On May 29, 9:29*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

Whoo aren't we sensitive! If the books say radiation is not "fully

* understood "

Nope not very sensitive, just don't like to lumped in with a loony.

And which books say it's not understood? *Be specific, give examples.

snip

Now now Tom, there is no need to lie to make a point. I said "fully
understood" big difference
Now to the books. A common title "fields and waves" What on earth have
waves got to do with radiation? Seems like the Moon makes waves and
people like you,and this thread is listed as sun spots ! Which is
correct?. I know, what ever the professor said as he determines who
passes or fails. Now as a mechanical engineer I have read no
explanation
as to how waves provide radiation because that is not fully understood
by those who write the books But now Tom, as an esteemed antenna
engineer and designer, you are now in a perfect position to explain to
all the little people how that actually works because you Tom
are an expert by your own words You fully understand radiation and
antennas. We also have the standard model which consists of the four
forces so educate the rest of us by explaining what force is used to
make waves that create communication. You ask for specifics well now
you have them. Time for you to provide answers or don't you have any ?
Now to the antennas that you have made, I warrant all of them were
planar probably Yagi's but as a electrical engineer you surely are
aware of Maxwell's laws with respect to radiation so why did you make
antennas that does not account for all forces involved as per Maxwell?
On top of that, there is no mention of waves in any electrical laws so
why does it keep coming up with respect to radiation? Still no answers
Tom Heh? So why is it that you now want to pick a fight with me?
Because we disagree on the means of the creation of radiation?
Sleep tight tonight
Art



tom
K0TAR

Art Unwin wrote:
snip
A bunch of his usual nonsense, none of which he has proven.


And I repeat -

Hmm, my antennas, and probably everyone else's here, tend to be over 98%
efficient.

How much better are yours?

tom
K0TAR

On May 30, 7:24*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

snip
A bunch of his usual nonsense, none of which he has proven.

And I repeat -

Hmm, my antennas, and probably everyone else's here, tend to be over 98%
efficient.

How much better are yours?

tom
K0TAR

That's a silly question Tom it is the pattern that matters to me.
Anyway it was 100% and the pattern was a ball which to me is what I
wanted i.e. equal pressure on all boundary points which is absolute
equilibrium. The 100% figure is nice but the program worked it out not
I. Any way the scientist was correct on his theory with respect to
"point radiation" unfortunately, like others,,, he passed away
My other desire is to make the radiator as small as possible and I
solved that some time ago as well as a frequency response that makes a
log periodic look ancient.
Now your turn ! You have had enough questions and I have asked for
just one and that is the action and manner of waves, but you can't
seem to answer that one so I will provide another.
Radiation is a result of an accellerated charge is what all the books
say , what is the nature of that charge such as mass and what force
created that acceleration? Now if you are the expert that you say you
are then you will have to answer a question sometime or your perceived
status will come under scrutiny and David can be very difficult at
times with his questions never answers but questions only questions.
Art
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
On May 30, 7:24 pm, tom wrote:

Hmm, my antennas, and probably everyone else's here, tend to be over 98%
efficient.

How much better are yours?

tom
K0TAR

That's a silly question Tom it is the pattern that matters to me.
Anyway it was 100% and the pattern was a ball which to me is what I
snip
Art

So your antenna, including losses, is 100% efficient. I find that a bit
tough to believe. Ok, impossible to believe.

tom
K0TAR

On May 30, 9:05*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 30, 7:24 pm, tom wrote:

Hmm, my antennas, and probably everyone else's here, tend to be over 98%
efficient.

How much better are yours?

tom
K0TAR

That's a silly question Tom it is the pattern that matters to me.
Anyway it was 100% and the pattern was a ball which to me is what I
snip
Art

So your antenna, including losses, is 100% efficient. *I find that a bit
tough to believe. *Ok, impossible to believe.

tom
K0TAR

Well it depends on what the programmer refers to as efficiency. It
could also mean all forces accounted for and when summed equals zero
as reflected by the radiation ball
and as you say it also accounts for losses. I'll wager that is what
all antenna programs refer to as efficiency. Either way it is only 2%
higher than the figure you were boasting about and yet you believe
yours. Selective analysis?
Art