Loading coils: was Dish reflector now: Delay Lines
 

"Dr. Barry L. Ornitz" wrote in
:

"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...

For a more quantitative illustration of how distributed reactance in
transmission lines causes delay see
http://www.rhombus-ind.com/dlcat/app1_pas.pdf

73, ac6xg

In graduate school, more years ago than I care to admit, I scrapped a
surplus computer for parts. The computer had been custom built for
the Savannah River nuclear facility. In addition to the many hundreds
of 2N404A germanium transistors, I found the core memory made of
ferrite cores about 0.1 inches in diameter and about 30 mils thick.
But the most unusual thing, at least to me, was a flexible coaxial
cable about six feet long made of a ferrite-loaded rubber core wound
with 40 gauge enameled wire, wrapped in a thin cellulose acetate film
(Scotch tape?), covered with a braid shield with a vinyl covering. Of
course, it was a distributed delay line. I never measured its
impedance and delay properties accurately, but the cable had a
significant delay that could easily be seen on a 5 MHz bandwidth
scope. Even with an approximate termination, the cable's losses were
quite high.

Do you think this might have been a Distortionless Line?

Owen

Loading coils: was Dish reflector
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
EZNEC and the Cecil-Corum method are in agreement.
Correct

if you had stopped there i would have commended you on another correct
response... but you just couldn't, could you???

but the solution is in error as equilibrium demands that the
radiator is in equilibrium ie equal to a period or multiples there of.

you never have defined equilibrium or shown where it is a requirement on
maxwell's equations. i have stated that maxwell's equations rely on NOT
being in equilibrium since they describe fields and waves that can vary in
time, hence they are not in equilibrium with anything. keep going art,
always fun reading!

Loading coils: was Dish reflector
 

On Apr 24, 6:33*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

EZNEC and the Cecil-Corum method are in agreement.
Correct

if you had stopped there i would have commended you on another correct
response... but you just couldn't, could you???

but the solution is in error as equilibrium demands that the
radiator is in equilibrium ie equal to a period or multiples there of.

you never have defined equilibrium or shown where it is a requirement on
maxwell's equations. *i have stated that maxwell's equations rely on NOT
being in equilibrium since they describe fields and waves that can vary in
time, hence they are not in equilibrium with anything. *keep going art,
always fun reading!

Boundary laws are a part of nature as is mathematics.Every time you
have an equation which uses the equal sign is the mathematical use of
physics.
It allows the movement of all metrics to one side of the equation such
that all metrics used in summation must equal with zero. Maxwell used
this very same fact in determining his laws when he found what he had
derived was NOT equal zero which thus showed it was missing the
metrics of displacement current (deduction) such that all metrics
cancelled out.Again an example of Newtons laws where every action has
a equal and opposite reaction To determine that tha Maxwell is not
using the term Waves is to note that all metrics are nouns in
equations and the term "wave" is an adjective. All elermentary.
Art

Loading coils: was Dish reflector
 

On Apr 24, 7:48*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:33*am, "Dave" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

EZNEC and the Cecil-Corum method are in agreement.
Correct

if you had stopped there i would have commended you on another correct
response... but you just couldn't, could you???

but the solution is in error as equilibrium demands that the
radiator is in equilibrium ie equal to a period or multiples there of.

you never have defined equilibrium or shown where it is a requirement on
maxwell's equations. *i have stated that maxwell's equations rely on NOT
being in equilibrium since they describe fields and waves that can vary in
time, hence they are not in equilibrium with anything. *keep going art,
always fun reading!

Boundary laws are a part of nature as is mathematics.Every time you
have an equation which uses the equal sign is the mathematical use of
physics.
It allows the movement of all metrics to one side of the equation such
that all metrics used in summation must equal with zero. Maxwell used
this very same fact in determining his laws when he found what he had
derived was NOT equal zero which thus showed it was missing the
metrics of displacement current (deduction) such that all metrics
cancelled out.Again an example of Newtons laws where every action has
a equal and opposite reaction To determine that tha Maxwell is not
using the term Waves is to note that all metrics are nouns in
equations and the term "wave" is an adjective. All elermentary.
Art

Please allow me to correct myself on the above
Equations comprising of nouns only in a static field. A dynamic field
has both
adjectives and nouns via the metric of time However the sum of the
metrics must still
equal zero.
Sorry about that
Regards
Art

Loading coils: was Dish reflector
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Apr 24, 7:48 am, Art Unwin wrote:

Please allow me to correct myself on the above

you never did answer my question, but thats ok, you never have before
either... now you try parsing the language and think that provides
insight... just write the equation, what is equilibrium in your mind? i
know this is tough, you are so far out of balance anyway, but try to amuse
me a bit and write a concise definition of 'equilibrium'.

Loading coils: was Dish reflector
 

On Apr 24, 10:47*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Apr 24, 7:48 am, Art Unwin wrote:

Please allow me to correct myself on the above

you never did answer my question, but thats ok, you never have before
either... now you try parsing the language and think that provides
insight... just write the equation, what is equilibrium in your mind? *i
know this is tough, you are so far out of balance anyway, but try to amuse
me a bit and write a concise definition of 'equilibrium'.

I will be happy to David
It is balance as referred to by the mathematical equal (=) term where
all metrics can be placed to one side and summed to the value of
zero. In physics it represents the physical laws of Newton and other
where "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" as used in the
time worn uses when establishing a arbitrary border as per Gauss's law
of Statics or Maxwell when determining the absence of metrics deduced
the missing levitational force( displacement current) in his law's or
calculations. All of which were established by observations thru the
years of the Universe with respect to Earth in relative form . ( See
Einstein's law of relativity) This can be seen as motivation of the
Grand Universal Theory which Einstein gave up on because of his
failure to identify what is known as the "weak force" which is part of
the standard model of physics. It was Foucault that much, much later
that found or discovered the displacement current which is what I
determine to be the "weak force" and also the required metrics that
Maxwell added to his equations to represent the measure of
equilibrium.
The above explanation is probably longer than what is usually found in
terms of words but I tried to relate to the evolution of physics with
respect to that same word to provide better understanding rather than
describing it in niche terms of mechanical and electrical terms of the
physical Universe
I thought you were getting bored with physics!
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ..xg

Loading coils: was Dish reflector
 

On Apr 24, 11:25*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Apr 24, 10:47*am, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....
On Apr 24, 7:48 am, Art Unwin wrote:

Please allow me to correct myself on the above

you never did answer my question, but thats ok, you never have before
either... now you try parsing the language and think that provides
insight... just write the equation, what is equilibrium in your mind? *i
know this is tough, you are so far out of balance anyway, but try to amuse
me a bit and write a concise definition of 'equilibrium'.

I will be happy to David
It is balance as referred to by the mathematical equal (=) term where
all metrics can be placed to one side and summed to the *value of
zero. In physics it represents the physical laws of Newton and other
where "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" as used in the
time worn uses when establishing a arbitrary border as per Gauss's law
of Statics or Maxwell when determining the absence of metrics deduced
the missing *levitational force( displacement current) in his law's or
calculations. All of which were established by observations thru the
years of the Universe with respect to Earth in relative form . ( See
Einstein's law of relativity) This can be seen as motivation of the
Grand Universal Theory which Einstein gave up on because of his
failure to identify what is known as the "weak force" which is part of
the standard model of physics. It was Foucault that much, much later
that found or discovered the displacement current which is what I
determine to be the "weak force" and also the required metrics that
Maxwell added to his equations to represent the measure of
equilibrium.
The above explanation is probably longer than what is usually found in
terms of words but I tried to relate to the evolution of physics with
respect to that same word to provide better understanding rather than
describing it in niche terms of mechanical and electrical terms of the
physical Universe
I thought you were getting bored with physics!
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ..xg

While putting my definition down with respect to equilibrium it seems
a good time to expand it to why particles and not waves are the
subject of Maxwell's laws.
Both Maxwell and Gauss generated arbitrary borders in their summation
of the laws of statics and the laws of radiation. The only difference
between them is one descibes a static fiels while the other descibes a
dynamic field both of which the forces must be summed up to equal
zero. It was Maxwell you changed the static field to a dynamic field
when he saw that the metric of time was only on one side of the
equation which meant that the unlikely discovery of an equation that
was not in equilibrium within the boundaries of the environment under
consideration. Thus he expanded the law of statics by making it
dynamic which required the addition of the metric of time which would
cancel out when establishing the presence of equilibrium.
It should now be obvious to all on this group struggling with waves
versus particles
that when changing the field to dynamic one must recognise that mass
or particles are present in this action and not waves. This provides
authenticity of my personal position of the presence of particles in
radiation and all laws of our Universe.
Hopefully the above will convince all other members of this group as
well as those that deny the presence of the Grand Unification Theory
but I will not hold my breath.
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ xg

Loading coils: was Dish reflector
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:29:04 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
... and as any good dry labber knows, it's a dead giveaway to report a
precision greater than one can actually measure. :-)
I have reported no precision - my 100 MHz scope has
not been calibrated since I retired.
Precision is the number of sig figs. You "might" have calculated three,
rounded up, and reported two.

Precision is NOT accuracy.

No one said it was, Richard.

Thanks though.

ac6xg

Loading coils: was Dish reflector
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Apr 24, 11:25 am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Apr 24, 10:47 am, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Apr 24, 7:48 am, Art Unwin wrote:

Please allow me to correct myself on the above

you never did answer my question, but thats ok, you never have before
either... now you try parsing the language and think that provides
insight... just write the equation, what is equilibrium in your mind? i
know this is tough, you are so far out of balance anyway, but try to
amuse
me a bit and write a concise definition of 'equilibrium'.

I will be happy to David
It is balance as referred to by the mathematical equal (=) term where

so any equation with an equals sign is in equilibrium?? that applies to
everything then, since all equations contain an equals sign they are all in
equilibrium by definition. my i'm glad you explained that art, i might have
gone through life never knowing that by taking e=ir and rewriting it as
e-ir=0 i have put ohms law in equilibrium and then all is well with the
universe! so the conversion of mass to energy in the famous equation e=mc^2
is really in equilibrium as e-mc^2=0, so no mass is converted to energy or
vice versa! wow, what a revelation! thanks again art!

Loading coils: was Dish reflector
 

Art wrote:
"I thought you were getting bored with physics!"

We must live with physics, bored or not. The parabola is well
understood. its use as a reflector is documented by Kraus and the "ARRL
Antenna Book". A good description is seen in "Principles of Radar"
published by the MIT Radar School Staff in 1946. On page 9-78:

"The geometrical properties of parabolas are important for demonstrating
the existence of a constant-phase surface. First, a parabola is by
definition the focus of points as far from a fixed point called the
focus as from a fixed line called the directrix. With reference to Fig.
51A, this means that lengths AA` and AF are equal, BB`and BF are equal,
and so on. Second, a line drawn tangent to a parabola at any point (as
in Fig. 51B) makes equal angles with a line drawn from this point back
to the focus and a line from this point parallel to the axis of the
parabola. When a point source is placed at the focus, it sends out
energy in a single time phase, but in various directions. This energy
strikes the paraboloid at points such as A, B, and C, (in Fig.51A), and
is reflected in a direction parallel with the axis because of the second
property mentioned. The first property predicts that the phase change
that the wave undergoes in traveling to points A``, B``, and C`` on the
surface SS` is the same for each ray, the phase change being equal to
the distance in electrical degrees, from the diretrix to the surface SS`
plus 180 degrees, due to the phase reversal upon reflection. Thus the
field reflected from the parabola has a single time phase in a plane
across the mouth of the parabola. The field radiated forward by the
point source tends to upset this constant-phase surface, but this effect
is usually minimized through the use of sources which radiate
appreciably only roward the reflector.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI