On Sep 15, 12:42*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:15:04 -0700 (PDT), jaroslav lipka

wrote:
The question that goes to nub of Arts claim is
why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law of statics
illegal?

Maxwell did exactly that and called it Gauss' Law (Gauss did not do it
in his law that he did not call Gauss' Law). *History came along and
uses the same name for two laws. *Maxwell acknowledged Gauss'
contribution for statics and applied time to them to arrive at
dynamics (and honored Gauss by naming his dynamics Gauss' Law). *So
History and Maxwell have long observed TWO Gauss' laws - each
distinctive as the first being static, the second dynamic.

Art has never gotten past this historical hiccup.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

At last, at last. Richard has turned around after giving a drubbing to
Dr Davis and now
comes around to stamp the extension as legal. In fact he states it was
always like that!
Now will the group as a whole follow his lead and do a spin in
thinking? You can, you can
add an extension of a time varying field to a static field to turn it
into a dynamic field.
I will leave the group to turn to Richard and question his present
motives and advise him to reverse his new posture
OLAY OLAY Dead men walking

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote:
How can they possibly do that while traveling at
"0.024 cm/sec"?

Only in students homework.

So what speed do your measurements indicate for
free electrons on an antenna?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

- - moderate-sized snip --


You are right. Few mans ago I was writting that Gauss law is enough to
do antennas. Of course not this for magnetism.
Static charge produces static electric field and pulsed (in the end of
the antena) alternating field. It is radiation. For me there are ether
vaves. For Art photons or something else.
S*


Which one of Gauss's two laws?
Above is wrote: "Of course not this for magnetism". The electric one.
S*


Well that's not correct - you can't 'do antennas' with Guass's law for
electric field alone. You've already been told that radiation requires
acceleration and deceleration of charge, that is, alternating current, which
creates a magnetic field and the strength of this field is related to the
amplitude of the current by Ampere's (circuital) law, which is the basis for
one of Maxwell's equations.

In fact, it takes current (i.e. movement of charge) to create potential
differences so, even if you are encumbered with 'electrostatic blinkers',
the current comes first and is more fundamental.

Chris

On Sep 15, 12:07*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
... it enables particles at rest ON radiators.

As far as RF is concerned, free electron particles indeed
do rest ON radiators. It's called "skin effect".
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, After all this time of taking no decision who lost itat the
last minuite
Skin effect refers to current flow along the aluminum. It even shows
witness of this by inlaying circular grooves in its surface. This by
the way is a measurement tool in non destructive measurement. This
current method provides resistive impedance which signifies energy
lost. You then have another component which is termed radiation
resistance which points to energy applied to to create radiation by
the launching of the particles. When you do your fancy playing with
EZNEC you will notice that as the impedance goes down the radiation
increases. It will continue to do so while the impedance goes down as
a result of more current flowing outside the aluminum When you get to
the point when the impedance is zero it shows that all applied
current has been applied outside the aluminum which is now not
carrying ANY of the applied current. WOW!
You can also apply even more current of which all will still go to the
external sleeve of
particles to increase radiation and still no increase in current flow
in the surface of aluminum, even tho the impedance may go into the
negative quadrant. You also stated that applying a time varying field
is an example of typical failures! No idea where that comes from. Now
with reference to current flow in the particle sleeve. We had an
extensive discussion as to how the circuit of a half wave vertical
antenna was formed. At that time I was adamant that it must be a
closed circuit and suggested that return flow was thru the centre of
the antenna. Another brou har ensued with the implication was that
both the upward and downward travels of the applied current was on the
same skin deep surfaces! Very wierd. One of your past disagreements
with the group extended beyond the 1000 posts so I am certainly not
going to take on the debate mode with you.
Have a happy day.

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:52:19 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:

No, you have it wrong again - the current must be zero at the ends, there
is
nowhere for it to go, and there cannot be acceleration of charge is
there's
no current. Please go away and read some books and the NEETS module to
which I provided the link.

Chris

Hi Chris,

This mistake is being compounded daily, so it seems. The "absence" of
current on any particular portion of the antenna is the superposition
of two currents flowing - hence the term "standing wave antenna."
Hence there is something of a paradox that where two currents reside
(the metal elements are continuous and conductive) it is said no
current flows. There is a correlation between this superposed
solution and the pattern of the far-field pattern but that does not
lead to the conclusion that there is no "acceleration" of charge at
the ends. After-all, the abundant alternating voltage at those same
ends is also charge, n'est pas? It could be as easily argued that
superposed voltage nodes also define the pattern of the far-field
pattern.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Well, the moment of a section of a dipole is proportional to the average net
current on it and it's the integral of the moments at a point of inspection
that yields the radiation pattern. In my simplistic way of thinking, if the
moment of the end sections is zero, or as close as makes no difference, then
there's no contribution to the pattern from there, so there's no radiation
from there. Someone else who posted here a while ago used the term
'unopposed' current which is useful because it's the basis of why twin-wire
transmission line, driven differentially, is a poor radiator - put another
way, the moment at any point is close to zero. Alternatively, if there's no
radiation from a 'source' then there can't be any unopposed current there.

I wouldn't contradict what you say about there being a collection of charge
at the ends of a dipole during each cycle, especially when it has added
capacitance (e.g. a 'hat' or the top of a 'Tee'), but the current in a
symmetrical hat is fully opposed and, as I noted before, the current at the
end of the conductor must be zero - by the definition of conduction.

I believe there is danger in trying to relate radiation to voltages rather
than currents, arguing that displacement current causes radiation. Therein
lies the fallacy of the CFA, E-H antennas, and associated efforts at
re-writing of Maxwell's equations, which are all being demonstrated as bunk.
Also, this appears to be the basis of Mr. Bialek's lecture series. If you
wish to argue 'that superposed voltage nodes also define the (pattern of
the...sic) far-field pattern' then I won't stand in your way ... but I
probably won't believe you.

Chris

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

U¿ytkownik "christofire" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote
...

As I stand on the corner waving goodbye to that bus, I fondly recall
how the logic stood that no current could be found on the tips of
radiators, thus trim them off to no loss of radiation. It took very
few decades before Art had then recognized that his new antenna's tips
had no more current than the full-length one, and he trimmed that one
once again! New and improved (as the saying goes). Another decade
passed into the new millennium and he observed that he could extend
this logic once again to the point where his last design encompassed a
160M full sized antenna in the space of two shoe boxes. The TRIUMPH
OF TITANIC PROPORTIONS.

Is any simillarity between Art and Tesla?
Bill Miller wrote: "*But* Tesla's "antennas" were similar physically to
the well-known "Tesla
Coil." These antennas, in spite of their enormous size, were
electrically
"small" when compared with a wavelength. They were essentially a
metallic
ball that was fed from the secondary of a resonant transformer. But they
appear to have had fairly large effective bandwidths in spite of their
electrically small size,"
S*


Tesla created HF transformers. He didn't design them as antennas but,
because of their significant length at the operating wavelength, they did
act that way to some extent. The metallic ball (often a torus nowadays)
is a means of terminating the secondary in a way that reduces spurious
discharges - its radius of curvature is large.

It is than "tipping".


* No, it has nothing to do with tipping. The electrostatic field strength
close to a conductor is reduced by giving the conductor a large radius of
curvatu it's greatest between points and least between parallel plates.
Read Kraus; Electromagnetics!


His ideas to distribute electrical power using Tesla coils were crazy and
dangerous, but some argue he was the inspiration for AC distribution at
much lower voltages, which is a good thing.

There is very little apparent similarity between Nicola Tesla and that
'Art Unwin' character. Tesla was an inventor who realised amazing feats
of hardware construction, some of which worked as intended. 'Professor
Unwin' doesn't appear to create anything in hardware - he just talks
about his own, paraphysical theories and expects others to believe what
he says.

Again, don't believe what I write - go to a technical library and read
the stuff that made it into books. You can't rely on what people write
on the internet; there are too many 'Unwins' out there.

In library are very old things. Will be there about tipping?
S*


* Probably in the section about waste disposal ... where it belongs!

Chris

On Sep 16, 1:31*am, JIMMIE wrote:
On Sep 15, 8:15*am, jaroslav lipka wrote:



On Sep 15, 7:06*pm, "christofire" wrote:

There is very little apparent similarity between Nicola Tesla and that 'Art
Unwin' character. *Tesla was an inventor who realised amazing feats of
hardware construction, some of which worked as intended. *'Professor Unwin'
doesn't appear to create anything in hardware - he just talks about his own,
paraphysical theories and expects others to believe what he says.

Again, don't believe what I write - go to a technical library and read the
stuff that made it into books. *You can't rely on what people write on the
internet; there are too many 'Unwins' out there.

Chris

* Hi Chris
* * * * * * * *The question that goes to nub of Arts claim is
why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law of statics
illegal? *or to state it another way,
* * *How is it illegal to change a static field into a dynamic field?
can you, will you answer the question or are you just sitting on
Richards shirt tail.

*Jaro

Applying time to a static field doesn't make a static field a dynamic
field.

Jimmie

OUCH bad timing Jimmie

On Sep 15, 2:53*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
When you do your fancy playing with EZNEC you will notice
that as the impedance goes down the radiation increases.

Art, below to help you analyze your belief is a link to the calculated
radiation efficiency for a system with a perfect, base-driven,
monopole radiator using an r-f ground better than that used by most AM
broadcast stations.

The system is brought to resonance with a loading coil. The feedpoint
impedance is 4.1131 +j0 ohms, of which the radiation resistance
component is ~ 0.1 ohm.

So if, as you write, reducing feedpoint impedance increases radiation,
what do think accounts for this extremely poor system efficiency
(2.75%), compared to the ~ 95% system efficiency typical of a 1/4-wave
monopole using that same r-f ground?

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...AMBestCase.gif

RF

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:25:29 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:

Well, the moment of a section of a dipole is proportional to the average net
current on it and it's the integral of the moments at a point of inspection
that yields the radiation pattern.

Hi Chris,

I have already offered that what you say above is not disputed. I
merely add that it is not the only perspective and says nothing of the
"absence" of current throughout the entire radiator.

In my simplistic way of thinking, if the
moment of the end sections is zero, or as close as makes no difference, then
there's no contribution to the pattern from there, so there's no radiation
from there.

That was the logical basis for Art's claims of length efficiency:
those portions that did not support current (read contribute to
radiation) were thus ancillary (redundant as the Briticism would go)
and unneeded. Art would then expand this logic to perform his Ritual
Antenna Bris and lop off a portion to reduce the length (increase the
efficiency). I've already commented on this reductio ad absurdum.

Far field patterns are created from the phase relationships and time
relationships, and distance relationships (all the same thing,
mathematically) from all points of the radiator to any single point of
the characteristic lobe. In the teachings of radiation as light, a
wave front can be considered to be an infinite number of points of
radiation along a curved line (that front).

Interference (with its product being the shape of a lobe) is the
combination of all their phases, distances, and times.

Someone else who posted here a while ago used the term
'unopposed' current which is useful because it's the basis of why twin-wire
transmission line, driven differentially, is a poor radiator - put another
way, the moment at any point is close to zero. Alternatively, if there's no
radiation from a 'source' then there can't be any unopposed current there.

This is not the same sense of current in a single wire that gives rise
to a structure known as a "standing wave antenna."

If you ran a twin line up into the air to an open connection, then you
would have two closely space radiators. The open would enforce a both
a longitudinal and transverse standing wave. They would both radiate
like twin fire hoses. The key point here is that in the distance of
their separation, that distance is an incredibly small fraction of the
wavelength they are radiating. Their two currents (the standing waves
on each wire being immaterial) impose an 180 degree relationship
throughout their entire length. Both waves' phases, distances, and
times cancel to within the degree of that space of separation. This
is very easy to demonstrate by observing how they become efficient and
productive non-canceling radiators as you draw them apart to form the
V antenna. The only thing that has changed is the distance which
imparts a phase (or time, or distance - all the same thing
mathematically) shift apparent at a great distance. They will still
have the same SWR along their length, and the same currents (apart
from what is imposed through the radiation resistance).


I wouldn't contradict what you say about there being a collection of charge
at the ends of a dipole during each cycle, especially when it has added
capacitance (e.g. a 'hat' or the top of a 'Tee'), but the current in a
symmetrical hat is fully opposed and, as I noted before, the current at the
end of the conductor must be zero - by the definition of conduction.

Well, to this point there has been no discussion of end loading.
Doesn't matter, all the key issues are discussed above.

I believe there is danger in trying to relate radiation to voltages rather
than currents, arguing that displacement current causes radiation.

This is an engineering shorthand. It works with great precision. But
the simple fact of the matter is there is no current without a
potential gradient. Radiation could as easily be described by it.
Without regard for patterns, radiation is a function of Ohm's law and
we have three variables there. You cannot ignore any element or
assess some distinction of one at the cost of the other(s).

Therein
lies the fallacy of the CFA, E-H antennas, and associated efforts at
re-writing of Maxwell's equations, which are all being demonstrated as bunk.
Also, this appears to be the basis of Mr. Bialek's lecture series. If you
wish to argue 'that superposed voltage nodes also define the (pattern of
the...sic) far-field pattern' then I won't stand in your way ... but I
probably won't believe you.

So I gather. It is merely a shift in perspective of conventions, not
an up-ending of them. You may note that none of my discussion above
demands any new physics, nothing new in math, no novel methods. I've
used only two wires both close together and drawn farther apart under
the most simple of terms to reveal on one hand a transmission line,
and on the other hand a V antenna. The math of phase, distance, and
time is drawn from NEC; or rather, NEC leans heavily upon it and drew
it from Optics and I state my case in the strict terms of a method of
moments.

To cut to the chase: The full length of the radiator contributes to
radiation and the evidence of this is found in any characteristic lobe
displayed in the far field.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sep 15, 5:44*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
To cut to the chase: *The full length of the radiator contributes to
radiation and the evidence of this is found in any characteristic lobe
displayed in the far field.

In practical and provable terms, how much of that characteristic, far-
field radiation pattern can be attributed to the linear, unloaded,
center-fed dipole radiator lengths as exist less than ~10% distant
from the endpoints of that dipole?

Just wanting to learn.

RF