Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 6, 1:16 pm, JIMMIE wrote:
snip
refuse to make any effort to show why you are right.

Jimmie

Jimmie the answer resides in the question posed. If you have a track
record such as a degree where you can explain academically, place your
input or be declared a follower.
2;1 against me so far but I need a couple more. So far there has been
much more that have commented but I have to sort intuition from
academics to decide on the playing field

Art

I don't remember what you stated as your alma mater. Could you please
enlighten us as to where you got your EE degree?

tom
K0TAR

Dave wrote:

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
Take a rest in reading and look at the oryginal Hertz apparatus as the
two sources of longitudinal waves (radiated from ends). You should see
the Luxembourg effect (frequency doubling) and directional pattern.
S*

but you don't because that is not how it works. the waves are radiated
by the whole length of the connecting wire and are transverse... there
is no frequency doubling as you explain it.

Dave

This getting to be as bad as the s.p.fusion and s.p.relativity groups.

Heck, Chris makes a lot more sense (s.p.fusion) and actually learns
things, provides results and admits mistakes while he tries to build his
fusion reactor in a London flat. He still claims the govt has
lobotimized him several times and "it grows back", but other than that
he's quite sane. Unlike Art and Szczpan.

tom
K0TAR

On Sep 6, 5:07*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Richard Fry" wrote in message

...
On Sep 5, 7:00 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

* Where do you get this stuff from? Please visit a library - you could
do
yourself a lot of good.
Chris

Chris, what I believe he is referring to is that computer programs
support a tipped vertical over one at right angles to earth. Computer
programs are supposed to be based on Maxwell's formula. Is this an
error and how do we fix it. If it is not an error then it supports the
presence of the Coriolis force in collusion with gravity. and not
gravity alone.

------------

The NEC computer programs are not in error. *The error is in
understanding how far-field patterns develop.

Art, please read the following link about "tipped verticals," which
hopefully will lead to a better understanding of this issue.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...a/browse_threa...

RF

* Richard, thank you for that. *I stand by what I have stated in several
places earlier in this thread, that if tipping-over a monopole or dipole
results in more gain in one direction then that will be counteracted by less
gain in another direction (i.e. azimuth) as your eznec pattern illustrates.
There is also the question of polarisation purity.

Chris

Equilibrium is when there is no gain. When this occurs there is
polarisation purity.
Gain is not a factor in equilibrium so why muddy up the question. Or
is that being arrogant
because you disagree with me LOL

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

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
Take a rest in reading and look at the oryginal Hertz apparatus as the
two sources of longitudinal waves (radiated from ends). You should see
the Luxembourg effect (frequency doubling) and directional pattern.
S*

but you don't because that is not how it works. the waves are radiated
by the whole length of the connecting wire and are transverse... there is
no frequency doubling as you explain it.

Dave

This getting to be as bad as the s.p.fusion and s.p.relativity groups.

Heck, Chris makes a lot more sense (s.p.fusion) and actually learns
things, provides results and admits mistakes while he tries to build his
fusion reactor in a London flat. He still claims the govt has lobotimized
him several times and "it grows back", but other than that he's quite
sane. Unlike Art and Szczpan.

tom
K0TAR


* Remarkably, Tom, you're quite correct in your assessment!

What am I doing here?

Chris

christofire wrote:
"tom" wrote in message
. net...
Dave wrote:
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
Take a rest in reading and look at the oryginal Hertz apparatus as the
two sources of longitudinal waves (radiated from ends). You should see
the Luxembourg effect (frequency doubling) and directional pattern.
S*

but you don't because that is not how it works. the waves are radiated
by the whole length of the connecting wire and are transverse... there is
no frequency doubling as you explain it.
Dave

This getting to be as bad as the s.p.fusion and s.p.relativity groups.

Heck, Chris makes a lot more sense (s.p.fusion) and actually learns
things, provides results and admits mistakes while he tries to build his
fusion reactor in a London flat. He still claims the govt has lobotimized
him several times and "it grows back", but other than that he's quite
sane. Unlike Art and Szczpan.

tom
K0TAR


* Remarkably, Tom, you're quite correct in your assessment!

What am I doing here?

Chris



You're that Chris? If so, welcome. Your videos are very interesting,
as are your experiments.

tom
K0TAR

Art Unwin wrote:

Equilibrium is when there is no gain. When this occurs there is
polarisation purity.
Gain is not a factor in equilibrium so why muddy up the question. Or
is that being arrogant
because you disagree with me LOL

Another data point. Or better put, Art's babbling for today.

So now we have

Equilibrium ==

1) no reflections.

2) isotropic.

3) no gain.

Keep going Art.

If I missed one, step in Dave.

tom
K0TAR

tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

Equilibrium is when there is no gain. When this occurs there is
polarisation purity.
Gain is not a factor in equilibrium so why muddy up the question. Or
is that being arrogant
because you disagree with me LOL


Oops missed one right in front of my lying eyes.

Equilibrium ==

1) no reflections.

2) isotropic.

3) no gain.

4) polarization purity.

tom
K0TAR

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 6, 5:07 pm, "christofire" wrote:

-- snip --

* Richard, thank you for that. I stand by what I have stated in several
places earlier in this thread, that if tipping-over a monopole or dipole
results in more gain in one direction then that will be counteracted by
less
gain in another direction (i.e. azimuth) as your eznec pattern
illustrates.
There is also the question of polarisation purity.

Chris

Equilibrium is when there is no gain. When this occurs there is
polarisation purity.
Gain is not a factor in equilibrium so why muddy up the question. Or
is that being arrogant
because you disagree with me LOL


* I don't suppose it's arrogant to present reasoning derived from the work
of those who have provided practical antenna designs for the masses for a
century or more - it's just a case of reminding the readers of this NG
what's already out there, freely available for them to investigate (as
though most of them didn't already know!).

I do suppose it's arrogant to present new, unproven, possibly paraphysical,
attempts at 'explanation' involving poorly-defined terms like 'equilibrium',
in opposition to the conventional working and expecting those who read this
NG to believe them, when the full working appears to be withheld.

Chris

On Sep 6, 7:38*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Equilibrium is when there is no gain. When this occurs there is
polarisation purity.
____________

So you say, Art.

Note that a useful and practical antenna with "no gain," i.e., an
isotropic radiator, does not exist in the real world.

So what good is your concept of "equilibrium?"

RF

On Sep 6, 7:10*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 6, 1:16 pm, JIMMIE wrote:
snip
refuse to make any effort to show why you are right.

Jimmie

Jimmie the answer resides in the question posed. If you have a track
record such as a degree where you can explain academically, place your
input or be declared a follower.
2;1 against me so far but I need a couple more. So far there has been
much more that have commented but I have to sort intuition from
academics to decide on the playing field

Art

I don't remember what you stated as your alma mater. *Could you please
enlighten us as to where you got your EE degree?

tom
K0TAR

no