Art Unwin wrote:
And we have not figured out radio radiation yet, even tho we have a
multitude of formulae from a century ago!

Art, please do not include the majority of us here in your statements.

What you really should be saying is YOU have not figured out EM
radiation yet.

I for one can design and build, with the help of STANDARD TEXTS
(especially those many decades old!), almost any type of antenna or
antenna array anyone could ever need. And it will work exactly as
predicted if one takes into account normal environmental variables, such
as buildings, trees and ground conductivity.

This isn't unknown unpredictable territory, regardless of your claims,
none of which have been proven, by the way. This stuff works, and we
know how, and it's not the way you claim.

tom
K0TAR

tom wrote:
I for one can design and build, with the help of STANDARD TEXTS
(especially those many decades old!), almost any type of antenna or
antenna array anyone could ever need. And it will work exactly as
predicted if one takes into account normal environmental variables, such
as buildings, trees and ground conductivity.

Speaking of texts, one of my co-workers gave me a wonderful paperback
textbook last week "The Theory and Design of Circular Antenna Arrays" by
James D. Tillman, Jr., The University of Tennessee Engineering
Experiment Station, 1966.

The design, testing, scope pictures and the wonderful racks of gear they
built makes for a great piece of work.

I have no idea why he had this book or where he got it, but am grateful
to get it.

tom
K0TAR

On May 29, 8:37*pm, tom wrote:
tom wrote:
I for one can design and build, with the help of STANDARD TEXTS
(especially those many decades old!), almost any type of antenna or
antenna array anyone could ever need. *And it will work exactly as
predicted if one takes into account normal environmental variables, such
as buildings, trees and ground conductivity.

Speaking of texts, one of my co-workers gave me a wonderful paperback
textbook last week "The Theory and Design of Circular Antenna Arrays" by
James D. Tillman, Jr., The University of Tennessee Engineering
Experiment Station, 1966.

The design, testing, scope pictures and the wonderful racks of gear they
built makes for a great piece of work.

I have no idea why he had this book or where he got it, but am grateful
to get it.

tom
K0TAR

Did it state that radiation was waves or particles and how he can
prove it ?
Is this in line with your extensive design of antennas?

Art Unwin wrote:
On May 29, 8:37 pm, tom wrote:
tom wrote:
I for one can design and build, with the help of STANDARD TEXTS
(especially those many decades old!), almost any type of antenna or
antenna array anyone could ever need. And it will work exactly as
predicted if one takes into account normal environmental variables, such
as buildings, trees and ground conductivity.
Speaking of texts, one of my co-workers gave me a wonderful paperback
textbook last week "The Theory and Design of Circular Antenna Arrays" by
James D. Tillman, Jr., The University of Tennessee Engineering
Experiment Station, 1966.

The design, testing, scope pictures and the wonderful racks of gear they
built makes for a great piece of work.

I have no idea why he had this book or where he got it, but am grateful
to get it.

tom
K0TAR

Did it state that radiation was waves or particles and how he can
prove it ?
Is this in line with your extensive design of antennas?

No comments needed here.

tom
K0TAR

On May 29, 9:30*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 29, 8:37 pm, tom wrote:
tom wrote:
I for one can design and build, with the help of STANDARD TEXTS
(especially those many decades old!), almost any type of antenna or
antenna array anyone could ever need. *And it will work exactly as
predicted if one takes into account normal environmental variables, such
as buildings, trees and ground conductivity.
Speaking of texts, one of my co-workers gave me a wonderful paperback
textbook last week "The Theory and Design of Circular Antenna Arrays" by
James D. Tillman, Jr., The University of Tennessee Engineering
Experiment Station, 1966.

The design, testing, scope pictures and the wonderful racks of gear they
built makes for a great piece of work.

I have no idea why he had this book or where he got it, but am grateful
to get it.

tom
K0TAR

Did it state that radiation was waves or particles and how he can
prove it ?
Is this in line with your extensive design of antennas?

No comments needed here.

tom
K0TAR

What ever is the matter with you? You seem to want to pick a fight for
some reason.
So you are a qualified antenna engineer and you dislike my aproach to
antennas because I am a mechanical engineer or what. I experiment with
antennas which means I am not totally governed by the books and I
enjoy that. I also study so that my results can be understood
mathematically. Now I am not an antenna engineer but when you and
others
could not relate the mathematics of Gaussian statics to Maxwell I
realised that the so called gurus were not experts after all and this
was confirmed when the term equilibrium flumoxed all of you. Now you
claim efficiencies of some sort, does it show up on a receiver S
metre? I doubt it. And you claim 98% efficiency but supply zero
parameters.Heck, I can get a computer program to give me figures
better than that but it is meaningless
But all of this really doesn't matter on this newsgroup, I am not a
antenna engineer so in no way am I encroaching on the esteem you feel
you posses as a antenna engineer because of your electrical
background. Yes, you know more about antennas that is written in the
books, because you committed it to memory whether it was correct or
not to pass an exam. Feel better now?
Sleep well
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On May 29, 9:30 pm, tom wrote:
Now I am not an antenna engineer but when you and others
could not relate the mathematics of Gaussian statics to Maxwell I
realised that the so called gurus were not experts after all and this

I did, and you still refused to accept that Gauss's law IS part of Maxwell's
equations as they are published in every text book in the last 100 years or
so.

was confirmed when the term equilibrium flumoxed all of you.

because equilibrium has no place in electromagnetic radiation which by
definition is a flow of energy, therefore not in equilibrium... no flow, no
radiation... so your magical equilibrium antennas can't radiate, which is
pretty much what everyone agrees on.

On May 30, 5:34*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On May 29, 9:30 pm, tom wrote:

Now I am not an antenna engineer but when you and others
could not relate the mathematics of Gaussian statics to Maxwell I
realised that the so called gurus were not experts after all and this

I did, and you still refused to accept that Gauss's law IS part of Maxwell's
equations as they are published in every text book in the last 100 years or
so.

was confirmed when the term equilibrium flumoxed all of you.

because equilibrium has no place in electromagnetic radiation which by
definition is a flow of energy, therefore not in equilibrium... no flow, no
radiation... so your magical equilibrium antennas can't radiate, which is
pretty much what everyone agrees on.


Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law.
Waves have no part in that picture can'tyou get that into your head.
The Moon creats waves The Sun does not
Again "statics" which is the subject of particles is what I was
talking about.

"tom" wrote in message
. net...
tom wrote:

snip

... one of my co-workers gave me a wonderful paperback
textbook last week "The Theory and Design of Circular Antenna Arrays" by
James D. Tillman, Jr., The University of Tennessee Engineering
Experiment Station, 1966.

The design, testing, scope pictures and the wonderful racks of gear they
built makes for a great piece of work.

Just a guess, but maybe it deals with the Wullenweber [or Wullenwever]
antenna, described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wullenweber and
elsewhere.

The article cites Hanza, Okinawa, Japan, where I was stationed in 1965/66
and worked inside the antenna building. The basement was filled with
multicouplers and several very large spinning goniometers to pick off the
desired signals. It also cites the array at Imperial Beach, which is not
far. I see it several times a year but it was abandoned years ago and may
be coming down. I wonder who gets all that nice RF cable.

"Off-topic Sal"

On Fri, 29 May 2009 22:45:03 -0700, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:

It also cites the array at Imperial Beach, which is not
far. I see it several times a year but it was abandoned years ago and may
be coming down. I wonder who gets all that nice RF cable.

It was decomissioned in 1999 but it's still there today:
http://addiejones.com/califimages/elephantcage.jpg
http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi-bin/image.cgi?image=10010&mode=sequential&flags=0
http://www.navycthistory.com/images2/IBCDAALamberton.jpg
http://www.navycthistory.com/ibbradbury01.html
http://jproc.ca/rrp/masset_frd10.jpg
http://www.navycthistory.com/Imperial_beach_intro.html
Do you really want 50 year old coax?

"Off-topic Sal"

From sunspots to elephant cages. One small step for Art. One giant
leap for most of the newsgroup participants.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 30 May 2009 14:59:21 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Also, Google Maps photo:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=%27Elephant+Cage%27+Naval+Communicati on+Station+San+Diego&ie=UTF8&ll=32.593481,-117.129654&spn=0.002929,0.006866&t=h&z=18

Google Earth map with locations of 16 elephant cages:
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=48401&filename= 113957-FRD10.kmz
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=48402&filename= 174116-ProtoWullenweber.kmz

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558