Thats O.K. Yuri I learned from your long thread regarding
current flow in inductors which never got resolved and is waiting on your
experiment. This time things appear to be different, I am asking for
assistance not telling people that they are wrong.
There is a difference in opinion and I am in the listening mode
which is proving very productive since there as yet has been no diversive
mischevious postings that moved things off focus as it did with your brouha.
This is focussed on antennas which is what this newsgroup is interested in
and it is staying on focus as people
who are not sure of their facts are staying off. I could not ask for
anything better, it is a teaching mode and not an enforcement mode
so everybody learns and everybody benefits..
Regards
Art
"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message
...
try and think for yourself,

I am thinking: Fugetaboutit

Art,
Will a parallel circuit radiate? Yes. Will it have a
reasonable input impedance? Depends on what you call
'reasonable'. If you mean a 50 ohm input impedance, then
the answer's not likely! Thanks for the help offer but I
don't need it.
'Doc

PS - I was thinking for my self. No one asked me to
think for them.

aunwin wrote:

Why must only series circuits be considered for radiators?.

Just thinking out loud. I'm not sure I'm correct but the following seems
to make a little sense.

In a series resonant circuit the net reactance is zero. As the frequency
is changed slightly from resonance the reactance increases slowly from
zero. This is algebraic addition of plus and minus terms.

In a parallel circuit the net reactance is the product of the two terms
divided by the sum [and has a high net value]. As the frequency is
changed slightly from resonance the net reactance does not change from
'zero' it changes from a high value to a lower value.

My conclusion is that a series circuit more closely matches actual
antenna performance as the antenna impedance varies from resonance.

DD

SNIPPED

Hi David
Not sure what you are getting at. You can set up a parallel circuit
that can be resonant on any frequency with minor change to its construction
ala a slight inductance change so there is no need to operate on a non
resonant frequency which is what I see as a huge
plus. Remember I view the parallel circuit in its macro sense in that it is
the radiator.My antennas work that way and computor programs seem to agree
with that position. Can you supply a circuit in radiator form that acts as
you describe so I can see how it differs ?
Appreciate the input as there are only a few real experts and none have sort
to disagree which is a first for this group. Kudoes to you and Richard who
are able to provide honest thought here others are stumped.
Regards
Art



"Dave Shrader" wrote in message
news:aJR1c.45282$PR3.917056@attbi_s03...
aunwin wrote:

Why must only series circuits be considered for radiators?.

Just thinking out loud. I'm not sure I'm correct but the following seems
to make a little sense.

In a series resonant circuit the net reactance is zero. As the frequency
is changed slightly from resonance the reactance increases slowly from
zero. This is algebraic addition of plus and minus terms.

In a parallel circuit the net reactance is the product of the two terms
divided by the sum [and has a high net value]. As the frequency is
changed slightly from resonance the net reactance does not change from
'zero' it changes from a high value to a lower value.

My conclusion is that a series circuit more closely matches actual
antenna performance as the antenna impedance varies from resonance.

DD

SNIPPED

aunwin wrote:
Not sure what you are getting at.

Well, how about this, Art? A 1/2WL dipole is similar to a series circuit,
i.e. low resistance increasing to each side. A one wavelength dipole is similar
to a parallel circuit, i.e. high resistance decreasing to each side.
--
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! =-----

Thanks for responding Cecil I know that you can't be intimidated
to say something that you disagree with.
Now the dipole, arrangement doesn't change as you change in length.
Well, put it another way, I need more input than that for me to ride on the
same train with confidence. At the moment I am losing total confidence in
myself because of the unity of others in thought that opposes mine.
Especially when some are much better educated than I. But then you said
SIMILAR, you did NOT say it changed to parallel, so I can agree with
'similar' when comparing a particular characteristic
Cheers
Art


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
aunwin wrote:
Not sure what you are getting at.

Well, how about this, Art? A 1/2WL dipole is similar to a series circuit,
i.e. low resistance increasing to each side. A one wavelength dipole is
similar
to a parallel circuit, i.e. high resistance decreasing to each side.
--
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! =-----

No Cecil it is not about transmission lines it is about a parallel circuit
that radiates. Most of this group are Americans so they all read a book for
a formula that might fit what we are talking about.
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. It is a really simple formula but did
anybody think for themselves? 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. Roy and Shakespeare started it off years ago,
yes Wes and many others followed suit and Walter, well he said nothing.
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?
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. 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. 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 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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. No, don't tell me it is beyond anybody to
provide a reasonable explanation
all they care about is crowding around Madame Guilliotine and cheering as
somebody gets killed. Gentlemen if I can call you that
go now back to your books and figure out the pertinent figures that is
needed for this simple formula and then think about all those nasty things
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,
I could tell you but I will refrain, a couple of years to figure it out
may be beneficial

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
aunwin wrote:
Not sure what you are getting at.

Well, how about this, Art? A 1/2WL dipole is similar to a series circuit,
i.e. low resistance increasing to each side. A one wavelength dipole is
similar
to a parallel circuit, i.e. high resistance decreasing to each side.
--
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 Sun, 07 Mar 2004 02:47:16 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote:

Now I ask you Cecil
....
Now I ask you Cecil
....
So tell me Cecil
....
I ask you Cecil
....

the world wonders....

Hi Art,

Waiting for the fresh mist of the mountain dell to grace your visage?
;-)

Perhaps you can tell us what source (no books count) of your
definition of Q? I doubt it was at the knee of lord plushbottom (a
rather grisly prospect, eh what?).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Art, KB9MZ wrote:
"It is really a simple formula so all that is needed is to parrot it out
and follow people who yell loudly that they know what they know what
they are talking about. Roy and Shakespeare started it off years ago,
yes Wes and many others followed suit and Walter, well he said nothing.
Now I ask you Cecil they trot out the formula for Q, it is in books so
they feel safe or it would not be in a book right?"

All the people Art mentiomned have contributed to this newsgroup and
understood how things work. They`ve read the books, benefitted from the
knowledge and its application. They are confident in the book knowledge
from experience.

They are real engineers who know what to use and how and when to use it.
That`s different from the handbook experts who often blunder from
shallow knowledge and lack of experience.

Books are accumulated knowledge that allow us to exploit the experience
of others so we don`t have to repeat all the mistakes.

As for Q, it is a definition that simplifies formulas. The basis of Q
is: the energy stored per cycle versus the energy lost per cycle. You
can find that basic definition of Q in any number of books for yourself
if you want to look it up.

The people Art listed aren`t yelling loudly that: "they hnow what they
know!" They are demonstrating their knowledge in their postings which
explain andf quantify. Some have their fun too.

Despite what Art posted, you can pick and choose what you insert in a
formula. "What if"
is one of the most rewarding games arounnd.
Antenna programs are good examples.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"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