Spherical radiation pattern
 

Chtistofire wrote:
"I`d be willing to bet, say, 100 UK pounds that Professor Unwin can`t
create an antenna in hardware that radiates isotropically, that is over
the whole sphere within let`s say +/- 1 dB with respect to any chosen
(but constant) polarisation."

Many would bet just as Christofire.

An isotropic may fit Art`s definition of "equilibrium" but according to
Terman it is impossible. Terman`s footnite on page 871 of hid 1955 opus
says:

"An isotropic antenna produces waves that are of equal strength in all
directions. Although an isotropic radiator of coherent waves does not
exist because it cannot satisfy Maxwell`s equations, the properties of
such an imaginary antenna are easily visualized, and the concept of an
isotropic radiator is often found useful to the analysis of antenna
systems."

My money is on professor Terman.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Cecil Moore" ...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
(Electrons) move along the eliptic trajectory. The longitudinal
component is large(r) than the transversal.

To be precise: Art wrote: "the water molecules (carriers)
move hardly at all except up and down".

Next I wrote: "They move along the eliptic trajectory. The longitudinal
component is large(r) than the transversal"

So "They" The water molecules not "Electrons"

It is very important to know that the water waves are not transversal.
Everybody who know that understand that in reality no pure transversal
waves. In reality are waves which interfere.

The electrons are NOT the EM photonic waves. The electrons
are the carriers for the EM photonic waves. It is NOT the
electrons that have the transversal wave characteristics.
The movement of the electrons in the conductor is indeed
longitudinal but that movement is close to infinitesimally
small at RF frequencies. The movement is more like an
oscillation in place.

I do not know what are movements of elecrtons in conductor but in air
(lightning) they oscillate with RF frequences and that movement is not close
to infinitesimally small (kilometers).
S*

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"christofire" wrote
...

"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.

So I will start "Mr. Bialek's lecture series" as a new topic.
The first will be on a "standing waves". A will try to explain the paradox:
"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
(R. Clark).
S*


Chris

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Art Unwin" wrote
...

You mentioned an article in Radio World about the construction of NEC
Could you send me a copy?

It was not me. I do not know who.
S*

Spherical radiation pattern
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
I do not know what are movements of elecrtons in conductor but in air
(lightning) they oscillate with RF frequences and that movement is not
close to infinitesimally small (kilometers).

Unfortunately, the discussion is not about lightning
but is instead about the "movements of electrons" in
an antenna "conductor" about which you "do not know".

Incidentally, the electrons energized by lightning do
indeed emit broad spectrum photons, i.e. EM waves.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Spherical radiation pattern
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote
You mentioned an article in Radio World about the construction of NEC
Could you send me a copy?

It was not me. I do not know who.

There are discussions of the method of moments (MOM)
in "Antenna Theory", by Balanis and "Antennas ..." by
Kraus and Marhefka.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Sep 11, 6:36*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 11, 2:37 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Sep 11, 1:04 pm, "Dave" wrote:

David
Forgot to mention.
Current would not be applied to the radiator itself but only to the
sheathing of homogenous particles at rest.( ie *neutrinos who are part of
the
family of Leptons but still remain as particles) This way with
opposing forces in shear which includes the bending moment or twist
of the Standard Force, the chemical adhesion is broken and the
particle is elevated to achieve a straight line projection with spin.
In this event all electrical laws lie
intact and where the resistance is solely of that of radiation to
which current is applied.

ahhhh, thank you for a good laugh art... now you can go enjoy your vacation.
i couldn't see you go without mentioning your magical levitating diamagnetic
neutrinos just one more time. *while you are gone try to figure out how my
ferromagnetic antennas happen to work so well without your diamagnetic
neutrinos to do their magical levitating and twisting for me.

The problem is that all forces are not accounted for per Maxwell
requirements!
In your case magnetic energy remains with the radiator which is a loss
that is unaccounted for ! This loss does not occur with a diamagnetic
materials. Very simple my dear Watson.
When you use computer programs in conformance with Maxwell's equations
you can expect 100% efficiencies not the "close enough for horse
shoes" type responses.
If a design is planar it just cannot be 100% efficient as when all
forced are accounted for.
When you obtain 100% efficiencies then other surprises enter the
picture which allows the use of smaller volume antennas than those
known to the present state of the art. Not to be seen in books by
Krauss, Balmain, Terman and others because they were not just aware of
it and not that it is an error. There is no real volume restriction
with respect to antennas with today's knowledge. I found that out by
making a resonant directional antenna for all the TOP band that fits
into my rotor on the tower. It is very rare in Classical Physics that
statements made are not subject to revision by following generations
who are able to climb on the shoulders of others such that hidden
things can be seen when the vision of prior generations begin to dim.

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Sep 17, 7:02*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
... I found that out by making a resonant directional antenna
for all the TOP band that fits into my rotor on the tower.
__________

What do you mean by (self) resonant?

Physics shows that NO radiator as small as fits into the rotor on your
tower, by itself, could possibly be self-resonant at "TOP band."

RF

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Sep 17, 7:49*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 17, 7:02*pm, Art Unwin wrote: ... I found that out by making a resonant directional antenna
*for all the TOP band that fits into my rotor on the tower.

__________

What do you mean by (self) resonant?

Physics shows that NO radiator as small as fits into the rotor on your
tower, by itself, could possibly be self-resonant at "TOP band."

RF

Watch the PTO print outs. No statements last for ever in physics
I'm done

Spherical radiation pattern
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 17, 7:49 pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 17, 7:02 pm, Art Unwin wrote: ... I found that out by making a resonant directional antenna
for all the TOP band that fits into my rotor on the tower.
__________

What do you mean by (self) resonant?

Physics shows that NO radiator as small as fits into the rotor on your
tower, by itself, could possibly be self-resonant at "TOP band."

RF

Watch the PTO print outs. No statements last for ever in physics
I'm done

You've been done for a looong time, Art. You just don't realize it yet.

Your patent attempt proves nothing. It's bad physics, and even with the
clueless dips that work in the patent office you are still being
rejected. It's gotta be pretty useless if they won't approve it.

tom
K0TAR