RadioBanter - Dish reflector

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Antenna (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/)

- - Dish reflector (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/142471-dish-reflector.html)

On Apr 11, 1:53*am, 328X1 wrote:
Art Unwin;672460 Wrote:

On Apr 10, 9:30*pm, Art Unwin wrote:-
On Apr 10, 8:45*pm, Tom Ring wrote:

-
Art Unwin wrote:-
--
The posting is about dishes not antennas. I have not read about a
dish
that does not emit signals to the rear. Now I have built one and
find
to my surprize that it does accept signals from the rear ! All very
simple, the radiator is resting at the bottom of a cone and the top
of
the radiator does not stick out beyond the reflector. Since you do
not--
-
Well, to start with Art, a cone reflector doesn't meet the definition
of
a dish antenna.-
-
I'm sorry, but they just aren't the same thing.-
-
I surprizzzed you missed the difference.-
-
tom
K0TAR-

Tom
I asked the question as I am not personly knowledgable about dish
style reflectors.
I do read a lot and I read a paper once where it was found that a
cone
shaped reflector produced increased gain when used with a helix
antenna, so I made one to try it out. Personaly I see it more as a
horn and not as a dish with a radiator at a phase control difference
from the reflector? Either way I do not understand how that I can
hear
signals to the rear if the reflector envelope encloses the radiator
thus the question. Note that a helix radiates differently from the
normal dish radiator such that phasing does not enter the design
which
is why you see planar dishes or "cups".
Thus questions with respect to reflector diameter are not
pertinentwhen the radiator is enclosed.-

Guys
In the absence of a explanation I will provide a possible alternative.
Maxwell added a specific portion to his mathematical laws that refer
to mass and the speed of light thus verifying the existance of
particles. This addition brought statics laws into the radiation
sphere. Rutherford of the UK ( Manchester)showed that particles could
piece a foil of gold because of the relative size of the particle with
respect to the latice make up of the foil when viewed head on. Thus in
the same way a particle or mass ejected at the speed of light from a
radiator could possibly pierce a reflector when met head on.
If so this would explain the rear signals. In the case of a radiator
that is not enclosed by the envelope of a reflector head on
deflection/
interaction is quite possible and well understood and there are
designs to avoid it. With respect to dish edges one can see in the
radio handbook what happens to a signal grazing a sharp edge, but that
seems hard to swallow when hams cling to the idea of radio "waves"
when their actions has not been satisfactorily explained with respect
to radiation by physicists.
I suggest that you all pick up the Gaussian equations and add the
presence of a time varying field such that it is mathematically the
same as one of Maxwell's laws ie
look for mass and light speed signatures. We are past the times when
one could suppress ideas such as the World is not flat. When you
finally arrive at the point of understanding of Maxwell you only then
gain an understanding of radiation. With the denial of this
mathematical evidence by all you have zero understanding of radiation
and therefore redundant.
Bye

You can argue till you're blue in the face, but in the 50+ years in the
radio electronics field, both in civilian and military occupations, I
have yet to see a single 'particle' [other than dust, perhaps] on any
of the many oscilloscopes I've ever used. Conversely I seen countless
'waves'. * I'll stick with the time tested term of RADIO WAVES.

--
328X1

What others have concluded by guessing is not a concern of mine.
Hams with respect to antennas always call for the supporting math as
they decry amateur measurements. The sad thing is that hams are not
familiar with mathematics.
It is quite clear that by adding a time varying field to the law of
statics it becomes proof of the validity of Maxwell'/s lawsand vica
versa. Thus the presence of particles is also verufied.
Maxwell laws are based solely on distributed loads where lumped loads
are completely avoided yet lumped loads generate electromagnetic
fields. What is the explanation of this when Maxwells laws designate
that which is required for maximum efficiency? To look like a wave is
inmaterial since a particle at rest on a wave only changes amplitude,
it does not follow the movement of water.
We then have the knowledge that the sun provides a stream of particles
which arrive on Earth, billions of them and of the smallest size of
particle known by man and most hams look to the Sun for predictions of
dx activity. Why is this so? Maxwells law includes the speed of light
with the inclusio,n of mass in his equations so how is this portion of
mathematics included in planar forms that are formed around inductive
coupling? We know that the weak force is stronger than gravity and is
part of Maxwell's laws the same as we know that gravity does not
overcome communication,
another recognition of particles as is the application of rotation to
particles to maintain straight line projection and where this specific
action is part and parcel of Maxwell's laws. Why do you all close your
eyes to these known facts? Books of the present day are for making
money not the disemination of facts. White papers are accepted if they
have enought references to other publishings so dissemination of the
truth is obviously not profitable, but plagarism is. And it all starts
with the mathematical phenomina where all mathematics of the masters
are used to provide the validity of his laws. Like other law's Gauss's
law of Statics is also a proof of the validity of Maxwell's laws with
respect to radiation and is accepted via mathematics protocol.
What is happening here is the rejection of the mathematical proof by
radio hams, for if the validity is established change obviously occurs
and change is seen as undesirable, thus the burial of heads in the
sand. Yes, this time we will succeed in
our position it determining that the World is flat by denying the
mathematics! All of this group is on record of rejecting the
mathematics shown by Maxwell and Gauss by refusing to address it such
that validity is denied and change does not come about.

"Art Unwin" wrote:

What others have concluded by guessing is not a concern of mine.
Hams with respect to antennas always call for the supporting math as
they decry amateur measurements. The sad thing is that hams are not
familiar with mathematics.
It is quite clear that by adding a time varying field to the law of
statics it becomes proof of the validity of Maxwell'/s lawsand vica
versa. Thus the presence of particles is also verufied.
Maxwell laws are based solely on distributed loads where lumped loads
are completely avoided yet lumped loads generate electromagnetic
fields. What is the explanation of this when Maxwells laws designate
that which is required for maximum efficiency? To look like a wave is
inmaterial since a particle at rest on a wave only changes amplitude,
it does not follow the movement of water.
We then have the knowledge that the sun provides a stream of particles
which arrive on Earth, billions of them and of the smallest size of
particle known by man and most hams look to the Sun for predictions of
dx activity. Why is this so? Maxwells law includes the speed of light
with the inclusio,n of mass in his equations so how is this portion of
mathematics included in planar forms that are formed around inductive
coupling? We know that the weak force is stronger than gravity and is
part of Maxwell's laws the same as we know that gravity does not
overcome communication,
another recognition of particles as is the application of rotation to
particles to maintain straight line projection and where this specific
action is part and parcel of Maxwell's laws. Why do you all close your
eyes to these known facts? Books of the present day are for making
money not the disemination of facts. White papers are accepted if they
have enought references to other publishings so dissemination of the
truth is obviously not profitable, but plagarism is. And it all starts
with the mathematical phenomina where all mathematics of the masters
are used to provide the validity of his laws. Like other law's Gauss's
law of Statics is also a proof of the validity of Maxwell's laws with
respect to radiation and is accepted via mathematics protocol.
What is happening here is the rejection of the mathematical proof by
radio hams, for if the validity is established change obviously occurs
and change is seen as undesirable, thus the burial of heads in the
sand. Yes, this time we will succeed in
our position it determining that the World is flat by denying the
mathematics! All of this group is on record of rejecting the
mathematics shown by Maxwell and Gauss by refusing to address it such
that validity is denied and change does not come about.

Art,Art,Art..... you are blithering again!

Mike W5CHR
Memphis

On Apr 11, 3:21*am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
I don't see Art's postings except as they're quoted by others. But from
what I'm seeing here, it looks like he's done a great experiment which
graphically shows that radio waves don't act like particles. More
experiments along this line weren't really necessary, since it's been
known at least since Hertz's experiments in the 19th century. And
anyone who took high school physics and watched the ripples in the
ripple tank should be able to immediately predict what Art is
describing. But I suppose the experiment and its results might prove
enlightening for those readers who didn't take high school physics and
who are nearly completely unacquainted with electromagnetics.

Sorry, Roy, that experiment won't be possible. The bathtub is
permanently occupied by the wannabee Archimedes.

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK

Ian
Both you and Roy project to the World that you are both experts with
respect to radiation. You write articles and both have had the
position of magazine advisors so I can assume that you feel you have a
firm grasp in physics or a good collection of books that you can
resort to for answers. The fact that both of you deny the mathematics
given by Gauyss and Maxwell is a constant surprise to me even tho a
mathematics person from MIT showed all the validity Of what I have
stated. Physics books revolve around Maxwell's laws and show many
instances where other laws
contribute to providing validity his and Newton's laws. Now I provide
another instance
where Gauss also provide validity to Maxwell's laws which have been
confirmed by independent sources. Yet Richard with a major in English
decided the mathematics supplied is in error and both of you, with the
masses, followed in lockstep yet both of you have degrees in the
subject at hand! Why is it that nobody with experience in physics has
come forward to prove me wrong ? Why do both of you refuse to provide
supporting evidence? Yes, you can come forward to discuss SWR and
similar things
yet your absence in not proving me in error is some what amasing. Both
of you tell the group why you cannot substantiate the mathematics
supplied with respect to radiation.If your mathematics or physics are
not up to it why not quote independent sources? Your stances are very
similar to when you worked with magazines that fooled the world with
respect to antenna gain on behalf of gain to manufactures.
This newsgroup is for the edification and advancement of antenna
knowledge to hams and yet both of you are instrumental in hiding the
truth and thus have descended to Richard's level in the destruction
of advancement in favour of projecting derision in place of knowledge.
Years ago Roy stated he would go to the ends of the Earth to destroy
old housewives tails to clarify the science of radio communication but
for some reason he cannot, or will not, prove this to be one of the
same.
For the others, consult your teachers or professors or others skilled
in the art and ask them the one simple question. Does the addition of
a time varying field to the arbritary border of Gauss which contain
static particles in equilibrium equal to and verify the laws
established by Maxwell? Simple straight forward question which is
denied by this group without possesion of the required facts that
establishes their position.

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I don't see Art's postings except as they're quoted by others. But from
what I'm seeing here, it looks like he's done a great experiment which
graphically shows that radio waves don't act like particles. More
experiments along this line weren't really necessary, since it's been
known at least since Hertz's experiments in the 19th century. And anyone
who took high school physics and watched the ripples in the ripple tank
should be able to immediately predict what Art is describing. But I
suppose the experiment and its results might prove enlightening for
those readers who didn't take high school physics and who are nearly
completely unacquainted with electromagnetics.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Art has probably been led astray by reading popular accounts of the
wave-particle duality ideas of quantum mechanics. A little reading can
be a dangerous thing.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
Art has probably been led astray by reading popular accounts of the
wave-particle duality ideas of quantum mechanics. A little reading can
be a dangerous thing.

If one expects a wave, one will measure a wave.
If one expects a particle, one will measure a particle.
Do human expectations dictate reality or vice versa?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Apr 11, 11:33*am, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
I don't see Art's postings except as they're quoted by others. But from
what I'm seeing here, it looks like he's done a great experiment which
graphically shows that radio waves don't act like particles. More
experiments along this line weren't really necessary, since it's been
known at least since Hertz's experiments in the 19th century. And anyone
who took high school physics and watched the ripples in the ripple tank
should be able to immediately predict what Art is describing. But I
suppose the experiment and its results might prove enlightening for
those readers who didn't take high school physics and who are nearly
completely unacquainted with electromagnetics.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Art has probably been led astray by reading popular accounts of the
wave-particle duality ideas of quantum mechanics. A little reading can
be a dangerous thing.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom
If you have read a lot or have physics instruction step forward and
provide the mathematics of Gauss law of static particles with the
addition of a time varying field.
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

On Apr 11, 11:46*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Art has probably been led astray by reading popular accounts of the
wave-particle duality ideas of quantum mechanics. A little reading can
be a dangerous thing.

If one expects a wave, one will measure a wave.
If one expects a particle, one will measure a particle.
Do human expectations dictate reality or vice versa?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

You are absolutely correct. Time and modern instruments has proved it
so.
Now we have to retrain the thinking of old people that resist change.
But all we have at hand are people that are old and unskilled in the
arts.

On Apr 11, 11:46*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Art has probably been led astray by reading popular accounts of the
wave-particle duality ideas of quantum mechanics. A little reading can
be a dangerous thing.

If one expects a wave, one will measure a wave.
If one expects a particle, one will measure a particle.
Do human expectations dictate reality or vice versa?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, I posted this same stuff on the qrz antenna forum which is
followed by the majority of hams around the World. It is now close to
the 4000 hits mark , I find it interesting the difference in thinking
between the different news groups where only a few can manipulate the
whole to attack.

Art Unwin wrote:
You are absolutely correct.

Art, all you have to do is convince people to change
their expectations and their outcomes will change. :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Art Unwin wrote:
I find it interesting the difference in thinking
between the different news groups where only a few can manipulate the
whole to attack.

I cannot beat Will Roger's advice: "Be sure you are
right, and then go on ahead."

For instance, I'm absolutely sure I am right about
the delay through a 75m bugcatcher loading coil
which I have actually measured on the bench.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com