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.

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 Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

In the absence of a explanation I will provide a possible alternative.
... such as the World is not flat.

Which would, of course, mean that the dish (cone?) antenna?))
radiator?))) is not listening to signals from the back, but those that
have gone all the way around the World to the front to be heard now
with 3dB gain.

Nothing is broken, it is a S U C C E S S. Modern theory has proven
Alfred E Newton right!

Blimey-what. Me Worry, guv? (non Shakespeare, modern English).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC