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.