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

"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..

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 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