snip

.. *Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_antenna

snip

Thank you so much for your input
The URL that you directed me to does not show the restrictions and
assumptions that apply
and we all know that radiation is filled with such things some of
which are not supportable.
A case in point is how reflection is shown upon the belts that
surround the earth which is shown as a curved
like particle rejection where at the same time the URL shows a
straight line reflection.
I do not accept this theory but do accept that a dish is covered with
particles at rest which will repell impinging particles with spin.
I would also point out that the design shown in the URL is based
around an antenna that is broardside where the phase angle comes into
play.
This is distinctly different to a radiator with axial flow that does
not depend on phase change as with planar design reflectors that
evolve solely around inter inductive coupling. As far as the math is
concerned I am starting a a premise that is supported by marthematics
just as one would expand all of Maxwells laws to be solely limited to
those of Ampere where I used an extended Gauss insteas all of which
are based around Newton where the term
(=) is the support for equilibrium or symmetry and where the theory of
radiation of sound and light being of a wave nature is thourouly
debunked in favor of particles.
Never the less your comments are interesting but also symbolic of the
fact that the laws of radiation sghould be thourouly reviewed in the
light of present day findings such that incorrect notions such as the
formation of waves are re examined.
Regards
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
I do not accept this theory but do accept that a dish is covered with
particles at rest which will repell impinging particles with spin.

ah yes, don't forget the diamagnetic part... maybe your antenna didn't work
because the wire mesh you used was ferromagnetic instead of diamagnetic so
it didn't have the layer of magical mystery levitating neutrinos. or maybe
you turned it upside down so all the neutrinos ran out of the dish.

On Dec 28, 10:46*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

I do not accept this theory but do accept that a dish is covered with
particles at rest which will repell impinging particles with spin.

ah yes, don't forget the diamagnetic part... maybe your antenna didn't work
because the wire mesh you used was ferromagnetic instead of diamagnetic so
it didn't have the layer of magical mystery levitating neutrinos. *or maybe
you turned it upside down so all the neutrinos ran out of the dish.

Let me make this clear once and foir all. Ferromagnetic material
provides for retension of energy via
the hysterysis effect amoung other things. This detracts from energy
required for the Foucault current
which is required for the application of spin to particles. This is
not to say that some vestiges of the
eddy current is not present but it does suggest a typically reduced
radiation field.
As far as a dish reflecter is concerned that has been built around the
necessity of a focal point in the phase changing aproach provided by
inductive interactive elements and does not follow the same aproach
required by the addition of the levitating weak force known as the
Foucalt current
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
As far as a dish reflecter is concerned that has been built around the
necessity of a focal point in the phase changing aproach provided by
inductive interactive elements and does not follow the same aproach
required by the addition of the levitating weak force known as the
Foucalt current

ah, so your old theory with the magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos was
wrong and now you are using a phase change approach (whatever that may be)
and inductive interactions (which i thought you disliked because that is
part of how a Yagi-Uda array works). if the magical levitating diamagnetic
neutrinos is good enough for one antenna, why isn't it good enough for this
one??? or are you admitting you are totally wrong?

On Dec 28, 12:27*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

As far as a dish reflecter is concerned that has been built around the
necessity of a focal point in the phase changing aproach provided by
inductive interactive elements and does not follow the same aproach
required by the addition of the levitating weak force known as the
Foucalt current

ah, so your old theory with the magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos was
wrong and now you are using a phase change approach (whatever that may be)
and inductive interactions (which i thought you disliked because that is
part of how a Yagi-Uda array works). *if the magical levitating diamagnetic
neutrinos is good enough for one antenna, why isn't it good enough for this
one??? or are you admitting you are totally wrong?

David,
you are building an auguement on sand like "have you stopped beating
your wife?"
You can traverse the world with a steel antenna using less than a watt
with the same message
as a Kw from a huge antenna. The only difference is that one system
provides less samples
of communication for the ear bone requires to decifer. This being
under ideal conditions which are rarely the situation.
I have never disliked the Yagi antenna but I refuse to belief that the
gains enjoyed are absolute because they ignore
the implications of the weak force or eddy currents.They are easily
built. They give close approximations in terms of gain
But the gains supplied do not equate in absolute terms upon which
science rests.
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
you are building an auguement on sand like "have you stopped beating
your wife?"

well, have you?

You can traverse the world with a steel antenna using less than a watt
with the same message
as a Kw from a huge antenna. The only difference is that one system
provides less samples
of communication for the ear bone requires to decifer.

now this i must hear... how do you get from steel antennas to samples in the
ear bone? is my ear bone a digital sampler now? does it somehow sample
your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos straight out of the aether?
There must be more to this radio stuff than meets the eye if the ear is
involved now! how does that work for transmitting video, does it change how
the eye bone works also?

I have never disliked the Yagi antenna but I refuse to belief that the
gains enjoyed are absolute because they ignore
the implications of the weak force or eddy currents.

you better believe they ignore the weak farce, that is all in your head.

On Dec 28, 1:42*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

you are building an auguement on sand like "have you stopped beating
your wife?"

well, have you?

You can traverse the world with a steel antenna using less than a watt
with the same message
as a Kw from a huge antenna. The only difference is that one system
provides less samples
of communication for the ear bone requires to decifer.

now this i must hear... how do you get from steel antennas to samples in the
ear bone? *is my ear bone a digital sampler now? *does it somehow sample
your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos straight out of the aether?
There must be more to this radio stuff than meets the eye if the ear is
involved now! *how does that work for transmitting video, does it change how
the eye bone works also?

I have never disliked the Yagi antenna but I refuse to belief that the
gains enjoyed are absolute because they ignore
the implications of the weak force or eddy currents.

you better believe they ignore the weak farce, that is all in your head.

As a talking head there is no need for you to understand the nuances
of science.
You, like Richard have survived most of your life on unproven data so
I can understand your need to question
whether there is a need for the corrected data that science provides.
This echoes the statement for removing the patent office as "all
possible discoveries have been realized"
Remember what I told you in the past. Free speech is O.K. but the
downside is that it also shows who and what manner of man you actually
are.
From my viewpoint what you have stated so far has only reduced your
credability with respect to radiation and increased the assumption
that you are nothing but a talking head, a trail you started years ago
when denying the feasability of introducing static law with those of
Maxwell where your basis was again just words without scientific
backing.
Art

"Dave" wrote in message
news

"Sal M. Onella" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Well the idea of 1 inch mesh was a bum idea. I should have kept to my
own thinking.
When transmitters have holes in the casing of 1 inch diameter will be
the time I will use such large holes.
Will now have to take it of and replace with aluminum window mesh.
The present mesh has no idication of working in any sence of the word
Art

let me give you a hint... its not the mesh that is the problem.


The theoretical gain of a dish is expressed as (9.87 times D-squared) /
(wavelength-squared), where D is the dish diameter. If you have a 3
meter
dish and you're working 10m, I calculate the gain as less than unity.
Ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_antenna

Even then, the efficiency of the dish is assumed to be 100% -- which it
never is. One limitation is the effectiveness of illuminating the
entire
surface of the dish uniformly. How can you do that at HF? You need a
compact illuminator at the focal point of the dish but HF doesn't lend
itself to such gyrations.

I think you should not consider a dish for HF. It works only for
wavelengths that are small, compared to the dish size. Don't fight the
math.



what do you get for gain when you use it on 160m like art is doing?



OK, a 3 meter dish at 160m:

Numerator is 9.87 times 3-squared = 88.83
Denominator is 160-squared = 25600

The quotient is the nominal power gain = 0.00347

In technical terms, this equals a fart in a windstorm.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, to validate the formula for a practical dish, plug in the values for
the same 3-meter dish, but use C-band TVRO freqs around 4 GHz. Take the log
of the quotient, multiply by 10 and you get close the customary 40dB gain
associated with those backyard beauties. (I just got rid of mine this year;
the new owner wants to try EME at 1.2 GHz.)

"Sal"
(KD6VKW)

On Dec 30, 12:38*am, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message

news
"Sal M. Onella" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...





Well the idea of 1 inch mesh was a bum idea. I should have kept to my
own thinking.
When transmitters have holes in the casing of 1 inch diameter will be
the time I will use such large holes.
Will now have to take it of and replace with aluminum window mesh.
*The present mesh has no idication of working in any sence of the word
Art

let me give you a hint... its not the mesh that is the problem.

The theoretical gain of a dish is expressed as (9.87 times D-squared) /
(wavelength-squared), where D is the dish diameter. *If you have a 3
meter
dish and you're working 10m, I calculate the gain as less than unity.
Ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_antenna

Even then, the efficiency of the dish is assumed to be 100% -- which it
never is. *One limitation is the effectiveness of illuminating the
entire
surface of the dish uniformly. *How can you do that at HF? *You need a
compact illuminator at the focal point of the dish but HF doesn't lend
itself to such gyrations.

I think you should not consider a dish for HF. *It works only for
wavelengths that are small, compared to the dish size. *Don't fight the
math.

what do you get for gain when you use it on 160m like art is doing?

OK, a 3 meter dish at 160m:

Numerator is 9.87 times 3-squared *= *88.83
Denominator is 160-squared *= *25600

The quotient is the nominal power gain *= *0.00347

In technical terms, this equals a fart in a windstorm.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, to validate the formula for a practical dish, plug in the values for
the same 3-meter dish, but use C-band TVRO freqs around 4 GHz. Take the log
of the quotient, multiply by 10 and you get close the customary 40dB gain
associated with those backyard beauties. *(I just got rid of mine this year;
the new owner wants to try EME at 1.2 GHz.)

"Sal"
(KD6VKW)

Sal
Are you using formula based on phasing i.e. has a focal point?
If so that is not applicable to CP (circular polarisation) antennas
One is a broardside radiator and the other is a axial or end fire
radiator.
BIG BIG difference. If you study the use of reflectors with helix
antennas you will see that all
reflectors used are straight sided whether as a flat plate, cupped or
as in one instance
conical for the length of the antenna. The parabala is based on inter
inductive coupling
of a dipole so the parabola reflects at maximum current amplitude.,
The helix reflector is not based on
coupling but the true mechanical impact of particles which is vastly
different. It is wonderful when
you use formulas but it is always best to initial perform the
calculation from first principles
to ensure that the formula is applicable where you intend to use it
I have removed my dish and have replaced it with a sheath an aproach
that has already been used for CP
radiators.

Art

On Dec 28, 1:42*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

you are building an auguement on sand like "have you stopped beating
your wife?"

well, have you?

Absolutely not!
I am working from first principles starting with the mathematics of
the Gauss/
Maxwell comparison which was mathematically shown on this newsgroup
by Doctor Davis of M.I.T. provided., This clearly shows the connection
of .
particles as opposed to waves with respect to radiation . This is a
confirming proof of my
aproach I have taken with respect to first principles. Nobody but
nobody has pointed out any error in this aproach.,
For years you have asked for the mathematics and now you have it. If
you can't break the
mathematics then you do not have a platform. It has been quite a
while since the math was provided
and no faults have been provided, the silence has been deafining.
It is because of this finding in my work I am forced to proceed via
first principles since our ancient books
follow a contrary aproach






snip

you better believe they ignore the weak farce, that is all in your head.

The whole world supports the CERN project which costs billions, which
is based on the existence of the four forces. If you are not aware the
weak force is one of the four stated.

Art