|
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Cecil Moore wrote:
... What happens when me measure the light frequency of distant galaxies while, during the travel of that light, light-years were getting longer and seconds were getting shorter? Hint: same thing that happens when the time base knob on an oscilloscope gets loose and slips. (That actually happened to me and the result was an epiphany about space/time.) OK. Reading you clear now. Just one of those "DUH!" moments I have. Thanks for your time; I am embarrassed ... Regards, JS |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Art Unwin wrote:
"I am still of the belief that on a fractional wave antenna the current travels on both the outside and the inside of the radiator." That`s so at DC but not at HF. HF only travels on the outside layer of a conductor as more current-opposing flux lines encircle the conductor`s center than encircle the conductor`s surface or outer layer. See Fig. 2-10 on page 22 of Terman`s 1955 opus. Art also is confused about current distribution on resonant antennas of various lengths. Terman can help there too. On page 866 Terman wrote: "The current distribution as observed in such a resonant wire (1/2-wave open at both ends) serving as an antenna ordinarily approximates very closely the distribution that would be obtained on the assumption of zero loss. provided the wire length does not exceed 8 to 10 wavelengths. The current distribution, accordingly has the character illustrated in Fig. 23-3." Also on page 866: "----to a first approximation the current distribution can be taken as that for a line with zero losses; it then has the characteristics discussed in Sec.4-5." Page 91, Fig. 4-3 shows the vectors (phasors) E1 & E2 at an open-circuited load as happens at the antenna tips, Conduction current ends at the conductor tip. Current interruption collapses the magnetic field and induces an opposite current causing a zero sum current at the tip, but the induced voltage is of the same polarity as the incident votage making a voltage double at the antenna tip. Energy is conserved. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 14, 3:11*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Art Unwin wrote: "I am still of the belief that on a fractional wave antenna the current travels on both the outside and the inside of the radiator." That`s so at DC but not at HF. HF only travels on the outside layer of a conductor as more current-opposing flux lines encircle the conductor`s center than encircle the conductor`s surface or outer layer. See Fig. 2-10 on page 22 of Terman`s 1955 opus. Art also is confused about current distribution on resonant antennas of various lengths. Terman can help there too. On page 866 Terman wrote: "The current distribution as observed in such a resonant wire (1/2-wave open at both ends) serving as an antenna ordinarily approximates very closely the distribution that would be obtained on the assumption of zero loss. provided the wire length does not exceed 8 to 10 wavelengths. The current distribution, accordingly has the character illustrated in Fig. *23-3." Also on page 866: "----to a first approximation the current distribution can be taken as that for a line with zero losses; it then has the characteristics discussed in Sec.4-5." Page 91, Fig. 4-3 shows the vectors (phasors) E1 & E2 at an open-circuited load as happens at the antenna tips, Conduction current ends at the conductor tip. Current interruption collapses the magnetic field and induces an opposite current causing a zero sum current at the tip, but the induced voltage is of the same polarity as the incident votage making a voltage double at the antenna tip. Energy is conserved. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI * * Could you give a similar description only this time make it a 5/8 wavelength antenna? |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Google
Secrets of the aether Three papers written by two physics peoiple in Southern Illinois Now also in book form released about two years ago Art Reference found at: http://16pi2.com/ I guess you mean "Two phyicists". Problem is they are not physicis: No degrees listed, no university affiliation, no publishing list, no professional society affiliation, papers not published in scholarly journals therefore no peer review. Probably more that I have missed. Even where the three papers were presented (PIRT 2006) looks like it would not stand up to too much scrutiny. At that point I lost interest. 73, Frank |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Richard Harrison wrote:
... Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Sorry I "clipped" your text so severely, my text will be brief ... It surprises me anyone would think RF would not choose the outside of ANY RADIATING element--this is where is MUST make the "jump" to the ether ... isn't logic enough? Regards, JS |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Frank wrote:
... I guess you mean "Two phyicists". Problem is they are not physicis: No degrees listed, no university affiliation, no publishing list, no professional society affiliation, papers not published in scholarly journals therefore no peer review. Probably more that I have missed. Even where the three papers were presented (PIRT 2006) looks like it would not stand up to too much scrutiny. At that point I lost interest. 73, Frank Hmmm, that is sad, so very sad ... In other words, your logic, education and reasoning powers make you highly dependent upon "rubber stamps", and, unable to think for yourself, reason for yourself, use high mental capacities--you are stuck with dependance on a "USDA stamp" telling you the "meat" of the matter is fit for you consumption? You, certainly, must be the product of this generation ... this is so unfortunate, when I was in college they taught us "how to reason", and "how to research"--NOT WHAT TO THINK, HOW TO THINK or IF IT WAS OK TO THINK ... I guess just like cheap crud made in china ... so has gone the education given to this new generation ... perhaps you could complain to the college who has turned out this "inferior merchandise?" .... sad, so very sad ... :-( Best of luck, may you find better on the path yet left before you ... Regards, JS |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Nov 14, 3:11 pm, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Art Unwin wrote: nothing that answered the question.. as expected. well, art... lets try it even simpler... what term(s) in maxwell's equations specify the contribution of the weak force? maybe from that we can determine where they are implemented in art's fantasy about modeling software. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Art Unwin wrote:
"Could you give a similar description only this time make it a 5/8 wavelength antenna." My previous resume` regarded current distribution on a 1/2-wave standing-wave antenna. A 1/2-wave antenna is resonant, that is it has no reactance, and it is open-circuited at both ends. Its feed point is in its center, at its high-current point, and it is a pure resistance. The 5/8 wavelength antenna consists of a 1/2 wavelength section of radiation resistance but no reactance plus a 1/8 wavelength section of small radiation resistance and a large capacitive reactance. To receive maximum energy, the capacitive reactance must be compensated. A unity power factor is desirable. As with the 1/2-wave antenna, current distribution in the 5/8-wave antenna is controlled by its open-circuited ends. On page 187 of the 3rd edition of Kraus` "Antennas" he says: "A sinusoidal current distribution may be regarded as the standing wave produced by two uniform (unattenuated) traveling waves of equal amplitude moving in opposite directions along the antenna." We know there`s radiation and loss as the current travels to and fro between the open-circuited ends of the antenna, but if unattenuated is good nough for most purposes for Kraus, it is good enough for me. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 15, 2:07*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Art Unwin wrote: "Could you give a similar description only this time make it a 5/8 wavelength antenna." My previous resume` regarded current distribution on a 1/2-wave standing-wave antenna. snip "We know that..........." !!!!!!! hmmmm I don't know who "we" is but for one I don't know Could you explain who "we" is and on what authority or explanation has "we": got for such an implausable statement? I do thank you for responding. Oh what a web we weave when we try.... May be this is why scientists have not yet been able to rationalize radiation and we are just left with theories with holes as in cheese. Industry shows us not just talk about it they show us every day what happens to a particle on their conveyor. They even let you show the particle levitated and revolving. Industry also shows you that eddy currents occur in a closed loop circuit and one must see that the combination of the alternating current flow and the resulting eddy current can levitate a particle. They don't just talk about it they can demonstrate it. This is much more plausable and reproduceable than wireing a house with an open circuit to plug into. Also the old books that you read on both argue that a fractional wavelength is represented by a series circuit that is not open! They also say that a full wave antenna is represented by a parallel or tank circuit and again the circuit is not open! No wonder radiation has not been explained fully when so many paradoxes are present. Oh and if my house is wired as an open circuit asit is time related why on earth would one need fuses and where would they put them if it is an open circuit? The idea of two currents opposing each other on the same surface of an open circuit where the eddy currents is thus cancelled by revolving in opposite directions and the same thing going for the time varying current tells me you have discovered the "big bang" by not placing a fuse in an open circuit. Kraus was not perfect otherwise he would have improved on his thinking during his life time by studying radiation and it's creation. Regards Art We know there`s radiation and loss as the current travels to and fro between the open-circuited ends of the antenna, but if unattenuated is good nough for most purposes for Kraus, it is good enough for me. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Richard Harrison wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: "Could you give a similar description only this time make it a 5/8 wavelength antenna." ... Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Richard: I certainly don't want to engage in a large argument. Rather, I would just venture an opinion directly related to my real world construction experiences, and the results from the same: If there are notable gains from constructing a 5/8 wave antenna, as opposed to a 1/2 wave--I have NOT seen them. It all looks good in EZNEC and/or mmana-gal (or, "on paper"), however, in real world s-meter/signal-reports, "it" does not. Perhaps I have experienced a anomaly(s?) Or, put simply, the extra "hassle" in dealing with these extended lengths is simply "not worth it!" Regards, JS |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
|
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 16, 10:16*am, "Dave" wrote:
"JosephKK" wrote in message ... On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 10:31:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Nov 5, 12:01 pm, Art Unwin wrote: Richard you have not come up with anything that contradicts what I have apothosized, nothing ! The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. Suggestions for apothosized: * * 1. apotheosis * * * * * * * * 2. hypothesize Spelling Help Powered by Franklin Electronic Publishers Now *it is YOU who have a problem. Yep, just like I said.. Always blame it on the other guy. It's always his fault. Art is never wrong. What a horses ass.. *:/ Two things. Why are you still bothering with him? *He loves the attention he is getting, he is off in some other NG spewing about being the most responded to poster. *The correct response is to kill file him. I have only read responses to his posts. Many of you could benefit by setting your newsreader to quote correctly. *Outhouse Express can do it, it may even do it by default. art is fun! *he gives me something to laugh at when the wx is bad. usually oe does quote properly, but something is different about art's posts, they must be in a format that oe doesn't like so it won't automatically indent and quote them. David There is something odd about that post. I have not been dabbling in other newsgroups other than a short stint on Eham. I have not stated that I get more resposes than anybody else on the net. So I really don't know where he is coming from I have no problem in people killing my file as that would leave people who want to discuss antennas instead of staying purely for insults and argueing reasons. Perhaps he is one of the kb9.... group that are intent on destroying newsgroups before somebody divulges where he lives so that people can decide how to react. Maybe when the table turns on him he will ponder if his behaviour justified the response he gets! Now back to antennas, how can one determine if current does or does not flow in the centre of a conductor? by separating It was the basis of equilibrium of a radiator that allowed the use of Newtrons law to determine that if a charge does not move in sync with the current then no current can be flowing thru the center. Nobody used Newtons laws in the case of a fractional wavelength antenna. but of a bound electron breaking away from the orbits of the material. This thinking says that a antenna will dissapate over time so we must consider the possibility of an unbound electron at rest upon the surface which brings us back to the Newton domain Is it beyond the sensabilities to see it as an action and a reacgtion between the settlement of particles on a surface and the reaction to this action by the application of current which provides a reactionary field. This idea of waves moving along with the current flow and various other ideas put forward by the likes of book authors seems to be a never ending attempt to provide substanced to a long ago thought out bad theory which would be disrupted if current was observed to flow in the centre of a radiator Regards Art Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
John Smith wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote: Art Unwin wrote: "Could you give a similar description only this time make it a 5/8 wavelength antenna." ... Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Richard: I certainly don't want to engage in a large argument. Rather, I would just venture an opinion directly related to my real world construction experiences, and the results from the same: If there are notable gains from constructing a 5/8 wave antenna, as opposed to a 1/2 wave--I have NOT seen them. It all looks good in EZNEC and/or mmana-gal (or, "on paper"), however, in real world s-meter/signal-reports, "it" does not. Perhaps I have experienced a anomaly(s?) Or, put simply, the extra "hassle" in dealing with these extended lengths is simply "not worth it!" Regards, JS I think that we all should remember that it is the "ART" of antenna design not the "SCIENCE" of antenna design. Dave WD9BDZ |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
"David G. Nagel" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: Richard Harrison wrote: Art Unwin wrote: "Could you give a similar description only this time make it a 5/8 wavelength antenna." ... Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Richard: I certainly don't want to engage in a large argument. Rather, I would just venture an opinion directly related to my real world construction experiences, and the results from the same: If there are notable gains from constructing a 5/8 wave antenna, as opposed to a 1/2 wave--I have NOT seen them. It all looks good in EZNEC and/or mmana-gal (or, "on paper"), however, in real world s-meter/signal-reports, "it" does not. Perhaps I have experienced a anomaly(s?) Or, put simply, the extra "hassle" in dealing with these extended lengths is simply "not worth it!" Regards, JS I think that we all should remember that it is the "ART" of antenna design not the "SCIENCE" of antenna design. Dave WD9BDZ its only an art to art its a science to everyone else. art paints his antennas with magical mystery jumping diamagnetic neutrinos that levitate in the breeze. sounds like paintings like the melted watch and distorted perceptions to me. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Art wrote:
"This idea of waves moving along with the current flow and various other ideas put forward by book authors seems to be a never ending attempt to provide substance(d) to long ago thought out bad theory which would be disrupted if current was observed to flow in the center of a radiator." The theory is well tested and good. Authors often write books to inform. They are paid for their efforts. Skin effect is a fact of agreement among the scientific community. A proof is readily at hand. Coaxial cable keeps what`s inside in and what`s outside out. The best exposition of "skin effect" that I know of is found in chapter 27 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith. The 1st edition was published in 1962. It was republished by Scitech in 2006. Art would enjoy and benefit from all 638 pages. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 16, 11:58*am, "Dave" wrote:
"David G. Nagel" wrote in om... John Smith wrote: Richard Harrison wrote: Art Unwin wrote: "Could you give a similar description only this time make it a 5/8 wavelength antenna." ... Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Richard: I certainly don't want to engage in a large argument. Rather, I would just venture an opinion directly related to my real world construction experiences, and the results from the same: If there are notable gains from constructing a 5/8 wave antenna, as opposed to a 1/2 wave--I have NOT seen them. It all looks good in EZNEC and/or mmana-gal (or, "on paper"), however, in real world s-meter/signal-reports, "it" does not. Perhaps I have experienced a anomaly(s?) Or, put simply, the extra "hassle" in dealing with these extended lengths is simply "not worth it!" Regards, JS I think that we all should remember that it is the "ART" of antenna design not the "SCIENCE" of antenna design. Dave WD9BDZ its only an art to art its a science to everyone else. *art paints his antennas with magical mystery jumping diamagnetic neutrinos that levitate in the breeze. *sounds like paintings like the melted watch and distorted perceptions to me. No David, I am trying to lead people away from the idea of break away elements from the radiator substance itself. We all recognise that the rotation of the Sun has a pivitable place in radiation. It is also estimated that there are billions of particles per cubic meter here on Earth which came from the Sun. So what is so wrong in looking for a connection between these particles and radiatiation? 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? We also know that these particles in flight must have a straight line projection that exceeds the gravitational pull and possibly this is the weak force which is acknoweledged in the science community! Yet we hang on to the idea that current cannot flow in the center of a fractional wavelkength radiator purely on similar speculation since it has never been observed or proven. It just isn't a lot of sense and the ARRL could not care less relying on a cycle of informing new hams how to solder a connector on coax. Good grief Regards Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Richard Harrison wrote:
Art wrote: "This idea of waves moving along with the current flow and various other ideas put forward by book authors seems to be a never ending attempt to provide substance(d) to long ago thought out bad theory which would be disrupted if current was observed to flow in the center of a radiator." The theory is well tested and good. Authors often write books to inform. They are paid for their efforts. Skin effect is a fact of agreement among the scientific community. A proof is readily at hand. Coaxial cable keeps what`s inside in and what`s outside out. The best exposition of "skin effect" that I know of is found in chapter 27 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith. The 1st edition was published in 1962. It was republished by Scitech in 2006. Art would enjoy and benefit from all 638 pages. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI High power coaxial transmission lines have hollow center conductors. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 16, 1:09*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Art wrote: "This idea of waves moving along with the current flow and various other ideas put forward by book authors seems to be a never ending attempt to provide substance(d) to long ago thought out bad theory which would be disrupted if current was observed to flow in the center of a radiator." The theory is well tested and good. Authors often write books to inform. They are paid for their efforts. Skin effect is a fact of agreement among the scientific community. A proof is readily at hand. Coaxial cable keeps what`s inside in and what`s outside out. The best exposition of "skin effect" that I know of is found in chapter 27 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith. The 1st edition was published in 1962. It was republished by Scitech in 2006. Art would enjoy and benefit from all 638 pages. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI * Isnt this all a little bit like acknowleging someone who is causing intentional interference on the bands? Jimmie |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 16, 12:09*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Art wrote: "This idea of waves moving along with the current flow and various other ideas put forward by book authors seems to be a never ending attempt to provide substance(d) to long ago thought out bad theory which would be disrupted if current was observed to flow in the center of a radiator." The theory is well tested and good. Authors often write books to inform. They are paid for their efforts. Skin effect is a fact of agreement among the scientific community. A proof is readily at hand. Coaxial cable keeps what`s inside in and what`s outside out. The best exposition of "skin effect" that I know of is found in chapter 27 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith. The 1st edition was published in 1962. It was republished by Scitech in 2006. Art would enjoy and benefit from all 638 pages. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI * Richard I have made my thoughts known on radiation as well as the path I followed that brought me to where I am. In the past 100 years or more science has not come to a consensus as to what energy is. Einstein seached all his life for the weak force which he considered a major part of radiatiation which leads to a Unified theory. Today there is not one book thaat can provide a satisfactory answer as to how radiattion is created. What I am saying that there are to many theories that are being tagged upon one another leading to an incorrect trail upon which books are being printed for a individual generation. So I proposed to myself a retreat from the books and go back to Maxwells laws plus those of the masters that provided the information to him and then with an open mind looked at it with the 21st century in mind and the information garnered by observation as opposed to theory. Present day science is all a buzz about Neutrinos, CERN and the Sun which is in a continually burning state creating partly burnt constituents. Gauss has a law dealing with particles and I have an interest in ham radio. It is therefore natuaral to me that in light of present day observances Einstein may well have been correct even tho not aware of discoveries found after his death. Thus my concentration was on outside particles and not the wave style theorem and thus eventually arrived at the weak force phenomina which is in use in many ways on Earyth which can also be subcribed to radiation. But saying is not enough so I have used Maxwellian computor programs to design these antennas with good results all of which are bound to the edict of equilibrium which all the past masters adhered to. Einstein was not privy to a lot of things that I used on my jorney but many hams do and can easily confirm my findings which are observables not dreams that support Maxwell. Books cannot and do not provide an actual journey that provides a trail without gaps for the generation of radiation. I have by starting the trail at the beginning with present day science in mind and not pursuing the mode of academics who seek favor by piggy backing theories of those who have received award thus shutting out a;ll other aproaches. Yes my thinking is known and yes I think for myself with no formal attachment to the books upon which my education started where it is incumbent on graduates to continue to hone and secure futher information for the next generation rather than the sole pursuit of personal wealth. Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg (uk) |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 16, 7:37*am, JosephKK wrote:
Two things. * Why are you still bothering with him? Because it's wholesome entertainment for the whole family. *He loves the attention he is getting, he is off in some other NG spewing about being the most responded to poster. I'm sure he does. But I don't care what he does on other sites. *The correct response is to kill file him. I have only read responses to his posts. I don't kill file anyone. If he bothers you, be my guest. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Dave wrote:
"High power coaxial transmission lines have hollow center conductors." Yes, and the metal which could have filled the hollow space would add no conductivity at HF. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
JosephKK wrote:
... Two things. Why are you still bothering with him? He loves the attention he is getting, he is off in some other NG spewing about being the most responded to poster. The correct response is to kill file him. I have only read responses to his posts. Many of you could benefit by setting your newsreader to quote correctly. Outhouse Express can do it, it may even do it by default. I am certainly impressed; it is good to stand in the shadow of someone like you, so freely ready to shovel out your "good advise." However, right now I don't really require the services of some "great intellectual" such as yourself. Being capable of handling my own thinking and affairs at this time, I will pass, at least for the time being. Frankly, I will be honest will you, I never realized there were so many stupid people who stand around waiting for someone as gifted as you to "guide them!" Thanks for the heads-up! ROFLOL ... me and the wife needed a good laugh, thanks! I bet most miss you "tongue in the cheek humor! :-) I mean, that is what you intended, right? smirk Regards, JS |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 16, 12:09*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Art wrote: "This idea of waves moving along with the current flow and various other ideas put forward by book authors seems to be a never ending attempt to provide substance(d) to long ago thought out bad theory which would be disrupted if current was observed to flow in the center of a radiator." The theory is well tested and good. Authors often write books to inform. They are paid for their efforts. Skin effect is a fact of agreement among the scientific community. A proof is readily at hand. Coaxial cable keeps what`s inside in and what`s outside out. The best exposition of "skin effect" that I know of is found in chapter 27 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith. The 1st edition was published in 1962. It was republished by Scitech in 2006. Art would enjoy and benefit from all 638 pages. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI * Oh My Richard, are you suggesting, but frightened to suggest, that skin effect is something other than the swirling eddy current and its negative magnetic effect on the main magnetic field provided by the applied varying current? Forget the constant lines of books that you have brought in to the discussion, what exactly do you think that provides the resistive action of skin effect using your own 19 century smarts? On the other hand, if you have no thoughts of your own then by all means steal an idea from the Witfield book and share it with all of us. The fact that this old book is being republished by the publisher is to obtain money and should not be seen of verification of its contents. Neither should you accept everything you read without challenge in the absence of any of your own thinking obtained some 50 years ago. when you had to listen to a professor so you obtain conformity with him when the examination paper is judged by him no less? Art Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
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. The research at CERN on colliding beams is more likely of interest to those working with ionizing radiation than to those working with the nonionizing type we use in radio telecommunications. There is and was agreement among many with Kraus when he wrote on page 37 of the 3rd edition of "Antennas": "Although a charge moving with uniform velocity along a straight conductor does not radiate, a charge moving back and forth in simple harmonic motion along the conductor is subject to acceleration (and deceleration) and radiates." An interesting view of the mechanism of radiation is given by B. Whitfield Griffith, Jr. on page 315 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals". Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Richard Harrison wrote:
Dave wrote: "High power coaxial transmission lines have hollow center conductors." Yes, and the metal which could have filled the hollow space would add no conductivity at HF. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Power handling and efficiency increase as the frequency decreases; a solid center conductor doesn't help at LF either. http://www.myat.com/index.html |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Art wrote:
"The fact that this old book is being republished by the publisher is to obtain money and should not be seen of (as) verification of its contents." I`ve had both editions. They are identical in content (no corrections). Terman says essentially the same things about "skin effect". Griffith`s examples and drawings are more extensive. Charges are moved to the surface by reduced inductive opposition there. Imagine a wire made of many concentric layers. Each layer`s current produces inductive opposition. This is generated by the current that layer carries. The inner layer is encircled by all the lines of all the layers while the exterior layer is encircled by only the lines generated by its current and none from the lines generated by the current in the layers under it. Thus, there is little inductive opposition to current on the surface of the wires. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 16, 3:57*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Art wrote: "The fact that this old book is being republished by the publisher is to obtain money and should not be seen of (as) verification of its contents." I`ve had both editions. They are identical in content (no corrections). Terman says essentially the same things about "skin effect". Griffith`s examples and drawings are more extensive. Charges are moved to the surface by reduced inductive opposition there. Imagine a wire made of many concentric layers. Each layer`s current produces inductive opposition. This is generated by the current that layer carries. The inner layer is encircled by all the lines of all the layers while the exterior layer is encircled by only the lines generated by its current and none from the lines generated by the current in the layers under it. Thus, there is little inductive opposition to current on the surface of the wires. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Thank you for that Richard. I suspected that such an old book as with Terman would not be abreast of the present times and still hanging on to ideas that are not in sync with the present day thinking. You surely must know that a time varying field upon a diamagnetic material also creates what is known as the Foucault or eddy current field. Present day non destructive material testing duplicate this method to provide a means of looking for a crack or fissure in materials often after heat treatment or welding. On a unimpared surface the eddy current swirls in a closed circuit form on the surface as a result of a applied time varying current. Relly a reaction in terms of Newtons law. If there is a crack or fissure in the surface the closed circuit of the eddy current is broken and it is this that todays inspection equipment relies upon. Ofcourse this created magnetic field is in opposition to the applied magnetic field and this opposition is called a skin effect. It is called a skin effect because like the aplied current the eddy current flows on the surface of a conductor and is limited in penetration. Ofcourse when this rotating magnetic field is combined with the main magnetic field its rotary action makes short use of particles that abide on the surface where it supplies spin to the particle while excellarating the particle in opposition to gravity. Ofcourse Richard your term in the military taught you that a rifle has as groove that curls inside the barrel which you know is to provide a spin to the bullet so that it does not wobble end over end and thus lose its accuracy. The particles by the way are sub atomic and so small that they can pass thru retaining threads as it were on most materials so its mass and energy content is quite small such that it will bounce off of rthe shields surrounding our earth but not so much that it looses its resistance to gravity before it finds a suitable radiature of resonance that it can rest upon according to the direction aimed by the transmitter. It will not deviate from this course if the receiving antenna is not directed in substantially the same direction. Since there are a lot of these particles around on Earth there is a scramble for a suitable place to rest so any vacancy is immediately occupied such that radiation is a huge lot of levitated particles. Fortunately the Sun keeps on burning pushing particles away from its own gravitational field otherwise the 11 year cycle would become a century old plus cycle and we would look for another hobby.Another thing Richard these particles are extremely small so we will not finish up knee deep. On top of that they also decay because of diminishing nuclear content which we see the results of when there is a sun burst and the clustered particles get into our power system and overloads it. Regards Art Unwin.......KB9MZ.......XG (UK) |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
"JIMMIE" wrote in message ... Isnt this all a little bit like acknowleging someone who is causing intentional interference on the bands? yeah, but not like someone who is nasty, more like someone who is funny and keeps blabbering on saying more and more ridiculous things. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Nov 16, 3:57 pm, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Another thing Richard these particles are extremely small so we will not finish up knee deep. On top of that they also decay because of diminishing nuclear content which we see the results of when there is a sun burst and the clustered particles get into our power system and overloads it. Regards Art Unwin.......KB9MZ.......XG (UK) OH NO! they are getting into the power system! heaven forbid, what shall we ever do!?!?! it just keeps getting better and better. |
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com