Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:34:38 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: 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. Yeah, I'm one who disagrees! Walt, W2DU |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
He's accepted by most as *the* ham balun guru. Some disagree.
====================== How can anybody make himself a guru about such a simple, inactive, mundane device as a balun? Now if it was a conjugate match! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Walter Maxwell wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: He's accepted by most as *the* ham balun guru. Some disagree. Yeah, I'm one who disagrees! Well, wait until you find out exactly what the disagreement was. I said a balanced set of elevated radials or a balanced top hat doesn't radiate much RF. What do you say? -- 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! =----- |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:57:01 GMT, Walter Maxwell wrote:
|On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:34:38 -0600, Cecil Moore |wrote: | |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. | |Yeah, I'm one who disagrees! But he is certainly prolific. Can't pick up a magazine without another same-o-same-o article. Latest in Feb. "High Frequency Electronics." Wes |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Walter Maxwell wrote:
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? The total field radiated should be proportional to the product of the voltage and the current applied to the radiator. The size and shape of the radiator will determine the impedance and radiation pattern. Neither issue speaks to the "exact location of the point of max radiation". Any point along the radiator in which traveling wave currents are flowing will radiate. The amount of radiation emanating from any given point would be proportional to the rate at which energy traverses that point. Does that bring to mind whether the max radiation occurs at the max voltage or max current portion of the dipole? The existance of a max radiation point along a radiator should first be shown before we begin to argue about its exact location. In my opinion. 73, Jim AC6XG |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Walter Maxwell" wrote in message ... 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? Now that makes radiation efficiency per unit length hard to calculate, but it does provoke thought regarding antenna designs based on wavelength dimensions. Input impedance on a parallel circuit based radiators gathers momentum in importance. Art 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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 00:33:07 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote: Input impedance on a parallel circuit based radiators gathers momentum in importance. Hi Art, Only if 0.02% to 5% is all you need. Such is the legacy of eh designs in comparison to full size antennas: more than 30dB down (0.1% efficient if one is to be generous). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Reg, G4FGQ wrote:
"One old wife asserts it is obvious radiation occurs mainly from the middle portion of a dipole because that is where the current is strongest and the magnetic field is most concentrated." All sections of a dipole are needed to establish the wave launcher / grabber. Seems to me the old wife quoted above is right. Radiation from a dipole is concentrated in a doughnut pattern around the middle of the wire. What influences are sensed at a distance point perpendicular to the middle of the dipole? There are electric fields, plus and minus, which cancel. The current on one side of the dipole flows into the source while the current on the other side of the source flows out. This places current on both sides of the dipole in the same direction. The magnetic fields from both sides of the dipole are additive because the currents producing them are in-phase. Never mind that an electromagnetic wave must have an electric field as well as a magnetic field. The emerging magnetic field generates an electric field which generates a magnetic field ad infinitum. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Jim, AC6XG wrote:
"The amount of radiation emanating from any point woulf be proportional to the rate at which energy traverses that point." Amperes are the measure of current flow. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Walt, W2DU wrote:
"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 the infinitesimally short is to make it resonant." I`ll assume Walt`s infinitesimally short dipole is the same as Terman`s elemental dipole. If so, I`ll quibble over the 4% . Terman`s table 23-1 on page 871 of his 1955 edition gives the directive gain of the elementary doublet as 1.5 over the isotropic. The resonant dipole has a 1.64 gain . The difference is 0.14 or about 10% more from the 1/2-wave dipole. Still no big deal. Current is in the same direction in both halves of the elementalary dipole no matter how short it is. Opposite charge polarities occupy both elements and their effects tend to cancel on charges equidistant from the middle of the antenna. The field radiated in any direction is the vector sum of fields radiated from infinitesimal elements, and field strength is proportional to current. Directional gain ignores losses. That`s the rub with the tiny antenna of high capacitive reactance (the capacitance is small) and low radiation resistance. The gain ratios are only valid with equal powers in comparison antenna and subject antenna. To get the large current required in the infinitesimal antenna to radiate the same power as the 1/2-wave dipole would be extremely difficult without enormous loss in the match and load circuits. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|