Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 10, 7:19*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:49:31 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: 1. What frequency 2. What is the dish diameter 3. What is the dish focal length to diameter ratio (F/D) I am not avoiding questions, just those that appear irrelevant, 20 postings to get to the point (not unanticipated, however) which Art calls "irrelevant." As for those answers? 1 160 metres upto 2 metres, tunable 2 2 metres Hence the wholesale disregard for first principles in size vs. wavelength. *Elementary analysis need not go any further when failure is so obviously designed in. * 3 Doesn't have a focal length, it is an end fed ( series connection) helix antenna. -Well, maybe not obvious to everyone.- But why don't we chalk this design up to S U C C E S S and call it a thread? *If this bier gets anymore wreaths tossed onto it, it will kill the pallbearers. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC 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 know what you are talking about and intent is to disrupt this thread why on earth are you muttering about nothing at length? Simple question has been posed and obviously you do not know the answers that antenna engineering knowledge would provide as you are not an engineer but a actor or actress by day and by night. My question remains unanswered after all these posts.How do signals arrive or depart from the rear of a dish or horn? We all know that you don't know the answer but there are qualified engineers in this group who possibly doand willing to share. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 know what you are talking about and intent is to disrupt this thread why on earth are you muttering about nothing at length? Simple question has been posed and obviously you do not know the answers that antenna engineering knowledge would provide as you are not an engineer but a actor or actress by day and by night. My question remains unanswered after all these posts.How do signals arrive or depart from the rear of a dish or horn? We all know that you don't know the answer but there are qualified engineers in this group who possibly doand willing to share. Your antenna has nothing to do with dish antennas, bu rather plane reflectors (of which yours is way too small as Richard pointed out). I know we cannot change your opinion or teach you anything- so I am out of here. Dale W4OP |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 10, 8:13*pm, "Dale Parfitt" 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 know what you are talking about and intent is to disrupt this thread why on earth are you muttering about nothing at length? Simple question has been posed and obviously you do not know the answers that antenna engineering knowledge would provide as you are not an engineer but a actor or actress by day and by night. *My question remains unanswered after all these posts.How do signals arrive or depart from the rear of a dish or horn? We all know that you don't know the answer but there are qualified engineers in this group who possibly doand willing to share. Your antenna has nothing to do with dish antennas, bu rather plane reflectors (of which yours is way too small as Richard pointed out). I know we cannot change your opinion or teach you anything- so I am out of here. Dale W4OP Dale, my response above was with respect to Richard not you, but I did know you would run eventually. Study the math of Maxwell and Gauss before you decide to take up teaching. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: snip tom K0TAR Jimmie I just couldn't resist, just this once. ![]() tom K0TAR |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Art Unwin wrote:\
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. He is _awfully_ funny, isn't he? tom K0TAR |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Dish Network "500" dish with two LNBs | Homebrew | |||
Kenwood reflector | General | |||
Vet. with a reflector | Antenna | |||
Reflector for Hammarlund | Boatanchors | |||
Reflector for Hammarlund | Boatanchors |