"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 26, 7:49 am, "Rectifier" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

When modelling antennas and also building them it is obvious that
maximum gain comes about when resistance aproaches zero. Soooooooo
common sence says that the best antenna gain comes about when the anti
resonant point can be easily fed, welllll thats how my antennas work.
Unfortunatelly, the antenna was resonant on top band
but with a very low resistance so I have to start all over again. The
noise level did increase by 7 S units where modelling showed 9 dbi
gain ! Maybe I should use two radiators instead of the single one. O
well, I have to make changes so the anti resonance point is available
at top band. David, IT IS a topsy turvy world
so I am not available to listenning to the wobbly heads on the radio.
Oh shame for shame
Art

Uh, resistance? Are you talking about DC resistance? What about impedence?

You also stated, "Unfortunatelly, the antenna was resonant on top band but
with a very low resistance so I have to start all over again" after
saying,
"maximum gain comes about when resistance aproaches zero." Which is it? Is
your low resistance good nor not?

I feed antennas with a resistive feads without reactance, when it
becomes an impedance I retune or should I say the radio retunes
the antenna to make it resistive
to make it resistive

OK Art. I hate to put it this way, but you really need to take a course or
two to get on the same page and be understood in these subjects. Even a few
nights with the ARRL Handbook may help bridge the gap.

For instance. With Lumped Constants, when inductive reactance and
capacitive reactance are equal, the circuit is in resonance. Any series
resistance in the circuit will become a significant load and result in loss.
In an antenna, there will be a characteristic impedance of the feed point.
Although it may include the loss resistance, other factors determine that
impedance. Since there are nodes of high and low impedance on the antenna,
the feed point may be modified or relocated for different impedance. Also
because of the nodes, there will be high and low currents along the antenna.
Where the current is high, the losses in the resistance will be greater and
most greatly affect the Q.

On Sep 26, 10:52*am, "JB" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 26, 7:49 am, "Rectifier" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....

When modelling antennas and also building them it is obvious that
maximum gain comes about when resistance aproaches zero. Soooooooo
common sence says that the best antenna gain comes about when the anti
resonant point can be easily fed, welllll thats how my antennas work.
Unfortunatelly, the antenna was resonant on top band
but with a very low resistance so I have to start all over again. The
noise level did increase by 7 S units where modelling showed 9 dbi
gain ! Maybe I should use two radiators instead of the single one. O
well, I have to make changes so the anti resonance point is available
at top band. David, IT IS a topsy turvy world
so I am not available to listenning to the wobbly heads on the radio.
Oh shame for shame
Art

Uh, resistance? Are you talking about DC resistance? What about impedence?

You also stated, "Unfortunatelly, the antenna was resonant on top band but
with a very low resistance so I have to start all over again" after
saying,
"maximum gain comes about when resistance aproaches zero." Which is it? Is
your low resistance good nor not?

I feed antennas with a resistive feads without reactance, when it
becomes an impedance I retune or should I say the radio retunes
the antenna to make it resistive
to make it resistive

OK Art. *I hate to put it this way, but you really need to take a course or
two to get on the same page and be understood in these subjects. *Even a few
nights with the ARRL Handbook may help bridge the gap.

For instance. *With Lumped Constants, when inductive reactance and
capacitive reactance are equal, the circuit is in resonance. *Any series
resistance in the circuit will become a significant load and result in loss.
In an antenna, there will be a characteristic impedance of the feed point..
Although it may include the loss resistance, other factors determine that
impedance. *Since there are nodes of high and low impedance on the antenna,
the feed point may be modified or relocated for different impedance. *Also
because of the nodes, there will be high and low currents along the antenna.
Where the current is high, the losses in the resistance will be greater and
most greatly affect the Q.

I do not have any lumped constants. Maxwell's laws do not include
lumped loads only
distributed loads and my antennas revolve solely around the laws of
Maxwell which
being based on equilibrium includes all four forces of the standard
model
I have no problem with your suggestion, it is that I am just to busy
at what I do.
True ,you can feed at any point but there are penalties with that
aproach which I don't want to mess with,
I prefer to have continual tuning or adjustment at the antenna. Just a
reminder but my design is not
focussed around a planar form that concentrates on inter coupling of
radiators .
Best regards no offence taken
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote:
I do not have any lumped constants. Maxwell's laws do not include
lumped loads only distributed loads and my antennas revolve solely
around the laws of Maxwell which being based on equilibrium
includes all four forces of the standard model

Art:
Of course you have lumped elements in your "antenna". You have
a shoebox full of wire, fashoned into contra-wound coils. Also, the
tuning device you described is a variometer, again replete with COILS.
These coils constitute "lumped constants", as you call them.
Mistakes like this show that your equilibrium is tilted.

Mike W5CHR
Memphis Tenn

On Sep 26, 11:44*am, "Mike Lucas" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote:
I do not have any lumped constants. *Maxwell's laws do not include
lumped loads only distributed loads and my antennas revolve solely
around the laws of Maxwell which *being based on equilibrium
includes all four forces of the standard model

Art:
* * Of course you have lumped elements in your "antenna". You have
a shoebox full of wire, fashoned into contra-wound coils. Also, the
tuning device you described is a variometer, again replete with COILS.
These coils constitute "lumped constants", as you call them.
Mistakes like this show that your equilibrium is tilted.

Mike W5CHR
Memphis Tenn

If you say so
Rectifier
I am having a rethink on where to feed it aproach. Have to sleep on it
I will keep hold of that antenna but I am working on the winter one at
the moment
Regards
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 26, 11:44 am, "Mike Lucas" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote:
I do not have any lumped constants. Maxwell's laws do not include
lumped loads only distributed loads and my antennas revolve solely
around the laws of Maxwell which being based on equilibrium
includes all four forces of the standard model

Art:
Of course you have lumped elements in your "antenna". You have
a shoebox full of wire, fashoned into contra-wound coils. Also, the
tuning device you described is a variometer, again replete with COILS.
These coils constitute "lumped constants", as you call them.
Mistakes like this show that your equilibrium is tilted.

Mike W5CHR
Memphis Tenn

-If you say so
-Rectifier
-I am having a rethink on where to feed it aproach. Have to sleep on it
-I will keep hold of that antenna but I am working on the winter one at
-the moment
-Regards
-Art

I merely used Lumped Constants as an example to describe the relationship
between Inductive and Capacitive reactance, resistance, then to go on and
show how it is differently applied to antennas and impedance. Where to feed
it is exactly the point in providing a transition between the feedline and
antenna. For example: Lumped Constants in an antenna tuner not only adjust
reactance by providing the conjugate reactance to whatever is presented at
its input terminals, but also adjusts impedance, akin to adjusting where the
current minima and maxima will be in relation to the tuner's output
terminals. There are a great many ways to physically do that, either by
linear loading, lumped constants, transmission lines, transitions,
transformers. Look into the feed methods used for Yagis.

"JB" wrote in message
...
Look into the feed methods used for Yagis.


now you've done it... now you will be on art's hit list. anything to do
with the infamous 1 dimensional yagi antenna is the root of all evil that
holds us hostage to old ways and prevents us from following in art's divine
footsteps. after all, his 3d optimized diamagnetic anti-gravity static
netrino tilted shoebox full of wire in front of a 3' reflector would
outperform any yagi design on any band! Of course he still hasn't figured
out how my 3d antenna made out of ferromagnetic materials could possibly
radiate without his jumping static netrinos all over it.

On Sep 26, 3:16*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"JB" wrote in message

...

*Look into the feed methods used for Yagis.

now you've done it... now you will be on art's hit list. *anything to do
with the infamous 1 dimensional yagi antenna is the root of all evil that
holds us hostage to old ways and prevents us from following in art's divine
footsteps. *after all, his 3d optimized diamagnetic anti-gravity static
netrino tilted shoebox full of wire in front of a 3' reflector would
outperform any yagi design on any band! *Of course he still hasn't figured
out how my 3d antenna made out of ferromagnetic materials could possibly
radiate without his jumping static netrinos all over it.

David I have used Yagi's for decades. Nothing wrong with them, they
harfest more than 90%
of radiation available and are directive and very easy to make. What I
am pursueing is a different aproach to radiation
in an effort to make smaller and efficient antennas without resorting
to fractional wavelength.
It should not matter to you if I succeed or not. We have had many
years of the Yagi without much improvement so I am turning antennas on
its head
and starting again from where the Masters put their ideas together.
Maxwell just played with numbers and equations supplied to him by the
forerunners
he just wasn't interested in equilibrium he was interested in the
interplay of numbers only. It is our good luck that all the
forerunners included the consequences of equilibrium in all their
functions so whether Maxwell was interested or not the equilibrium
format was included whether he understood that or not. Now you and
everybody else knows that computor programs were built solely around
Maxwells laws with the condition of equilibrium. Whether you like it
or not the program had to be extended so it was of use to amateurs who
used intercoupling of elements as a short cut to approximations of
radiation which foirtunatelly are quite good such that we have become
lazy in poursueing the laws of the Universe on the assumption that
there is no such
thing as a Universal law. I believe there is a universal law and I
will not be detered from that search from the likes of you who
apparently solved all the laws of nature before I started. If nyou got
there then so can I
Have a happy week end and for goodness sake quit the drinking and
savore the World as it is
Regards
Arti

On Sep 26, 3:16*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"JB" wrote in message

...

*Look into the feed methods used for Yagis.

now you've done it... now you will be on art's hit list. *anything to do
with the infamous 1 dimensional yagi antenna is the root of all evil that
holds us hostage to old ways and prevents us from following in art's divine
footsteps. *after all, his 3d optimized diamagnetic anti-gravity static
netrino tilted shoebox full of wire in front of a 3' reflector would
outperform any yagi design on any band! *Of course he still hasn't figured
out how my 3d antenna made out of ferromagnetic materials could possibly
radiate without his jumping static netrinos all over it.

David
If a radiator is ferromagnetic it will still create eddy currents but
on a smaller scale than with diamagnetic material as well as the
material being lossier because of the hysteresis. The bottom line is
that the eddy current becomes swamped by the initiating current and
the same goes for the magnetic fields.
Keep the above in mind and then review a tank circuit to see the
implications of the above, I am sure you will be surprised if you are
familiar with the
attributes that a tank circuit has beyond the slosh back and forth.
You should look up wilkpedia for aluminum scrap metal sorting to see
the different
projection angles ( levitation) of the different materials being
sorted into the separate containers. Move beyond non magnetic
stainless steel and the elevation angles change very quickly. As far
as neutrinuos goes you would have to look very hard for a material
that would absorb a non bound free electron I believe it is less than
5% of the materials on Earth that would interfere with the placement
of a free electron which would put it somewhere below 1/2% in termns
of volume. Remember the less the ratio of eddy current the less force
available for spin which would cut out all DXing. Put that bottle down
and get that brain of yours back in order. Why not watch the debate
with a cup of hot tea?
Art
of the Earths volume.
Art

On Sep 26, 2:40*pm, "JB" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 26, 11:44 am, "Mike Lucas" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote:
I do not have any lumped constants. Maxwell's laws do not include
lumped loads only distributed loads and my antennas revolve solely
around the laws of Maxwell which being based on equilibrium
includes all four forces of the standard model

Art:
Of course you have lumped elements in your "antenna". You have
a shoebox full of wire, fashoned into contra-wound coils. Also, the
tuning device you described is a variometer, again replete with COILS.
These coils constitute "lumped constants", as you call them.
Mistakes like this show that your equilibrium is tilted.

Mike W5CHR
Memphis Tenn

-If you say so
-Rectifier
-I am having a rethink on where to feed it aproach. Have to sleep on it
-I will keep hold of that antenna but I am working on the winter one at
-the moment
-Regards
-Art

I merely used Lumped Constants as an example to describe the relationship
between Inductive and Capacitive reactance, resistance, then to go on and
show how it is differently applied to antennas and impedance. *Where to feed
it is exactly the point in providing a transition between the feedline and
antenna. *For example: *Lumped Constants in an antenna tuner not only adjust
reactance by providing the conjugate reactance to whatever is presented at
its input terminals, but also adjusts impedance, akin to adjusting where the
current minima and maxima will be in relation to the tuner's output
terminals. *There are a great many ways to physically do that, either by
linear loading, lumped constants, transmission lines, transitions,
transformers. *Look into the feed methods used for Yagis.

Mike I am not a total newby to antennas. I understand them in my own
way very well.I obviously have a problem in communication
I am changing the dimensional structure purely to get the anti
resonant point at the center of the top band instead of the standard
resonant point
which is too low to realistically to use. Now the antiresonant point
will be between 100 and 200 ohms resistive which allows me to feed it
directly from a 50 ohm transmission line (3/4 andrews) with negligable
losses as the mismatch is resistive. Past work and experimental
results lead me to belive I have a beam for top band with approx 9/10
dbi gain when a reflector is not used. Now who in the World would
throw away the thought of such a antenna because
of the silly aproach of old timers who consider all is known otherwise
they would have changed things a long while ago? The design with all
info will eventually appear on my page. Up to now I have tried to
share everything but old timers on retirement close their minds and
cannot abide change.
If I see from past postings that a dialog could be rewarding I will
respond but they are few and far between. There has not been one
person on this newsgroup over the last few years who is able to look
at a Gaussian field with an applied time varient field and a radiator
and mathematically prove that the results are the same as Maxwell.
True the units are different between Gauss and Maxwell but to deny the
mathematical equivalence without doing the math is unconciousable
Art
Regards
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote
... Now the antiresonant point will be between 100 and 200 ohms
resistive which allows me to feed it directly from a 50 ohm
transmission line (3/4 andrews) with negligable losses as
the mismatch is resistive.
__________

Art -

An antenna with an input impedance of 150 + j 0 ohms has a reflection
coefficient of 0.5 (50%), a return loss of 6.02 dB, and an SWR of 3:1 to a
50 ohm source. Probably not many transmitters would be happy with that
magnitude of load mismatch.

Do you maintain that the losses defined by these parameters are negligible
to amateur radio operators?

RF