Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Perhaps the
FCC could balkanize the ham bands into technical and non-technical
sub-bands, where the clueless and those that still design, calculate,
and build their own equipment can be seperated for their own safety.

10-4 Gud Buddy! Didn't that already happen back in
the 60's when they took 11m away from hams?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 1:08*am, "JB" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 17, 2:26 pm, "JB" wrote:



OK So nobody wants to talk about equilibrium or current flow on a
radiator.
Thats fine by me. Took a lot of posts to get to that point. JB I
apologize
I have been nailed to the cross so many times I tend to bundle things
together.
When I started I zeroed on equilibrium as a start because existing
laws state that if a charge is moving on the outside of a radiator
then there is movement on the inside of a radiator Now that is not in
the books. Why is that? However discussion went away from the intent
of the thread. equilibrium with respect to radiation. O well another
try later
Regards
Art

Consider that there is little difference in the performance of a solid
radiator and hollow radiator.

There are things about Electromagnetic Radiation that aren't discussed by
Newton. Study classical antenna theory, then you will be on common ground
with others that study antennas. The danger of concentrating on your own
line of study so much is that you wind up out on a limb. I see this often
when dealing with different terminology spawned of different paradigms,
where similar circuits are redrawn and renamed by different engineering
teams. This is nowhere more evident in Psychology and Philosophy, where
insight springs from the conclusions derived from the limited experiences
of
an isolated group or individual. It is like the blind men describing an
elephant when they have only one part in front of them. They each call the
elephant something else based on their singular experience and arrive at
logical conclusions that are false. The fact that we only have one
lifetime
to devote to all the pieces is indeed a limitation.

Could well be but I have no alternative and am going my own way. Why
should this disturb others?
They could easily show me the error of my ways instead of taking up
the cause against change
We all know Newtons Laws ( some interprete in different ways) So we
have a radiator upon which a charge rests
there for ethere is no need for a opposing vector inside the radiator.
Then we have a radiator that is not in equilibrium and thus we have a
vector
which according to the laws of Newton or equilibrium or what ever
requires a responding vector inside the conductor. Inside the
conductor there is no magnetic field nor the Foucalt current thus it
is not radiating just spending copper losses. Put the apparatus in a
vacuum and the current will take a less resistive route by producing
an arc at the ends AWAY from the radiator. To me that sounds as
perfect logic but there is no book that states it or the presence of
the Foucalt current. That is not to say there are not a lot of
explanations all of which are different so I go back to first
principles and people get angry at the idea of change. Now the tide on
this post has turned around on Cecil. Let me warn you that Cecil has
outlasted this group several times to the tune of threads extending
more than a thousand more than a few times over the last 20 years. One
person who harasses him tries a lot of tactics on him including
pointing out that his only difference he has with a dog is lipstickl
but only the newbies respond to him unnowingly. Cecil will out last
them all.
Art * * *Back to the mowing

--Well Art, there are some people out there that tend to boasting and jump
on any opportunity.

No, there is no arcing at the end of the elements. *The ends of a center fed
dipole are a high impedance so there is high voltage there but as long as
there are clean decent insulators there should be no trouble with that. With
VERY HIGH power, *ionization may take place and there will be a glow off the
ends. *The cubical Quad antenna was developed to combat that problem. *It
utilizes a full wave loop fed directly. *Look also to the folded dipole..
Find out though that the current in the loop is the same in that there will
be a high voltage node at the points 1/4 wave away from the feedpoint even
though the wire goes continuously around and back. Certainly if you touched
it there, you would fry yourself by being a path to ground just as you would
with a classic dipole.

These things are known and proven, unlike the quantum physics tangent the
thread went off on. *It is possible that Quantum Physics is all true. But it
is really just a construct to explain certain realities that aren't fully
explained with other theories. *This should tell you that there is a better
explanation out there but we don't have all the pieces. *It is certainly an
avenue of research. * *It could just as well be something else entirely
where all the questions are answered even better. Quantum physics isn't
needed to build antennas. *Good luck in your studies. *There is a lot of
misunderstanding about antennas. And you might have confusion about parts
that the writer considered evident. Concepts that I have found burdensome, I
tend to place into a box for later, more in-depth study and chose not to
trust them or myself with hard conclusions, especially if practical
experience won't support them.

Well I disagree with you Quito was using a radiator that was not in a
state of equilibriun ie a half wave
format. As I have said earlier without equilibrium shows the charge in
movement which requires a complimentary movement
With the higher altitude Quito provided an alternative to placing the
vector inside the conductor and the circuit took a different route.
This was solved by using a full wave circuit in equilibrium that
removed the arcing choice by suppling a continous route on the outside
of the radiator.
If the quad was divided into two bent dipoles it would still arc at
the extremities because of the lower external pressure.
Really this is a good example of the necessity of equilibrium in
vector form where for equilibrium the circuit must be long enough or
multiples there of to provide the allowance of repeatability of
current flow ie. equal to the PERIOD length of the time varient
frequency . I stated multiples because it reflects the movement of a
pendulum where the occillation calcullation( formular) is the same as
the oscillation applied to a radiator when in resonance.
Thus the logic has evolved back to the starting point ala the
arbitrary border used by Gauss.
I slept to 11 oc this morning but it was not because of you I did to
much mowing and there is still some left. If I just used the tractor I
would surely die
Best regards
Art

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:59:35 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

In building antennas, tank ciruits, etc., I very seldom whip out a
programmable scientific calculator and delve into the depths of the
maths which allow them to preform/function/"work."

And what do you do when they don't work? Cut-n-try is a rather
expensive way to build something that works. Given infinite time and
materials, it will eventually result in a functional antenna. You
could probably do that at HF frequencies where construction errors are
about equal to calculation errors. However, don't try it at microwave
frequencies. While it's possible to cut-n-try various microwave
structures, it's messy, difficult, prone to error, and not very
effective. The techniques used to build a coat hanger ground plane at
VHF just are not going to work at X-band.

The only way to get it close to right the first time is to calculate
first, calculate again, have someone check the calculations, drink
some wine, and check your calcs again. Then build it.

A few times, I have just grabbed up some tubing/wire a variable
condenser or two, and "eyeballed" the construction--past experience
provided "ballpark" figures/placements/wiring, testing, trimming and
adjusting got me the final result ...

Yep. That will work at HF because the lower frequencies allow for
much larger construction errors. Your antenna lengths could be off
many cm and still work. Your xmitter can also tolerate a substantial
VSWR and still be considered functional and useful. You match box
could be grossly inefficient trying to match your constructed antenna,
and work well enough. Now, try that at microwave frequencies, where
every milliwatt is precious, where VSWR is too crude and reflection
coefficient comes close to describing the ultimate goal of a perfect
match, and where cm errors are disastrous. Some broadband antennas
(helix and horn) are very forgiving and can be build fairly crudely.
Others (stripline, phased arrays, cavity backed antennas, etc) have a
higher Q and require more accuracy than the eyeball can provide.

Mainly, I point this out so as not to "obsfucate" that layman, or
discourage him ... the men who first started/awakened my interest in
such things never gave any indication, to me, they had an understanding
of calculus, only basic-math/algebra, and of course, geometry!

Same here. My original mentors were operators first and technical
types last. However, I saw the light (and the distinction) between
amateur and professional when I went to college and saw that radio
things were easier and better if they were calculated (and understood)
first. I have several humorous examples of hams operating in a
professional environment (engineering lab at a radio manufactory) and
failing miserably using cut-n-try methods popularized by ham radio.

Indeed, at least one passed away without ever expressing any real
interest in learning it!

There are suspicions that math may hasten one's demise. Perhaps he
tried to do a calculation before he died?

However, in Arts pursuits, an understanding would be a real advantage ...

Agreed. Once he gets that understanding, he can work on the
communications problem. Perhaps publish his works. After solving all
that, he can possibly consider the applications and implementations.
The twisted road towards technical nirvana is littered with the
wreckage of failed great ideas.

Incidentally, I was also going to bash your suggestion of ignoring
patents. Might as well add that to my rant.

Patent are confusing. Many of them are totally bogus. It's difficult
to recognize the difference. However, at the bottom of every garbage
dumpster lies a diamond. You have to sift through a huge amount of
garbage in order to find the gem, but it's worth it. Just because a
typical patent search returns bogus patents, doesn't mean you should
ignore them. Most technical patents are legitimate and worth
inspecting. If you want to know exactly how something works, the
patents are the place to start. I haven't had time to look at the
quantum comb filter antenna thing, but plan to do so eventually.

During the dot.com heyday, I was doing sanity checks and technological
assessments for a venture capitalist. Many business plans had
technical problems. Some were based on bogus patents. Some held
conflicting patents. Identifying these was more than the VC's staff
could handle. I did fairly well, but still managed to miss a few.
Anyway, sifting through patents was part of the exercise and a great
learning experience. Often, a patent looks legitimate, but has a
fatal flaw or omission in the middle of the claims. It's not easy. If
you have the patience, it's possible to find these.

Also, I assembled a small list of tech patents that appear to be
bogus. I was going to post the list on the web but my attorney
advised against it. Even holders of bogus patents can sue for
damages. Oh well.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:34:23 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Perhaps the
FCC could balkanize the ham bands into technical and non-technical
sub-bands, where the clueless and those that still design, calculate,
and build their own equipment can be seperated for their own safety.

10-4 Gud Buddy! Didn't that already happen back in
the 60's when they took 11m away from hams?

Yep. Also the bottom of the 1296MHz band went to GPS because hams
couldn't do anything useful with it. Also most of the 220MHz band
went to ACSSB and inland waterways because it was under-utilized and
because the ARRL couldn't get it together on no-code licensing. We
almost lost the 2.4GHz band because the ARRL was going to demand
priority over unlicensed wi-fi operation, but that was averted when
the ARRL directors received a rare dose of common sense from unknown
sources.

Unfortunately, the common justification these days is that ham radio
is a service hobby. When was the last time that ham radio advanced
the state of the art? I have some examples, but they're sufficiently
obscure that none would be sufficient to justify ham radios continued
existence. There is some logic in using the ham bands as a proving
ground for new technologies. Metricom did exactly that, but rapidly
switched to commerical operation. It seems that such advanced
experimentation is discouraged by Part 97. Most of the progress today
is in HF digital modes. These have their own sub-bands by convention.
Also QRP operation, spacecom, CW, and weak signal sub-bands. Various
nets also operate on specific frequencies. It wouldn't be much of a
stretch to unofficially allocate a sub-band to the technically
challenged, such as the old Novice class sub-bands.

Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued
complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out.
I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. Most of the "new hams" these
days are former CB'ers. With a few notable exceptions, most are quite
nice, but also technically lacking.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 7:48*am, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 17, 8:52 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
I know books say a lot of things but do they explain WHY current
cannot flow thru the center?
snip
Art
If you do the differential equations, it doesn't say why the center
can't so much as why the skin does. *Similar to gravitation and water
flowing downhill vs uphill. *I'll go into detail if you can't figure it
out. *Or not.

tom
K0TAR

Please do. I would love to see your take on it. I am gratified that
somebody is tackling the problem
hopefully in laymans language so all can benefit. Possibly you could
start another thread as this one is greatly contaminated
I can then respond on my take of the matter and hopefully the flaw
will be exposed.
Regards
Art

I did not mean to imply I would explain the diff eqs. *That would
currently be a lost cause on you, because I am sure that I couldn't put
it in "layman's terms" - you need the math to understand it. *I meant
that I would explain why the 2 situations were similar, or not explain,
depending upon my mood.

To understand the situation, I would suggest that you start down the
calculus road. *The internet has to have tutorials on it. *Differential
equations look terribly obtuse, but they are an obtainable destination
down that road if you choose to follow it.

tom
K0TAR

Tom but I have put in terms of the layman so that should be paradise
to those skilled in mathematicWhen the good Doctor
frm MIT provided the mathemartic showing the correctness of logic I
proposed with respect to Gauss and Maxwellk
mathematics as a route of viability was rejected by all. That really
needs exposure to the group as it is the foundation of radiation.
The computor is a wonderful thing but if an arrow is pointed in the
wrong direction it then becmes useless.
Nearly finished the mowing
Art

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:26:18 GMT, "JB" wrote:

We know that the AC current in the antenna induces an
electromagnetic wave is sufficient for my purpose. Unless I can find
funding for renewed efforts... (wink nudge)

Funding is easy these days. All you need is an anti-terrorism or
disaster link. For example:
- Use of HF antennas for airport security.
- Antenna design optimized for disaster services.
- Survivable antenna design and construction.
While these topics are contrived, there has been considerable
rethinking of the basics in order to enhance survivability, tampering,
security, terrorist activities, general mayhem, and other post-911
buzzwords. I'm not sure this extends to basic concepts, but it's
possible. Something like:
- Re-evaluating E-M concepts in a post 911 world.
- Survey of antenna technology for optimum disaster communications.

You will need to use your imagination because all the obvious studies
have already been taken. Perhaps combining everything into:
- The effects of global warming, terrorism, economic collapse, and
natural disasters on antenna technology.
Try to emphasize the positive aspects such as the improved HF antenna
grounding provided by rising sea levels.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Yep. Also the bottom of the 1296MHz band went to GPS because hams
couldn't do anything useful with it. Also most of the 220MHz band
went to ACSSB and inland waterways because it was under-utilized and
because the ARRL couldn't get it together on no-code licensing. We
almost lost the 2.4GHz band because the ARRL was going to demand
priority over unlicensed wi-fi operation, but that was averted when
the ARRL directors received a rare dose of common sense from unknown
sources.

Yer crocked! 1296 is fully utilized here and so was 220. People like YOU
who underutilized it and TOLD everyone it was underutilized are to blame for
US losing it!! Did you get a Ham license just so you could use 802.11/g on
channel 13?

Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued
complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out.
I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. Most of the "new hams" these
days are former CB'ers. With a few notable exceptions, most are quite
nice, but also technically lacking.

Bendict Arnold! Anarchist!! Anti-Ham!! Your web domain says it all!!
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 12:58*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:26:18 GMT, "JB" wrote:
We know that the AC current in the antenna induces an
electromagnetic wave is sufficient for my purpose. *Unless I can find
funding for renewed efforts... *(wink nudge)

Funding is easy these days. *All you need is an anti-terrorism or
disaster link. *For example:
- Use of HF antennas for airport security.
- Antenna design optimized for disaster services.
- Survivable antenna design and construction.
While these topics are contrived, there has been considerable
rethinking of the basics in order to enhance survivability, tampering,
security, terrorist activities, general mayhem, and other post-911
buzzwords. *I'm not sure this extends to basic concepts, but it's
possible. *Something like:
- Re-evaluating E-M concepts in a post 911 world.
- Survey of antenna technology for optimum disaster communications.

You will need to use your imagination because all the obvious studies
have already been taken. *Perhaps combining everything into:
- The effects of global warming, terrorism, economic collapse, and
* natural disasters on antenna technology.
Try to emphasize the positive aspects such as the improved HF antenna
grounding provided by rising sea levels.

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

Jeff you are a man after my own heart in your phillosophy . If I had
you
exposure of mathematics to replace what I have lost I would instantly
do what the good doctor did
and show the correllation of Maxwells laws to those of Gaussian static
laws when made dynamic
ie the addition of a radiator and a time varying field inside the
existing arbitrary boundary.
What the doctor showed has been totally rejected by this group without
I might had evidence to the contrary
Just....well....because. This is a throw back to the initiation of
mathematics where the Universe is founded on Equilibrium.
A pendulum when made long enough becomes sensative to changes in
equilibrium in a similar way to the action of a super conductor
Mathematics started with a balance exhib iting the ultimate of
equilibrium and the mathematician invented "nothing" by placing both
weights on one side
of a fulcrum. The long pendulum shows that sdame point when an eclipse
occurrs where the equilibrium is momentarily disturbed as its
boundaries are momentarily severed. Now we are pushing those same
limits with superconductivity where laws such as V =IR become
unmathomabble.
It is the same with antennas where all can realize that equilibrium
tho fragile with respect to the term stable will provide maximum
radiation but without resistance it is an imaginary term. Quadratics
shows two terms show up where one is imaginary ala zero resistance so
one moves to the other answer
anti resonance which is high knowing at the same time one can extend
the length of the wire( number of periods) to produce the sensitivity
of the extra
long pendulum which in mathematics follows the same laws. I use that
same thinking because it is part of a universal laws. Thus I extend
the length of wire used and at the same time balance the winding
directions such that lumped loads are added such that the impedance
and thus resonance goes down
as the number of wavelength goes up. Now I apply that same arrangement
to antenna programs that have free reign to modify the arrangement
according to the laws of Maxell based on equilibrium and the final
version of the four forces plus the particles ala the standard model.
The computor program which is designed around the standard model which
was modified to suit the present planar antenna of today is overjoyed
for being used for its initial use confirmes the arrangement produces
above. As a check the same arrangement is supplied to a nec4 set up
controlled by a academic and it againl passed the check.
Equilibrium cannot be discarded and all of the masters stipulate that
as the founding condition, yet the present world has rejected it in
favour of a computor
Shame Shame Shame. Now I finish off the mowing
Art Unwin ...KB9MZ...........xg
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote:


And what do you do when they don't work? Cut-n-try is a rather
expensive way to build something that works. Given infinite time and
materials, it will eventually result in a functional antenna. You
could probably do that at HF frequencies where construction errors are
about equal to calculation errors. However, don't try it at microwave
frequencies. While it's possible to cut-n-try various microwave
structures, it's messy, difficult, prone to error, and not very
effective. The techniques used to build a coat hanger ground plane at
VHF just are not going to work at X-band.


Well, ya', an adjustable whip(s) is good, especially with the cost of
copper and the pain in "resoldering your prunings." LOL

The only way to get it close to right the first time is to calculate
first, calculate again, have someone check the calculations, drink
some wine, and check your calcs again. Then build it.


You have wine? Why didn't you say so, that changes everything:

1) Put antennas away.

2) Have a glass of wine and contemplate the design/construction.

3) Repeat 2) until ALL wine is gone.

4) Take a nap.

5) Now get the antenna(s) back out and begin work ... LOL

A few times, I have just grabbed up some tubing/wire a variable
condenser or two, and "eyeballed" the construction--past experience
provided "ballpark" figures/placements/wiring, testing, trimming and
adjusting got me the final result ...

Yep. That will work at HF because the lower frequencies allow for
much larger construction errors. Your antenna lengths could be off
many cm and still work. Your xmitter can also tolerate a substantial
VSWR and still be considered functional and useful. You match box
could be grossly inefficient trying to match your constructed antenna,
and work well enough. Now, try that at microwave frequencies, where
every milliwatt is precious, where VSWR is too crude and reflection
coefficient comes close to describing the ultimate goal of a perfect
match, and where cm errors are disastrous. Some broadband antennas
(helix and horn) are very forgiving and can be build fairly crudely.
Others (stripline, phased arrays, cavity backed antennas, etc) have a
higher Q and require more accuracy than the eyeball can provide.


Or, to summarize, the more complex the antenna, the more meters you are
going to need ... LOL

Mainly, I point this out so as not to "obsfucate" that layman, or
discourage him ... the men who first started/awakened my interest in
such things never gave any indication, to me, they had an understanding
of calculus, only basic-math/algebra, and of course, geometry!

Same here. My original mentors were operators first and technical
types last. However, I saw the light (and the distinction) between
amateur and professional when I went to college and saw that radio
things were easier and better if they were calculated (and understood)
first. I have several humorous examples of hams operating in a
professional environment (engineering lab at a radio manufactory) and
failing miserably using cut-n-try methods popularized by ham radio.


Indeed, mine drank beer too! grin

Indeed, at least one passed away without ever expressing any real
interest in learning it!

There are suspicions that math may hasten one's demise. Perhaps he
tried to do a calculation before he died?


If away from my laptop, the programmable calculator is always in my
pocket! (I mean, my gawd man, I have space invaders on it!) straight-face

...

Also, I assembled a small list of tech patents that appear to be
bogus. I was going to post the list on the web but my attorney
advised against it. Even holders of bogus patents can sue for
damages. Oh well.


.... some patents are NOT what they used to be ... but then, there has
always been some suspicion about the politics involved, not to mention
courts ...

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Art Unwin wrote:

For instance, equilibrium demands that charges do not move laterally
along an antenna when in equilibrium
Without equilibrium charges do move along the surface of a radiator
and Newtons law of parity demands
that charges are moving thru the CENTER of the radiator thus
encoundering just copper losses.

Hi Art,

Which one was Newton's Law of Parity again? I'm drawing a blank.

Google had this:

Your search - "Newton's law of parity" - did not match any documents.

73, ac6xg