"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
I feel that this debate has now come to an end. Maxwell's laws are not
applicable or valid when a radiator is not in equilibrium. And
resonance does not equate to equilibrium because end effect is not
present and thus not applicable with respect to Maxwell.

so when can we expect the publication of "art's equations" to fill this gap?

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
I looked up the references and here are my comments
1 a helical is not in a state of equilibrium

of course it is, there is an equals in the equation so it must be in
'equal'ibrium according to your definition.

2 A radiator that is not a WL or multiple thereof is not in
equilibrium

my half wave radiator, and my infinitesimal dipole both have equals signs in
their equations to they must be in your state of 'equal'ibrium also!

Roy Lewallen wrote:

It's not very simple.

Except for monochromatic light sources like lasers, light of any color
contains multiple spectral lines. Sunlight or, for example, an
incandescent bulb or red hot electric stove element contains a
continuous spectrum, or effectively an infinite number of spectral lines
or "colors". So you can't duplicate these with any finite number of
spectral lines. The interesting thing is that with only three spectral
lines (pure monochromatic colors) you can produce light that *looks*
line nearly any color of light that's really made from many spectral
lines.

AHa! I was going to write about the emulation of color, but wasn't sure
if I'd just confuse things. But you've done a good job describing it, so
here we are.

So called "Lippmann" emulsions can do color correctly, but they work on
a wavefront basis instead of combining colors.(the individual particles
of silver are extremely small, so they can do that) A color Lippmann
image can be gorgeous, but they are really difficult to make, so are
more of a curiosity than anything else.


which is why they're common, but no choice can mimic all. I notice that
some color printers have more ink colors, which I assume allows an even
wider range.

That's a big part of it. Inkjets have some mechanical issues too, such
as the best looking colors might not last very long, or a good long
lasting color might be hard to squeeze through the little jets. SO we
get stuck with multiple color cartridges. But for the purposes at hand,
the color perception issue is the big one, and the others can be ignored.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On May 8, 7:34*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

I feel that this debate has now come to an end. Maxwell's laws are not
applicable or valid when a radiator is not in equilibrium. And
resonance does not equate to equilibrium because *end effect is not
present and thus not applicable with respect to Maxwell.

so when can we expect the publication of "art's equations" to fill this gap?

David
All hams armed with the above fact can now pursue experimentation with
abandon for themselves. It will be decades before science can accept
change. So for those hams willing to accept change and become do'ers,
that is very important to me, the lack of sun spots will not push them
away from the hobby. I am old and not good looking but like Susan
Boyle what I am sharing with all will last a life time.
For the "gurus" the next challenge is to devise an equation that will
account for all forces involved in the production of "end effect" that
will withstand rigourous examination. In other words David, nasty
words with contempt have soured my desire to share for the moment
Regards
Art...,..xg

In the corner of every battle field
there lies a piece of England
But for me life, which is good, goes on

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
In other words David, nasty
words with contempt have soured my desire to share for the moment

I don't know weather to be sad that i'll miss your great words of wisdom, or
happy that your gibberish may be quelled for a while. Spring is here, so i
have my own REAL antenna work to do, so i guess i really don't need your
imaginary stuff anyway.

On May 8, 11:59*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

In other words David, nasty
words with contempt have soured my desire to share for the moment

I don't know weather to be sad that i'll miss your great words of wisdom, or
happy that your gibberish may be quelled for a while. *Spring is here, so i
have my own REAL antenna work to do, so i guess i really don't need your
imaginary stuff anyway.

Atta boy,
Keep using that slide rule from your school days, there is absolutely
no reason why you should change and update

Still here, and still trying to strip away the personal attacks to try
to understand the various underlying technical opinions!

When I model a "bugcatcher" plus stinger using EZNEC, I see
significantly less current at the top of the coil compared with the
bottom of the coil. I also see a slight increase in current part way
up the coil before it then decreases towards the top.

In reply to an earlier question of mine, Roy assured me that this
current distribution was "real" and not some problem that EZNEC has
modelling this arrangement.

I have two questions if I may:

1) Cecil: I believe I understand how the Corum transmission line model
accounts nicely for the reduced current at the top of the coil. Does
it also account for the slight increase in current a short way from
the bottom?

2) Jim, Tom, Roy (and any others): It appears you think the Corum
model is flawed, or not appropriate to the "bugcatcher". What I've not
yet understood is what alternative model you are advocating which
would match the EZNEC results more closely than the Corum model. I've
heard at least Roy say that a lumped-inductor model is inappropriate,
but I don't think I've yet heard any other model proposed. Perhaps I
missed it?

Regards,
Steve G3TXQ

wrote:
Still here, and still trying to strip away the personal attacks to try
to understand the various underlying technical opinions!

When I model a "bugcatcher" plus stinger using EZNEC, I see
significantly less current at the top of the coil compared with the
bottom of the coil. I also see a slight increase in current part way
up the coil before it then decreases towards the top.

In reply to an earlier question of mine, Roy assured me that this
current distribution was "real" and not some problem that EZNEC has
modelling this arrangement.

I have two questions if I may:

1) Cecil: I believe I understand how the Corum transmission line model
accounts nicely for the reduced current at the top of the coil. Does
it also account for the slight increase in current a short way from
the bottom?

2) Jim, Tom, Roy (and any others): It appears you think the Corum
model is flawed, or not appropriate to the "bugcatcher". What I've not
yet understood is what alternative model you are advocating which
would match the EZNEC results more closely than the Corum model. I've
heard at least Roy say that a lumped-inductor model is inappropriate,
but I don't think I've yet heard any other model proposed. Perhaps I
missed it?

Regards,
Steve G3TXQ

EZNEC _is_ a model. If you can accept that, then you've got your model.
If you want to know why current is less at one end of the bugcatcher
coil than at the other, you'll have to study electromagnetic theory.
(Try adding a large top hat to the bug catcher and see what that does
to the current in the coil.) If you're satisfied with Cecil's work,
fine. Whatever works for you. Rules of thumb and such sometimes work
pretty well. The late Reg Edwards knew that and worked out some programs
that relied on such. You might want to see if you can find some of his
work on the web.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

wrote:
Still here, and still trying to strip away the personal attacks to try
to understand the various underlying technical opinions!

Same here.

2) Jim, Tom, Roy (and any others): It appears you think the Corum
model is flawed, or not appropriate to the "bugcatcher".

For me, it's the latter.

What I've not
yet understood is what alternative model you are advocating which
would match the EZNEC results more closely than the Corum model. I've
heard at least Roy say that a lumped-inductor model is inappropriate,
but I don't think I've yet heard any other model proposed. Perhaps I
missed it?

Regards,
Steve G3TXQ

Hi Steve,

Personally, I think some actual measurements would help enormously in
formulating/evaluating a model. Otherwise all we have is hand waving
and proselytizing.

73, ac6xg

On May 8, 9:01*am, Michael Coslo wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
It's not very simple.

Except for monochromatic light sources like lasers, light of any color
contains multiple spectral lines. Sunlight or, for example, an
incandescent bulb or red hot electric stove element contains a
continuous spectrum, or effectively an infinite number of spectral lines
or "colors". So you can't duplicate these with any finite number of
spectral lines. The interesting thing is that with only three spectral
lines (pure monochromatic colors) you can produce light that *looks*
line nearly any color of light that's really made from many spectral
lines.

* * * * AHa! I was going to write about the emulation of color, but wasn't sure
if I'd just confuse things. But you've done a good job describing it, so
here we are.

* * * * So called "Lippmann" emulsions can do color correctly, but they work on
a wavefront basis instead of combining colors.(the individual particles
of silver are extremely small, so they can do that) A color Lippmann
image can be gorgeous, but they are really difficult to make, so are
more of a curiosity than anything else.

which is why they're common, but no choice can mimic all. I notice that
some color printers have more ink colors, which I assume allows an even
wider range.

That's a big part of it. Inkjets have some mechanical issues too, such
as the best looking colors might not last very long, or a good long
lasting color might be hard to squeeze through the little jets. SO we
get stuck with multiple color cartridges. But for the purposes at hand,
the color perception issue is the big one, and the others can be ignored.

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -

But guys you are jumping to fast with your statements and conclusions.
Go back to the basics and start afresh.
Remember we are seeing color as representitive of temperature and the
mass and potential energy that is affected by a particles passage
thru a medium. Thus the temperature spectrum compares with the total
color spectrum which covers all the frequencies involved.
Thus a clump or cluster of particles entering a different medium
represents all frequencies and dependent on the dispelled kinetic
energy of each with respect to their mass covers all the colors
possible. In other words a single particle disposed to the red
spectrum
can supply all the different hues of red all of which are dependent on
the mass,
expended kinetic energy, and the ratio of expended energy to
potential energy when encountering a change of medium. A blacksmith
does this all the time when reviewing color on the impact of his
hammer without thinking. Even the X ray frequencies have color
Art