|
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 7, 4:21*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Richard Fry" wrote in message ... On Jan 3, 10:37 am, Art Unwin *wrote: There is absolutely NO evidence that reflection occurs in any shape or form at the material ends of a radiator and all that pertains to such. PERIOD. Art, the link below leads to empirical proof that such reflections exist. don't confuse him with facts, especially facts out of books... they are all out of date since they don't have his latest theories included in them. If graphs of current flow is to be generated it must provide a graph of the lead edge of the current to compare with the trailing edge at an instant of time, because it is a time varing current. For a fractional wave antenna skin depth or resistance on the surface does not disappear until the trailing edge of the RF pulse reaches the antenna top. In the mean time current rises at the top as the fields collapse which means that the lead current is prevented from turning around because skin resistance is still being maintained Thus it has no other choice to pursue a closed circuit other than travel on the inside of the radiator and being shielded by the surface eddy currents produced by the trailing current end. If by some phenoma the current was able to flow down the outside of the radiator it must also produce eddy current which thus allows for radiation from what originaly was a puise to a duallity of current flow, each of which creating radiation without frequency remaining constant. There is no reasonable reason to depart from the closed circuit ideals to manufacture an incomplete sequence of events not supported by science but printed in books. Otherwise there will be no progress in the understanding of radiation until the actions of eddy current or the weak force is fully understood with its ejection of particles from diamagnetic materials. I will not add to this thread as it is surround by closed minds of the aged. Have a great day Art Unwin......KB9MZ.....xg |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
don't confuse him with facts, especially facts out of books... they are
all out of date since they don't have his latest theories included in them. I think he is laughting at us all, and just seeing what can be gotten away with. Nobody with an engineering degree would ever write something like the following: "Calculus is based on homogenous materials or planes where you can refer dy/dx to some thing aproaching zero. In the case of using this aproach where the antenna diameter aproaches zero this is an invalid aproach for accuracy but O.K. for aproximations. So much for the foibles of theoretical mathematics". |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 8, 3:57*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
If graphs of current flow is to be generated it must provide a graph of the lead edge of the current to compare with the trailing edge at an instant of time, because it is a time varing current. Art - In your perception you have merged my r-f pulse measurement link with my link to a relevant I.R.E. paper by Gihring & Brown of RCA. But while both of these links show the existence of reflections, they can not be combined in any manner to reach the conclusion stated in your post clip quoted above. Regardless of that, you continued your post with... For a fractional wave antenna skin depth or resistance on the surface does not disappear until the trailing edge of the RF pulse reaches the antenna top. In the mean time current rises at the top as the fields collapse which means that the lead current is prevented from turning around because skin resistance is still being maintained. Thus it has no other choice to pursue a closed circuit other than travel on thenside of the radiator and being shielded by the surface eddy currents produced by the trailing current end. etc Art, consider just the Gihring/Brown measurements linked to earlier in this thread. They were made using a continuous, non-pulsed r-f waveform, so none of your beliefs posted above will apply. Yet the current distribution measured along the lengths of those radiators by Gihring/Brown proves the existence of reflections from the end of such radiators, and that such reflected r-f current does not return from the end of such radiators via a non-radiating path through the center of the same conductor, as you suppose. I will not add to this thread as it is surround by closed minds of the aged. But not for the reason you state next above, I'd wager. RF |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Richard Fry" wrote in message ... On Jan 8, 3:57 pm, Art Unwin wrote: If graphs of current flow is to be generated it must provide a graph of the lead edge of the current to compare with the trailing edge at an instant of time, because it is a time varing current. Art - In your perception you have merged my r-f pulse measurement link with my link to a relevant I.R.E. paper by Gihring & Brown of RCA. But while both of these links show the existence of reflections, they can not be combined in any manner to reach the conclusion stated in your post clip quoted above. Regardless of that, you continued your post with... For a fractional wave antenna skin depth or resistance on the surface does not disappear until the trailing edge of the RF pulse reaches the antenna top. In the mean time current rises at the top as the fields collapse which means that the lead current is prevented from turning around because skin resistance is still being maintained. Thus it has no other choice to pursue a closed circuit other than travel on thenside of the radiator and being shielded by the surface eddy currents produced by the trailing current end. etc Art, consider just the Gihring/Brown measurements linked to earlier in this thread. They were made using a continuous, non-pulsed r-f waveform, so none of your beliefs posted above will apply. Yet the current distribution measured along the lengths of those radiators by Gihring/Brown proves the existence of reflections from the end of such radiators, and that such reflected r-f current does not return from the end of such radiators via a non-radiating path through the center of the same conductor, as you suppose. I will not add to this thread as it is surround by closed minds of the aged. But not for the reason you state next above, I'd wager. RF of course not, you have shown him real facts... he can't fight real facts, they just confuse him, so he'll go away and come back later and say that you were completely wrong and that he proved it. and then go right back to spouting the same old magical levitating diamagnetic neutrino bafflegab. |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 8, 6:14*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Jan 8, 3:57*pm, Art Unwin *wrote: If graphs of current flow is to be generated it must provide a graph of the lead edge of the current to compare with the trailing edge at an instant of time, because it is a time varing current. Art - In your perception you have merged my r-f pulse measurement link with my link to a relevant I.R.E. paper by Gihring & Brown of RCA. Your posting was incomplete leaving more questiios than answers other than the answers you applied so I obsoleted it. I have have had not connection whatever , to my knowledge. of any paper by Gihring and Brown thus there is no reason for communication between us. I say something and the reaction of the group states you can't. I have no control how others think so I move along on my own until something relevant comes along to which I can apply a semblance of logic. snip I will not add to this thread as it is surround by closed minds of the aged. But not for the reason you state next above, I'd wager. RF |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 8, 4:44*pm, "Frank" wrote:
don't confuse him with facts, especially facts out of books... they are all out of date since they don't have his latest theories included in them. I think he is laughting at us all, and just seeing what can be gotten away with. Nobody with an engineering degree would ever write something like the following: "Calculus is based on homogenous materials or planes where you can refer dy/dx to some thing aproaching zero. In the case of using this aproach where the antenna diameter aproaches zero this is an invalid aproach for accuracy but O.K. for aproximations. So much for the foibles of theoretical mathematics". Frank You know that the term of dy/dx is absent of metrics unless limits are applied. If the object is to measure the plane at hand it obviously must represent a homogeneous plane when the limits applied. This was established long before I was born so it was not I who made it up Laugh away it is good for you. Art |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 2, 6:31*pm, wrote:
I've been using 4Nec2, a freeware antenna modeling program based on NEC-2 (Numerical Electromagnetic Code). I'm wondering if anyone could provide some insight as to just how it models current at the ends of wires that are not connected to anything (a.k.a. "free ends" or "open ends"). Does NEC-2 model "end caps" at free ends, which is equivalent to assuming wires are solid, or does it just set the current equal to zero at the free ends, which is equivalent to assuming wires are hollow? Is it possible that it does both, but the specific model is determined by the choice of computational kernel (extended vs. standard)? I've tried looking through some of the NEC-2 documentation, but I can't find a definitive answer. -Dave, K3WQ David I see no reference with respect to the ratio between diameters so It must reflect solid conductors. If the elements were hollow there could be current flow within the tube together with skin depth. However, the communication must be consistent with straight line projectory and thus the center of the tube would act like a Faraday cage. This is different to current flow in the center of a solid radiator since there can be no eddy current within a material of a RF radiator. Remember, no matter how you read the NEC files equations arrived at are often approximations since many time portions of equations are assumed to be negligeable compared to the overall scheme of things and thus deleted. Do that a few times and it is not known whether the solutions is a greater or smaller approximation , only a closer approximation that that created by a planar design. As a U.S.Senator from Illinois once stated, a dollar here and a millions there and pretty soon we are talking about real money (Sen Dirksen of Peoria) Regards Art |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
Art Unwin wrote:
You know that the term of dy/dx is absent of metrics unless limits are applied. Bassackwards as usual. dy/dy is differentiation, it is integration that has limits. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
Frank
You know that the term of dy/dx is absent of metrics unless limits are applied. If the object is to measure the plane at hand it obviously must represent a homogeneous plane when the limits applied. This was established long before I was born so it was not I who made it up Laugh away it is good for you. Art Your terminology is confusing: "The term of dy/dx". What does "term" mean? How is it absent of metrics? I assume by "Metrics" you mean a numeric value. dy/dx implies there is a function: y = f(x), for which the derivative, f '(x) exists. The calculation of a derivative is trivial, and assigning a numeric result simply involves substituting in f ' (x) at x = a. I don't understand what you mean by applying limits to a derivative. As long as the function is continuous, then the derivative exists. Are you considering the "Newton Quotient"? Why is the Newton Quotient relevant, when simple differentiation methods will achieve the same answer. What are you measuring in a plane? A plane is represented by a linear equation in x, y, and z: such as: a(x - xo)+b(y - yo)+c(z - zo) = 0. The coefficients a, b, and c are a set of direction numbers of a normal to the plane. Taking the derivative (dy/dx) of such a function implies a "Partial" derivative, such that the "z" terms vanish, and you are left with an equation of a line y = m*x+b, where the solution is obviously "m". As for the homogeneity of a plane; you are introducing a 4th dimension. What is the 4th variable? Subject to partial differentiation with respect to x; the 4th variable disapears anyway. Did I get it right? I find the way you explain math is very difficult for me to follow. Note: I am not laughing at you -- I assume you are laughing at us who respond. Frank |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 8, 9:10*pm, "Frank" wrote:
Frank You know that the term of dy/dx is absent of metrics unless limits are applied. If the object is to measure the plane at hand it obviously must represent a homogeneous plane when the limits applied. This was established long before I was born so it was not I who made it up Laugh away it is good for you. Art Your terminology is confusing: *"The term of dy/dx". *What does "term" mean? *How is it absent of metrics? *I assume by "Metrics" you mean a numeric value. *dy/dx implies there is a function: y = f(x), for which the derivative, f '(x) exists. *The calculation of a derivative is trivial, and assigning a numeric result simply involves substituting in f ' (x) at x = a. * I don't understand what you mean by applying limits to a derivative. *As long as the function is continuous, then the derivative exists. *Are you considering the "Newton Quotient"? Why is the Newton Quotient relevant, when simple differentiation methods will achieve the same answer. What are you measuring in a plane? *A plane is represented by a linear equation in x, y, and z: such as: a(x - xo)+b(y - yo)+c(z - zo) = 0. *The coefficients a, b, and c are a set of direction numbers of a normal to the plane. Taking the derivative (dy/dx) of such a function implies a "Partial" derivative, such that the "z" terms vanish, and you are left with an equation of a line y = m*x+b, where the solution is obviously "m". *As for the homogeneity of a plane; you are introducing a 4th dimension. *What is the 4th variable? *Subject to partial differentiation with respect to x; the 4th variable disapears anyway. Did I get it right? *I find the way you explain math is very difficult for me to follow. *Note: I am not laughing at you -- I assume you are laughing at us who respond. Frank No Frank I was careless. When you are determining the area under a curve, the curve has an equation When the graph is roughly drawn out you draw a narrow vertical strip that represents dy/dx That strip has no specific thickness as it represents a vanishingly thin strip. If the area represented a cross section of a radiator the thickness of that strip is then a problem. As a radiator dx could represent the skin depth or it could represent the distance from the surface to the center line and thus the cross section would not be homogenous, same density etc The problem then becomes what is the true skin depth density in relation to the inner core which allows for the application of the material resistance. Now I see skin depth as the point that eddy current becomes a contained current circuit without discontinuity. The books define skin depth as a relation of decay which is not how I see things so we have a difference in proving things one way or the other. I then added aunconnected problem by drifting towards integration and limits ie travelling back from integration to the differation format which was a silly mistake for which I have been already reprimanded by the nets monitor who looks out for those things rather than the technical content. I really believe that the answer lays on Maxwells laws and not with the approximation supplied by Uda/Yagi. Computor programs say the same thing via the tipping radiator which all deny so there is no possible solution to be arrived at that satisfies all unless somebody provides answers that reflect Maxwell and not Yagi/Uda rather than "I said so" as every thing is known and is in the books that I own. At no time have I taken your postings as mocking or otherwise insincere as you are the only person who used a antenna program in conjuction with my beliefs which shows radiators as not being parallel with the surface of the Earth where others refused to check in any way. As I stated in an earlier posting one must graph the current levels at the top of a radiator by superimposing both graphs where both the leading and trailing currents arrive at the end ( time separation of half a period)so that current direction can be determined since in one case there is no eddy current and the other case does have eddy currents( flow resistance) on the surface which thus determines current flow direction at each point. Best regards Art |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
Art wrote:
"For a fractional wave antenna, skin depth or resistance on the surface does not disappear until the trailing edge of the RF pulse reaches rhe antenna top." Assume an open-circuited whip antenna fed with RF. The leading edge of the first current cycle reaching the antenna tip can continue forward no farther as it abruptly has run out of conducting parh. It must reverse directions on the surface of the conductor as it has no where else to go. This reversed current is called the reflected current. The reflection is nearly 100%. I forward plus I reflected add to zero at the open circuit because they are about equal in magnitude and opposite in phase, caused by travel in opposite directions. E forward plus E reflected add to X2 as they are in-phase and of the same magnitude at the open circuit. Skin-effect causes both currents, forward and reflected, to ride the surface of the conductor. Atenna RF current encounters more inductance in a onductor`s center than on its surface because there are magnetic force lines inside the conductor as well as outside encircling its current. Lines inside the wire only encircle the current beneath them. The exact center of the wire is encircled by all magnetic lines of force inside and on the surface of the conductor. It therefore poses the most opposition to RF current. It is encircled by lines of magnetic force from currents at all depths in and on a conductor. So, the deeper the current, the more opposition from inductive reactance to its flow, and that`s the way it is. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 8, 11:32*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Art wrote: "For a fractional wave antenna, skin depth or resistance on the surface does not disappear until the trailing edge of the RF pulse reaches rhe antenna top." Assume an open-circuited whip antenna fed with RF. The leading edge of the first current cycle reaching the antenna tip can continue forward no farther as it abruptly has run out of conducting parh. It must reverse directions on the surface of the conductor as it has no where else to go. This reversed current is called the reflected current. The reflection is nearly 100%. I forward plus I reflected add to zero at the open circuit because they are about equal in magnitude and opposite in phase, caused by travel in opposite directions. E forward plus E reflected add to X2 as they are in-phase and of the same magnitude at the open circuit. Skin-effect causes both currents, forward and reflected, to ride the surface of the conductor. Atenna RF current encounters more inductance in a onductor`s center than on its surface because there are magnetic force lines inside the conductor as well as outside encircling its current. Lines inside the wire only encircle the current beneath them. The exact center of the wire is encircled by all magnetic lines of force inside and on the surface of the conductor. It therefore poses the most opposition to RF current. It is encircled by lines of magnetic force from currents at all depths in and on a conductor. So, the deeper the current, the more opposition from inductive reactance to its flow, and that`s the way it is. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI * * * * * By golly As I stated before you are correct in your own mind and I have no intention of changing your attitude as you age. I acknowledge that we differ in our descriptions but until you provide scientific proof as opposed to your personal opinion it will continue to remain that way regardless. From now on because of our differences I see no need to respond to your quotes Nothing personal intended. Best regards and farewell Art Art |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
Art wrote:
"------in conjunction with my beliefs which shows radiators as not being parallel with the surface of the Earth where others refused to check in any way." I`ve erected countless horizontal antennas. They worked as expected. I agree that the ionosphere scrambles polarizations so that a distant signal may have been launched from either a horizontal or vertical antenna and be received almost as well on an antenna of the other of those polarizations. Line of sight propagation is different. The same polarization is needed for linearly polarized antennas at both ends of a path. This is experience, not opinion. I`ve experimented with polarization and optimized countless terestrial microwave paths. I found I could aim dish elevations with a carpenter`s level and never improve by trying to adjust for maximum limiter current by refining the polarization adjustment. The antennas were already parallel at both ends of the path. Tending to cross-polarize line of sight antennas increases path loss. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jan 8, 11:32 pm, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Art wrote: "For a fractional wave antenna, skin depth or resistance on the surface does not disappear until the trailing edge of the RF pulse reaches rhe antenna top." Assume an open-circuited whip antenna fed with RF. The leading edge of the first current cycle reaching the antenna tip can continue forward no farther as it abruptly has run out of conducting parh. It must reverse directions on the surface of the conductor as it has no where else to go. This reversed current is called the reflected current. The reflection is nearly 100%. I forward plus I reflected add to zero at the open circuit because they are about equal in magnitude and opposite in phase, caused by travel in opposite directions. E forward plus E reflected add to X2 as they are in-phase and of the same magnitude at the open circuit. Skin-effect causes both currents, forward and reflected, to ride the surface of the conductor. Atenna RF current encounters more inductance in a onductor`s center than on its surface because there are magnetic force lines inside the conductor as well as outside encircling its current. Lines inside the wire only encircle the current beneath them. The exact center of the wire is encircled by all magnetic lines of force inside and on the surface of the conductor. It therefore poses the most opposition to RF current. It is encircled by lines of magnetic force from currents at all depths in and on a conductor. So, the deeper the current, the more opposition from inductive reactance to its flow, and that`s the way it is. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI By golly As I stated before you are correct in your own mind and I have no intention of changing your attitude as you age. I acknowledge that we differ in our descriptions but until you provide scientific proof as opposed to your personal opinion it will continue to remain that way regardless. From now on because of our differences I see no need to respond to your quotes Nothing personal intended. Best regards and farewell Art Art ain't it great. show him facts and he calls them your opinions and ignores them... yet question his opinions and you are an old fuddy duddy stuck on the books that have been good for 100 years. |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
Richard Harrison wrote:
Skin-effect causes both currents, forward and reflected, to ride the surface of the conductor. Some quantum electrodynamics might help. The electrons in the conductor are the carriers and move hardly at all at RF frequencies where electrons can be thought of as vibrating in place, absorbing and emitting photons. It is those photons that move at the speed of light and RF photons cannot travel *inside* a conductor. The cloud of photons in the space surrounding the conductor is the same thing as Maxwell's RF electromagnetic field which, as we assume from conventional physics, cannot exist deep inside a conductor because of skin-effect. Seems to me the present argument results from the confusion between DC steady-state which is electron flow not involving RF photons and RF "steady-state" which cannot exist without RF photons. Photons, unlike electrons, do not have a charge and thus do not repel each other. Any number of photons can occupy the same volume including forward and reflected photons which form the standing wave surrounding the conductor. Let's say we have two pieces of coax with a 'T' connector in the middle. If we short the inside conductor to the outside conductor on both ends and apply RF, what would we measure at the center conductor of the 'T' in the middle? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 9, 7:10*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote: Skin-effect causes both currents, forward and reflected, to ride the surface of the conductor. Some quantum electrodynamics might help. The electrons in the conductor are the carriers and move hardly at all at RF frequencies where electrons can be thought of as vibrating in place, absorbing and emitting photons. It is those photons that move at the speed of light and RF photons cannot travel *inside* a conductor. The cloud of photons in the space surrounding the conductor is the same thing as Maxwell's RF electromagnetic field which, as we assume from conventional physics, cannot exist deep inside a conductor because of skin-effect. Seems to me the present argument results from the confusion between DC steady-state which is electron flow not involving RF photons and RF "steady-state" which cannot exist without RF photons. Photons, unlike electrons, do not have a charge and thus do not repel each other. Any number of photons can occupy the same volume including forward and reflected photons which form the standing wave surrounding the conductor. Let's say we have two pieces of coax with a 'T' connector in the middle. If we short the inside conductor to the outside conductor on both ends and apply RF, what would we measure at the center conductor of the 'T' in the middle? -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com Cecil I wish I could debate with you one on one where there are no snide remarkes put in place. Unfortunately my training is as a mechanical engineer where as a ham I have spread out somewhat into the electrical field and advancing via the rules of Maxwell and the other masters. When you move out further with the introduction of protons my eyes glaze over because I know nothing of such things. Now this discussion started off with Gauss laws on statics with me which finally lead to a antenna program that vindicated my stance. It was the Gaussian aproach that has produced the endless discussion. So let us put the problem on its head and start with the computer programs and work backwards. There are two types of antenna programs.The first type is EZNEC that applies mathematics to pre designed scenarious which via experience with the books revolve around planar designes to which it will supply an aswer that one would expect again via experience from the books and the user is very happy. The other style of program is an extension of the first where the program is empowered to modify input dimensions such that the input moves towards a radiator that meets the intention of Maxwells laws in their entirety. I use the latter program where as non of the group will use this type favoring the basic EZNEC program It is now where we find that it is the details of the two programs come into evidence. Hams by virtue of their knowledge and readings WILL insert a planar design to find the resulting characteristics. On the other hand I just insert a handfull of numbers and ask the program to rearrange inserted figures to obtain a certain gain e.t.c. I can do this as I know that the program based on Maxwells laws will pursue a line for the best array that meets my request. Now this group owning only the EZNEC will always insert for a vertical antenna a design that is at right angles to earth with a specific length of radiator just like the books they have and it will provide an answer that the books would expect. I on the other hand being a mechanical engineer use a program that is known to reflect the laws of the masters thus it is natural for be to insert various numbers with no real meaning and leave it to the experts to rearrange it for the best orientation to meet my request. So How do these approaches differ. The group using the EZNEC style of program will input a vertical antenna at right angles to the Earth wich follows conventional thinking I as a mechanical engineer does not assume anything and thus provides the problem to the program to unravel ie. the numbers provided are random with respect to orientation. The results provided is always a vertical that is tipped away from right angles with respect to Earth. This presents a paradox two programs providing different results. Those using the planar aproach and using EZNEC get an orientation that one sees in the books where-as........ my program which has an optimiser ( the ability to change orientation in line with Maxwells laws) provides a orientation of a vertical that is tipped sand supplies superior results to that of a planar design which it always over rules in it search for best results. So the problem is not that the eddy current creats the tipping. The problem is that a program exists that supplies orientations that are contrary to those that are generaly in the books used as tutorial's. Thus the question is a very simple one. On what grounds can we accept one program that supplies responses that are not accounted for in tutorial books? One program supplies solutions that exceed the values supplied by the other, yet the other program when supplied with the final orientation of an array or radiator that one program supplied will then show AGREEMENT with the other program? Now my reversion to first principles produces disagreement even tho an alternative approach is not supplied. So as a mechanical engineer I give the problem to the experts to which there is silence and an unwilliness to change to an open mind. So Cecil I presented the facts what two different antenna programs used in the amateur antenna world supplies and ask, why should I NOT trust programs that utelize an optimizer aproach based on the laws of Maxwell and favor a program that use orientations that present tutorial books supply? A simple question unimpaired by the theories of particles etc which seems to be a source of annoyance. My sincere regards Art Unwin.......KB9MZ.....xg |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
Art wrote:
"So Cecil I presented the facts what two different antenna programs used in the amateur antenna would and ask, why should I NOT trust programs that utelize the laws of Maxwell and favor a program that use orientations that present tutorial books supply? A simple question inspired by theories of particles etc which seems to be a source of annoyance." Antenna programs are tools. Their product qualities depend on user ability as much as upon the tool. Any program telling you to tilt the tower is wrong for one reason or another. Were that so, after a century of broadcasting there would be such transmitters and there aren`t. Particles and EM waves are compatible. I recommend "Electromagnetism and the Sacred" by Lawrence W. Fagg, ISBN 0-8264-1147-9, which reconciles QED (Quantum Electromagnetism) and EMI (Electromagnetic Interaction). Fagg also informs of the Four Forces of Nature. Art said we must account for "The Weak Force" in our determination, but never said which weak force he meant. Fagg says on page 27: "The strongest of the forces is the nuclear force, which, for example, keeps the quarks (the most elementary particles that are subject to the nuclear force) together in clumps of three to form protons and neutrons, and, in turn, keeps protons and neutrons together in the neucleus of an atom. Next in order of strength is the electromagnetic force, which is the fundamental mechanism that makes possible the operation of all living things including ourselves and most of the material world to which we relate. The third is known as the weak force, which comes into play in the radioactive decay of a nucleus and many other elementary particle phenomena. By far the weakest of the four is gravity. I won`t bore with more. Read the book. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 9, 1:00*pm, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote: "So Cecil I presented the facts what two different antenna programs used in the amateur antenna would and ask, why should I NOT trust programs that utelize the laws of Maxwell and favor a program that use orientations that present tutorial books supply? A simple question inspired by theories of particles etc which seems to be a source of annoyance." Antenna programs are tools. Their product qualities depend on user ability as much as upon the tool. Any program telling you to tilt the tower is wrong for one reason or another. Were that so, after a century of broadcasting there would be such transmitters and there aren`t. Particles and EM waves are compatible. I recommend "Electromagnetism and the Sacred" by Lawrence W. Fagg, ISBN 0-8264-1147-9, which reconciles QED (Quantum Electromagnetism) and EMI (Electromagnetic Interaction). Fagg also informs of the Four Forces of Nature. Art said we must account for "The Weak Force" in our determination, but never said which weak force he meant. Fagg says on page 27: "The strongest of the forces is the nuclear force, which, for example, keeps the quarks (the most elementary particles that are subject to the nuclear force) together in clumps of three to form protons and neutrons, and, in turn, keeps protons and neutrons together in the neucleus of an atom. Next in order of strength is the electromagnetic force, which is the fundamental mechanism that makes possible the operation of all living things including ourselves and most of the material world to which we relate. The third is known as the weak force, which comes into play in the radioactive decay of a nucleus and many other elementary particle phenomena. By far the weakest of the four is gravity. I won`t bore with more. Read the book. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI * Richard you can read therefore you know what the question is. It is very simple and it is related solely to antenna computor programs that are used presently around the World. It is understanderble because of your advanced age you avoid the use of computer. I have no problem with regard to the proof that you can read but it is not relevent to the question which you make every effort to avoid. You can venture to answer the question again based on your computer knoweledge but the question is based on the veracity of computer antenna programs in use today and nothing else as the Gaussian aproach appeared to be confusing. So it makes no use to quote books at this time because I agree to disagree whith comments based on the Gaussian aproach. It is for that reason the question is now simplified where it only encompasing computer programs |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
Art wrote:
"It is very simple and it is related solely to antenna computor programs that are used presently around the World," Supposing that Art means: Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow? It makes no difference. Skin effect makes a hollow wire appear to be solid. Computer programs successfully predict antenna performance so they are in demand the world over as Art noted. They make the tedious easy. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
No Frank I was careless.
When you are determining the area under a curve, the curve has an equation When the graph is roughly drawn out you draw a narrow vertical strip that represents dy/dx That strip has no specific thickness as it represents a vanishingly thin strip. You appear to be confused with the defininition of the integral. You simply integrate the function over the desired range, and should not be concerned with irrelevant concepts, such as strip widths. If the area represented a cross section of a radiator the thickness of that strip is then a problem. No such strip exists in integration. As a radiator dx could represent the skin depth or it could represent the distance from the surface to the center line and thus the cross Not so; "dx" simply refers to the independant variable to be integrated. Note the first example of a "Reimann integral" at: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Integral.html section would not be homogenous, same density etc The problem then becomes what is the true skin depth density in relation to the inner core which allows for the application of the material resistance. To determine the RF resistance of a conductor requires a solution involving "Kelvin/Thompson" functions; which are modified Bessel functions with a complex argument. See the following for details: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...ect/page1.html Also: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Bei.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Ber.html Now I see skin depth as the point that eddy current becomes a contained current circuit without discontinuity. The books define skin depth as a relation of decay which is not how I see things so we have a difference in proving things one way or the other. Ansoft's (www.ansoft.com) "Maxwell" is a "Finite Element Modeling" (FEM) program which, among other things, can accurately produce a graphical representation of the current distribution in a cylindrical conductor. See examples at: http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpr...in%20depth.htm These graphs are reproduced from an article in the November/December issue of QEX magazine, pp20 - 29, by Rudy Severns, N6LF. I then added aunconnected problem by drifting towards integration and limits ie travelling back from integration to the differation format which was a silly mistake for which I have been already reprimanded by the nets monitor who looks out for those things rather than the technical content. Sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but I am baffled how you can have such problems with elementary math; yet argue about concepts taught in a third year electrical engineering degree program with prerequisites in advanced calculus, partial differential equations, and more. I really believe that the answer lays on Maxwells laws and not with the approximation supplied by Uda/Yagi. I agree, but Yagi and Uda simply build experimental models. Which is about all anybody could do in those days. Computor programs say the same thing via the tipping radiator which all deny so there is no possible solution to be arrived at that satisfies all unless somebody provides answers that reflect Maxwell and not Yagi/Uda rather than "I said so" as every thing is known and is in the books that I own. At no time have I taken your postings as mocking or otherwise insincere as you are the only person who used a antenna program in conjuction with my beliefs which shows radiators as not being parallel with the surface of the Earth where others refused to check in any way. Many hams interested in low frequency DX use sloping (monopole) radiators, which gives a slight improvement in low angle radiation. As I stated in an earlier posting one must graph the current levels at the top of a radiator by superimposing both graphs where both the leading and trailing currents arrive at the end ( time separation of half a period)so that current direction can be determined since in one case there is no eddy current and the other case does have eddy currents( flow resistance) on the surface which thus determines current flow direction at each point. Sorry, but you lost me again. 73, Frank |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 10, 12:32*pm, "Frank" wrote:
No Frank I was careless. When you are determining the area under a curve, the curve has an equation When the graph is roughly drawn out you draw a narrow vertical strip that represents dy/dx That strip has no specific thickness as it represents a vanishingly thin strip. You appear to be confused with the defininition of the integral. You simply integrate the function over the desired range, and should not be concerned with irrelevant concepts, such as strip widths. If the area represented a cross section of a radiator the thickness of that strip is then a problem. No such strip exists in integration. As a radiator dx could represent the skin depth or it could represent the distance from the surface to the center line and thus the cross Not so; "dx" simply refers to the independant variable to be integrated. Note the first example of a "Reimann integral" at:http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Integral.html section would not be homogenous, same density etc The problem then becomes what is the true skin depth density in relation to the inner core which allows for the application of the material resistance. To determine the RF resistance of a conductor requires a solution involving "Kelvin/Thompson" functions; which are modified Bessel functions with a complex argument. *See the following for details:http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...kineffect/page... Also:http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Bei.htm...m.com/Ber.html Now I see skin depth as the point that eddy current becomes a contained current circuit without discontinuity. The books define skin depth as a relation of decay which is not how I see things so we have a difference in proving things one way or the other. Ansoft's (www.ansoft.com) "Maxwell" is a "Finite Element Modeling" (FEM) program which, among other things, can accurately produce a graphical representation of the current distribution in a cylindrical conductor. *See examples at:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpr...in%20depth.htm These graphs are reproduced from an article in the November/December issue of QEX magazine, pp20 - 29, by Rudy Severns, N6LF. I then added aunconnected *problem by drifting towards integration and limits ie travelling back from integration to the differation format which was a silly mistake for which I have been already reprimanded by the nets monitor who looks out for those things rather than the technical content. Sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but I am baffled how you can have such problems with elementary math; yet argue about concepts taught in a third year electrical engineering degree program with prerequisites in advanced calculus, partial differential equations, and more. Frank I understand that you are baffled. I retired early from GE with a heart attack which was then followed by a series of operations before I again had a open heart op with 5 bypasses plus and a few other side problems. My first heart attack to my memory away, could not even read beyond one line. So I focussed on antennas to keep myself alive and to reroute my brain. With my tunnel vision retraining over the last decade plus I regained a tunnel type memory where I focussed solely on antennas. With my present project I have had to retrain in various aspect which required leapfrogg some of the basics but with ten plus years of work, 3 steps forward and two steps back I now consider myself something of an expert on a subject which is long and deep but narrow in span. On my antenna concept I am absolutely sure regarding what I have found, even sought confirming examination but when I venture off channel with respect to this group I go wonky I believe that because of the latter my credibility suffers when I communicate which energises a trend to insult rather than to take an effort to follow what I have done and rechecked an unknown amount of times over the years. Thus with the concept that all is known and if I am correct it would have been done 100 years ago rises to the top while ignoring things from my side that I have to learn and review everything from first principles while using the tools of today. The first patent has been printed and will soon b e reviewed which also includes a description from the times of Gauss. I look forward to that time as it will pull into the open my discoveries. In the mean time I will contunue to make my point on the newsgroup. Main problem is that many have a antenna program but it apears none have the more expensive optimizer and none have used the free versions that are available. So the proof provided by NEC2 and 4 and mininec is beyond this groups ability to come to grips with. The bottom line is all povide the superior results of tilted antennas thus the descision has to be made that all programs are totally in error or all are satisfactor descision that this group is not equipped to address. If you want to follow my line of thinking because of my lapses into the wonky side you can always use E mail rather than subject yourself to the whims of the group. The bottom line of all this is that a directional antenna for 160 metres is now available to which all hams are anxious to avoid at all costs or to debunk all thoughts of acceptance as all is known. Best regards Art I really believe that the answer lays on Maxwells laws and not with the approximation supplied by Uda/Yagi. I agree, but Yagi and Uda simply build experimental models. *Which is about all anybody could do in those days. Computor programs say the same thing via the tipping radiator which all deny so there is no possible solution to be arrived at that satisfies all unless somebody provides answers that reflect Maxwell and not Yagi/Uda rather than "I said so" as every thing is known and is in the books that I own. At no time have I taken your postings as mocking or otherwise insincere as you are the only person who used a antenna program in conjuction with my beliefs which shows radiators as not being parallel with the surface of the Earth where others refused to check in any way. Many hams interested in low frequency DX use sloping (monopole) radiators, which gives a slight improvement in low angle radiation. As I stated in an earlier posting one must graph the current levels at the top of a radiator by superimposing both graphs where both the leading and trailing currents arrive at the end ( time separation of half a period)so that current direction can be determined since in one case there is no eddy current and the other case does have eddy currents( flow resistance) on the surface which thus determines current flow direction at each point. Sorry, but you lost me again. FRANK When the leading edge of the half cycle reaches the open end of the antenna the descision has to be made with the direction of movement. Tradition is that current flows in a closed loop thus the descision is between two or three routes 1 Capacitive coupling to ground as shown in some books to complete a circuit 2 Turn around by ducking under the skin of the radiator to complete a closed circuit 3 Invent a open circuit current flow which by turning around confronts its own tail which is producing the eddy current resistance in the skin as it is yet to reach the end of the radiator. From my point of view the leading edge cannot continue radiating or it will become a full size radiator. The material under the skin depth is an extremely low resistance path which cannot support the formation of eddy current as it has no access to a dialectric (air). This descision also will not stray from the closed circuit traditions. Now for the final eye popper, If a radiator is not in equilibrium there is a literal current flow on the outside which by the standard laws requires a literal current flow in the opposite direction. Prior to the discovery of the eddy current users placed the return current in the air which prevented true understanding of radiation by using this flow as justification for radiation being produced by waves which was then extrapolated to prove that light was a matter of waves. What I am asking for is a acceptance of particles at rest from the sun as being the true transportation of radiation which aligns directly with the suns rotation and the use of levitation of the particles from diamagnetic materials such as aluminum correr etc which cannot retain magnetism in the same proven methos used around the World when sorting and separating materials in all the scrapyards,.As far as acceptance of particles emminating from nuclear burning of the sun in line with a cycle and their high density presence on Earth with the affinity for atraction for diamagnetic materials that has been accepted fully in the last few years in many reseach labs in many diffgerent countries except....except... on this newsgroup Art 73, Frank |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jan 10, 12:32 pm, "Frank" wrote: What I am asking for is a acceptance of particles at rest from the sun as being the true transportation of radiation which aligns directly with the suns rotation and the use of levitation of the particles from diamagnetic materials such as aluminum correr etc which cannot retain magnetism in the same proven methos used around the World when sorting so, now you say my ferromagnetic radiators CAN'T work??? |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 10, 4:50*pm, "Dave" wrote:
* "Art Unwin" wrote in ... * On Jan 10, 12:32 pm, "Frank" wrote: * What I am asking for is a acceptance of particles at rest from the sun * as being the true transportation of radiation which aligns directly * with the suns rotation and the use of levitation of the particles from * diamagnetic materials such as aluminum correr etc which cannot retain * magnetism in the same proven methos used around the World when sorting so, now you say my ferromagnetic radiators CAN'T work??? No It depends on the power or current taken by the hysteresis which limits the displacement current/field generation. Without this generated field there is no displacement of diamagnetic materials, it is a very weak force even in ideal conditions. On the other hand it is possible that any coating aplication will do all the work that is required |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 10, 3:46 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
... If a radiator is not in equilibrium there is a literal current flow on the outside which by the standard laws requires a literal current flow in the opposite direction. Art: Whether or not a radiator meets your definition of "equilibrium," the r-f current flow along it ALWAYS falls to ~zero at its unterminated end(s). It MUST do so, as no real, physical path to conduct r-f current.exists beyond such a limit. The near-total reflection of such current results in the standing wave patterns seen in the plots linked below. This link also shows that the reflected current travels along the outside of the conductor. If it did not, it would NOT result in these current distributions carefully measured by Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago, and which you continue to spurn. http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...reAntennas.gif RF |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jan 10, 4:50 pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in ... On Jan 10, 12:32 pm, "Frank" wrote: What I am asking for is a acceptance of particles at rest from the sun as being the true transportation of radiation which aligns directly with the suns rotation and the use of levitation of the particles from diamagnetic materials such as aluminum correr etc which cannot retain magnetism in the same proven methos used around the World when sorting so, now you say my ferromagnetic radiators CAN'T work??? No It depends on the power or current taken by the hysteresis which limits the displacement current/field generation. Without this generated field there is no displacement of diamagnetic materials, it is a very weak force even in ideal conditions. On the other hand it is possible that any coating aplication will do all the work that is required so even a coating that is not diamagnetic will levitate your magical jumping neutrinos? why would they even light on my ferromagnetic antennas?? and why would the ferromagnetic ones work better than diamagnetic ones?? can't stand to see real world data??? well, this is it. ferromagnetic antennas DO work, and they work very well... so your magical levitating solar diamagnetic neutrino theory is a bunch of bull. oh, and unless i have missed a measurement here and there, reflected currents from the ends of antennas DO flow on the outside of the conductor and are very measurable.... i do it all the time... so stuff that up your pipe and smoke it! |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 10, 5:10*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Jan 10, 3:46 pm, Art Unwin wrote: ... *If a radiator is not in equilibrium there is a literal current flow on the outside which by the standard laws requires a literal current flow in the opposite direction. Art: *Whether or not a radiator meets your definition of "equilibrium," the r-f current flow along it ALWAYS falls to ~zero at its unterminated end(s). *It MUST do so, as no real, physical path to conduct r-f current.exists beyond such a limit. The near-total reflection of such current results in the standing wave RF just look at what you have written and I suppose shouted in response to my post I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be accepted Not surprising really as that is the pattern of this group. Before that I raised the question that if antenna programs all agreed on the sloping radiator as being the best is that a reason on which I can declare programs as proof as what I do. Yup, no answers either because I was spurned or nobody is familiar with the programs to supply an answer. Now you throw at me the books together with some sort of abstract and demand that I should fall in line with everybody else. Well once apon a time I was a lemming and believed all that was in print. Now I am examining everything, point by point for my own satisfaction and coming up with different solutions. Yes I am well aware of the books that are thrown at me and now I am thinking for myself which if anybody is going to progress all must do. For that you object because apparently your request comes first in your mind. Now look at what you wrote again in a logical fashion and then retire to the outhouse and think about the rationalisation of the modes of progress that I supplied and you state why some would be rejected and why together why something totally trumps what I stated or answer the question on antenna computer programs. On the other hand if you have a question start a new thread ! current distributions carefully measured by Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago, and which you continue to spurn. RF |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 10, 6:59*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be accepted. Not so, Art. The simplest reason that you should abandon your line of thinking about there being no current reflection from the unterminated end along the outside of all radiators is that such beliefs were proven invalid by the measured results of Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago -- as shown in the excerpt of their IRE paper which has been linked to twice, now. RF |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Richard Fry" wrote in message ... On Jan 10, 6:59 pm, Art Unwin wrote: I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be accepted. Not so, Art. The simplest reason that you should abandon your line of thinking about there being no current reflection from the unterminated end along the outside of all radiators is that such beliefs were proven invalid by the measured results of Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago -- as shown in the excerpt of their IRE paper which has been linked to twice, now. RF the more it gets quoted the more he will consider it lemming talk and reject it. art is in his own little world now, full of magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos and burrowing anti-eddy currents up the middle of conductors... of course, where those currents go when they reach the feedpoint would be an interesting thing to hear, maybe art can comment on that for a while... they probably just jump up to the surface again and go around in circles. |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
Art Unwin wrote:
When you move out further with the introduction of protons my eyes glaze over because I know nothing of such things. Actually, photons are easier to understand than Maxwell's equations. Maybe it would help if you researched the ability of electron carriers to absorb and/or emit photons plus the physical characteristics of electrons and photons. Wikipedia has fairly good sections on these two elementary particles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 11, 9:09*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: When you move out further with the introduction of protons my eyes glaze over because I know nothing of such things. Actually, photons are easier to understand than Maxwell's equations. Maybe it would help if you researched the ability of electron carriers to absorb and/or emit photons plus the physical characteristics of electrons and photons. Wikipedia has fairly good sections on these two elementary particles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com Cecil, I try to read all sides but the botton line is that communication is definitely linked to the Sun. Also It is known that antennas are made from diagmagnetic material and the expansion of Gaussian law implies the presence of particles. The books support Maxwells equations to its limits and none of the above violate those same principles when based on mathematics. I understand that words like photon and quarks are parotted around and it may be correct but I have no indication of what their reaction is with respect to a rejection force of diamagnetic materials. If it was proven that a particle from the sun when resting on a diagmagnetic surface loses its original qualities via a radical change in the particle itself then I would be forced to consider it. But that is only a theory that is not backed up by known facts. That is why I turn the subject on its head when I turn to computer programs which are a fact of life and in use. Thus the question is reduced from these other aproaches by asking the question, why do antenna programs agree that a vertical antenna must be tilted for best results? Forget the theoretical routes that current takes and also the presence of particles I have brought the question of antennas to the level of every body. There is the Eznec program available to all so all can tackle this paradox for themselves very, very simply. Input a vertical full wave antenna at various angles in a resonant form and see what angle is best. Simple oh so simple. No arguements, no disputes, no presentation of selected articles just a simple personal homework assignment which is very specific to which there is only one answer. for say vertical radiation. No, it is not in the books so it has to be YOUR findings as in homework When the answers come back I will place an answer on my page that is acceptable to all programs in existance. If you have a program with an optimiser then the project takes less that 5 minuits. If you use your own programs it will take longer after which you will be confident of the answer you arrive at. It is very cold outside so you really have nothing better to do than to shut Art's mouth up once and for all with a fact that is inescapable of escape from, one that satisfies all. Vertical full wave antenna, frequency 14.00Mhz ,diameter 1 inch material aluminum Art |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Art Unwin" wrote in message
... Also It is known that antennas are made from diagmagnetic material and the expansion of Gaussian law implies the presence of particles. I have ferromagnetic antennas that art can't explain. obviously they work and i have never seen any magical levitating neutrinos jumping off them! Vertical full wave antenna, frequency 14.00Mhz ,diameter 1 inch material aluminum Art change that material to steel and see if it still works! |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 11, 8:40*am, "Dave" wrote:
* "Richard Fry" wrote in ... * On Jan 10, 6:59 pm, Art Unwin wrote: * I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the * routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You * spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be * accepted. * Not so, Art. * The simplest reason that you should abandon your line of thinking * about there being no current reflection from the unterminated end * along the outside of all radiators is that such beliefs were proven * invalid by the measured results of Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago * -- as shown in the excerpt of their IRE paper which has been linked to * twice, now. * RF the more it gets quoted the more he will consider it lemming talk and reject it. *art is in his own little world now, full of magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos and burrowing anti-eddy currents up the middle of conductors... of course, where those currents go when they reach the feedpoint would be an interesting thing to hear, maybe art can comment on that for a while... they probably just jump up to the surface again and go around in circles. Pull your dress down your slip is showing |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jan 11, 8:40 am, "Dave" wrote: "Richard Fry" wrote in ... On Jan 10, 6:59 pm, Art Unwin wrote: I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be accepted. Not so, Art. The simplest reason that you should abandon your line of thinking about there being no current reflection from the unterminated end along the outside of all radiators is that such beliefs were proven invalid by the measured results of Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago -- as shown in the excerpt of their IRE paper which has been linked to twice, now. RF the more it gets quoted the more he will consider it lemming talk and reject it. art is in his own little world now, full of magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos and burrowing anti-eddy currents up the middle of conductors... of course, where those currents go when they reach the feedpoint would be an interesting thing to hear, maybe art can comment on that for a while... they probably just jump up to the surface again and go around in circles. Pull your dress down your slip is showing so you can't even come up with another technical comeback? just got to stoop all the way down to a cheap personal attack. I guess this thread is over then since you have run out of fun things to say. |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 11, 11:28*am, "Dave" wrote:
* "Art Unwin" wrote in ... * On Jan 11, 8:40 am, "Dave" wrote: * "Richard Fry" wrote in ... * On Jan 10, 6:59 pm, Art Unwin wrote: * * I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the * routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You * spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be * accepted. * * Not so, Art. * * The simplest reason that you should abandon your line of thinking * about there being no current reflection from the unterminated end * along the outside of all radiators is that such beliefs were proven * invalid by the measured results of Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago * -- as shown in the excerpt of their IRE paper which has been linked to * twice, now. * * RF * * the more it gets quoted the more he will consider it lemming talk and reject * it. art is in his own little world now, full of magical levitating * diamagnetic neutrinos and burrowing anti-eddy currents up the middle of * conductors... of course, where those currents go when they reach the * feedpoint would be an interesting thing to hear, maybe art can comment on * that for a while... they probably just jump up to the surface again and go * around in circles. * Pull your dress down your slip is showing so you can't even come up with another technical comeback? *just got to stoop all the way down to a cheap personal attack. *I guess this thread is over then since you have run out of fun things to say. Nope You have the solution in your own hands where you have total control if you are able to use a antenna computer program.Many on this group have an aversion to computers and thus rely on other means which puts control in book authors. If you have a similar aversion thats O.K. For those who can use a computer they can determine for themselves if antenna programs can be trusted or not. The exercise is totally in their hands where they can manipulate the rules in any way when using these programs. If it works out that this group cannot cope with computers then the solution will not surface and thus reliance of the truth resides some where else and not in their hands. Simple, simple simple Art |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 11, 10:37*am, Art Unwin wrote:
Thus the question is reduced from these other aproaches by asking the question, why do antenna programs agree that a vertical antenna must be tilted for best results? What antenna programs are you describing, and for what parameters do you think they show this? Instead of stating your claim about "tilt" and then trying to coerce others to prove you are wrong, why not take the initiative to try to prove you are right? RF |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Nope You have the solution in your own hands where you have total control if you are able to use a antenna computer program.Many on this group have an aversion to computers and thus rely on other means which puts control in book authors. If you have a similar aversion thats O.K. yeah, right... i am an author, and i also use computers, where does that put me? EVERYONE on this group must use a computer... kind of hard to use newsgroups like this without a computer. For those who can use a computer they can determine for themselves if antenna programs can be trusted or not. no they can't... not unless they have a sophisticated test setup to do fill size models and measurements to compare predicted with actual results. YOU don't even have that art, so how can you be so sure that the programs are doing what you think they are doing? |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 11, 12:12*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Jan 11, 10:37*am, Art Unwin wrote: Thus the question is reduced from these other aproaches by asking the question, why do antenna programs agree that a vertical antenna must be tilted for best results? What antenna programs are you describing, and for what parameters do you think they show this? Instead of stating your claim about "tilt" and then trying to coerce others to prove you are wrong, why not take the initiative to try to prove you are right? RF I could do that but you will only accept what you yourself can prove by your own means. I said I would provide what you are asking for so you have control of the solution i.e my solution is or is not the same as your own What you are proposing is nothing more than a way out to prevent a solution If you cannot operate a computer then that aproach has no standing with you or myself So now we are back to a word war on facts which are indeterminate. When you do it for yourself you can voutch for all steps taken by you that proves your point. Self reliance instead of default |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 11, 11:28*am, "Dave" wrote:
* "Art Unwin" wrote in ... * On Jan 11, 8:40 am, "Dave" wrote: * "Richard Fry" wrote in ... * On Jan 10, 6:59 pm, Art Unwin wrote: * * I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the * routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You * spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be * accepted. * * Not so, Art. * * The simplest reason that you should abandon your line of thinking * about there being no current reflection from the unterminated end * along the outside of all radiators is that such beliefs were proven * invalid by the measured results of Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago * -- as shown in the excerpt of their IRE paper which has been linked to * twice, now. * * RF * * the more it gets quoted the more he will consider it lemming talk and reject * it. art is in his own little world now, full of magical levitating * diamagnetic neutrinos and burrowing anti-eddy currents up the middle of * conductors... of course, where those currents go when they reach the * feedpoint would be an interesting thing to hear, maybe art can comment on * that for a while... they probably just jump up to the surface again and go * around in circles. * Pull your dress down your slip is showing so you can't even come up with another technical comeback? *just got to stoop all the way down to a cheap personal attack. *I guess this thread is over then since you have run out of fun things to say. No,No,Noi There is no evidence that you have a yearning for the backsides of man it is just a play on words which point to your error in thinking. ala the slip. Get it? I have made no attempt to hide my thinking with a torrent of words under the guise of shakespeare to provide cover I provided a single liner. No more, no less |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 11, 12:50*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I could do that but you will only accept what you yourself can prove by your own means. No, I accept the work of Kraus, Terman, Balanis etc and the experimental work of George Brown et al as they have written and proven it. The undocumented statements of Art Unwin I do not. But for your edification, Art, below is a link to what NEC shows for a full-wave, base-fed vertical monopole over a perfect ground plane. Note that it has zero gain in the horizontal plane, and about 6.7 dBi gain at an elevation angle of 37 degrees. So yes, tilting the radiator would increase gain in the horizontal plane, by varying amounts depending on azimuth (two azimuths would still be zero).. Is this the basis for your claim? If so, why would anyone install such a thing, as more than that peak gain in the horizontal plane is supplied by a cheaper, shorter VERTICAL monopole of about 0.6 wavelengths. If this model is not what you have in mind then please completely define your radiator (including how it is fed and its relation to the ground plane), and your meaning of "best results" due to tilting it. http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...alMonopole.gif RF |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com