"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Nov 16, 11:58 am, "Dave" wrote:
After all we are aware that they will come
to rest on a material that will not apply a bond to these particles
such as a diagmatic material which radiators are made of?

you still haven't explained how my ferromagnetic radiators work.

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 16, 7:37*am, JosephKK wrote:


Two things. *

And for the second thing... I happen to have problems with
portraying a dummy load on a stick as the answer to all things
of a radiating nature.
I've seen his antenna, and I know how it was built.
It's a dummy load on a stick.
See for yourself. Don't just take my word for it.
http://www.k8gu.com/webpost/unwin-antenna.jpg
Note that this antenna is for 160m use.
My MW receiving loop would likely out radiate that thing.
If I used my mobile antenna, it would get ugly.
All his antenna is, is a helical whip, with contra wound
windings to make it even more lossy than if it were wound
in a normal military manner.
The extra "coil" on top is basically useless, and only adds
a small bit more inductance to the antenna. Maybe enough
to scoot down the band a few kc's.. :/
He says it needs no ground plane, but being it is a vertical,
it sure as heck does, if reducing ground loss is an issue.
Of course, if one is willing to ignore massive coil loss, it's
no large stretch to assume he has no problem ignoring
ground losses either.
What is hilarious to most, is that he uses bafflegab mumbo
jumbo to try to explain the workings of an antenna that is
not only prior art I'm sure, but also a very perverted version
at that. I compared his antenna to a MW loopstick used for
receive purposes only.
Look at the picture and tell me your analysis.
You can apply plain old known vertical antenna technology
and come up with a pretty accurate assessment of the
efficiency of his antenna.
Mumbo jumbo is not required for this task.
Fairy tales won't cut it either. Nor neutrinos, the weak
force, or the shoe size of Captain Kirk.
Maybe this will shed some light on my persistent
skepticism of his illustrious, but stinky design.

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 16, 6:01*pm, wrote:
On Nov 16, 7:37*am, JosephKK wrote:



Two things. *

And for the second thing... I happen to have problems with
portraying a dummy load on a stick as the answer to all things
of a radiating nature.
I've seen his antenna, and I know how it was built.
It's a dummy load on a stick.
See for yourself. Don't just take my word for it.http://www.k8gu.com/webpost/unwin-antenna.jpg
Note that this antenna is for 160m use.
My MW receiving loop would likely out radiate that thing.
If I used my mobile antenna, it would get ugly.
All his antenna is, is a helical whip, with contra wound
windings to make it even more lossy than if it were wound
in a normal military manner.
The extra "coil" on top is basically useless, and only adds
a small bit more inductance to the antenna. Maybe enough
to scoot down the band a few kc's.. * :/
He says it needs no ground plane, but being it is a vertical,
it sure as heck does, if reducing ground loss is an issue.
Of course, if one is willing to ignore massive coil loss, it's
no large stretch to assume he has no problem ignoring
ground losses either.
What is hilarious to most, is that he uses bafflegab mumbo
jumbo to try to explain the workings of an antenna that is
not only prior art I'm sure, but also a very perverted version
at that. I compared his antenna to a MW loopstick used for
receive purposes only.
Look at the picture and tell me your analysis.
You can apply plain old known vertical antenna technology
and come up with a pretty accurate assessment of the
efficiency of his antenna.
Mumbo jumbo is not required for this task.
Fairy tales won't cut it either. Nor neutrinos, the weak
force, or the shoe size of Captain Kirk.
Maybe this will shed some light on my persistent
skepticism of his illustrious, but stinky design.

The antenna you are referring to is an antenna that does not transmit
but does receive. This being contrary to accepted amateur lore that
all antennas are reciprocal
It was given to a future doctorate from the University of Illinois a
University who as a whole actively disses any
ideas from outside the academic field So I gave him a antenna that he
expected to get.
Prior to this "gift" which I also related to this group in detail. I
found out that when you superimpose a helix over a helix in contra
wound form the
eddy current magnetic fields cancelled each other such that the
particles were not levitatedwhich is required for transmissionthe
latter which
From this I learned that a radiator can only be of a varied shape and
in equilibrium as long as there was no interference
to distributed loads. Removing this inter action from the radiator
allowed levitatiuon of the particles such that it CAN transmit as well
as recieve which is not determined by a levitation action. Try it for
your self and do not compare a resistance with out distributed
inductance and capacitance with multi windings of distributed
capacitance and inductance. I know that you never completed high
school but there is no reason to stop reading technical books
just because you were thrown out which is foolhardy not vengance. The
photo in question was displayed solely as a prop by those who wanted
to diss my theory which is exactly why I suspect that you are using it
now. and good enough reason for me to supply a antenna that I did.
areana. Now any antenna can apply an overlapping helix to any antenna
computor program including the very limited EZNEC program to determine
the results for themselves, it is not essential to have a optimizer so
there is no need to imitate a talking head in dissing what I am
sharing.
Art

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 16, 6:33*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 16, 6:01*pm, wrote:



On Nov 16, 7:37*am, JosephKK wrote:

Two things. *

And for the second thing... I happen to have problems with
portraying a dummy load on a stick as the answer to all things
of a radiating nature.
I've seen his antenna, and I know how it was built.
It's a dummy load on a stick.
See for yourself. Don't just take my word for it.http://www.k8gu.com/webpost/unwin-antenna.jpg
Note that this antenna is for 160m use.
My MW receiving loop would likely out radiate that thing.
If I used my mobile antenna, it would get ugly.
All his antenna is, is a helical whip, with contra wound
windings to make it even more lossy than if it were wound
in a normal military manner.
The extra "coil" on top is basically useless, and only adds
a small bit more inductance to the antenna. Maybe enough
to scoot down the band a few kc's.. * :/
He says it needs no ground plane, but being it is a vertical,
it sure as heck does, if reducing ground loss is an issue.
Of course, if one is willing to ignore massive coil loss, it's
no large stretch to assume he has no problem ignoring
ground losses either.
What is hilarious to most, is that he uses bafflegab mumbo
jumbo to try to explain the workings of an antenna that is
not only prior art I'm sure, but also a very perverted version
at that. I compared his antenna to a MW loopstick used for
receive purposes only.
Look at the picture and tell me your analysis.
You can apply plain old known vertical antenna technology
and come up with a pretty accurate assessment of the
efficiency of his antenna.
Mumbo jumbo is not required for this task.
Fairy tales won't cut it either. Nor neutrinos, the weak
force, or the shoe size of Captain Kirk.
Maybe this will shed some light on my persistent
skepticism of his illustrious, but stinky design.

The antenna you are referring to is an antenna that does not transmit
but does receive. This being contrary to accepted amateur lore that
all antennas are reciprocal

Duhhhh... I guess it never occurred to you that the overall signal
and noise levels at that frequency are so high as to let nearly any
length of metal act as a decent antenna.
I'm sure the theory of reciprocal antenna operation was not
broken in your case. I'm sure that the level you saw was about
20-30 db down from the level you would have had from a 1/2 wave
dipole. But.. being as you seem to refuse a reference antenna to
compare to, you would never realize this.
Of course, a loss of 20-30 db is not enough to kill you at
that frequency. My un-amplified MW loops are a prime
example of that fact.
Your antenna should be less efficient than my 5 turn loop,
but still should be usable as a receive antenna.
Art, for someone with such a self proclaimed vast education,
you are as thick as a brick.
Note that this was a popular song from a fairly popular English
band back in the last century.

Rest of rambling jibber jabber mumbo jumbo deleted to help
preserve sanity among the various readers.

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 16, 6:53*pm, wrote:
On Nov 16, 6:33*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Nov 16, 6:01*pm, wrote:

On Nov 16, 7:37*am, JosephKK wrote:

Two things. *

And for the second thing... I happen to have problems with
portraying a dummy load on a stick as the answer to all things
of a radiating nature.
I've seen his antenna, and I know how it was built.
It's a dummy load on a stick.
See for yourself. Don't just take my word for it.http://www.k8gu.com/webpost/unwin-antenna.jpg
Note that this antenna is for 160m use.
My MW receiving loop would likely out radiate that thing.
If I used my mobile antenna, it would get ugly.
All his antenna is, is a helical whip, with contra wound
windings to make it even more lossy than if it were wound
in a normal military manner.
The extra "coil" on top is basically useless, and only adds
a small bit more inductance to the antenna. Maybe enough
to scoot down the band a few kc's.. * :/
He says it needs no ground plane, but being it is a vertical,
it sure as heck does, if reducing ground loss is an issue.
Of course, if one is willing to ignore massive coil loss, it's
no large stretch to assume he has no problem ignoring
ground losses either.
What is hilarious to most, is that he uses bafflegab mumbo
jumbo to try to explain the workings of an antenna that is
not only prior art I'm sure, but also a very perverted version
at that. I compared his antenna to a MW loopstick used for
receive purposes only.
Look at the picture and tell me your analysis.
You can apply plain old known vertical antenna technology
and come up with a pretty accurate assessment of the
efficiency of his antenna.
Mumbo jumbo is not required for this task.
Fairy tales won't cut it either. Nor neutrinos, the weak
force, or the shoe size of Captain Kirk.
Maybe this will shed some light on my persistent
skepticism of his illustrious, but stinky design.

The antenna you are referring to is an antenna that does not transmit
but does receive. This being contrary to accepted amateur lore that
all antennas are reciprocal

Duhhhh... I guess it never occurred to you that the overall signal
and noise levels at that frequency are so high as to let nearly any
length of metal act as a decent antenna.
I'm sure the theory of reciprocal antenna operation was not
broken in your case. I'm sure that the level you saw was about
20-30 db down from the level you would have had from a 1/2 wave
dipole. But.. being as you seem to refuse a reference antenna to
compare to, you would never realize this.
Of course, a loss of 20-30 db is not enough to kill you at
that frequency. My un-amplified MW loops are a prime
example of that fact.
Your antenna should be less efficient than my 5 turn loop,
but still should be usable as a receive antenna.
Art, for someone with such a self proclaimed vast education,
you are as thick as a brick.
Note that this was a popular song from a fairly popular English
band back in the last century.

Rest of rambling jibber jabber mumbo jumbo deleted to help
preserve sanity among the various readers.

So you think I should succumb to those who diss me without foundation
and give then
a proper antenna? Not me, I say gottcha.! And as far as your assertion
that all verticals must have a ground plain
that is exactly what I would expect of you. Read books instead of
looking for vengance on who stayed in school.
Somebody on this group offered you a wager of $1000 or was it more, to
refute your assetrtion that I didn't have such an antenna.
He stated he would supply the wager up front and I stated I would go
along and supply the antenna. What did you do?
You squeeled and groaned and got lost for a while and revealed
yourself as a talking head. I am done with you. I am not going to
respond in like nastiness but just avoid contact
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg...(uk)

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:18:44 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

So you think I should succumb to those who diss me without foundation
and give then a proper antenna?

Yes, I think you should. I have yet to see a model, photo, prototype,
description, patent, test results, or other physical manifestation of
your antenna. I would really like to see an antenna design based on
equilibrium, that ignores skin effect by having current flow in the
middle of a conductor, and that is any way superior to conventional
designs. I'm quite open to radical new theories and implementations.
Hopefully, it will be built from something more common that
unobtainium.

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

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 16, 7:18*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


So you think I should succumb to those who diss me without foundation
and give then
a proper antenna?

We have quite a solid foundation to "diss" your theories.

Not me, I say gottcha.! And as far as your assertion
that all verticals must have a ground plain
that is exactly what I would expect of you. Read books instead of
looking for vengance on who stayed in school.

Typical Art response. I've read the books, and I've used the
real antennas. Have you? Oh yea, you dismiss everything you
read in books. :/
Anyone with a clue knows that even "complete" verticals such
as a 1/2 wave can still suffer the effects of ground loss.
The loss is not quite as large as with the 1/4 wave monopole
due to the change in current distribution, but it is still there.
Why do you think that AM broadcasters that use 1/2 wave
verticals, also use a radial set of 1/2 wave radials?
For their health? To spend money that otherwise could be spent
on donuts for the fat slob at the mike? To be stylish?
Cuz Uncle Joe Bob is in the copper industry and needs more
work?
Good grief.. :/
The 5/8 radiator really should have an opposite 5/8 radiator,
rather than a ground plane. The usual 1/4 wave radial set for
an elevated ground plane is a poor choice.
But the problem in that case is not so much ground loss,
as it is perversion of the pattern due to using what I consider
a perverted unsymmetrical antenna.
This is why some people whine that their 5/8's antennas don't
live up to their expectations.
But if a 5/8 radiator is ground mounted, it too requires a radial
set to reduce ground losses. Go call WBAP and ask the
engineer if they have any wire in the ground.
This also applies to elevated dual 5/8 verticals if they are low
to the ground vs wavelength.


Somebody on this group offered you a wager of $1000 or was it more, to
refute your assetrtion that I didn't have such an antenna.
He stated he would supply the wager up front and I stated I would go
along and supply the antenna. What did you do?
You squeeled and groaned and got lost for a while and revealed
yourself as a talking head.

No one did any such thing that I'm aware of. Show me the google
archives. You are either totally full of crap, or must have me
confused with someone else. "that actually gives a @#$%" :/
Why would I care if you have an antenna or not?
You need to get a grip on reality.
I could give a rats heiney, and most certainly would not bother to
make any wager over you having one or not.
The reason I suspect this, is #1, I don't gamble. At all.
Even at Vegas. I don't even play the lottery.

I am done with you.

You can bet I'm not done with you though if you persist with
the usual mumbo jumbo jibber jabber.
I consider it my moral duty to expose all the stinky I run across.
So go ahead, make my day.

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 16, 8:01*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:18:44 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
So you think I should succumb to those who diss me without foundation
and give then a proper antenna?

Yes, I think you should. *I have yet to see a model, photo, prototype,
description, patent, test results, or other physical manifestation of
your antenna. *I would really like to see an antenna design based on
equilibrium, that ignores skin effect by having current flow in the
middle of a conductor, and that is any way superior to conventional
designs. *I'm quite open to radical new theories and implementations.
Hopefully, it will be built from something more common that
unobtainium.

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

Jeff I tried to share everything over the years with fellow hams but
all I got were insults
I have applied for patent an as wilh the later forms as I learn more
they eventually will come to light. I also have a page which
is now empty as after a deluge of insults so
I took it off the web.Hams got angry. It seems that hams feel that
they have the right
to everything regarding antennas and they did get all the information
I have but the dissing goes
on as they are not willing to think for themselves. Should I go hell
bent on supplying samples to the ham community
when they refuse to recognise the veracity of any thing I say?
Ofcourse not and I thus care not for similar talk from you.
The group cannot prevent the disclosure and the "me to": attitude will
come back when all is revealed, Until that time I will not reward
those who automatically diss everything I share in the hope that they
will shame me into giving them a sample.
I am happy that they continue to post despite the lack of responses as
their practice of using free speech allows us to measure who and what
they are so that we do not involve ourselves with the like oif them
and KB9......all of which seem to be of the same type of miscreants.
I received a posting today from the likes of KB9... which all can read
for themselves, he will not get anymore responses from me as I do not
wish to be assdociated with such a group which judging by other lack
of postings is the attitude of most of this group.
Have a happy day
Art Unwin KB9MZ...xg...(UK)

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

Richard Harrison wrote:
Art wrote:
"Einstein may well have been correct even tho not aware of discovries
found after his death."

Wouldn`t anyone like to be aware of all the discoveries made before his
death?

Einstein said something like: "Keep it simple, but not too simple!"

Scientists have in many instances followed Einstein`s advice and reduced
things to simplest terms. Maxwell`s equations as simplified and
explained by Heaviside have been used to successfully predict EM
behavior for a century. They give the answers needed so there has been
no great search for a replacement.
...
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


I love Einstein, but then, I have met few Germans I didn't like ...

However, gravity serves a prime example of what you suggest, here. We
know nothing about it, but a lot about its' affects and effects; we
have many formulas to tell us about those and a few theories to tell us
what it (gravity) actually is. So, I doubt it surprises anyone that we
stand at, almost, this exact situation with EM.

However, to lift the blanket and peer upon the true substance and nature
of these things would take us to a whole 'nother level of possibilities
in their uses ...

So, if you argument is going to become, "We already know enough of these
things, let us go no further"; well, some just may follow you--some not
.... personally, I'd "druther" not ...

Warm regards,
JS

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 16, 8:01*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:18:44 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
So you think I should succumb to those who diss me without foundation
and give then a proper antenna?

Yes, I think you should. *I have yet to see a model, photo, prototype,
description, patent, test results, or other physical manifestation of
your antenna. *I would really like to see an antenna design based on
equilibrium, that ignores skin effect by having current flow in the
middle of a conductor, and that is any way superior to conventional
designs. *I'm quite open to radical new theories and implementations.
Hopefully, it will be built from something more common that
unobtainium.

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

If a time varying current is flowing thru the center of a conductor
it cannot, I repeat cannot produce either a field from the applied
current
or provide an eddy current. The only loss it experiences is a copper
loss
which is minimal and I "beieve" such resistences are limited to
certain value by the FCC;( 6 ohms) for broadcast stations
It can be seen then that the radiation from a radiator not in
equilibrium is relatively efficient with respect to applied power
even tho it is not radiating from the center of the radiator. If you
know of an experiment that was devised to show that no current flow in
the center I would apreciate a heads up. But I would also remind you
that it was Newtons law with respect to equilibrium that led
scientists to declare that current travels on the outside without the
need for furthur experiment.
Art