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 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 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

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

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:18:46 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote:

Why must only series circuits be considered for radiators?.

Hi Art,

I don't know if there's a "must" to this. Every series circuit can be
seen as a parallel circuit; and on the flip side, every parallel
circuit can be seen as a series circuit. It is all a matter of where
you put your leads to drive/measure/load/receive.... The same
components vary only slightly in frequency from their being series
resonant or parallel resonate. Without that
drive/measure/load/receive path, there is no energy transfer and power
consumption is all strictly a matter of component ohmic loss.

What is it about parallel circuits that make them unsuitable?

They are used every day to load up halfwave verticals, which in turn
are also parallel equivalent circuits. The input to the parallel
interface is performed through divider action (usually a tapped coil,
but could be through a capacitor divider).

Is stagger tuning a parallel circuit ?

No, but it could be. Stagger tuning, by convention is a chain of
separately tuned circuits, be they RC, RL, or LC (or, of course RLC).
One RC or RL circuit exhibits a 6dB/Octave or 10dB/Decade roll-off.
One LC circuit exhibits twice that or a 12dB/Octave or 20dB/Decade
roll-off. Again, it is all a matter of connections for the identical
components (which will show a slight shift in parallel to series
resonance frequency - which is to say it is application dependent).

Two RC or two RL, or one RC with one RL in cascade constitute "stagger
tuning" irrespective of what frequencies their roll-off occur at (this
sets the stage for Bandwidth) and their sum contribution equal roughly
one LC circuit (which does not qualify as "stagger tuned") as long as
they share the same characteristic frequency (where the roll-off
occurs which is generally defined at the 3dB inflection).

Now, as to the expression "roll-off" used liberally above. All such
circuits may be called "de-emphasis" (where roll-off is evident) or
"pre-emphasis" (where roll-up would be more descriptive). The
application is strictly a matter of where the drive is applied, and
where the load takes its output.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC