Reg Edwards wrote:
Cec, I don't doubt your experimental results. It's your extrapolated
imagination and logic which worries me. ;o)

I didn't imagine those experimental results, Reg, and all I did was
report those results. My logic tells me that there is a grain of
valid circumstantial evidence in there somewhere.

What you need to do to prove your point is present an antenna where the
high-current portion is prohibited from radiating yet still yields a
high field strength.

Example #1: The top half of an electrical 1/4WL antenna is prohibited
from radiating by a balanced top hat. Field strength results are
similar to a 1/4WL monopole. This has already been presented.

Example #2: The bottom half of an electrical 1/4WL antenna is
prohibited from radiating by _________________. Fill in the blank
and prove that field strength results are similar to a 1/4WL monopole.
That's all you need to do to make a believer (instead of a doubter)
out of me.
--
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! =-----

Its the voltage parts of the antenna which do the radiating.

That is proved by cutting off the top part of the antenna and replacing it
with a top hat which has a much larger capacitance so it radiates the power
harder.
---
Reg.

Reg Edwards wrote:
Its the voltage parts of the antenna which do the radiating.

That is proved by cutting off the top part of the antenna and replacing it
with a top hat which has a much larger capacitance so it radiates the power
harder.

Reg, let's say we have an elevated antenna system where the radial system
and top hat system are identical and balanced. Energy flows back and
forth between the radials and top hat. Very little energy is radiated
from either the top hat or the radials since they are balanced. Virtually
all of the radiated energy comes from the high-current vertical portion
of the antenna.

Such antennas are described in Appendix II - Short Ground-Mounted Verticals
in _Building_and_Using_Baluns_and_Ununs_ by Jerry Sevick, w2fmi.
--
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! =-----

Cec, who's Jerry Sevick. I don't seem to have a copy of his works around me
at present.
---
Reg.

Cecil Moore wrote:

Reg, we have a clear example of where the high voltage part of the
antenna is not allowed to radiate (much). That would be a balanced
top hat. Not allowing the high voltage part of the antenna to radiate
leaves the high current part to do most of the radiating.

Cecil,

Reg makes a good point. We know that the same amplitude (less ohmic
losses) of current travels the entire length of the antenna in both
directions. The relative phase of forward and reverse currents simply
makes the superposition of the two currents greater at one end than
another. We might measure the standing wave current with an ammeter,
but it is the traveling wave currents which radiate.

73, Jim AC6XG

Reg Edwards wrote:
Cec, who's Jerry Sevick. I don't seem to have a copy of his works around me
at present.

He's accepted by most as *the* ham balun guru. Some disagree.
--
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! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:
Reg makes a good point. We know that the same amplitude (less ohmic
losses) of current travels the entire length of the antenna in both
directions. The relative phase of forward and reverse currents simply
makes the superposition of the two currents greater at one end than
another. We might measure the standing wave current with an ammeter,
but it is the traveling wave currents which radiate.

A balanced top hat doesn't radiate much because the currents in the
opposing elements are 180 degrees out of phase with each other. It
doesn't matter if they are traveling waves or standing waves. If they
are 180 degrees out of phase with each other, they are more like a
transmission line than they are like an antenna.
--
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! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Reg, we have a clear example of where the high voltage part of the
antenna is not allowed to radiate (much). That would be a balanced
top hat. Not allowing the high voltage part of the antenna to radiate
leaves the high current part to do most of the radiating.

Cecil,

Reg makes a good point. We know that the same amplitude (less ohmic
losses) of current travels the entire length of the antenna in both
directions. The relative phase of forward and reverse currents simply
makes the superposition of the two currents greater at one end than
another. We might measure the standing wave current with an ammeter,
but it is the traveling wave currents which radiate.

73, Jim AC6XG

============================

Jim, are you one of the crackpots who think that it's the voltage parts of
the antenna which do the radiating which is proved by replacing the top
portion of the antenna with a top hat which has a large capacitance so that
the voltage has a greater effect. ;o)
---
Reg, G4FGQ

Reg Edwards wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Reg, we have a clear example of where the high voltage part of the
antenna is not allowed to radiate (much). That would be a balanced
top hat. Not allowing the high voltage part of the antenna to radiate
leaves the high current part to do most of the radiating.

Cecil,

Reg makes a good point. We know that the same amplitude (less ohmic
losses) of current travels the entire length of the antenna in both
directions. The relative phase of forward and reverse currents simply
makes the superposition of the two currents greater at one end than
another. We might measure the standing wave current with an ammeter,
but it is the traveling wave currents which radiate.

73, Jim AC6XG

============================

Jim, are you one of the crackpots who think that it's the voltage parts of
the antenna which do the radiating which is proved by replacing the top
portion of the antenna with a top hat which has a large capacitance so that
the voltage has a greater effect. ;o)
---
Reg, G4FGQ

Hi Reg,

Were it not for this group, I would never have known the full extent of
my crackpottedness! My colleagues and associates have been keeping it a
secret from me all these years evidently. With that in mind, yes.
Nevermind Farady. The size of the hat should indeed determine the size
of the effect. I wear a 7 3/4.

73, Jim AC6XG

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:43:05 -0800, Jim Kelley wrote:

Reg Edwards wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Reg, we have a clear example of where the high voltage part of the
antenna is not allowed to radiate (much). That would be a balanced
top hat. Not allowing the high voltage part of the antenna to radiate
leaves the high current part to do most of the radiating.

Cecil,

Reg makes a good point. We know that the same amplitude (less ohmic
losses) of current travels the entire length of the antenna in both
directions. The relative phase of forward and reverse currents simply
makes the superposition of the two currents greater at one end than
another. We might measure the standing wave current with an ammeter,
but it is the traveling wave currents which radiate.

73, Jim AC6XG

============================

Jim, are you one of the crackpots who think that it's the voltage parts of
the antenna which do the radiating which is proved by replacing the top
portion of the antenna with a top hat which has a large capacitance so that
the voltage has a greater effect. ;o)
---
Reg, G4FGQ

Hi Reg,

Were it not for this group, I would never have known the full extent of
my crackpottedness! My colleagues and associates have been keeping it a
secret from me all these years evidently. With that in mind, yes.
Nevermind Farady. The size of the hat should indeed determine the size
of the effect. I wear a 7 3/4.

73, Jim AC6XG

Have you guys ever considered that since the infinitesimally short dipole
radiates only 4 percent less than a resonant dipole, the only reason for having
any longer length than infinitesimally short is to make it resonant? So what do
you think the relation between voltage and current is in the short dipole? Does
that bring to mind whether the max radiation occurs at the max voltage or max
current portion of the dipole?

Walt, W2DU