|
"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 your 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 Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:35:33 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote: 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. I have applied for patent an as wilh the later forms as I learn more they eventually will come to light. Yep. This one? (Application No 20080231540) http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO %2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=%28Unwin.IN.+A ND+antenna%29&OS=IN/Unwin+and+antenna&RS=(IN/Unwin+AND+antenna) Gaussian radiative cluster A resonant radiating array comprising of a cluster of randomly arranged resonant elements for producing a radiation field Inventors: Unwin; Art; (Bloomington, IL) Correspondence Name and Address: ART UNWIN 15394 OLD COLONIAL RD BLOOMINGTON IL 61704 US Serial No.: 655899 Series Code: 11 Filed: March 16, 2007 I also have a page which is now empty as after a deluge of insults so I took it off the web. When and what was the URL? It should be on the internet time machine http://archive.org Have a happy day Bah Humbug. T'is (almost) the season. Art Unwin KB9MZ...xg...(UK) -- 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 Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:48:39 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote: 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. 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. (...) I'm really not interested in reading any more assertions, allegations, accusations, theories, analysis, or repetitions of your previous postings. Please re-read what I wrote. I would like to see a model, photo, prototype, description, patent, test results, or other physical manifestation of your antenna based on equilibrium and/or whatever you're claiming about conduction through the center of a conductor. Show me a *REAL* antenna that works according to your rather unique principles. I'm open to proof and demonstration, but not to furthur allegations and claims. -- 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, 9:23*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:48:39 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin wrote: 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. 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. (...) I'm really not interested in reading any more assertions, allegations, accusations, theories, analysis, or repetitions of your previous postings. *Please re-read what I wrote. *I would like to see a model, photo, prototype, *description, patent, test results, or other physical manifestation of your antenna based on equilibrium and/or whatever you're claiming about conduction through the center of a conductor. *Show me a *REAL* antenna that works according to your rather unique principles. *I'm open to proof and demonstration, but not to furthur allegations and claims. -- Jeff Liebermann * * 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558 Jeff you are not telling the truth again it is becoming a habit of yours . Sometime ago you asked me to confide with you some facts about the antenna as you were of open mind I then gave you the Gaussian extension information which you could then compare with Maxwells laws mathematics or alternatively place it in a Pointings circle. You immediately came back and dissed the aproach without mathematical evidence so you could join others and throw stones. I like to keep to the truth especially as I get older. Apparently you are not afraid to show your true colours when your lies are detected. Frankly I can't see me going out of my way to provide a demonstration thus leaving it to real open minded hams to pursue. Apparently a lot of hams do not want to know the truth. As Richard has stated we already have an antenna so there is no need for another one, seems like he is not alone in that thinking when one is not proficient enough to do the math Art Unwin ...KB9MZ....xg ( UK) |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 16, 6:30*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"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. The funny part is trying to figure out who is the commedian and who is the straight man. Sometimes I think Art is just someone from the CB groups bashing y'all around. There is just too much consistency to his insanity. Jimmie |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 16, 10:06*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Nov 16, 6:30*pm, "Dave" wrote: "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. The funny part is trying to figure out who is the commedian and who is the straight man. Sometimes I think Art is just someone from the CB groups bashing y'all around. There is just too much consistency to his insanity. Jimmie If you only speak the truth then consistency becomes the natural outcome. No need for me to apologise. Your measure of insanity is just different from mine Goodnight Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:56:12 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote: Jeff you are not telling the truth again it is becoming a habit of yours . I ask for a real antenna, and you call me a liar. Somehow, the connection is difficult for me to establish. Even if I were a liar, how does that affect your inability to produce a working antenna? Sometime ago you asked me to confide with you some facts about the antenna as you were of open mind I don't recall any such request. Please not that you are making the claims and allegations. I'm merely suspicious and curious if there is anything substantial behind your claims. I do have an open mind and am willing to accept some rather odd theories as possible. I've made some rather bad mistakes in the past by pre-judging various technologies. For example, at first glance, I declared MIMO to be impossible. Such mistakes make me more tolerant of your theories, but only to a point. I've been reading some of your postings for several months, and have yet to see a real antenna. I am rather impressed that you would go through the effort of applying for a patent on a random array of elements. If granted, it should give you the rights to most ham radio antennas that were assembled without a clue or calculation. I then gave you the Gaussian extension information which you could then compare with Maxwells laws mathematics or alternatively place it in a Pointings circle. There is no Pointing circle. It's a Poynting Vector: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector You immediately came back and dissed the aproach without mathematical evidence so you could join others and throw stones. It's not my position to supply equations for your theories. If you've found some mathematical extension, principle, or approach that is based on Gauss, Maxwell, Heaviside, or Poynting, it's your responsibility to supply those equations. I haven't read all your postings, so it's conceivable I've missed them. Could you provide a searchable reference to those equations so I can decide for myself if they make any sense? I like to keep to the truth especially as I get older. Personally, I find it easier to lie as I get older. Credibility and authority tend to improve with age. Apparently you are not afraid to show your true colours when your lies are detected. That's the 2nd time you've accused me of lying. I don't care. I'm only interested in your theories on antennas. If you find it necessary to divert your production of suitable evidence of your antenna, I'll gladly cooperate by admitting to lying at all times, about all things, and for any reason, simply so that you do not feel compelled to avoid the question. Where's your antenna design? Frankly I can't see me going out of my way to provide a demonstration thus leaving it to real open minded hams to pursue. Frankly, that the only thing I'm interested in seeing. You've done everything EXCEPT provide such a demonstration. Apparently a lot of hams do not want to know the truth. Would my lies suffice as a reasonable substitute? It really doesn't matter. The only thing that is important is whether a real antenna can be built, analyzed, and demonstrated. As Richard has stated we already have an antenna so there is no need for another one, seems like he is not alone in that thinking when one is not proficient enough to do the math Ummmm.... this one? http://www.k8gu.com/webpost/unwin-antenna.jpg Art Unwin ...KB9MZ....xg ( UK) -- 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, 10:33*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:56:12 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin wrote: Jeff you are not telling the truth again it is becoming a habit of yours . I ask for a real antenna, and you call me a liar. *Somehow, the connection is difficult for me to establish. *Even if I were a liar, how does that affect your inability to produce a working antenna? Sometime ago you asked me to confide with you some facts about the antenna as you were of open mind I don't recall any such request. *Please not that you are making the claims and allegations. *I'm merely suspicious and curious if there is anything substantial behind your claims. *I do have an open mind and am willing to accept some rather odd theories as possible. *I've made some rather bad mistakes in the past by pre-judging various technologies. *For example, at first glance, I declared MIMO to be impossible. *Such mistakes make me more tolerant of your theories, but only to a point. *I've been reading some of your postings for several months, and have yet to see a real antenna. I am rather impressed that you would go through the effort of applying for a patent on a random array of elements. *If granted, it should give you the rights to most ham radio antennas that were assembled without a clue or calculation. I then gave you the Gaussian extension information which you could then compare with Maxwells laws mathematics or alternatively place it in *a Pointings circle. There is no Pointing circle. *It's a Poynting Vector: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector You immediately came back and dissed the aproach without mathematical evidence so you could join others and throw stones. It's not my position to supply equations for your theories. *If you've found some mathematical extension, principle, or approach that is based on Gauss, Maxwell, Heaviside, or Poynting, it's your responsibility to supply those equations. *I haven't read all your postings, so it's conceivable I've missed them. *Could you provide a searchable reference to those equations so I can decide for myself if they make any sense? I like to keep to the truth especially as I get older. Personally, I find it easier to lie as I get older. *Credibility and authority tend to improve with age. Apparently you are not afraid to show your true colours when your lies are detected. That's the 2nd time you've accused me of lying. *I don't care. *I'm only interested in your theories on antennas. *If you find it necessary to divert your production of suitable evidence of your antenna, I'll gladly cooperate by admitting to lying at all times, about all things, and for any reason, simply so that you do not feel compelled to avoid the question. *Where's your antenna design? Frankly I can't see me going out of my way to provide a demonstration thus leaving it to real open minded hams to pursue. Frankly, that the only thing I'm interested in seeing. *You've done everything EXCEPT provide such a demonstration. Apparently a lot of hams do not want to know the truth. Would my lies suffice as a reasonable substitute? *It really doesn't matter. *The only thing that is important is whether a real antenna can be built, analyzed, and demonstrated. As Richard has stated we already have an antenna so there is no need for another one, seems like he is not alone in that thinking when one is not proficient enough to do the math Ummmm.... this one? http://www.k8gu.com/webpost/unwin-antenna.jpg Art Unwin *...KB9MZ....xg ( UK) -- Jeff Liebermann * * 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558 You can look in the archives for yourself to remind you of that incident, you have not been on this newsgroup for any length of time so it should be easy As for requiring a demonstration I have other patents on antennas which are purely for my personal record I did not hawk it around to vendors but I did share it with hams. When at work samples are required and the company attorney vets the application, as an individual I can and do put down what is required to back up claims leaving it to the examiner to provide suggestions of same such that it has a tad of credability if challenged. I would add that I had to provide a sample of one antenna to the PTO before a application award was accepted. One person offered to provide the majority share of a company if I would assist in a start up for one of my antennas. I refused because my intent was to enjoy my retirement without the need of obtaining more money when I have enough. Now I am doing a similar thing with a different antenna that has broader academic appeal beyond antennas and yes I paid the money to the PTO purely for my records, and there is more to be revealed as per what I have disclosed previously to this group.and nothing more. I am what I am and do as I say and share it with all so they may discard if they wish as it is my personal .satisfaction that I search for,. If you or anybody else are offended I have no problem if you block my posts which would then remove the need for offending comments back and forth Art Unwin....,KB9MZ....XG..(UK) Art Unwin |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:14:32 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote: You can look in the archives for yourself to remind you of that incident, you have not been on this newsgroup for any length of time so it should be easy Oh? I have to do the searching to prove YOUR accusations? Forgive my laziness but I'm a bit busy tonite defrosting the fridge (hammer and chisel required). As for requiring a demonstration I have other patents on antennas which are purely for my personal record I did not hawk it around to vendors but I did share it with hams. These? Constant impedance matching system http://www.google.com/patents?id=hCMpAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,790,081 Variable capacitance antenna for multiband reception and transmission http://www.google.com/patents?id=GEsbAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,625,367 Push button arranged for mounting to a panel http://www.google.com/patents?id=qaY3AAAAEBAJ Push button assembly http://www.google.com/patents?id=YF0tAAAAEBAJ Very nice. I like the motorized matching or tuning capacitor inside the yagi boom idea. and there is more to be revealed as per what I have disclosed previously to this group.and nothing more. I'm patient. Let me know when you have something substantial to disclose. I am what I am and do as I say and share it with all so they may discard if they wish as it is my personal .satisfaction that I search for,. It's your right to do with your designs as you please. I asked you to demonstrate one that uses equilibrium and/or conduction in the center of a conductor. I guess that's not going to happen. If you or anybody else are offended I have no problem if you block my posts which would then remove the need for offending comments back and forth No problem. However, other than you calling me a liar twice (without direct substantiation), I would be interested in which of my comments offended you? I expend some effort in trying to be technically accurate and non-offensive. Apparently, I've failed and would like to know precisely where. Art Unwin....,KB9MZ....XG..(UK) Art Unwin -- 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
Richard Harrison wrote:
Charges are moved to the surface by reduced inductive opposition there. From a QED standpoint, electrons at the center of a conductor cannot absorb or emit photons and therefore cannot radiate. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Dave wrote:
"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. The last time that I built an antenna I used the formula to get the appropriate length then I had to adjust it to obtain the optimal readings for the frequency I was using. |
"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 Ever seen the coax used on TV transmission lines? In rough numbers is is a pipe about 6" in diameter with another pipe about 1" in diameter held centered inside the larger one by spacers. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
David G. Nagel wrote:
The last time that I built an antenna I used the formula to get the appropriate length then I had to adjust it to obtain the optimal readings for the frequency I was using. Did "the formula" take into account any insulation, conductor resistivity, conductor diameter, height above ground, characteristics of the ground, and objects in the near field including supports? If not, what is your point? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
|
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
David G. Nagel wrote:
wrote: David G. Nagel wrote: The last time that I built an antenna I used the formula to get the appropriate length then I had to adjust it to obtain the optimal readings for the frequency I was using. Did "the formula" take into account any insulation, conductor resistivity, conductor diameter, height above ground, characteristics of the ground, and objects in the near field including supports? If not, what is your point? The point is that those items are not part of "Antenna Theory: The Science" but are a large part of "Antenna theory: The Art". Art has been talking as if they are one and the same. Science is fully accounting for all variables and their effects giving you exact answers. Art is experience and rules of thumb that get you close enough. Something you could answer if you can. I am planning to install a dipole antenna in NVIS configuration adjacent to a mobile home type structure. The wire will be within about 10 to 15 feet of the metal covered structure. How much will the metal warp the radiation pattern of the antenna. It will be in the 75 to 60 meter bands. Dave WD9BDZ I can't but it should be easy enough to model in EZNEC. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 17, 3:49*pm, "David G. Nagel"
wrote: Something you could answer if you can. I am planning to install a dipole antenna in NVIS configuration adjacent to a mobile home type structure. The wire will be within about 10 to 15 feet of the metal covered structure. How much will the metal warp the radiation pattern of the antenna. It will be in the 75 to 60 meter bands. Dave WD9BDZ I don't know about warping the pattern so much as making it possibly hard to tune. You can expect some pretty serious coupling to all that metal. So expect to have to prune it to a good match, and maybe vary the exact tie off points of the dipole to move it a few feet. Sometimes just a few feet can mean quite a bit of difference in tuning. As far as NVIS use, I wouldn't worry about the pattern too much. It may skew it a bit, but I doubt it would really be much of a problem. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
|
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
David G. Nagel wrote:
wrote: David G. Nagel wrote: The last time that I built an antenna I used the formula to get the appropriate length then I had to adjust it to obtain the optimal readings for the frequency I was using. Did "the formula" take into account any insulation, conductor resistivity, conductor diameter, height above ground, characteristics of the ground, and objects in the near field including supports? If not, what is your point? The point is that those items are not part of "Antenna Theory: The Science" but are a large part of "Antenna theory: The Art". . . I disagree. Antenna operation (or "theory") is dictated by science. How the mentioned factors affect antenna performance can all be calculated from well established, known scientific principles -- no "art" is required. However, there are some ways where art does get into the picture. Practical antenna design usually requires tradeoffs, and there isn't necessarily one optimum solution. Weighing the tradeoffs, often including cost and time, requires knowledge and skill, and is a creative process that could properly be described as art -- although the more science you know, the bigger the bag of tricks you'll have for your "art" project. And there are often factors which, although completely deterministic in principle, aren't well enough known or are too complex to practically include in calculations. There, the skill or "art" comes in having a sufficient knowledge of the likely effects of those factors to choose or adjust the design accordingly. What a lot of people call the "art" of antenna design is just a substitute for understanding. If you don't understand the underlying science or how to apply it, the only tool you have is Kentucky windage and guesswork, often called "art" as opposed to real understanding. While people can very often arrive at a usable solution by using nearly all "art" and little "science", they have more and better solutions to choose from as they replace some of that "art" with "science". Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
"David G. Nagel" wrote in message ... 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 Ever seen the coax used on TV transmission lines? In rough numbers is is a pipe about 6" in diameter with another pipe about 1" in diameter held centered inside the larger one by spacers. Yup. Also applies to rigid coax used for 400 MHz Naval radars. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
In article tonline, Roy
Lewallen wrote: I disagree. Antenna operation (or "theory") is dictated by science. How the mentioned factors affect antenna performance can all be calculated from well established, known scientific principles -- no "art" is required. Hello, Roy and all. While I aggree with the above I think one has to keep in mind that 50 years ago there weren't software MoM (e.g. NEC) and FDTD tools around to implement calculations that don't lend themselves to pencil-and-paper calculation. As a result back then there was considerable "art" (I would call it engineering) involved in antenna design. Hams, too, were coming up with many practical designs back then as well as now. Practical experience was important then and still is. However, there are some ways where art does get into the picture. Practical antenna design usually requires tradeoffs, and there isn't necessarily one optimum solution. Weighing the tradeoffs, often including cost and time, requires knowledge and skill, and is a creative process that could properly be described as art -- although the more science you know, the bigger the bag of tricks you'll have for your "art" project. And there are often factors which, although completely deterministic in principle, aren't well enough known or are too complex to practically include in calculations. There, the skill or "art" comes in having a sufficient knowledge of the likely effects of those factors to choose or adjust the design accordingly. I think you've just summed up what engineering is all about. Mathematics is an exact science; engineering is not. What a lot of people call the "art" of antenna design is just a substitute for understanding. If you don't understand the underlying science or how to apply it, the only tool you have is Kentucky windage and guesswork, often called "art" as opposed to real understanding. While people can very often arrive at a usable solution by using nearly all "art" and little "science", they have more and better solutions to choose from as they replace some of that "art" with "science". That's the difference between hobbyist tinkering and engineering. It's what allowed the Wright Brothers to be successful when others (who may have been close to success) failed. The Wrights took the time to understand the science/physics, performed pertinent experiments and meticulously collected and analyzed data. These endeavors set them apart from their comtemporaries in pursuit of powered, heavier-than-air flight. The Wrights were much more than bicycle mechanics; in their "off" time they were (aeronautical) engineers. Sincerely, John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337 |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
J. B. Wood wrote:
... Hello, Roy and all. While I aggree with the above I think one has to keep in mind that 50 years ago there weren't software MoM (e.g. NEC) and FDTD tools around to implement calculations that don't lend themselves to pencil-and-paper calculation. As a result back then there was considerable "art" (I would call it engineering) involved in antenna design. Hams, too, were coming up with many practical designs back then as well as now. Practical experience was important then and still is. ... John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337 Your points are well taken here. However, I do believe there is a lot of "art" involved. We don't even know what our signals are really composed of. We don't even really know how propagation and movement of our signals takes place though the medium which transports them; And, indeed, we don't even know the medium through which they travel ... if not for brilliant and "artful" men, this never would have occurred. If this all does not make men stand in awe and wonder of these artistic accomplishment and beauty of engineering achievements, I just don't know what would! Our imaginations have allowed us to reach out and use powers far beyond the horizons of our vision. Sometime in the future, we will even refine all of this ... as our vision(s) become clearer. Warm regards, JS |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 18, 11:05*am, John Smith wrote:
J. B. Wood wrote: ... Hello, Roy and all. *While I aggree with the above I think one has to keep in mind that 50 years ago there weren't software MoM (e.g. NEC) and FDTD tools around to implement calculations that don't lend themselves to pencil-and-paper calculation. *As a result back then there was considerable "art" (I would call it engineering) involved in antenna design. *Hams, too, were coming up with many practical designs back then as well as now. *Practical experience was important then and still is.. ... John Wood (Code 5550) * * * *e-mail: * * * * * * * * * * Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337 Your points are well taken here. However, I do believe there is a lot of "art" involved. *We don't even know what our signals are really composed of. *We don't even really know how propagation and movement of our signals takes place though the medium which transports them; *And, indeed, we don't even know the medium through which they travel ... if not for brilliant and "artful" men, this never would have occurred. If this all does not make men stand in awe and wonder of these artistic accomplishment and beauty of engineering achievements, I just don't know what would! Our imaginations have allowed us to reach out and use powers far beyond the horizons of our vision. *Sometime in the future, we will even refine all of this ... as our vision(s) become clearer. Warm regards, JS Science is the use of known laws to determine fault or to pursue a predefined result. Art is to follow intuitive ideas in the hope of producing an acceptable result |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Art Unwin wrote:
... Science is the use of known laws to determine fault or to pursue a predefined result. Art is to follow intuitive ideas in the hope of producing an acceptable result Point well taken ... Einstein seemed to have a real "art" of predicting which areas would bear fruit, and a path to follow to deduce their inner workings. Regards, JS |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Dave wrote:
wrote: David G. Nagel wrote: wrote: David G. Nagel wrote: The last time that I built an antenna I used the formula to get the appropriate length then I had to adjust it to obtain the optimal readings for the frequency I was using. Did "the formula" take into account any insulation, conductor resistivity, conductor diameter, height above ground, characteristics of the ground, and objects in the near field including supports? If not, what is your point? The point is that those items are not part of "Antenna Theory: The Science" but are a large part of "Antenna theory: The Art". Art has been talking as if they are one and the same. Science is fully accounting for all variables and their effects giving you exact answers. Art is experience and rules of thumb that get you close enough. As I understand it, science is trying ideas out to see what happens in the real world. That would involve "experience" to a certain degree, as an "educated guess" is involved in the design of the experiment. And one could say the "design of the experiment" could be an art. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Roy Lewallen wrote:
What a lot of people call the "art" of antenna design is just a substitute for understanding. If you don't understand the underlying science or how to apply it, the only tool you have is Kentucky windage and guesswork, often called "art" as opposed to real understanding. While people can very often arrive at a usable solution by using nearly all "art" and little "science", they have more and better solutions to choose from as they replace some of that "art" with "science". What I have found is that the antennas I design tend to mirror the software. The times they have not, I can usually look around and find the thing that causes it, maybe the height I ended up at wasn't the one used for the design, maybe a metal structure, ground characteristics were not the same. etc. I think we attribute to "art" that which we do not know at the time. As we know more, it all turns into science. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:30:08 GMT, "Dave" wrote:
"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. Still QRN is QRN. I just do not enjoy noise as well as i enjoy the desired signals. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:44:07 +0000, Dave wrote:
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 As a matter of fact skin depth tends to keep power conductors (50/60 Hz) below 1 inch (25 mm) diameter. It becomes easier and cheaper to "quad them up" (four conductors a couple of hand spans apart). |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:14:23 -0600, (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. Just to be picky, Heaviside predates Einstein: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com