On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:33:02 -0500, "Mike Lucas"
wrote:

Richard: Tnx for the post- I enjoy slogging through the math to 4 places,

An occupation that pleases me too.

So why not some poetry or at least free verse next time???

Sorry Mike,

Tilting untennas is suggestive of the crusades of the Man of La Mancha
and particals (sic) with spin remind me of Singing in the Rain -
derivative humor at best here, which is improved by decanting only for
the ranting author. Examples abound.

However, you can rest assured that using a couple of three syllable
words in a sentence is bound to be hooted at as being lifted from
Shakespeare, or undecipherable trappings of a foreign language. The
hayseed mentality is fairly distributed across the globe but we sure
get a unique crop cultivated here.

However, as I plunge into your suggestion, one quote comes to mind
from Herman Melville's "White Jacket":
"It is often observable, that, in vessels of all kinds,
the men who talk the most sailor lingo are the least
sailor-like in reality. You may sometimes hear even
marines jerk out more salt phrases than the Captain
of the Forecastle himself. On the other hand, when
not actively engaged in his vocation, you would take
the best specimen of a seaman for a landsman.
When you see a fellow yawning about the docks like
a homeward-bound Indiaman, a long Commodore's
pennant of black ribbon flying from his mast-
head, and fetching up at a grog-shop with a
slew of his hull, as if an Admiral were coming
alongside a three-decker in his barge;
you may put that man down for what
man-of-war's-men call a 'damn-my-eyes-tar',
that is, a humbug. And many damn-my-eyes hum-bugs
there are in this man-of-war world of ours."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sep 12, 11:39*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 6:18 am, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

David, what I have stated is based on known laws and phenomina and
started with the recognision
that applying a time varying field and radiators to a Gaussian field
equates to Maxwell's laws.
Right from the start you could not concentrate on proving or
disproving that statement !

around and around we go... i quoted the required passages from jackson and
ramo/whinnery/vanduzer to show that adding time to gauss'es law was
incorrect. *the law is time independent, meaning it does not require a time
term, it applies for all time instantaneously and it is properly included in
maxwell's equations as is. *your addition of *'t' is not necessary. *proof
is not necessary, it is by definition and intuitively obvious to anyone with
the proper background.

Oh David I extended it to make it dynamic by adding a time varying
current where it duplicates Maxwells law
Find a ham who is conversant with physics and mathematics bring him
forward on your behalf for debate.
Tell him what you want debated say, what is stated above. Do that and
you will do a service for ham radio.
Warn him that the question as to whether a static field can be
transformed to a dynamic field quoting any book
that says you can't. He will then refuse to appear. End of story.
Art...is it still raining? Are you still all wet?

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 11:39 am, "Dave" wrote:

Oh David I extended it to make it dynamic by adding a time varying
current where it duplicates Maxwells law

so you had to extend a set of equations that you say is giving proper
results as they were written oh so long ago and have been implemented in all
sorts of antenna modeling software that you say works just fine... so what
did your extension do? if the software works as is without your changes to
the equations then how are your changes necessary? what does your change to
them predict that isn't already in there?? since you didn't write your own
software, but are fond of quoting results of whatever you use, then
obviously your change wasn't necessary and yet you rely on it... very
strange... and no, its still raining and should be raining all weekend... so
keep ranting... i still want to know about the neutrinos and how they settle
on plasmas that are decidedly not diamagnetic and cause them to radiate.

On Sep 12, 7:08*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 11:39 am, "Dave" wrote:

Oh David I extended it to make it dynamic by adding a time varying
current *where it duplicates Maxwells law

so you had to extend a set of equations that you say is giving proper
results as they were written oh so long ago and have been implemented in all
sorts of antenna modeling software that you say works just fine... so what
did your extension do? *if the software works as is without your changes to
the equations then how are your changes necessary? *what does your change to
them predict that isn't already in there?? *since you didn't write your own
software, but are fond of quoting results of whatever you use, then
obviously your change wasn't necessary and yet you rely on it... very
strange... and no, its still raining and should be raining all weekend... so
keep ranting... i still want to know about the neutrinos and how they settle
on plasmas that are decidedly not diamagnetic and cause them to radiate.


IF YOU DO NOT PRE GUIDE IT TO A PLANAR DESIGN WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE
THE WEAK FORCE
IT WILL SUPPLY A BETTER RADIATOR BY ADDING THE WEAK FORCE TO SUPPLY
REQUIREMENTS ASKED OF IT
PER MAXWELLS LAWS AND NOT BY YAGI APPROACH. I.E ASK FOR MAX GAIN AND
THE PROGRAM CHOOSES.
ART

On Sep 12, 12:59*am, Mark Cudworth
wrote:
wrote:
That is interesting. I thought the PR dish was parabolic. As a
parabola, the reflected waves (or particles if you will) of a
transmitter at focal point can only traverse in one direction, that
is, in a direction parallel to the tangent of a line drawn at the
lowest point of the parabola. If the parabolic reflector is
stationary, how can transmitted waves/particles go in any direction
but straight up in that perpendiculr direction? If you move the focal
point as you say they do, then the antenna does not finction as
parabola anymore and gain should drop drastically, agree? I am afraid
I must be missing something and request your technical advice. Thanks.

The Arecibo radio telescope has a spherical reflector, not parabolic.
This is mentioned on the official web page:

* *http://www.naic.edu/public/the_telescope.htm

It also gives details on how the telescope operates.

--
Mark Cudworth

Thank you Mark. It truly is spherical.

On Sep 12, 10:35*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 12, 6:18*am, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message

David, what I have stated is based on known laws and phenomina and
started with the recognision
that applying a time varying field and radiators to a Gaussian field
equates to Maxwell's laws.
Right from the start you could not concentrate on proving or
disproving that statement !
*Until you can determine whether that is correct or not you cannot
move forward.
As yet, nobody has disproved that statement with counter facts. If you
cannot explain that simple fact
you surely cannot understand Newtons laws and how the use of such laws
provide the presence
of eddy current which provides a skin depth of mechanical resistance.
I use the term mechanic
*because I recognise the importance of the four forces in the standard
model and the Grand Universal Theory.
So until you are able to concentrate and tackle the Gauss and Maxwell
connection that I started with
there is no hope for you to procede in a scientific matter, and that
goes for every body, not just you.
Best regards
Art

To it would be nice if physics was so tidy that there could be shown a
neat relationship of the 4 forces, thus the birth of a new Grand
Unification Theory. Einstein would have liked to find the unifying
factor but he dies before he could accomplish that. He never claimed
that there had to be a iuifier, only that physics was of such an
orderly nature that it would seem consistent that there should be a
unification.

Art is acting on the assumption that there MUST be a unifier. The CERN
scientists postulate that some particle such as a theoretical higgs
boson could be discovered and observed as the "God particle" that
imparts matter to other particles which creates mass, matter being
pervasive in the universe but mostly in its invisible dark form. From
that they say that we could begin to study the relationship of this
higgs boson to the other seeminly unrelated forces and find a grand
unifier.

To me, the concept of a unifier is NOT something that necessarily has
to exist. Maybe there is no unifier and in fact, the student of
quantum physics does not see physics as being completely orderly as a
student of astrophysics sees it. At the quantum level, the universe is
highly random and probabilistic. Any forces we have identified at that
level, and future forces we discover, do not have to be unified by any
theory; that is not the way I see things either. I see no reason for
scientisits to chase after this holy grail (other than by doing so at
low cost and in their spare time so as not to waster resources) and I
see the likelihood of anyone finding it at 10% at best. There is no
observation or calculation that states a unifier must exist,

For all the good that will result in the future from the CERN
accelerator, looking for a unfier based on new studies of a "higgs
boson" (God) particle is a Hail Mary pass that in all likelihood will
not succeed. Let's not be dissapointed when it doesn't. For HF
antennas, most is already known which needs to be known by application
of known EM principles, the study of which has infinitely less
likelihood of pointing to a grand unifier as Art repeatedly attempts
in these postings. However, he is doing it in his spare time and at no
cost to society thus fulfilling what I think is the amount of
resources should be expended in finding the grand unifier.

wrote
When I built my OWA's I used DX engineering insulated element mounts. With
these, the SWR curve of the real antenna matched the tapered NEC2 model
perfectly. I didn't even need to adjust the length of the driven element.


Tor:
Thanks for the reply. I've used home-brew plates and u-bolts for a
couple of
3 and 4 element 10M antennas, but all were grounded. The gamma match that
was
spit out by the YA program worked as calculated, and within the limits of
the equipment,
the measured VSWR curves matched the model.
While the subject line said "Hygain element clamps", I also have a box
full of Wilson
element clamps, both are close in appearance, but the Wilson clamps are
about
15-20% larger than the Hygain of the same element size.
First runs on an OWA for 10M used 3/4, 5/8, and 1/2 in. tubing, with a
bushing in the
element clamp to bring it down to 3/4 size. I was looking for flat gain and
F/B curves,
close to 50 Ohm feed, and use on-hand parts. I came up with a couple of
models that
looked promising, but I'm now looking at using 1-1/4 to 7/8 taper elements
for the driven
and first director. Since my optimizer is me, I haven't run enough samples
to tell if that will
show any improvement. What I have seen is that if a design is poor, a small
change in
taper schedule, element length or element spacing will make a noticeable
change in the
model characteristics, usually bad.
Plans are for a single 10M OWA here in Memphis, to be followed by a
3-high stack
at the retirement Ponderosa. I have also looked at scaling up to 20M, where
a 3 inch
boom prevents using the clamp style mounts. Sooo, thanks for the post, and
I'll
see you on the bands.

Mike W5CHR
Memphis Tenn