This has lead us to the obsurd present point where a cubic foot size
antenna for top band should have
its reflecter a couple of blocks away and of a size stretching for
several thousand feet instead of a few inches
where if the antenna was a ball of presureized water the close
reflector would prevent the jet of water spreading to the rear.

Given a 3 ft copper dipole on 1.9 MHz the free space gain is -4.6 dbi,
and exhibits a classic dipole radiation pattern. Placing a 6 ft diameter,
radial reflector 3 ft from the antenna has no effect on the radiation
pattern,
other than a slight reduction in gain to -5.2 dbi.

Frank

"Frank" wrote in message
news:iWzyk.2033$1x6.488@edtnps82...
This has lead us to the obsurd present point where a cubic foot size
antenna for top band should have
its reflecter a couple of blocks away and of a size stretching for
several thousand feet instead of a few inches
where if the antenna was a ball of presureized water the close
reflector would prevent the jet of water spreading to the rear.

Given a 3 ft copper dipole on 1.9 MHz the free space gain is -4.6 dbi,
and exhibits a classic dipole radiation pattern. Placing a 6 ft diameter,
radial reflector 3 ft from the antenna has no effect on the radiation
pattern,
other than a slight reduction in gain to -5.2 dbi.

Frank


you really don't think art is going to believe that do you?? it is after
all based on a piece of software using maxwell's equations... which he has
said he believes in and that the software works, because it obviously shows
that his antenna produces a spotlight beam when you tilt it the right
angle... but he won't believe yours.

On Sep 12, 3:17*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Frank" wrote in message

news:iWzyk.2033$1x6.488@edtnps82...

This has lead us to the *obsurd present point where a cubic foot size
antenna for top band should have
its reflecter a couple of blocks away and of a size stretching for
several thousand feet instead of a few inches
where if the antenna was a ball of presureized water the close
reflector would prevent the jet of water spreading to the rear.

Given a 3 ft copper dipole on 1.9 MHz the free space gain is -4.6 dbi,
and exhibits a classic dipole radiation pattern. *Placing a 6 ft diameter,
radial reflector 3 ft from the antenna has no effect on the radiation
pattern,
other than a slight reduction in gain to -5.2 dbi.

Frank

you really don't think art is going to believe that do you?? *it is after
all based on a piece of software using maxwell's equations... which he has
said he believes in and that the software works, because it obviously shows
that his antenna produces a spotlight beam when you tilt it the right
angle... but he won't believe yours.

Ofcourse I do! it is very logical
You certainly must have a reflector that extends beyond the emmiter
dimensions
A dipole extends about 500 feet where as mine extends one
foot.!........Big difference. Like comparing a miniature light bulb
with a string of flourescent lights in an office building.
Has it quit raining yet? you seem to be all wet I think you need to
speak to the Navy and provide some of your expertise.
One Navy port has tilted all of their antennas for better performance
per the permission of an Admiral no less.
Do you know more about antennas than they do? This analysis is easily
proved per Maxwell equations so you should be able to
dispute what the Navy did. Why are they tilted? Because they are
including the "weak" force present in Maxwells calculations.
Is Maxwell all wet too? Computer programs based on Maxwells laws prove
it is correct so try Eznec for your self.
Tilt a long wire from vertical until it is fully resistive and the
field will show gain. You just do not have any clothes.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Because they are
including the "weak" force present in Maxwells calculations.
you think the 'weak' force is in maxwell's equations? please state the
equation and term that describes the weak force. do that and i will
personally nominate you for an emmy award.... i would say a nobel prize, but
i really expect to see more handwaving and backpedeling that is more suited
to a bad actor than a physicist.

On Sep 12, 5:20*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...Becaus e they are
including the "weak" force present in Maxwells calculations.

you think the 'weak' force is in maxwell's equations? *please state the
equation and term that describes the weak force. *do that and i will
personally nominate you for an emmy award.... i would say a nobel prize, but
i really expect to see more handwaving and backpedeling that is more suited
to a bad actor than a physicist.

Oh my! It is in Maxwells laws, without the weak force you cannot have
equilibrium.
You are getting a bit silly now. There was a guy in this group who
stated that the weak force was ficticious.
He must be a submariner to. All computer programs based around
Maxwells laws have it to if one wants to
account for all radiation but most just want to design a Yagi because
it is easy to build.
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Oh my! It is in Maxwells laws, without the weak force you cannot have
equilibrium.

identify the specific term in maxwell's equations that incorporates the weak
force... no hand waving now, you have a specific question, identify the term
in the equations. they are published, pick your reference and identify it.

On Sep 12, 7:05*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 12, 5:20*pm, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...Becaus ethey are
including the "weak" force present in Maxwells calculations.

you think the 'weak' force is in maxwell's equations? *please state the
equation and term that describes the weak force. *do that and i will
personally nominate you for an emmy award.... i would say a nobel prize, but
i really expect to see more handwaving and backpedeling that is more suited
to a bad actor than a physicist.

Oh my! It is in Maxwells laws, without the weak force you cannot have
equilibrium.
You are getting a bit silly now. There was a guy in this group who
stated that the weak force was ficticious.
He must be a submariner to. All computer programs based around
Maxwells laws have it to if one wants to
*account for all radiation but most just want to design a Yagi because
it is easy to build.
Art

You would make a good politician: When you don't know the answer,
change the question.

He challenged you as follows: "please state the
equation and term that describes the weak force."

You answered: " without the weak force you cannot have
equilibrium."

I too am waiting for the answer to his question. Which of Maxwell's
equation(s) contains the weak force and show us specifically which
*term* defines the force. We already know that you took the position
that weak force is included in one or more of the Maxwell equations.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 7:05 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I too am waiting for the answer to his question. Which of Maxwell's
equation(s) contains the weak force and show us specifically which
*term* defines the force. We already know that you took the position
that weak force is included in one or more of the Maxwell equations.

you'll never get the answer. his only response last night was for me to try
to duplicate one of his rediculous optimizations to get a tilted dipole. he
doesn't know even the most basic math behind the equations, he has latched
onto the gauss equation drawing (not the equation, just the drawing mind
you) that shows the surface integration around a charged object and is doing
everythign from that... the rest of it is made up from misreading, or just
plain not understanding, other news articles that have some kind of
percieved relation to em fields... for instance his latest fasination with
the weak force is from the use of the term 'electro-weak' force, while this
is well known to be confined to the nucleons in an atom he has extended it
to his fantasy world to explain the tipping of dipoles over ground to get
gain... my recommendation is to keep prodding him for fun, but ignore
anything he says.

..... There was a guy in this group who
stated that the weak force was ficticious.
He must be a submariner to. All computer programs based around
Maxwells laws have it to if one wants to
account for all radiation but most just want to design a Yagi because
it is easy to build.
Art

In fact no one has said that the "Weak force" is fictitious. The comment
was in relation to the usage of the term "Electro-weak force".

Frank

On Sep 12, 11:51*pm, "Frank" wrote:
..... There was a guy in this group who
stated that the weak force was ficticious.
He must be a submariner to. All computer programs based around
Maxwells laws have it to if one wants to
account for all radiation but most just want to design a Yagi because
it is easy to build.
Art

In fact no one has said that the "Weak force" is fictitious. *The comment
was in relation to the usage of the term "Electro-weak force".

Frank

Frank
Electro weak is what some continue to say for the weak force.
Assumption being that it is electrical nature and part and parcel of
another force.
When David does his thing with AO for himself he will inform you of
the angle of the weak force
and may even provide its magnitude. His series of questions and
statements stop here.
If I supply answers and he rejects implementation then we cannot move
on.
He is just baiting or he wwould tell you what AO provided. All have a
chane to resolve the question for themselves
thus relieving me of challenges as to my integrity. I cannot satisfy
anybody and they cannot satisfy themselves
We now enter the stone throwing stage and the thread comes to an end
Have a good day
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......xg