"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
As a non engineer and somebody who is wired diferntly from the norm

QED.

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:47:46 -0500, "Ed Cregger"
wrote:

To bring all of this down to Earth, I refer all to the old axiom, "Never mud
wrestle with a pig, yada yada yada..."

Hi Ed,

Are you implying it would be easier to put lipstick on Art, than to
get his antenna through the eye of a needle?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 8, 11:06*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

As a non engineer and somebody who is wired diferntly from the norm

QED.

David, I am so happy that Dr Davis of MIT has finaly been vindicated
in the eyes of this group.
It has taken years for the group to accept the static relationship
with electromagnetics.,
I am also pleased that the present generation are using up to date
material and not the books of 50 years ago
where those taught at that time all was thought to be known and all
change was resisted. Of course if this newsgroup wish to challenge the
book excerpts that have been placed on this thread it would be very
interesting including the deduction that a radiator can be any size,
shape or elevation as long as it is in equilibrium.which is no small
matter in designing small volume antennas using all four fourses that
Maxwell and others clearly intended. Antennas belong to the present
generation where the old timers are satified going to their graves
convident that all is known while the present generation forgve ahead
by the recognition of the trole of all four fouces which must be
accounted for in any full analysis of the subject of radiation.. Now
that Dr Davis has been vindicated old timers who are still mentally
capable have the opportunity to be present in these very exciting
times
Nice weather here Davis so put aside that book you are writing and get
outside where you can practice the praticle instead of being a talking
head.
Best regards
Art.
PS I look forward to your destruction of the text suplied on this
thread since it opposes everything you have argued for during the last
half dozen years.
Hate to tell you but I did tell you so, many, many times. Eat some
humble pie!

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Hate to tell you but I did tell you so, many, many times. Eat some
humble pie!

not me. my antennas are big and high in the sky where they belong, not
packed in a shoebox. just scanning 25 years worth of contest certificates
that prove my big straight planar antennas do work.

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 8, 1:15*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Hate to tell you but I did tell you so, many, many times. Eat some
humble pie!

not me. *my antennas are big and high in the sky where they belong, not
packed in a shoebox. *just scanning 25 years worth of contest certificates
that prove my big straight planar antennas do work.

Nothing wrong with that David the maximum boom length I got to was 80
feet and 13 elements
but then had to back off to 60feet but they surely worked good but
now
I have got to old to handle the work required to maintain them.
I was very surprized to hear you say that you were wired like Richard
so don't ventue in Illinois!
By the way did you get your four square antenna sorted out and is it
working to your expectations?
With respect to antenna height I have a feeling that height is not a
question of wavelengths but a question of
capacitive coupling to ground. I put the top band antenna up
temporarily at a height of thirty feet and the
the impedance settled on 50 ohms. I am now winterizing it so it gets
thru the winter. It consists of just one element
and a dish reflector but it will have to wait until next year before I
feed it at the dish end, in the mean time it will just be fed at the
centre
I still hope for directionality even tho the rotor is at 30 feet but
either way it will be interesting unless I move on to another project.
I had to move away from the shoebox size of antenna, what I found out
was it worked quite well for receiving but for transmit the eddy
currents opposed each other thus preventing particle elevation so the
volume is now double what it was but still small enough for the rotor
to turn the top band form and light enough to easily put it on the
tower
Regards
Art

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 8, 10:14*am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Frank, What is the name of the actual book you are quoting from?"

Read the posting!

"Engineering Eleactromagnetics, 2nd edition", Nathan Ida, ISBN
0-387-20156-4."

My unsolicited comment: Lyndon Johnson once described someneone like you
approximately as: "He couldn`t pour beer out of a boot if instructions
were stamped on the heel."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Hopefully you now feel better after throwing that stone

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 8, 11:06*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

As a non engineer and somebody who is wired diferntly from the norm

QED.

David,
I think I have misinterpreted your response above and I truly
apologize
I mistook the line above as a statement from you which I see now was
not
Now I am totally unaware of the point you are trying to make
Regards
Art

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 8, 2:41*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I still hope for directionality even tho the rotor is at 30 feet but
either way it will be interesting unless I move on to another project.

I'm sure it will be directive to some degree. But except for receive,
what good will that do you if you are 20db-30db down from a dipole
due to the excessive inductive losses?
I liken your setup to using a MW receiving loopstick as a transmit
antenna.. :/ Not a whole heck of a lot of difference except yours
is now a massive four shoe boxes in size. Mercy..
It's still puny considering the frequency.
My MW receiving loop in this room is bigger than that.
"A diamond 44 inches by 44 inches.
And my MW loop would almost certainly outdo your design
being as it is bigger and uses less turns of coil. "5"
It's still a dummy load on a rotating stick... :/

I had to move away from the shoebox size of antenna, what I found out
was it worked quite well for receiving but for transmit the eddy
currents opposed each other thus preventing particle elevation so the
volume is now double what it was but still small enough for the rotor
to turn the top band form and light enough to easily put it on the
tower

So we have validation that your first antenna was a dud when used
for transmitting! I'll alert the SPCA!
But I'm afraid doubling the size of your dummy load on a stick is
not going to pan out in the manner you would like.
Even four shoe boxes worth of wound wire maketh not a good 160m
antenna.
Reboot and try again.

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Nov 8, 11:06 am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

As a non engineer and somebody who is wired diferntly from the norm

QED.

Now I am totally unaware of the point you are trying to make

and that is the point.

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

I am also pleased that the present generation are using up to date
material and not the books of 50 years ago
where those taught at that time all was thought to be known and all
change was resisted.

Art, I am not sure what you mean. This material has not changed
in over 100 years. To quote from Ida's text, pp 731, 732: "Based
on the inroduction of the displacement currents in Ampere's law,
Maxwell predicted the existence of propagating waves, a prediction
that was verified experimetally in 1888 by Heinrich Hertz. This prediction
was based on the nature of the equations one obtains by using Maxwell's
equations. We will show here that Maxwell's equations result, in general,
in wave equations". This proof is shown in "Example 12.3", which is
posted on my previously referenced web link:
http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm
Unless you can show, by manipulation of Maxwell's equations, that it
is possible to obtain a 2nd order partial differential equation where the
independant variable is time; what is the point? I should also note
that a course I took in electromagetics (About 1983) has an almost
identical development of a wave equation. For reference the text is:
"Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields", Clayton R Paul, and
Syed A Nasar, published in 1982, ISBN 0-07-045884-7, pp 241 - 243

73,

Frank.