Art, KB9MZ also wrote:
"Is stagger tuning a parallel circuit?"

Stagger tuning is two or more resonant circuits each tuned to a
different frequency. No restriction that I know of requires parallel
resonance. You can mix and match.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard I am reading your posts because I initiated the post
So for you I will pose it differently so you can quote from all your books
legitimately. For you just one question only so you don't wander off as you
sometimes do. And yes I will respond because I initiated the thread,yes I
will read it.

If radio was just thought of today give the pros and cons between a series
circuit and a parallel circuit from which to base a radiator ? Don't put
down 'tradition' or 'habit' just put a list of pro's and con for each side .
Just to give you a start a series circuit radiator is a dipole. And we will
say a parallel circuit radiator is one with at least one capacitive lumped
circuit and one inductive lumped circuit in parallel. Keep it simple, don't
twist the question around because you know of a special case. Just simple
pro and con and you can quote from a book if it provides specific pro and
con which will keep things in perspective i.e we know the formulae so there
is no need to give your fingers a workout.
Here is a start
A dipole provides a lot of signals at the same time( good)
A parallel circuit can only supply one signal at a time (bad )
Get the idea?
There, I am giving you the benefit of being a antenna guru that has the
personal knoweledge that the question obviously requires and where a lot of
people are hopelessly adrift.
The question now is a bit long but hopefully for you it will be beneficial.
Art

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Art, KB9MZ also wrote:
"Is stagger tuning a parallel circuit?"

Stagger tuning is two or more resonant circuits each tuned to a
different frequency. No restriction that I know of requires parallel
resonance. You can mix and match.
Two circuits each with a different frequency will couple to each other via
back EMF and thus makes it a parallel circuit. You can call it under
coupled, over coupled or just coupled but it is a parallel circuit none the
less. But let's not get side tracked because you don't
know......'restrictions" just factual pro and con or you will wander off
again.
Art

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:31:40 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote:
....
give the pros and cons between a series
circuit and a parallel circuit from which to base a radiator ?
....
Just to give you a start a series circuit radiator is a dipole.

And we will
say a parallel circuit radiator is one with at least one capacitive lumped
circuit and one inductive lumped circuit in parallel.
....
Here is a start
A dipole provides a lot of signals at the same time( good)
A parallel circuit can only supply one signal at a time (bad )
Get the idea?

Hi Art,

A dipole is the most efficient antenna.

The parallel circuit offers loss to an already most efficient antenna.

A dipole is simple to load and often requires no matching.

The parallel circuit is difficult to load and always requires
matching.

A dipole offers a standard of gain.

The parallel circuit offers no change in gain except the prospect of
reducing it through making the antenna smaller to become a resonant
system.

A dipole is a simple construction.

The parallel circuit adds complexity which raises the prospects of
mechanical and electrical failure.

A dipole offers hazardous potentials at its tips.

A parallel circuit double that danger by offering hazardous potentials
at both its tips and its drive point.

A dipole requires isolation/insulation at its tips due to high
potentials.

A parallel circuit requires isolation/insulation at its drive point
AND its tips due to high potentials.

Is that the idea? I presume you can distinguish good/bad.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Thank you ,thank you Richard.
I now have something to think about as to why I have been so
misdirected these past few years where everybody knew I was wrong and I have
yet to reason why. That is why I hoped only experts would respond after
seeing the response to Reg on another thread. Get back to you later if I see
the serious difference of thought that exists between myself and others
regarding where and why I am out in 'left field' (Baseball talk Reg).
Hopefully some other experts will contribute with statements that are
specific, to the point and beyond question that may bring to light some
bogies that are messing me up.
Best regards
Art


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:31:40 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote:
...
give the pros and cons between a series
circuit and a parallel circuit from which to base a radiator ?
...
Just to give you a start a series circuit radiator is a dipole.

And we will
say a parallel circuit radiator is one with at least one capacitive
lumped
circuit and one inductive lumped circuit in parallel.
...
Here is a start
A dipole provides a lot of signals at the same time( good)
A parallel circuit can only supply one signal at a time (bad )
Get the idea?

Hi Art,

A dipole is the most efficient antenna.

The parallel circuit offers loss to an already most efficient antenna.

A dipole is simple to load and often requires no matching.

The parallel circuit is difficult to load and always requires
matching.

A dipole offers a standard of gain.

The parallel circuit offers no change in gain except the prospect of
reducing it through making the antenna smaller to become a resonant
system.

A dipole is a simple construction.

The parallel circuit adds complexity which raises the prospects of
mechanical and electrical failure.

A dipole offers hazardous potentials at its tips.

A parallel circuit double that danger by offering hazardous potentials
at both its tips and its drive point.

A dipole requires isolation/insulation at its tips due to high
potentials.

A parallel circuit requires isolation/insulation at its drive point
AND its tips due to high potentials.

Is that the idea? I presume you can distinguish good/bad.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Rich I will try to use my words carefully as I am optomistic
that we are getting close to my long term bogey.


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:31:40 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote:
...
give the pros and cons between a series
circuit and a parallel circuit from which to base a radiator ?
...
Just to give you a start a series circuit radiator is a dipole.

And we will
say a parallel circuit radiator is one with at least one capacitive
lumped
circuit and one inductive lumped circuit in parallel.
...
Here is a start
A dipole provides a lot of signals at the same time( good)
A parallel circuit can only supply one signal at a time (bad )
Get the idea?

Hi Art,
A dipole is the most efficient antenna.

Well I know that is your position but what are you comparing it with and
what parameters
are you focussing on to form an efficiency term ?


The parallel circuit offers loss to an already most efficient
antenna..

Well looking at them separately rather than adding one to another.
What losses are you refering to in a parallel circuit assuming that the
circuit is resonant?. Is it of magnitude that one gets when adding an
impedance matching unit say on a 160 metre style shortened dipole or similar
antenna?

A dipole is simple to load and often requires no matching.

Yes, that is true and very important, possibly a good reason to make it a
standard in all its different aspects with respect to ground and radiation
foot print.


The parallel circuit is difficult to load and always requires
matching.

No........ The parallel circuit need not require any external matching
system which is a huge plus.


A dipole offers a standard of gain.

Anything can be adopted as a standard to compare to so this is a non runner.


The parallel circuit offers no change in gain except the prospect of
reducing it through making the antenna smaller to become a resonant
system.


As a dipole moves away from its resonant point gain losses occur,
swr increases and limits the frequency span of use.
A parallel circuit which provides movement of the resonant point
has no loss in gain, minimul change in SWR and thus less constraint on
frequency span that can be used.

Shortening comment I fully agree with, that eventually can open many doors.


A dipole is a simple construction.

I fully agree


The parallel circuit adds complexity which raises the prospects of
mechanical and electrical failure.

Yes, you are of my generation that was brought up on the idea of less moving
parts. But our generation has made such huge advances in Quality control
together with the introduction of solid state construction that we now have
a throw away economy.
In ham radio we now see solid state construction with high intricasy of
moving parts, in radios, remote matching systems and yes even with antennas
such as the IR antenna. Our generation is now in the minority on that
subject.



A dipole offers hazardous potentials at its tips.

True but it has not been of sufficient danger for manufacturers to place a
warning tag at each end.


A parallel circuit double that danger by offering hazardous potentials
at both its tips and its drive point.


Should be zero change in drive point at the antenna input port
and should provide less voltage hazards as it would tend to lower voltages
and increase current which is the prime requirement for radiation. This
point is one of the main points I fail to understand
why the group will not embrace.

A dipole requires isolation/insulation at its tips due to high
potentials.

Repeat

A parallel circuit requires isolation/insulation at its drive point
AND its tips due to high potentials.

Is that the idea? I presume you can distinguish good/bad.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes Richard I think that narrows the issue down very nicely and prevents
mischevious comments that foster disarray.

Obviously enclosed in the above there is something that I am tripping over
thru the years and I have no doubt that you will eventually point to it and
here I must put up or shut up.
Even if it is demonstrated where I am in error it is a positive for me in a
learning cycle.
Could we now focus on those points that we disagree and push the others
aside and only return to them if it is pointed out that we were both wrong.
You continue with the lead as it is working nicely.
Thanks so much for aproaching with an open mind in a true academic fashion
which will eventually arrive at the main point of contention that I have
failed to grasp before intential spoilers
arrive as they have done with forums such as.......well you know what I mean
Best regards
Art

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 18:34:05 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote:
A dipole is the most efficient antenna.

Well I know that is your position but what are you comparing it with and
what parameters are you focussing on to form an efficiency term ?

They are the common factors of efficiency
Power Radiated / (Power Radiated - Power lost to heat)

If the radiated power doesn't go where you want, that is inconvenient
not inefficient.

The parallel circuit offers loss to an already most efficient
antenna..

Well looking at them separately rather than adding one to another.
What losses are you refering to in a parallel circuit assuming that the
circuit is resonant?. Is it of magnitude that one gets when adding an
impedance matching unit say on a 160 metre style shortened dipole or similar
antenna?

Impedance does not lose power, resistance does. Additional components
add resistance where there was no resistance before.

The parallel circuit is difficult to load and always requires
matching.

No........ The parallel circuit need not require any external matching
system which is a huge plus.

The parallel circuit ALWAYS requires matching BY DEFINITION. There is
no alternative. ALL halfwave verticals and ALL fullwave dipoles
demand matching. There are no commercial sources (transmitters) or
lines that drive this kind of load directly, matching is the ONLY
choice.

A dipole offers a standard of gain.

Anything can be adopted as a standard to compare to so this is a non runner.

This attitude is self-serving. The dipole is the de-facto standard
barring the isotropic specification. Choose one or the other, there
is no honest third choice.

The parallel circuit offers no change in gain except the prospect of
reducing it through making the antenna smaller to become a resonant
system.

As a dipole moves away from its resonant point gain losses occur,

I have shown this to be false.

A parallel circuit double that danger by offering hazardous potentials
at both its tips and its drive point.

Should be zero change in drive point at the antenna input port
and should provide less voltage hazards as it would tend to lower voltages
and increase current which is the prime requirement for radiation. This
point is one of the main points I fail to understand
why the group will not embrace.

Because it is not true. A parallel resonant circuit BY DEFINITION has
a high Z characteristic. A constant power (which is to say the same
power you would put into a low Z characteristic, series resonant
antenna) drives the voltage to hazardous levels. There is no other
outcome.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yup, Richard you got me fair and square. I really thought
that this discussion was going to be fruitful and pushed aside all past
history. Just shows how dumb I am..But then I am sure I will not be the last
one to be taken in.
You really executed the situation well
Art



"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 18:34:05 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote:
A dipole is the most efficient antenna.

Well I know that is your position but what are you comparing it with and
what parameters are you focussing on to form an efficiency term ?

They are the common factors of efficiency
Power Radiated / (Power Radiated - Power lost to heat)

If the radiated power doesn't go where you want, that is inconvenient
not inefficient.

The parallel circuit offers loss to an already most efficient
antenna..

Well looking at them separately rather than adding one to another.
What losses are you refering to in a parallel circuit assuming that the
circuit is resonant?. Is it of magnitude that one gets when adding an
impedance matching unit say on a 160 metre style shortened dipole or
similar
antenna?

Impedance does not lose power, resistance does. Additional components
add resistance where there was no resistance before.

The parallel circuit is difficult to load and always requires
matching.

No........ The parallel circuit need not require any external matching
system which is a huge plus.

The parallel circuit ALWAYS requires matching BY DEFINITION. There is
no alternative. ALL halfwave verticals and ALL fullwave dipoles
demand matching. There are no commercial sources (transmitters) or
lines that drive this kind of load directly, matching is the ONLY
choice.

A dipole offers a standard of gain.

Anything can be adopted as a standard to compare to so this is a non
runner.

This attitude is self-serving. The dipole is the de-facto standard
barring the isotropic specification. Choose one or the other, there
is no honest third choice.

The parallel circuit offers no change in gain except the prospect of
reducing it through making the antenna smaller to become a resonant
system.

As a dipole moves away from its resonant point gain losses occur,

I have shown this to be false.

A parallel circuit double that danger by offering hazardous potentials
at both its tips and its drive point.

Should be zero change in drive point at the antenna input port
and should provide less voltage hazards as it would tend to lower
voltages
and increase current which is the prime requirement for radiation. This
point is one of the main points I fail to understand
why the group will not embrace.

Because it is not true. A parallel resonant circuit BY DEFINITION has
a high Z characteristic. A constant power (which is to say the same
power you would put into a low Z characteristic, series resonant
antenna) drives the voltage to hazardous levels. There is no other
outcome.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

aunwin wrote:
Yup, Richard you got me fair and square. I really thought
that this discussion was going to be fruitful and pushed aside all past
history.

Art, one thing to remember is that if you are going to need a transmission
line anyway, you might as well let it do the matching. A one-wavelength
dipole fed with 1/4WL of open-wire line is a pretty good match to coax.
--
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! =-----

"aunwin" wrote in message news:Zf92c.186983$uV3.785337@attbi_s51...
Yup, Richard you got me fair and square. I really thought
that this discussion was going to be fruitful and pushed aside all past
history. Just shows how dumb I am..But then I am sure I will not be the last
one to be taken in.
You really executed the situation well
Art

Why do you consider it non-fruitful? Because the answers didn't fit
the "program"? Seems to me, he answered all your questions quite
plainly and without obvious error. BTW, I DO consider a matching
device to be part of the antenna, if one is required. Go buy a
storebought yagi, 1/2 vertical, etc, etc.. All will include the
matching device as part of the deal. I've never seen any charge extra.
I've built many base fed 1/2 waves. All including a matching device as
part of the antenna. No, it's not the radiating element, but I still
consider it part of the antenna. Without it, you have a non fuctioning
piece of metal if you want to feed it with a 50 ohm radio, and
feedline. MK