validity to poor interpretations of science. So yes I made an error, I have stated this many times on this thread but it is a usefull tool to attack me even if not relavent. Here we find the emotional crutch of "attack" (characteristically without evidence). The relevance is in a lack of contrition. Your preference to reduce these discussions into diversions of personal and emotional outbursts with scatological and sexual innuendo simply underlines the poor logic. With respect to my comments on books and the portions that people extract from them to present themselves as experts. You, least of all, have no credentials to pass judgement on who and what constitutes authority. You have mocked careered Engineers trained in an art that is foreign to you (as evidenced by such egregious errors illustrated in the patent extract offered). What is more, you have rejected references in those books and their authors who have material that bears against your claims. Actually I found that high impedance was not now a cast iron fact tho it did oftern result in high impedance hich was manageble. I then bought a professional computor program which as large enought to overcome errors that smaller programs can provide. The program came out with the same answers. Let me observe one significant quality of engineering and science that is obvious to all in that community: it is the presentation of ideas with data and references. Insofar as this "claim" to have done this work with a program, we see nothing revealed in the nature or scope of that design, nor the publication of that design, nor published data. "Claims" in isolation of supporting material are not ideas. So then I took even another step and made a antenna with accordance to the figures and again the answers proved O.K. I then computed another parallel circuit from a different filter form to see if all of this was one large error and by golly that worked as it should and I got on the air (160 metres) This is called anecdotal evidence and within the engineering and scientific community is viewed with suspicion when no further details are offered. Does this sound familiar? I agree that yagi directors are usually shorter than the driven element and a reflector is usually longer than the driven element, I was in error when I wrote otherwise. And the error is compounded and propagated anew. USUALLY? This admission has to be qualified? No single example that diverges from the USUAL case is offered. Such statements as the one above illustrate the extremely poor quality of reportage that is long on unsubstantiated "claims" and totally devoid of any data. Let's consider, the various issues of Q, Efficiency, Resonance and such, have all been answered but are characteristically met with silence or evasion in response. We have been repeating this cycle for years and you provide no suggestion of amending, retracting, nor explaining your stance with the care that is found in scientific reportage. I have no doubt that you will also continue to abuse those who are held in higher esteem. I need only reflect on your recent outrageous mistreatment of Richard Harrison, KB5WZI, with your disgusting tone and vile gutter language. I then compare that to this gentleman's recent appeal for a Power supply that was met immediately with rapid responses from 5 different correspondents. You should be so lucky to have such spontaneous, willing, and appreciative compatriots who enthusiastically step forward to aid him. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:16:28 GMT, "aunwin" wrote: I feel I have to answer this diatribe The usage of the word "diatribe" is an emotional attack on the simple statements of fact. Yes I made an error with regard to yagi elements, an overcheck by somebody would have revealed that but I omitted to do that and obviously these portions of a patent aplication didn,t bother the patent office either. Hence the Patent Office does not confer any judgement of validity to poor interpretations of science. So yes I made an error, I have stated this many times on this thread but it is a usefull tool to attack me even if not relavent. Here we find the emotional crutch of "attack" (characteristically without evidence). The relevance is in a lack of contrition. Your preference to reduce these discussions into diversions of personal and emotional outbursts with scatological and sexual innuendo simply underlines the poor logic. With respect to my comments on books and the portions that people extract from them to present themselves as experts. You, least of all, have no credentials to pass judgement on who and what constitutes authority. You have mocked careered Engineers trained in an art that is foreign to you (as evidenced by such egregious errors illustrated in the patent extract offered). What is more, you have rejected references in those books and their authors who have material that bears against your claims. Actually I found that high impedance was not now a cast iron fact tho it did oftern result in high impedance hich was manageble. I then bought a professional computor program which as large enought to overcome errors that smaller programs can provide. The program came out with the same answers. Let me observe one significant quality of engineering and science that is obvious to all in that community: it is the presentation of ideas with data and references. Insofar as this "claim" to have done this work with a program, we see nothing revealed in the nature or scope of that design, nor the publication of that design, nor published data. "Claims" in isolation of supporting material are not ideas. So then I took even another step and made a antenna with accordance to the figures and again the answers proved O.K. I then computed another parallel circuit from a different filter form to see if all of this was one large error and by golly that worked as it should and I got on the air (160 metres) This is called anecdotal evidence and within the engineering and scientific community is viewed with suspicion when no further details are offered. Does this sound familiar? I agree that yagi directors are usually shorter than the driven element and a reflector is usually longer than the driven element, I was in error when I wrote otherwise. And the error is compounded and propagated anew. USUALLY? This admission has to be qualified? No single example that diverges from the USUAL case is offered. Such statements as the one above illustrate the extremely poor quality of reportage that is long on unsubstantiated "claims" and totally devoid of any data. Let's consider, the various issues of Q, Efficiency, Resonance and such, have all been answered but are characteristically met with silence or evasion in response. We have been repeating this cycle for years and you provide no suggestion of amending, retracting, nor explaining your stance with the care that is found in scientific reportage. I have no doubt that you will also continue to abuse those who are held in higher esteem. I need only reflect on your recent outrageous mistreatment of Richard Harrison, KB5WZI, with your disgusting tone and vile gutter language. I then compare that to this gentleman's recent appeal for a Power supply that was met immediately with rapid responses from 5 different correspondents. You should be so lucky to have such spontaneous, willing, and appreciative compatriots who enthusiastically step forward to aid him. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC So Americans dominate this thread and now you have the backing of all American experts that post regularly on this group regarding antennas.It is quite easy for a casual reader to run down the list of some of the posters many of which have written books and articles on antennas that gives legitamacy to your interpretations of science but even if their names are known to many I doubt it will enhance their reputation by their support. You have a tongue for Shakespeare which when spread around loosely may win debates but it cannot change science even tho Shakespearian literature is where you obtained your degree does provide benefits. It surely must be clear to readers that connections between passive lumped elements are elements that contain distributed passive elements and thus can radiate. These elements must clearly be accounted for in any real world arrangement. You and others have been succesfull in debating this as a non issue and parallel circuits must present a high impedance regardless of the parallel circuit that is employed including the case where I have made an assembly for radiating purposes in parallel form containing only passive devices. So no matter how successful you are in parying details or expanding responses with fractured English from Shakesperian times your knoweledge of old english literature does not trump the true facts of science. Smear all you want but those with a scientific background will not align themselves with you that all parallel circuits will have a high impedance tho if you answer the Question posed to you by Cecil asking if you are aware that even a resister has inductive properties it may provide reasons for fellow Americans to back you up against the World. Winning a debate seems more important to some people as obscuration always defeats education and some prefere the direction taken of some forums at the present time where anything goes. Well so be it, we have lost very many educated antenna information providers from this group because of personal attacks but it must be said that we have gained many more posters to the attack motives which are preferable to many so your idea of what this antenna net is all about will prevail. I really can't see how we can attract the younger generation to this hobby if we crush all ideas of free expression with the denial of anything new and only use the hobby as a platform to attack new ideas with the inference that the old guys know everything there is to know. If comunication in the hobby relies on verbal diarrea or DX converations then the hobby will most certainly die and we should step back from resisting those who want to use the frequencies for the common good and not the diminishing few. Computors have now become exciting to the next generations which is good, where verbal diarea is just a product of a fading hobby dominated by old people and old ideas. Nuff said ,for now America is to dominate how science is to be seen but the next thing is the World to dominate. Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG. |
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 20:04:46 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote: So Americans dominate this thread and now you have the backing of all American experts that post regularly on this group regarding antennas. Art, true to my forecast and your character, you dwell on personality to perpetuate unsubstantiated claims and to avoid technical discourse. Your first reaction is self-condemning. I am not interested in your poor opinion of world scientists and engineers. I note you spend very little time in correspondence with them here in the group, instead choosing to focus on your trivial issues. It is quite easy for a casual reader to run down the list of some of the posters many of which have written books and articles on antennas that gives legitamacy to your interpretations of science but even if their names are known to many I doubt it will enhance their reputation by their support. As if I cared.... You have a tongue for Shakespeare which when spread around loosely may win debates but it cannot change science even tho Shakespearian literature is where you obtained your degree does provide benefits. Would I be charged as playing Socrates if I employed the apparently Greek word Pathetic? Again, you choose to debate style rather than substance. Unfortunately you have even less capacity to go there. This continues the observation that you are far more interested in personalities than technical discussion. To your credit you are aware of your utter inferiority to challenge one who has command of the Queen's English and this no doubt throws chaos into the mix of your rejected allegiances. You and others have been succesfull in debating this as a non issue and parallel circuits must present a high impedance This was the topic of your own origination, note the subject line above as it is entirely your responsibility for its framing. You were responded to, to the points offered. It is clear that this forum's mandate for the discussion of technical issues holds no interest for you. I really can't see how we can attract the younger generation to this hobby Your vulgar gutter language is no attractive feature by any means. Nuff said ,for now America is to dominate how science is to be seen but the next thing is the World to dominate. Tell that to the Marines. I am not interested in your hate-America baiting. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 20:04:46 GMT, "aunwin" wrote: So Americans dominate this thread and now you have the backing of all American experts that post regularly on this group regarding antennas. Art, true to my forecast and your character, you dwell on personality to perpetuate unsubstantiated claims and to avoid technical discourse. Your first reaction is self-condemning. I am not interested in your poor opinion of world scientists and engineers. I note you spend very little time in correspondence with them here in the group, instead choosing to focus on your trivial issues. Well it is you who attacks not I and I will not turn the other cheek as would have me do. It is you and the other experts who say all parallel circuits must be high impedance not I. It is you who refuses to answer the question posed by Cecil asking if you were aware that even resistance has inductance. It is you that belittle the idea that one would make an antenna based on a filter circuit and ignore the fact that connection lines between lumped circuits actually radiate. It is you with the support of the other american experts who belittle the idea of devising an antenna that was not based on wavelength and I would readily admit that the names on the 'three simple answers' thread following this one are knoweledgable but in this case they are in error in supporting your point of contention as they are many times on this newsgroup when they regularly attack others. It is quite easy for a casual reader to run down the list of some of the posters many of which have written books and articles on antennas that gives legitamacy to your interpretations of science but even if their names are known to many I doubt it will enhance their reputation by their support. As if I cared.... Well you should, they all support your contention that All parallel circuits will have a high impedance as radiation is not regarded as a factor. I for one do not agree with the many experts on that one since they are refering to a special case as in small filter circuits, it does not apply when interconnections are taken into consideration. But then they write articles so they must be right and one of them has a zillion books that he can extract formulas from. You have a tongue for Shakespeare which when spread around loosely may win debates but it cannot change science even tho Shakespearian literature is where you obtained your degree does provide benefits. Would I be charged as playing Socrates if I employed the apparently Greek word Pathetic? Again, you choose to debate style rather than substance. Unfortunately you have even less capacity to go there. This continues the observation that you are far more interested in personalities than technical discussion. Well every thing hinges around antennas as far as I am concerned\ Cecil asked a antenna based question of you, that surely was not personal but you refuse to respond, why? To your credit you are aware of your utter inferiority to challenge one who has command of the Queen's English and this no doubt throws chaos into the mix of your rejected allegiances. What rejected allegiances are you refering to You and others have been succesfull in debating this as a non issue and parallel circuits must present a high impedance This was the topic of your own origination, note the subject line above as it is entirely your responsibility for its framing. You were responded to, to the points offered. It is clear that this forum's mandate for the discussion of technical issues holds no interest for you. You are fully are of why I posed the question and that was to force people to debate on parallel circuits from a scientific point of view. Yes, you were good at deception in suggesting you were serious this time and I acknow ledge that you were succesfull, now you want me to turn the other cheek to you because Americans on this forum back you up on a technical point which I disagree with. I told you before that I was English borne and I will stand firm if I am attacked even if those come from my adopted country. I really can't see how we can attract the younger generation to this hobby Your vulgar gutter language is no attractive feature by any means. Jimminy you of all people saying such a thing ! Nuff said ,for now America is to dominate how science is to be seen but the next thing is the World to dominate. Tell that to the Marines. I am not interested in your hate-America No, I do not hate America I came here by choice and by invitation which included money not an accident of birth ( it was an accident wasn't it or did your mother never tell you). America wants people from other countries desperately such that every ten years amnesty is offered to the rate of a million per year for those that enter illegally. Police do not interfere even if a crime is committed unless it is a serious felony . I have met many from Europe who now do the same thing, yes, old Europe also as on the accepted nation list for immigrationis lead by a dozen countries that are non white so it is quicker to get on a plane and come over. This is a free country and immigrants showed their value in Florida during the elections and will do so this time in other states to show their value and thanks for medical care andschooling for their children...all free because America wants them. However I was legal, all travelling expenses paid for including family. Even gave me a green card before I set foot in this land. As with all other immigrant americans I think this is a great country, certainly no complaints from me, my children and my grandchildren. True, immigrants are looked down upon but that happens in all countries but we do vote and have a real impact on this country as we do not have the need for viagra as much as those born here and thus soon will be a majority. Tell it to the servicemen you say, well yes I would even tho it was never said to me when I was in uniform. baiting. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Your turn, I am holding on a point of science and the antenna that I use and will not retreat even tho you appear to be well supported by " experts" on this side of the pond. I suspect that experts in other parts of the World are watching with a smile as reputations fall. Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG from East London but living quite well over here. Yes the mercedes I like to drive is an old one but I do have a new E type in one of my garages that I take out once a week. Large house and grounds, great pension for engineers from General Electric.. Social Security.IRAs..travels to Europe,.how can I be against America? And a big plus is my amateur Radio antenna that nobody else has because you say it is impossible amongst other things. Eat your heart out as you watch mexican immigrants walk across your yard every day because of where you live. You should have saved your money instead of procrastinating all your life and attacking people if they disagree with you. |
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 01:47:50 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote: Well it is you who attacks not I and I will not turn the other cheek Yo' Momma! as would have me do. It is you and the other experts who say all parallel circuits must be high impedance not I. :-) It is you who refuses to answer the question posed by Cecil asking if you were aware that even resistance has inductance. Gad, what triviality. Can you or he tell us how much? I won't hold my breath for that answer of Whining of Minimal Distraction. american experts who Like I said, I am not interested in your hate-America notions. It is quite easy for a casual reader to run down the list of some of the posters many of which have written books and articles on antennas that gives legitamacy to your interpretations of science but even if their names are known to many I doubt it will enhance their reputation by their support. As if I cared.... Well you should, And I still don't. This was the topic of your own origination, note the subject line above as it is entirely your responsibility for its framing. You were responded to, to the points offered. It is clear that this forum's mandate for the discussion of technical issues holds no interest for you. You are fully are of why I posed the question and that was to force people to debate on parallel circuits from a scientific point of view. Then take issue with yourself. because Americans on this More hate-America. Your turn, I am holding on a point of science and the antenna that I use and will not retreat even tho you appear to be well supported by " experts" on this side of the pond. I suspect that experts in other parts of the World are watching with a smile as reputations fall. .... dreaming in techniclowner and surrender sound. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 01:47:50 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote: Eat your heart out as you watch mexican immigrants walk across your yard every day because of where you live. This is possibly the most vile piece of white trash talk I have ever encountered. Both of my neighbors, of mexican heritage, to either side would take serious offense at your ignorant comments as I encourage their children to free roam my front and back yards in their innocent play. Your loathsome comments belong in the gutter. I will not offer my standard closing and simply sign, Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
This is great ! One benefit of standing up to the likes of you even tho it
is distastfull is that the more you write the more one can see who you really are. You and others have trashed many people over the years and yes nasty comments about jews and other antenna experts. Heck didn't Walter just finish trashing a guy about antennas. ( EH antennas was it) Even Roy Lewellen did the same thing until the tables turned on him and he left. Remember how you trashed Chip who talked about fractals, then you trashed some guy on EH antenas. There was also the guy who advertises a two element antenna ,boy you really trashed him and he left. Not sure why W8TI tom left tho I remember many arguements that ensued regarding his article in QST that many disagreed with. None of these guys are left even tho they had a huge knowledge about antennas so it must be galling to you that someone who you disagree with and are trying to trash is still here, still going like a ever ready battery and is standing up to you regarding a point of science and will not go away no matter how much you wriggle and turn or try to paint derogatory things .. Believe me I will hold my ground against you no matter what flowery language you constantly use which is really fractured english. And the so called experts can back you up as much as they want but I know that there are people in this world reading this thread who are wondering about their education. Spouting from a book is not enough, if you cannot understand the basics from which a formula is derived from then you are doomed to repeat conclusions about impedance in areas where they don't apply and it would appear that the so called experts are now fully exposed in the same way they have tried to expose and trash others. What goes around comes around. To imitate shakespeare is not enough to present yourself as an expert in technical matters, even I as a learner with respect to antennas can see that. What the World sees regarding all the experts is for themselves to decide. The technical point at hand is quite clear and has been stated clearly in this thread and I am absolutely positive that others outside of America fully understands where you and others have gone wrong. If it goes to print it will be in RADCOM of the U.K. which has not been contaminated as yet like QST and where I hope to supply names that are cherry picked who resist anything new. That will not include you since you are not seen to be a 'name' in antennas but there are plenty of quotes left to draw upon from the archives. Your turn Richard, keep writing as it can only be to my benefit for people to see you for what you are. You could respond to Cecils post however, remember he wants to know if you are aware that even a resister can have inductive qualities. The answer can be found in " As you like it" why are you so embarrased about a simple question? It is just a simple technical question. Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG "Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 01:47:50 GMT, "aunwin" wrote: Well it is you who attacks not I and I will not turn the other cheek Yo' Momma! as would have me do. It is you and the other experts who say all parallel circuits must be high impedance not I. :-) It is you who refuses to answer the question posed by Cecil asking if you were aware that even resistance has inductance. Gad, what triviality. Can you or he tell us how much? I won't hold my breath for that answer of Whining of Minimal Distraction. american experts who Like I said, I am not interested in your hate-America notions. It is quite easy for a casual reader to run down the list of some of the posters many of which have written books and articles on antennas that gives legitamacy to your interpretations of science but even if their names are known to many I doubt it will enhance their reputation by their support. As if I cared.... Well you should, And I still don't. This was the topic of your own origination, note the subject line above as it is entirely your responsibility for its framing. You were responded to, to the points offered. It is clear that this forum's mandate for the discussion of technical issues holds no interest for you. You are fully are of why I posed the question and that was to force people to debate on parallel circuits from a scientific point of view. Then take issue with yourself. because Americans on this More hate-America. Your turn, I am holding on a point of science and the antenna that I use and will not retreat even tho you appear to be well supported by " experts" on this side of the pond. I suspect that experts in other parts of the World are watching with a smile as reputations fall. ... dreaming in techniclowner and surrender sound. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:13:02 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote: Racist and hate comments snipped Your turn Richard, I see no further technical comment coming from you and I am certainly not going to respond to your hate-America and anti-immigrant comments any further. I will point out all errors you post, but I will no longer respond to your rebuttals. Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Heh I am for immigration that is why I am here. As the immigrtion population
gets larger the quicker american polotics will get turned around. But forget that let Cecil know what you understand regarding his question. It is you who is now demanding technical comunication which delights me but you refuse to respond to Cecils technical question that relates to what is being discussed. In your absence Richard responded on your behalf but there were assumptions about what you know. Surely you can respond to a simple technical question that falls into your field of expertise. Sooner or later you will run out of silly stuff and people are going to wonder why you don't respond possibly because your answer will expose your position with respect to parallel circuits. This thread carries an awfull lot of your position on parallel circuits for people to read. Justify your position for the rest of the World Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG and still hanging in there and resisting the trash. "Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:13:02 GMT, "aunwin" wrote: Racist and hate comments snipped Your turn Richard, I see no further technical comment coming from you and I am certainly not going to respond to your hate-America and anti-immigrant comments any further. I will point out all errors you post, but I will no longer respond to your rebuttals. Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
No it is not me, it was you who commented about immigrants walking across
your yard when you referred to me as some sort of immigrant when I disagreed with you in the past. You live thousands of miles away from me and I have not been to your State so that information was given to me by you or possibly passed as a second hand comment of you by one of your friends on the air. I have a large amount of mexicans and other nationalities living on my road and they are all doing well via the performance of hard work and their numbers have swelled in the thirty five years that I have lived in this community where they are welcome. We also have enough Indians that live here to support a full league for playing cricket which comprises of 100 plus young men many of which are temporary computor engineers for a local company. To be able to watch a game of cricket in the Midwest is just terrific as is being taken care of by the Indian doctors that abound. All of these immigrants are to the benefit of America and is why we are willing to give amnesty to so many. And you know you would be hard put to match the supreme technical knowledge that immigrants bring to this country especially since we now have to export jobs to find people who are capable. And you know many of the immigrants are placed into the military and fight for us on foreign shores. One of the american bases I visited a few years ago in Germany had a whole block of mexicans as residents in uniform which was not to shabby. Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG...still hanging in there and resisting being trashed on a technical issue. Your turn to show what you are made of to add to your description already revealed. "Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 01:47:50 GMT, "aunwin" wrote: Eat your heart out as you watch mexican immigrants walk across your yard every day because of where you live. This is possibly the most vile piece of white trash talk I have ever encountered. Both of my neighbors, of mexican heritage, to either side would take serious offense at your ignorant comments as I encourage their children to free roam my front and back yards in their innocent play. Your loathsome comments belong in the gutter. I will not offer my standard closing and simply sign, Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 04:25:53 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote: No it is not me, it was you who commented about immigrants walking across your yard Art, You are a liar. Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
But Richard you have called me that many times. I am fairly sure that the
comment was made by you on this very forum. And this forum has archives!. If you didn't comment about mexicans walking across your yard then somebody posted under your name. Calling me a liar doesn't phase me any more as it is a tactic that you often use when placed into a corner. Now on this technical thing just to remind you The Q formula supplied regarding filter circuits does not include radiation factors, it also assumes that connecting lengths are absent (which would normally radiate) Now my antenna is based on a parallel circuit such as a bandpass filter which means the connections are such that they do radiate. This must be taken into account if you trot out the normal Q formula espoused in books regarding various filter circuits. This can void what you state regarding parallel circuits and high impedance statements.In fact it doesnt have to be a filter type circuit to invalidate your position, I would imagine that many items placed in any parallel circuit would affect it simpedance but I will stay on track with regard to your statements. It is for this reason that Cecil asks if you are aware that even resisters have inductive properties which is a reasonable technical question based on what you have posted. The antenna that I have is based on a bandpass parallel circuit and is used for 160 metres and has a band pass of around 7 Khz which is moveable. This antenna offers a reasonable impedance which does not require an additional matching circuit so you call me a liar again because of your failure to understand what the formula for Q was founded upon when dealing with those small filter circuits to which the formula accompanies. That the so called antenna experts on this group agrees with you does not phase me a bit unless you come up with something completely new in an answer to Cecil. I am sure the experts will give you advice on what to say if you ask them as there is a definite conflict from this group with the rest of the World. You are welcome to work 160 metres on my antenna for yourself and measure anything you want IF you include a search method to reveal this high impedance which apparently cannot be avoided and thus be able to call me a liar to my face when you finally prove your position .Surely that will give you some satisfaction in finally placing my claim into a trash can and be able to tell the World that your technical assertions were proved to be correct. But then you could answer the question posed to you by another poster and achieve the same thing. So call me a lier or anything that you want, the more comments you make helps me to expose you for what you are. I am not going away for fear of being trashed over a technical point regardless of how many antenna experts support your position. because of a formula that is in a book. Still going, it must fraustrate you that someone who you are attempting to trash has not gone away as others have done when faced with attack. I am hoping for some gutter language to break loose as in the past so keep posting and help me out. Art Unwin...KB9MZ........XG, yes and also an alien from another country and paid well to come here and partake in the American dream which rewards hard work well where words only do not get the job done. Good night, will check back tomorrow to check out the language that surely will come out eventually so all can read for themselves.. "Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 04:25:53 GMT, "aunwin" wrote: No it is not me, it was you who commented about immigrants walking across your yard Art, You are a liar. Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"aunwin" wrote in message news:1Jv3c.510773$I06.5676239@attbi_s01...
This is great ! One benefit of standing up to the likes of you even tho it is distastfull is that the more you write the more one can see who you really are. You and others have trashed many people over the years and yes nasty comments about jews and other antenna experts. Art, that is just plain BS. Heck didn't Walter just finish trashing a guy about antennas. ( EH antennas was it) No, he just pointed out the guy is full of BS. Even Roy Lewellen did the same thing until the tables turned on him and he left. No, I suspect he got tired of beating his head against the wall trying to expose BS. Remember how you trashed Chip who talked about fractals, He didn't trash Chip. He just pointed out that certain aspects of his claims are basically BS. Actually, I think Steve Best was the leading "thug" in this case. then you trashed some guy on EH antenas. EH antennas? Do you think the claims applied to EH antennas are true? Yes or no? There was also the guy who advertises a two element antenna ,boy you really trashed him and he left. I don't know about this guy, but if he were trashed on this group, there was probably a valid scientific basis for it. Not sure why W8TI tom left tho I remember many arguements that ensued regarding his article in QST that many disagreed with. I suspect same reason as Roy...Got tired of the brick marks on his head from beating his head against the wall trying to expose BS. None of these guys are left even tho they had a huge knowledge about antennas OK, you say these two guys have a huge knowledge base. "Which I agree with" What was the conclusion of their study of your antenna plans? Did you agree with them? Or did you shun their advice, and claim they were wrong? Yes or no will do.. This is not trick question. so it must be galling to you that someone who you disagree with and are trying to trash is still here, still going like a ever ready battery and is standing up to you regarding a point of science and will not go away no matter how much you wriggle and turn or try to paint derogatory things No I suspect he thinks it's about as funny as I do. I actually live to read your threads. Best source of entertainment since the comedy channel. . Believe me I will hold my ground against you no matter what flowery language you constantly use which is really fractured english. We don't doubt that. You do seem to have fortitude. And the so called experts can back you up as much as they want but I know that there are people in this world reading this thread who are wondering about their education. And yours also I suspect. Spouting from a book is not enough, if you cannot understand the basics from which a formula is derived from then you are doomed to repeat conclusions about impedance in areas where they don't apply and it would appear that the so called experts are now fully exposed in the same way they have tried to expose and trash others. Right....Art, Richard Harrisons posts were quite clear to *most*. He also provides references, which you seem to dislike for some reason. You seem to dislike that he quotes from books often. Myself, I'm glad he does. That way people can study the appropriate material and decide for themselves. The same applies to Richard Clarks posts. They were very clear to *most*. But you seem to believe his whole point of replying to *your* questions was just another exercise of molesting poor ole Art...Pitiful... What goes around comes around. To imitate shakespeare is not enough to present yourself as an expert in technical matters, even I as a learner with respect to antennas can see that. He obviously knows more than you do. In spades. But as a "learner with respect to antennas", you insist on arguing with him and telling him he's obviously full of BS. This could apply to many of the other *vanished* posters also... Do you see a pattern here? What the World sees regarding all the experts is for themselves to decide. What do the "experts" have to do with it? The world only cares if the antenna works as claimed or not. The technical point at hand is quite clear and has been stated clearly in this thread and I am absolutely positive that others outside of America fully understands where you and others have gone wrong. Right... If it goes to print it will be in RADCOM of the U.K. which has not been contaminated as yet like QST and where I hope to supply names that are cherry picked who resist anything new. I don't resist anything new. I just resist anything new that is obviuosly BS. The EH antenna is a prime example. If you want to join this illustrious group, be my guest. I won't cut you any more slack than I do the EH guys. The end results won't be pretty. I imagine the EH guys hate my guts being I dis their masterpiece of blunder. I would also add deception, but like you and your *program*, I think they are equally convinced what they have actually works as they claim. That will not include you since you are not seen to be a 'name' in antennas but there are plenty of quotes left to draw upon from the archives. Maybe he should start selling "Clarksticks"....Would he be real to you then? Your turn Richard, keep writing as it can only be to my benefit for people to see you for what you are. Quite true...:/ So lets see....Who will have the funniest retort for me to read tommorow morning? I'm betting on you Art. Don't let me down. Let the races begin....Ready, steady, GO!!! MK |
I just read this quote:
18. Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference. HiH |
You are certainly correct . I thought you lived in Oregon and I have been
informed that you live in Northern California. So yes, I have visited the State of California and thus I am certainly a liar ,but I am unaware if I have been near your locale or on your front yard. Like you I would not enjoy it if people trespass on my lawn. Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG. Still going! "Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 04:25:53 GMT, "aunwin" wrote: No it is not me, it was you who commented about immigrants walking across your yard Art, You are a liar. Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
|
Richard Clark wrote:
One of the language problems with the name Capacity Top Hat, and the expectation of adding more capacitance is that the short antenna is already excessively capacitive. Logically, the addition of more capacity does not lead to resonance. Yet, we can usually add enough top hat metal to bring the antenna system to resonance. Must be your uncertainty principle at work. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Richard Clark wrote:
"One of the language problems with the name Capacity Top Hat, and the expectation of adding more capacitance is that the short antenna is already excessively capacitive." Yes, but that is an incomplete description. The short antenna has an excess of capacitive REACTANCE. It can be tuned to resonance by increasing the capacitance between its ends. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Richard Clark, KB7QHC:
Part of this debate has ignored that all resonant circuits can be analyzed as both parallel and series. That is, barring your and my observations. To force the parallel resonant observation upon the quarterwave vertical, all that need be done is to move the drive from the base to the tip. The same current distribution will be observed, the same radiation characteristic will persist, and as such nothing has really changed. Uh, huh, NOT! The top hat does not grace a full quarterwave vertical as it would be redundant to that mission. Such an addition would end up instead throwing the design into a quasi 3/8ths tuning, or such, to dubious purpose. Uh, huh. Quasi 3/8 tuning (with 1/8 radials) provides 50 ohm impedance, no need for matching junk, lowers tha angle and provides increase in gain. Dubious? Not to me. Logically, the addition of more capacity does not lead to resonance. Oh no? Yuri, K3BU |
|
Richard Clark wrote:
"How many pF capacitance in your top hat?" How many degrees in your vertical? What`s the ground system? What`s the periphery of your vertical? What`s the surge impedance of your vertical? What other loading are you using ? ON4UN works examples in the 2nd edition of "Low-Band DXing". His examples happen to have slightly more than 100 pF when there`s no loading coil. I`ve seen other top loading capacitance values of 100-500 pF. ON4UN`s capacitance hat, as used with a 40-foot vertical pipe on 160 meters which has a 166-microhenry loading coil at the top, has 43 pF. XL must equal Xc in the antenna circuit because the antenna must be resonant to maximize current and radiation. The 19th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book says on page 6-36: "For estimating the capacitance of a T antenna made of wires, an approximation is to use 6 pF per meter for vertical wires, and 5 pF per meter for horizontal wires." With parallel wires, the total capacitance must be discounted when the wires are close together. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Even if one knows the capacitance of a top-hat it's of no use unless one
also knows the value of the inductance associated with it. If the dimensions of a top-hat are tediously experimentally varied until the antenna is tuned to resonance then one still has no idea either of the capacitance or inductance. Not that the values would be of any use to anybody after the job is done. And in all likelihood the experimental procedure would not result in an optimum configuration. What is needed are the means of *predicting* top-hat capacitance even before construction materials are obtained. Optimum construction, or suitable in some sense, could then be chosen. Readers may wish to be reminded, from given dimensions program TOPHAT2 computes the performance of top-capacitance-loaded vertical antennas, not necessarily very short as for mobile operation. In the process various data of interest are produced including capacitance of the top-hat. The top-hat consists of N radial wires optionally surrounded by a wire ring. As N is increased capacitance increases until it is the same as a disk of the same diameter. Capacitance also depends to a limited extent on height above ground. For good measure the program also computes L and C values of the base matching L-network to 50 ohms. Download in a few seconds from website below self-contained program TOPHAT2 and run immediately. ---- .................................................. .......... Regards from Reg, G4FGQ For Free Radio Design Software go to http://www.btinternet.com/~g4fgq.regp .................................................. .......... |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com