Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 2, 6:24*am, "Dave" wrote:
"JIMMIE" wrote in message

...
On May 1, 7:37 pm, "Dave" wrote:

I dont know if Dave built it or not but I did and tested the beamwidth
just as you said and got 360 degrees. Rotating it had no effect at all
on signal strength. I tried it on 2M and couldnt hit the local
repeater with 1 watt normally I can reach it with 100mW. I would say
this classifies the antenna as a dummy load.

no, i am waiting for the final tweaked design. *if you have built one to
art's specs then you are probably measuring just the side/back lobes, which
is a very good sign. *if it has a pencil beam on 160m, then by the time it
gets to 2m the beam will probably be so thin that it will be like a laser
beam, so you'll have to be pointing it VERY accurately on the repeater. *so
go rotate it again, very slowly and carefully, and don't forget to aim it in
elevation also!

Hold on. I don.t know if I have a pencil beam as I can't measure it or
model it.
However, I don't see that as a real hurdle! The idea that the beam
width changes with frequency is beyond my ken. As for a final tweaked
design, for a ham that is an impossibility

Resonance and equilibrium
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Hold on. I don.t know if I have a pencil beam as I can't measure it or
model it.
However, I don't see that as a real hurdle! The idea that the beam
width changes with frequency is beyond my ken. As for a final tweaked
design, for a ham that is an impossibility

but you do have one that is built to your spec right? and you can turn it
by hand? so if you point it at a local AM station can you see a big
increase in signal strength and a good front-back and front-side ratio?? I
don't need a 'final'design, as you say that is impossible for a ham, but
i'll settle for something better than a 4-square for 160m that i can turn
with a normal rotor!

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 1, 10:01*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 22:37:24 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

I'll make it easy, 10 degree beamwidth and 30MHz bandwidth.

At how many GHz?

snip
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

At 160m. *You can't possibly have missed that, Richard. *Art has stated
it dozens of times. *Maybe hundreds.

He's nuts, and very thorough about it.

tom
K0TAR

Tom hes too thorough.
I think hes just a troll, maybe he,s the real Arts grandson or
something. Hes too consistent to be as blithrering as he acts. Maybe
he is just some old fart that likes to stir up conversation and gets a
kick out of how long of a thread he can create or how many hundred
words he can get someone to write.

His "antenna design" isnt origonal. I am not sure what the origonal
source was but I know at one time it was used as a joke among CBers.
They would describe it to some newbie and get him to build it and put
it up on a tower and make him jump through as many hoops as possible
to get it to work. So maybe he is just one of those from the CB
usegroup having fun with hams.

Jimmie

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 2, 12:07*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Hold on. I don.t know if I have a pencil beam as I can't measure it or
model it.
However, I don't see that as a real hurdle! The idea that the beam
width changes with frequency is beyond my ken. *As for a final tweaked
design, for a ham that is an impossibility

but you do have one that is built to your spec right? *and you can turn it
by hand? *so if you point it at a local AM station can you see a big
increase in signal strength and a good front-back and front-side ratio?? *I
don't need a 'final'design, as you say that is impossible for a ham, but
i'll settle for something better than a 4-square for 160m that i can turn
with a normal rotor!

Yes you are correct. But I am waiting for some remote relays for the
rotator scan and asmith control and some other things with respect to
the antenna. Ordered from China
so it will take a bit more than a week from now, then I can do as you
say. For beam width changes I also need a adjustment contraption to
change up or down from what I have now but that is a summer job ie
bells and whistles. I have Jim's sample antenna packed and ready to go
and he is probably more experienced in that area, when I receive his
address via e mail, it is packed in a priority mail container. He can
pass on what it does but without comment with respect to construction.
Construction details are private and I am not going to disclose those
until there is a climate change.
At the moment Jim is the only guy I can trust on the newsgroup and the
only guy I have great confidence in so if he provides a finding I can
believe it as it will be specific and to the point As far as the four
square goes without change in azmith I don't believe it can compete
but we will see.
Having a get away week end at the moment with the wife antennas have
been put to one side.
Art

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 2, 12:34*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On May 1, 10:01*pm, Tom Ring wrote:



Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 22:37:24 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

I'll make it easy, 10 degree beamwidth and 30MHz bandwidth.

At how many GHz?

snip
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

At 160m. *You can't possibly have missed that, Richard. *Art has stated
it dozens of times. *Maybe hundreds.

He's nuts, and very thorough about it.

tom
K0TAR

Tom hes too thorough.
I think hes just a troll, maybe he,s the real Arts grandson or
something. Hes too consistent to be as blithrering as he acts. Maybe
he is just some old fart that likes to stir up conversation and gets a
kick out of how long of a thread he can create or how many hundred
words he can get someone to write.

* His "antenna design" isnt origonal. I am not sure what the origonal
source was but I know at one time it was used as a joke among CBers.
They would describe it to some newbie and get him to build it and put
it up on a tower and make him jump through as many hoops as possible
to get it to work. So maybe he is just one of those from the CB
usegroup having fun with hams.

Jimmie

To deliberatly try to deceive one that wishes to learn is totally
dishonest.!
I try to be a gentleman at all times by trying to walk in other
peoples shoes.

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 1, 9:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 1, 7:35*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
- Show quoted text -

...I was intent on sharing all with my fellow hams but
after the pilloring of the Dr who came on board so that he could help
with the problems that the group were having with mathematics and
Maxwell it appeared to me that most thought all was known about
antennas thus all is known about mine.

Yes, I remember the "Dr." (or perhaps doctoral candidate) from MIT who
jumped in and remarked that according to his model, when you
mathematically 'freeze' the motion of charge to a single point in time
(t = x seconds), that, glory be, Gauses law of statics (preservation
of charge) still holds true according to his computer results.

This may be of mild interest to scientists who question if the charge
would be preserved statically (perhaps some energy must be lost to the
dynamic motion of charge for example), it had nothing to do with what
you were writing. Once the "poor Dr." saw what you were up to, he
politely decided to exit stage right never to return again.

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 2, 3:00*pm, wrote:
On May 1, 9:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On May 1, 7:35*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
- Show quoted text -
...I was intent on sharing all with my fellow hams but
after the pilloring of the Dr who came on board so that he could help
with the problems that the group were having with mathematics and
Maxwell it appeared to me that most thought all was known about
antennas thus all is known about mine.

Yes, I remember the "Dr." (or perhaps doctoral candidate) from MIT who
jumped in and remarked that according to his model, when you
mathematically 'freeze' the motion of charge to a single point in time
(t = x seconds), that, glory be, Gauses law of statics (preservation
of charge) still holds true according to his computer results.

This may be of mild interest to scientists who question if the charge
would be preserved statically (perhaps some energy must be lost to the
dynamic motion of charge for example), it had nothing to do with what
you were writing. Once the "poor Dr." saw what you were up to, he
politely decided to exit stage right never to return again.

Why do you keep coming back with different names and different packs
of lies
John E Davis can be found at his home page @space,mit edu where he can
himself
tell you that you are lieing. Better still, read the archives of this
newsgroup for the truth
We all know who and what you are. You can run but you can't hide.
plonk

Resonance and equilibrium
 

Art Unwin wrote:

Many times things go out one ear and out the other, perforated ear
drums does that for you.

I am sorry to hear that you have perforarated eardrums. I know it's
painful.


From what you stated on Maxwell it is obvious that my logic
on every thing is not acceptable to you.


And yet thru the years nobody has pointed out an error in my
statements.

I have said nothing about Maxwell here. Ever.

And you are correct at least in your own mind since
you have stuck with planar designs despite its contradictions with
Maxwell.

You have not even a tiny idea of my antenna designs, especially since
most that have been even hinted at on the internet were under my old
callsign.

tom
K0TAR

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 2, 5:12*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

Many times things go out one ear and out the other, perforated ear
drums does that for you.

I am sorry to hear that you have perforarated eardrums. *I know it's
painful.

From what you stated on Maxwell it is obvious that my logic
on every thing is not acceptable to you.
And yet thru the years nobody has pointed out an error in my
statements.

I have said nothing about Maxwell here. *Ever.

* And you are correct at least in your own mind since

you have stuck with planar designs despite its contradictions with
Maxwell.

You have not even a tiny idea of my antenna designs, especially since
most that have been even hinted at on the internet were under my old
callsign.

tom
K0TAR

Then why are you here. Are you a judge? You always appear depressed or
mean spirited. Maybe when you hinted on your designs you got slammed.
I am fairly sure that they did not follow the edicts of Maxwell.

Resonance and equilibrium
 

Art Unwin wrote:

Then why are you here.

I assume that was a question. You have continuing issues with punctuation.

I am here to learn about antennas. Unlike yourself.

Are you a judge? You always appear depressed or
mean spirited.

Nope on the judge. I merely apply "common physics" to know you are
thinking in the "imaginary plane".

And mean spirited? What have I ever said to you, as opposed to Richard,
that could be presumed to be mean spirited? Google has all of it
recorded forever more. SHOW ME!

Maybe when you hinted on your designs you got slammed.

My designs have taken first place in several antenna competitions in the
"non-commercial" category. And sometimes first second third and fourth
in the same one. Almost always first place in every band I entered one
which was as many as 3 at an event. For lousy common style engineered
antennas,as opposed to your whizbang revolutionary ones, I've done okay
I guess.

I am fairly sure that they did not follow the edicts of Maxwell.

I wouldn't know, since you seem to be the only one who has a copy of his
edicts.

tom
K0TAR