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 Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
snip

tom
K0TAR

Jimmie

I just couldn't resist, just this once.

tom
K0TAR

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.

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

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

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

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, 11:46*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.