|
Spherical radiation pattern
"Richard Harrison" wrote ... Art wrote: "Thus if we have a radiator of one WL that is tipped in space and near zero resistance in impedance metric we will then attain a spherical radiation pattern with Poynting`s vector and thus a demonsration of point radiation together with further evidence that radiation is of particle and not of waves." No matter how Art`s words were combined, I don`t see in them any such evidence. Even Art agrees that Maxwell`s equations correctly produce answers to where the energy goes. The 1955 edition of Terman`s "Electronic and Radio Engineering" shows the radiation pattern of one WL of wire in Fig. 23-4 (b) on page 867. It consists of four lobes each making an angle of 54 degrees with the axis of the wire. The pattern deviates from a spherical pattern by a lot. So much for "equilibrium"! Cecil pointed out that in physics, electromagnetic radiation is treated with duality, using either particle theory or waves, whichever is more convenient for the problem at hand. Maxwell solved the problems of radiation using wave equations which are said to be four of the most influential equations in science. "Heaviside said that mathematics was an experimental science. He organised Maxwell's mathematical work into the four equations which we now call "Maxwell's Equations". Maxwell made model of solid etherWhat is Heaviside's model like? On page 864 of Terman`s 1955 opus he writes: "The laws governing such radiation are obtained by using Maxwell`s equations to express the fields associated with the wire; when this is done there is found to be a component, termed the radiated field, having a strength that varies inversely with distance. If Art would just absorb Terman`s chapter on "Antennas" I doubt he would write such nonsense. S* |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 13, 12:57*pm, Szczepan Białek wrote:
If the current oscilate at the ends is developed the very high voltage. The high voltage produce the electric field. So you can wrote: "the electric field is a direct consequence *of voltage developed in the ends of the transmitting antenna". This electric field generate the magnetic field and so on. So the Hertz' dipole has the three sources of waves. The centre and the two ends. Only the change in current and charge, over time, produces EM radiation. That radiation includes both the magnetic and electric fields, at right angles to each other and to the direction of travel. In the case of a self-resonant, center-fed, 1/4-wave dipole, current is maximum at the feedpoint and minimum at the ends of the dipole. Therefore the ends radiate very little of the total applied power. Below is what John Kraus writes about this in Antennas, 3rd edition, page 12: QUOTE A radio antenna may be defined as the structure associated with the region of transition between a guided wave and a free-space wave, or vice-versa. Antennas convert electrons to photons, or vice-versa. Regardless of antenna type, all involve the same basic principle that radiation is produced by accelerated (or decelerated) charge. The basic equation of radiation may be expressed simply as: IL = Qv (A m s^-1) where I = time-changing current, A s^-1 L = length of current element, m Q = charge, C v = time change of velocity which equals the acceleration of the charge, m s^-2 Thus, time-changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates. END QUOTE RF |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 5:24*am, Richard Fry wrote:
In the case of a self-resonant, center-fed, 1/4-wave dipole, current is maximum at the feedpoint and minimum at the ends of the dipole. Therefore the ends radiate very little of the total applied power. Correcting myself, that dipole would need to be about 1/2-wave long for first self-resonance. But neither form of this dipole radiates very much from its ends. RF |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:00:06 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote: Before you recite an authority, you really need to understand them. It is commonly known You don't show any evidence of being in that community. Leaning on the Xerox copy button doesn't bring knowledge. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Spherical radiation pattern
"Dave" wrote in message ... - - snippity - - art will never accept your challenge. its up to you to prove that his assertions are incorrect... and then get ignored as he continues to state the same things in many different forms. unless you can capture one of his diamagnetic levitating solar neutrinos and show that it doesn't sit on the antenna element and jump off when a pulse of current hits it you will never be believed... and even if you did capture one he would tell you it changed in flight from the sun. He he, or HI, or ROTFLMAO as some put it. Better get some more heavy water in for the winter then http://www.physicscentral.com/explor.../neutrinos.cfm Chris |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 13, 11:29*am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:46:30 +0100, "christofire" wrote: Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many polarizations? Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me? A* You appear to have changed your identity from S* to A* ! The answers according to the physics that real-life radio communication depends upon, and was designed by, a A much simpler, and compelling explanation: * * * * *what you see is what you get. If it looks vertical, the polarization is vertical; If it looks horizontal, the polarization is horizontal. It thus stands to reason that if the radiator is U shaped you see both horizontal and vertical - hence the full sphere filled with radiation. This closes the simple answer, which of course drives a very lengthy explanation - there is no such thing as a free lunch: Now, I can well anticipate some wag pointing out that they are standing, looking at these "goal posts" edge on and see only the vertical supports. *"There is no horizontal view - no horizontal polarization. *It can't be isotropic!" Of course it can't; and yet the vertical radiation fills the null of the horizontal (and likewise, the horizontal fills the null of the vertical). *Total field is spherical. What does this make of a tilted radiator? *What you see is what you get. *At some perspectives it looks goofy horizontal AND it looks goofy vertical. *In other perspectives it just looks vertical. *As Art might protest: *"Never mind goofy, how much horizontal?" *If we reduce this to a number of goofiness, a trig function would serve quite well. Most students who were trained in mechanics would recognize the method to deconstruct an angle into its two, XY, components. *If the tilt were 45 degrees, in full view of that angle you must experience the single antenna as having two equal vertical and horizontal contributions to radiation. *If it were tilted 30 degrees, obviously one polarization would dominate over the other. *Ground would compound the issue, but would not negate the general principle. This last part returns us to the discussion of isotropism which encompasses the topic of Lambert's Law which is generally confined to a black body radiator (or the sun from a great distance as it fails to be isotropic in the near view, such as we have here on earth). *Few here need concern themselves with this unless they are making patch antennas. *However, within the discussion above, the topic of view, angle, and radiation contribution are wrapped up in Lambert and cosine. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard cannot read this. However I find his posting to be rewarding . The present aproach to radiation is that a free electron is torn away from the nucleous of an atom which creates uncertaincy. Such an action is that of the strong force which is akin the the splitting of an atom where such an action would release electrons such that they would bombard electrical networks such as in Hawaii. When one uses Maxwells equations it becomes very obvious that with decreasing impeadance radiation increases until we get to the point of zero impedance where reality is forced to be reviewed. Since we now recognize that radiation is not created by the radiator itself as it is only a carrier of a radiator, the model used must be of cylinder type of homogeonos free electrons where removal of the free electrons/particles is by a "weak force" and not a strong force. Thus in reality the model to be used is that of a cylinder where the "stiction" of each electron,(I should really keep to the term particle so one does not automatically insert neutrinos or a subset of leptons) to a diamagnetic material is effectively replaced by a hoop stress which first showed up in the boundary of the "Big Bang". Now we have something that meets reality, where increase in current applied creates an increase in radiation and where the model is seen to be a boundary consisting of particles bound to each other! This is basically implied by Maxwell's equations as illustrated by the computer programs where radiation increase is proportional to the decrease of impedance of the energy robbing metallic radiator and where cylindrical boundary model increases it's share of the current applied for continued radiation and still is in concert with known laws without resorting to extreme low temperature to attain "zero impedance" which lacks reality. As a side note. It is the arbitrary boundary in shear (spin) which provides the Weak Force of the Standard Model as foreseen by Einstein when he took on his fruitless search. And it would appear that the reversal of the positive sign of the shown "Radio World" material is somewhat supporting of this posting but that should be the subject of a separate thread. Art Unwin |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 3:00Â*am, Szczepan BiaĆek wrote:
U¿ytkownik "Richard Clark" napisa³ w wiadomo¶cinews:9ocqa5l6qcddd7tcrl1o4502e6s1rtq8mm @4ax.com... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:57:22 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek wrote: EM waves by Heaviside are transverse. Now we should check if he was right. You have confused the telegrapher's equations with propagation. Before you recite an authority, you really need to understand them. It is commonly known: "Heaviside said that mathematics was an experimental science. He organised Maxwell's mathematical work into the four equations which we now call "Maxwell's Equations". Maxwell made the model of solid ether. The four equations by Heaviside is rather "fluid analogy". "Now Heaviside had the concept of the TEM Wave, which Kelvin and Preece did not. With these two formulae, he could give a gloss of mathematical style to his assertion that, properly treated, a slab of energy current could propagate at the speed of light without distortion. This assertion had massive practical implications, but Heaviside was obstructed for decades." From:http://www.ivorcatt.com/2810.htm S* If radiation occurs at the end of a dipole ( which it does) it exists only in the near field because of its lack of spin. ie charge dissipation but without spin. |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 11:15*am, Art Unwin wrote:
Now we have something that meets reality, where increase in current applied creates an increase in radiation... NOW ?? This has been true forever. ... and where the model is seen to be a boundary consisting of particles bound to each other! This is basically implied by Maxwell's equations as illustrated by the computer programs where radiation increase is proportional to the decrease of impedance of the energy robbing metallic radiator etc Decreasing the feedpoint impedance of an antenna to 0 +j0 ohms (if that were possible) does not maximize radiation. The first term in the antenna impedance specification in a practical antenna consists mainly of radiation resistance -- which is required in order for radiation to occur. Radiation resistance is a function of the electrical length, diameter and form of the radiator exposed to space. If it is zero then there is no radiation. Higher radiation resistances lead to higher efficiencies for the antenna SYSTEM, because then the power radiated can be much greater than what is dissipated in the relatively smaller I^2R losses of the system. RF |
Spherical radiation pattern
"Richard Fry" wrote ... On Sep 13, 12:57 pm, Szczepan Białek wrote: If the current oscilate at the ends is developed the very high voltage. The high voltage produce the electric field. So you can wrote: "the electric field is a direct consequence of voltage developed in the ends of the transmitting antenna". This electric field generate the magnetic field and so on. So the Hertz' dipole has the three sources of waves. The centre and the two ends. Only the change in current and charge, over time, produces EM radiation. That radiation includes both the magnetic and electric fields, at right angles to each other and to the direction of travel. In the case of a self-resonant, center-fed, 1/4-wave dipole, current is maximum at the feedpoint and minimum at the ends of the dipole. Therefore the ends radiate very little of the total applied power. Below is what John Kraus writes about this in Antennas, 3rd edition, page 12: QUOTE A radio antenna may be defined as the structure associated with the region of transition between a guided wave and a free-space wave, or vice-versa. Antennas convert electrons to photons, or vice-versa. Regardless of antenna type, all involve the same basic principle that radiation is produced by accelerated (or decelerated) charge. The basic equation of radiation may be expressed simply as: IL = Qv (A m s^-1) where I = time-changing current, A s^-1 L = length of current element, m Q = charge, C v = time change of velocity which equals the acceleration of the charge, m s^-2 Thus, time-changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates. In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate? S* |
Spherical radiation pattern
Roy Lewallen wrote:
George Brown, the inventor of the ground plane antenna, had observed an omnidirectional pattern in the horizontal plane with only two radials, but the marketing department at RCA insisted on adding two more to make it look symmetrical before selling them. Side note, Roy. I take a lot of Morotcycle rides to the north central part of PA, and being a remote area, that have a fair number of radio systems to tell them of the shape of the power lines in eh area. They use a ground plane antenna that consists of a spring mounted vertical, and two horizontal radials. They are pretty homely. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Spherical radiation pattern
"Szczepan Białek" wrote in message ... "Richard Fry" wrote ... - - small snip -- QUOTE A radio antenna may be defined as the structure associated with the region of transition between a guided wave and a free-space wave, or vice-versa. Antennas convert electrons to photons, or vice-versa. Regardless of antenna type, all involve the same basic principle that radiation is produced by accelerated (or decelerated) charge. The basic equation of radiation may be expressed simply as: IL = Qv (A m s^-1) where I = time-changing current, A s^-1 L = length of current element, m Q = charge, C v = time change of velocity which equals the acceleration of the charge, m s^-2 Thus, time-changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates. In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate? S* In all the parts that carry current, of course. Isn't that obvious? Incidentally, who is A* ? ... the person who wrote: Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many polarizations? Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me? A* Chris |
Spherical radiation pattern
Szczepan BiaĆek wrote:
"Richard Fry" wrote ... On Sep 13, 12:57 pm, Szczepan BiaĆek wrote: If the current oscilate at the ends is developed the very high voltage. The high voltage produce the electric field. So you can wrote: "the electric field is a direct consequence of voltage developed in the ends of the transmitting antenna". This electric field generate the magnetic field and so on. So the Hertz' dipole has the three sources of waves. The centre and the two ends. Only the change in current and charge, over time, produces EM radiation. That radiation includes both the magnetic and electric fields, at right angles to each other and to the direction of travel. In the case of a self-resonant, center-fed, 1/4-wave dipole, current is maximum at the feedpoint and minimum at the ends of the dipole. Therefore the ends radiate very little of the total applied power. Below is what John Kraus writes about this in Antennas, 3rd edition, page 12: QUOTE A radio antenna may be defined as the structure associated with the region of transition between a guided wave and a free-space wave, or vice-versa. Antennas convert electrons to photons, or vice-versa. Regardless of antenna type, all involve the same basic principle that radiation is produced by accelerated (or decelerated) charge. The basic equation of radiation may be expressed simply as: IL = Qv (A m s^-1) where I = time-changing current, A s^-1 L = length of current element, m Q = charge, C v = time change of velocity which equals the acceleration of the charge, m s^-2 Thus, time-changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates. In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate? S* All of them. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Spherical radiation pattern
|
Spherical radiation pattern
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:56:07 +0100, "christofire"
wrote: Incidentally, who is A* ? He explained that he was typing one letter to the left. Doesn't the content of his postings reveal that? Retype one of his submissions by shifting your hands to the right one key may reveal the contents to Dan Brown's newest book! It won't make anymore sense, but Ron Howard may sign a deal to get Tom Hanks to post here for him. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 12:41*pm, Szczepan Białek wrote:
In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate? Parts with r-f-current flow, the greatest radiation occurring from locations along the radiator where current is greatest. Current flow is near zero at the ends of any unloaded dipole, and at the top of any unloaded vertical monopole (even those in directional arrays). RF |
Spherical radiation pattern
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:56:07 +0100, "christofire" wrote: Incidentally, who is A* ? He explained that he was typing one letter to the left. Doesn't the content of his postings reveal that? Retype one of his submissions by shifting your hands to the right one key may reveal the contents to Dan Brown's newest book! It won't make anymore sense, but Ron Howard may sign a deal to get Tom Hanks to post here for him. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Didn't spot the explanation (have done now, thanks) and I did wonder if the issue was that he couldn't type his own initial correctly. For a moment I wondered if there were two alter egos: A* asks a question, apparently sincerely, then, when given the answer, S* responds with rebuttal of the correct answer and a lecture based on paraphysics and historical dead ends. However, that would be bonkers. Chris |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 11:15*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:29*am, Richard Clark wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:46:30 +0100, "christofire" wrote: Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many polarizations? Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me? A* You appear to have changed your identity from S* to A* ! The answers according to the physics that real-life radio communication depends upon, and was designed by, a A much simpler, and compelling explanation: * * * * *what you see is what you get. If it looks vertical, the polarization is vertical; If it looks horizontal, the polarization is horizontal. It thus stands to reason that if the radiator is U shaped you see both horizontal and vertical - hence the full sphere filled with radiation. This closes the simple answer, which of course drives a very lengthy explanation - there is no such thing as a free lunch: Now, I can well anticipate some wag pointing out that they are standing, looking at these "goal posts" edge on and see only the vertical supports. *"There is no horizontal view - no horizontal polarization. *It can't be isotropic!" Of course it can't; and yet the vertical radiation fills the null of the horizontal (and likewise, the horizontal fills the null of the vertical). *Total field is spherical. What does this make of a tilted radiator? *What you see is what you get. *At some perspectives it looks goofy horizontal AND it looks goofy vertical. *In other perspectives it just looks vertical. *As Art might protest: *"Never mind goofy, how much horizontal?" *If we reduce this to a number of goofiness, a trig function would serve quite well. Most students who were trained in mechanics would recognize the method to deconstruct an angle into its two, XY, components. *If the tilt were 45 degrees, in full view of that angle you must experience the single antenna as having two equal vertical and horizontal contributions to radiation. *If it were tilted 30 degrees, obviously one polarization would dominate over the other. *Ground would compound the issue, but would not negate the general principle. This last part returns us to the discussion of isotropism which encompasses the topic of Lambert's Law which is generally confined to a black body radiator (or the sun from a great distance as it fails to be isotropic in the near view, such as we have here on earth). *Few here need concern themselves with this unless they are making patch antennas. *However, within the discussion above, the topic of view, angle, and radiation contribution are wrapped up in Lambert and cosine. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard cannot read this. However I find his posting to be rewarding . The present aproach to radiation is that a free electron is torn away from the nucleous of an atom which creates uncertaincy. Such an action is that of the strong force which is akin the the splitting of an atom where such an action would release electrons such that they would bombard electrical networks such as in Hawaii. When one uses Maxwells equations it becomes very obvious that with decreasing impeadance radiation increases until we get to the point of zero impedance where reality is forced to be reviewed. Since we now recognize that radiation is not created by the radiator itself as it is only a carrier of a radiator, the model used must be of cylinder type of homogeonos free electrons where removal of the free electrons/particles is by a "weak force" and not a strong force. Thus in reality the model to be used is that of a cylinder where the "stiction" of each electron,(I should really keep to the term particle so one does not automatically insert *neutrinos or a subset of leptons) to a diamagnetic material is effectively replaced by a hoop stress which first showed up in the *boundary of the "Big Bang". Now we have something that meets reality, where increase in current applied creates an increase in radiation and where the model is seen to be a boundary consisting of particles bound to each other! This is basically implied by Maxwell's equations as illustrated by the computer programs where radiation increase is proportional to the decrease of impedance of the energy robbing metallic radiator and where cylindrical boundary model increases it's share of the current applied for continued radiation and still is in concert with known laws without resorting to extreme low temperature to attain "zero impedance" which lacks reality. As a side note. It is the arbitrary boundary in shear (spin) which provides the Weak Force of the Standard Model as foreseen by Einstein when he took on his fruitless search. And it would appear that the reversal of the positive sign of the shown "Radio World" material is somewhat supporting of this posting but that should be the subject of a separate thread. Art Unwin I might add that this solves a nagging problem of mine. What is normally referred to as a "half wave" is in reality the equivalent of a "full wave folded dipole" where the particle sleeve represents the other half of a wave length ( see "U" antenna mentioned by Richard) Of course the inner element formally seen as a radiator takes on its true form of a carrier only but does provide for the required equilibrium even tho the lumped load capacitance area in between "has disappeared" or the equivalent of cancellation of lumped loads to provide maximum efficiency while accounting for all forces involved. This now completely solves the radiation problem, that has lasted a Century, in compliance with all existing laws. as well as being suplimented by the Gaussian extention . The above also solves the identification of the Weak Force which provided completion of the Standard Model as envisioned by Einstein. All is now of a proven nature UNTIL my peers can point to where it deviates from existing laws of Classical Physics. It has been fun over the years exposing the self perceived psuedo experts of this newsgroup as well as exposing to the World those who follow and quote only books in the effort to resist change. Bottom line is. If you can't develop a theme from first principles you are just a follower and not a true Engineer. Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG(UK) |
Spherical radiation pattern
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:15 am, Art Unwin wrote: On Sep 13, 11:29 am, Richard Clark wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:46:30 +0100, "christofire" wrote: Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many polarizations? Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me? A* You appear to have changed your identity from S* to A* ! The answers according to the physics that real-life radio communication depends upon, and was designed by, a A much simpler, and compelling explanation: what you see is what you get. If it looks vertical, the polarization is vertical; If it looks horizontal, the polarization is horizontal. It thus stands to reason that if the radiator is U shaped you see both horizontal and vertical - hence the full sphere filled with radiation. This closes the simple answer, which of course drives a very lengthy explanation - there is no such thing as a free lunch: Now, I can well anticipate some wag pointing out that they are standing, looking at these "goal posts" edge on and see only the vertical supports. "There is no horizontal view - no horizontal polarization. It can't be isotropic!" Of course it can't; and yet the vertical radiation fills the null of the horizontal (and likewise, the horizontal fills the null of the vertical). Total field is spherical. What does this make of a tilted radiator? What you see is what you get. At some perspectives it looks goofy horizontal AND it looks goofy vertical. In other perspectives it just looks vertical. As Art might protest: "Never mind goofy, how much horizontal?" If we reduce this to a number of goofiness, a trig function would serve quite well. Most students who were trained in mechanics would recognize the method to deconstruct an angle into its two, XY, components. If the tilt were 45 degrees, in full view of that angle you must experience the single antenna as having two equal vertical and horizontal contributions to radiation. If it were tilted 30 degrees, obviously one polarization would dominate over the other. Ground would compound the issue, but would not negate the general principle. This last part returns us to the discussion of isotropism which encompasses the topic of Lambert's Law which is generally confined to a black body radiator (or the sun from a great distance as it fails to be isotropic in the near view, such as we have here on earth). Few here need concern themselves with this unless they are making patch antennas. However, within the discussion above, the topic of view, angle, and radiation contribution are wrapped up in Lambert and cosine. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard cannot read this. However I find his posting to be rewarding . The present aproach to radiation is that a free electron is torn away from the nucleous of an atom which creates uncertaincy. Well, movement of electrons is the basis for current flow. 'Torn away' is an interesting choice of words, but separation of electrons from an atom is commonplace. (BTW the electrons come from the atom, not the nucleus.) Such an action is that of the strong force which is akin the the splitting of an atom where such an action would release electrons such that they would bombard electrical networks such as in Hawaii. Removing an election and 'splitting of an atom' are vastly different concepts. You are talking about two vastly different things. When one uses Maxwells equations it becomes very obvious that with decreasing impeadance radiation increases until we get to the point of zero impedance where reality is forced to be reviewed. Since we now recognize that radiation is not created by the radiator itself as it is only a carrier of a radiator, the model used must be of cylinder type of homogeonos free electrons where removal of the free electrons/particles is by a "weak force" and not a strong force. So, explain this model. A cylinder of homogeneous (whatever that means) free electrons would repel each other and dissipate into space. They would be lost forever. Thus in reality the model to be used is that of a cylinder where the "stiction" of each electron,(I should really keep to the term particle so one does not automatically insert neutrinos or a subset of leptons) to a diamagnetic material is effectively replaced by a hoop stress What is the hoop stress. You have created another undefined term which is meaningless. which first showed up in the boundary of the "Big Bang". Now we have something that meets reality, where increase in current applied creates an increase in radiation and where the model is seen to be a boundary consisting of particles bound to each other! This is basically implied by Maxwell's equations as illustrated by the computer programs where radiation increase is proportional to the decrease of impedance of the energy robbing metallic radiator and where cylindrical boundary model increases it's share of the current applied for continued radiation and still is in concert with known laws without resorting to extreme low temperature to attain "zero impedance" which lacks reality. As a side note. It is the arbitrary boundary in shear (spin) which provides the Weak Force of the Standard Model as foreseen by Einstein when he took on his fruitless search. And it would appear that the reversal of the positive sign of the shown "Radio World" material is somewhat supporting of this posting but that should be the subject of a separate thread. Art Unwin I might add that this solves a nagging problem of mine. What is normally referred to as a "half wave" is in reality the equivalent of a "full wave folded dipole" where the particle sleeve represents the other half of a wave length ( see "U" antenna mentioned by Richard) You seem to have created your own, new, definition of a folded dipole. One where the length in wavelengths is no longer the distance from end to end, rather the length of material used (or the perceived circuit path). What is more amazing is that your definition of full wavelength is now 1/2 what you originally thought it to be. Yet that apparently doesn't cause you significant concern. Of course the inner element formally seen as a radiator takes on its true form of a carrier only but does provide for the required equilibrium even tho the lumped load capacitance area in between "has disappeared" or the equivalent of cancellation of lumped loads to provide maximum efficiency while accounting for all forces involved. However, you completely ignore the 'laws' regarding the fields that are generated by the current in the 'carrier'. Or that they would cancel the result from the field generated by the outer element. This now completely solves the radiation problem, that has lasted a Century, in compliance with all existing laws. You have not shown, in any way, how this is in compliance with what you call laws. Since you show no math, nobody can really know what you are talking about. as well as being suplimented by the Gaussian extention . The above also solves the identification of the Weak Force which provided completion of the Standard Model as envisioned by Einstein. All is now of a proven nature UNTIL my peers can point to where it deviates from existing laws of Classical Physics. Proof of your concept is something YOU PROVIDE. Nothing is proven until you can show, in a clear manner, what you think you understand about how antennas work. If you really have some new idea, you should be able to document it and verify it with real work experiments. Your work should also be verifiable and able to be repeated independently by others. When that happens you may have developed some new scientific understanding. It has been fun over the years exposing the self perceived psuedo experts of this newsgroup as well as exposing to the World those who follow and quote only books in the effort to resist change. I would venture to guess that it is not the others resisting change, rather it is their opposition to someone who proposes concepts that ignore and contradict the current understanding of antennas. If you have some new idea regarding antennas, it should not conflict with the understood state of the art, rather, it should expand the state of the art. Your ideas conflict in numerous areas which other have pointed out. However, you choose to ignore those inputs. Bottom line is. If you can't develop a theme from first principles you are just a follower and not a true Engineer. An engineer does not need to develop all his ideas from first principles. Rather, existing ideas are extended. The engineer should know the first principles, but deriving everything from first principles is grossly inefficient. But the big thing is you just spout those first principles without really understanding them. The true engineer knows what he is talking about. The true engineer also validates his work with models and prototypes. He tests his ideas to show they actually work as expected. You play with models (but never adequately share them) and your prototypes have not been shown to have real usefulness as an antenna. When asked to provide results from experiments any good engineer will have, or get, data that supports his position. When you are asked, your favorite answer is 'I don't work for you'. You even use this response when someone gives you a suggestion on how to verify the cause of a problem you are having. You are NOT an engineer. You are NOT a scientist. You may have been an engineer in the past, but today, you are not showing that ability. The pity is, you believe what you are doing. That is the only thing that can be verified. (Verification comes from the fact you did submit a patent application. That is the only thing that can be independently verified.) Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG(UK) |
Spherical radiation pattern
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:45 pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Point to a law that I have violated of which you learned about in academia. As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a violation of law is presented. then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect is confined to the nucleus. And why not? You keep shooting from the hip on baseless statements. For me I have supplied a trail for examination that I believe is in complience of existing laws. And someone has pointed out something is wrong. As is typical, you avoid the point and ignore the conflict with your position. You were the first to state I was in error by applying a time varying field to Gauss's law of Statics and the group followed your position where no body provided academic proof. You provided no proof of you assertion. Then Dr Davis came along and provided academic proof per its legitimacy. Having a Doctorate from MIT and working for the Space Agency gives him some what of a track record. All Dr. Davis stated was the relationship between Gauss and Maxwell. You claimed to come up with something new, and it was there all the time. He did not say anything about the validity of your ideas regarding antennas. I then found out that one of the prolific antagonistic posters did not survive high school. True, he was suspended, so it was not really his fault! Obviously such things are not the norm in this group but it does give you thought regarding a antagonistic track record when lacking in independent thought shoots from the hip or extract a paragraph from a book like a copy provided by a copying machine of which he has no understanding. Nope, I have provided details of my independent work all of which follows the existing laws of Classical physics. Any details you have presented are minimal. At this time I see it as a worthwhile theory with merit and possibly more if there is no violation of existing laws. "if there is no violation" means you aren't even convinced. If you have doubts then contact your alma to provide consistency in your allegations. Or alternatively wait for the PTO printing of my present concluding patent request such that all details are available for inspection. This newsgroup is available for free speech but for the reader caution is advised. Reverse your position on the Gaussian extension so we can then continue the discussion. If you extension to Gauss is just a re-iteration of Maxwell, then you have presented nothing new. Time and time again you have shown that you are not willing to discuss. You do a lot of verbal handwaving, but there is no substance. |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 2:22*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Bottom line is. If you can't develop a theme from first principles you are just a follower and not a true Engineer. I submit that industry-recognized, expert sources on the subject of antennas such as Kraus, Balanis, Johnson/Jasik, George Brown etc were and are much more likely to understand and respect those first principles. Anyone can develop and publicize a theme about the operation of antennas. Scientifically PROVING that such a theme is correct takes a true "Engineer." RF |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 3:30*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 14, 2:22*pm, Art Unwin wrote: Bottom line is. If you can't develop a theme from first principles you are just a follower and not a true Engineer. I submit that industry-recognized, expert sources on the subject of antennas such as Kraus, Balanis, Johnson/Jasik, George Brown etc were and are much more likely to understand and respect those first principles. Yes that is normally true but how many people at the table has asked for the salt when it was right in frony of them? Anyone can develop and publicize a theme about the operation of antennas. I consider that a difficult task without running into trouble with existing laws. Scientifically PROVING that such a theme is correct takes a true "Engineer." When you deliver a theme or paper in front of college graduates, professionals and above, one assumes that they are fully aware of the basic laws involved. Since your only connection to antenna engineering is the repetitive pushing the "on" and "off" button at a local radio station as its resident engineer it is more than possible that you have not had a academic training. Your past posts gives some truth to that statement, tho it is possible that I will have to stand corrected if, as with many, age has taken its toll. As you have stated in the past .. "your move"! Point to a law that I have violated of which you learned about in academia. Alternatively ask the question from your local academic centre where interllectuals reside who have more knowledge of such things than either of us will ever attain. As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a violation of law is presented. RF |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 4:11 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
(Fry) I submit that industry-recognized, expert sources on the subject of antennas such as Kraus, Balanis, Johnson/Jasik, George Brown etc were and are much more likely to understand and respect those first principles. (Unwin) Yes that is normally true but how many people at the table has asked for the salt when it was right in frony of them? So YOU have the salt compared to the names I mentioned, and their published documents? Not very likely. You would be better off, Art, and create less animosity for yourself if you relied more on their work, and less on your own "themes." RF |
Spherical radiation pattern
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... The above also solves the identification of the Weak Force which provided completion of the Standard Model as envisioned by Einstein. All is now of a proven nature UNTIL my peers can point to where it deviates from existing laws of Classical Physics. you violate the range of the weak and strong forces. they are both confined to the nucleus of the atom and have nothing to do with the conduction band electrons. |
Spherical radiation pattern
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Point to a law that I have violated of which you learned about in academia. As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a violation of law is presented. then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect is confined to the nucleus. |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 5:45*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Point to a law that I have violated *of which you learned about in academia. As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a violation of law is presented. then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect is confined to the nucleus. And why not? You keep shooting from the hip on baseless statements. For me I have supplied a trail for examination that I believe is in complience of existing laws. You were the first to state I was in error by applying a time varying field to Gauss's law of Statics and the group followed your position where no body provided academic proof. Then Dr Davis came along and provided academic proof per its legitimacy. Having a Doctorate from MIT and working for the Space Agency gives him some what of a track record. I then found out that one of the prolific antagonistic posters did not survive high school. True, he was suspended, so it was not really his fault! Obviously such things are not the norm in this group but it does give you thought regarding a antagonistic track record when lacking in independent thought shoots from the hip or extract a paragraph from a book like a copy provided by a copying machine of which he has no understanding. Nope, I have provided details of my independent work all of which follows the existing laws of Classical physics. At this time I see it as a worthwhile theory with merit and possibly more if there is no violation of existing laws. If you have doubts then contact your alma to provide consistency in your allegations. Or alternatively wait for the PTO printing of my present concluding patent request such that all details are available for inspection. This newsgroup is available for free speech but for the reader caution is advised. Reverse your position on the Gaussian extension so we can then continue the discussion. |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:40:24 GMT, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... The above also solves the identification of the Weak Force which provided completion of the Standard Model as envisioned by Einstein. All is now of a proven nature UNTIL my peers can point to where it deviates from existing laws of Classical Physics. you violate the range of the weak and strong forces. they are both confined to the nucleus of the atom and have nothing to do with the conduction band electrons. Ah! But if you extrapolate the nucleus as the sun of the solar system, the earth as an electron; then the conduction band is easily managed with a weak force as significant as a bite of bread stuck to the roof of your mouth with peanut butter. Peanut butter is diamagnetic, and if you buy the crunchy style, you get the combination of waves and particles. [this premonitory peanutbutter presentation posting possibly protected by provisional patent pending] 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 12:03*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:15*am, Art Unwin wrote: Now we have something that meets reality, where increase in current applied creates an increase in radiation... NOW ?? *This has been true forever. ... and where the model is seen to be a boundary consisting of particles bound to each other! This is basically implied by Maxwell's equations as illustrated by the computer programs where radiation increase is proportional to the decrease of impedance of the energy robbing metallic radiator etc Decreasing the feedpoint impedance of an antenna to 0 +j0 ohms (if that were possible) does not maximize radiation. The first term in the antenna impedance specification in a practical antenna consists mainly of radiation resistance -- which is required in order for radiation to occur. *Radiation resistance is a function of the electrical length, diameter and form of the radiator exposed to space. *If it is zero then there is no radiation. Higher radiation resistances lead to higher efficiencies for the antenna SYSTEM, because then the power radiated can be much greater than what is dissipated in the relatively smaller I^2R losses of the system. RF __________ Art, How do you respond to my comments to your statements above, seeing as though you have responded to later r.r.a.a. posts with no further response to the above sequence? NO RESPONSE from you easily may be taken to understand that you cannot defend/support your position on such subjects. If your lack of response was an oversight, then probably most of us will understand. But what IS your position on this subject? RF |
Spherical radiation pattern
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:45 pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Point to a law that I have violated of which you learned about in academia. As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a violation of law is presented. then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect is confined to the nucleus. And why not? You keep shooting from the hip on baseless statements. For me I have supplied a trail for examination that I believe is in complience of existing laws. You were the first to state I was in error by applying a time varying field to Gauss's law of Statics and the group followed your position where no body provided academic proof. Then Dr Davis came along and provided academic proof per its legitimacy. Having a Doctorate from MIT and working for the Space Agency gives him some what of a track record. I then found out that one of the prolific antagonistic posters did not survive high school. True, he was suspended, so it was not really his fault! Obviously such things are not the norm in this group but it does give you thought regarding a antagonistic track record when lacking in independent thought shoots from the hip or extract a paragraph from a book like a copy provided by a copying machine of which he has no understanding. Nope, I have provided details of my independent work all of which follows the existing laws of Classical physics. At this time I see it as a worthwhile theory with merit and possibly more if there is no violation of existing laws. If you have doubts then contact your alma to provide consistency in your allegations. Or alternatively wait for the PTO printing of my present concluding patent request such that all details are available for inspection. This newsgroup is available for free speech but for the reader caution is advised. Reverse your position on the Gaussian extension so we can then continue the discussion. So Art again fails to step up when asked to prove something. "I'M RIGHT!!! PROVE ME WRONG!!!" is Art's continual wail. No Art, you have to prove you are right, and just claiming it isn't even a start. FRAUD == ART tom K0TAR |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 6:35*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:40:24 GMT, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message .... The above also solves the identification of the Weak Force which provided completion of the Standard Model as envisioned by Einstein. All is now of a proven nature UNTIL my peers can point to where it deviates from existing laws of Classical Physics. you violate the range of the weak and strong forces. *they are both confined to the nucleus of the atom and have nothing to do with the conduction band electrons. Ah! But if you extrapolate the nucleus as the sun of the solar system, the earth as an electron; then the conduction band is easily managed with a weak force as significant as a bite of bread stuck to the roof of your mouth with peanut butter. Peanut butter is diamagnetic, and if you buy the crunchy style, you get the combination of waves and particles. [this premonitory peanutbutter presentation posting possibly protected by provisional patent pending] 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC You used David as your role model! You also stamped all over Dr Davis. You would be better off standing on David's shoulders and staying in lock step with him and hold that silly tongue of yours for your next partner. |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 7:20*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 14, 12:03*pm, Richard Fry wrote: On Sep 14, 11:15*am, Art Unwin wrote: Now we have something that meets reality, where increase in current applied creates an increase in radiation... NOW ?? *This has been true forever. ... and where the model is seen to be a boundary consisting of particles bound to each other! This is basically implied by Maxwell's equations as illustrated by the computer programs where radiation increase is proportional to the decrease of impedance of the energy robbing metallic radiator etc Decreasing the feedpoint impedance of an antenna to 0 +j0 ohms (if that were possible) does not maximize radiation. The first term in the antenna impedance specification in a practical antenna consists mainly of radiation resistance -- which is required in order for radiation to occur. *Radiation resistance is a function of the electrical length, diameter and form of the radiator exposed to space. *If it is zero then there is no radiation. Higher radiation resistances lead to higher efficiencies for the antenna SYSTEM, because then the power radiated can be much greater than what is dissipated in the relatively smaller I^2R losses of the system. RF __________ Art, How do you respond to my comments to your statements above, seeing as though you have responded to later r.r.a.a. posts with no further response to the above sequence? NO RESPONSE from you easily may be taken to understand that you cannot defend/support your position on such subjects. If your lack of response was an oversight, then probably most of us will understand. But what IS your position on this subject? RF Sorry, but that is how it is. I do respond to some statements but not all. |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 2:49*pm, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: On Sep 14, 11:15 am, Art Unwin wrote: On Sep 13, 11:29 am, Richard Clark wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:46:30 +0100, "christofire" wrote: Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many polarizations? Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me? A* You appear to have changed your identity from S* to A* ! The answers according to the physics that real-life radio communication depends upon, and was designed by, a A much simpler, and compelling explanation: what you see is what you get. If it looks vertical, the polarization is vertical; If it looks horizontal, the polarization is horizontal. It thus stands to reason that if the radiator is U shaped you see both horizontal and vertical - hence the full sphere filled with radiation. |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: On Sep 14, 5:45*pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Point to a law that I have violated *of which you learned about in academia. As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a violation of law is presented. then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect is confined to the nucleus. And why not? If you're going to go away just go away. I don't understand why you would expect anyone to accept your fancies as fact based upon the rambling, incoherent explanations you provide. Your only success is the audience you have gathered while acting as troll. |
Spherical radiation pattern
Art Unwin wrote:
You are NOT an engineer. You are NOT a scientist. You may have been an engineer in the past, but today, you are not showing that ability. The pity is, you believe what you are doing. That is the only thing that can be verified. (Verification comes from the fact you did submit a patent application. That is the only thing that can be independently verified.) Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG(UK) I don't know who you are or where you came from into this discussion that has lasted for years. I did read a portion of what you stated but you must recognize that this newsgroup is like a magnet to those who want to sound off without revealing themselves. It is called free speechand I know not where you fit in! I am sorry I inadvertently came into your court room your honour. Joe the judge I presume and not Joe the plumber That is the best I can do for you until the patent office prints the rest. Then you can base all the above accusations that you made prior to the facts Years is a fallacy. You showed up with your fantasies quite recently, not even 2 years ago, at least with the nonsense you currently spout. If it's true, prove it. You have gotten farther and farther from reality as time has passed. If it's true, prove it. You refuse to give proof for your claims. If it's true, prove it. You refuse to refute proofs against your claims. If it's true, prove it. You won't give us a design to test because you know none of them actually work the way you claim. If it's true, prove it. Your claims of diamagnetic levitating neutrinos and other nonsense has nothing to do with reality. If it's true, prove it. You are a FRAUD. Prove you are not. And I will predict your answer, if you give one, will be equivalent to "You need to prove I'm wrong". tom K0TAR |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 9:35*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: You are NOT an engineer. You are NOT a scientist. You may have been an engineer in the past, but today, you are not showing that ability. The pity is, you believe what you are doing. That is the only thing that can be verified. (Verification comes from the fact you did submit a patent application. That is the only thing that can be independently verified..) Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG(UK) I don't know who you are or where you came from into this discussion that has lasted for years. I did read a portion of what you stated but you must recognize that this newsgroup is like a magnet to those who want to sound off without revealing themselves. It is called free speechand I know not where you fit in! I am sorry I inadvertently came into your court room your honour. Joe the judge I presume and not Joe the plumber That is the best I can do for you until the patent office prints the rest. Then you can base all the above accusations that you made prior to the facts Years is a fallacy. *You showed up with your fantasies quite recently, not even 2 years ago, at least with the nonsense you currently spout. If it's true, prove it. You have gotten farther and farther from reality as time has passed. *If it's true, prove it. You refuse to give proof for your claims. *If it's true, prove it. You refuse to refute proofs against your claims. *If it's true, prove it. |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 9:35*pm, Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: On Sep 14, 5:45*pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message .... Point to a law that I have violated *of which you learned about in academia. As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a violation of law is presented. then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect is confined to the nucleus. And why not? If you're going to go away just go away. I don't understand why you would expect anyone to accept your fancies as fact based upon the rambling, incoherent explanations you provide. Your only success is the audience you have gathered while acting as troll. No. "Success" is showing up the self perceived experts. The question is why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law of statics illegal ? Or stated another way, what is it illegal by changing a static field into a dynamic field? This is not trolling. I am exposing people for what they are and they are fraustrated in their inability to show me as wrong or even having a book that states where and why I am wrong. This is not rambling. Since when is the truth rambling? If you are an expert take up the challenge in terms of academics or consult a professor for an answer Either is acceptable for the purposes of debate of what is true or not true.Everything I have stated stands upon this very point So guys, direct yourselves at the root instead of floundering around in a aimless fashion. And as far as the size of the audience the bigger the better the exposure and the more success I have against those who rely on slander. I want this to be as wide spread as possible instead of running away. Live with it . I am quite sure that many hams around the World is following this augument looking for that first person you will take up the challenge and provide closure with an answer to this very simple question, without the fear of recrimination from the group all of which say it is illegal. Until then...... |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Sep 14, 6:30*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I then found out that one of the prolific antagonistic posters did not survive high school. True, he was suspended, so it was not really his fault! I'm glad to see I'm such a thorn in your side. That means I must be doing something right if a gifted mechanical engineer like yourself considers me such a scary threat to your sanity. Why do you keep telling lies about Dr. Davis? You know good and well that as soon as he got a grip on what you are proposing, he ran off like a deer spooked by a zenon flash camera. I'm curious...What gives you *your* track record? As far as I know, you never went to MIT, and I'm fairly sure you didn't work for NASA. So where does this leave you? Where did an individual such as you obtain all your supposed vast knowledge of all things RF? I don't think it was books, as you decry them as carriers of ill advice. It wasn't at college, because you didn't take the relevant courses if you were a mechanical engineer. I'm starting to think you have a baffle gab machine, kind of like the toy "8 ball" that spits out answers to questions posed to it. The only problem is that it often spits out the same answer for different questions. :/ I can see Art now.. Oh wondrous eight ball, how does one define resonance.. 8 ball spits out.. You have obtained true equilibrium. Art asks 8 ball another question.. Oh wondrous 8 ball, how does one define a full length radiator? 8 ball spits out.. You have obtained true equilibrium. And so it goes throughout the day... :/ I'll tell you this Art.. The more you whine about me and my education, the more I'm going to bug you. The other day I decided to leave you alone, as you are old and senile, and I don't want you to get all excited and have a heart attack, or get all dizzy and fall down and crack your differential. But it's obvious that you still have me on the brain. If this is going to be the case, I might as well give you something to actually whine about. The first thing you need to do is define how you use the word equilibrium when pertaining to antenna systems. If you can't do this, you didn't stay on your vacation long enough. BTW, quoting answers from the 8 ball is not going to flush well. Oh BTW #2, I was expelled, not suspended. They did not want me back. They felt I no longer had anything to offer their institution. I was a thorn in their ass, much like I'm fixing to be to you if you don't quit whining about me and my vast education. It has no bearing on your activities, or your lack of being able to describe your theories in terms that sane people can understand and relate to. |
Spherical radiation pattern
Art Unwin wrote:
I don't know who you are or where you came from into this discussion that has lasted for years. I did read a portion of what you stated As expected, you ignore that which conflicts with your claims. but you must recognize that this newsgroup is like a magnet to those who want to sound off without revealing themselves. It is called free speechand I know not where you fit in! I am sorry I inadvertently came into your court room your honour. Joe the judge I presume and not Joe the plumber That is the best I can do for you until the patent office prints the rest. I have read you patent. http://www.freshpatents.com/Gaussian...hp?type=claims http://www.freshpatents.com/Gaussian...pe=description http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22Gaussi an+radiative+cluster%22&OS=%22Gaussian+radiative+c luster%22&RS=%22Gaussian+radiative+cluster%22 It broadly describes a yagi antenna after it has been blown down by a wind storm. No wonder the patent office has an issue with it. Then you can base all the above accusations that you made prior to the facts You patent does not provide any facts that support the claims you have been making in this group. |
Spherical radiation pattern
Szczepan BiaĆek wrote:
"Richard Fry" wrote ... On Sep 14, 12:41 pm, Szczepan BiaĆek wrote: In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate? Parts with r-f-current flow, the greatest radiation occurring from locations along the radiator where current is greatest. Your words: "Only the change in current and charge, over time, produces EM radiation." At oscillations the current start from zero, accelerate to max speed and deccelerate to zero. At the max speed no acceleration at all. Current flow is near zero at the ends of any unloaded dipole, and at the top of any unloaded vertical monopole (even those in directional arrays). At the ends are the max accelerations and the max radiation. S* Your problem is not understanding the motion of charges in the antenna. Sure, the derivative of a sine wave is 0 at the peak, but this does not directly translate to the motion of the electrons at specific locations in the antenna. Look at the antenna current as an electron oscillating back and forth between the ends. The position over time is described by a function. Throughout the entire length, the electron is changing velocity (accelerating). Hint: the _voltage_ at the feed point may be described by a sine wave. Your challenge is to determine how the electrons move in response to that sine wave. Part of understanding this is knowing the difference between what is happing as time progresses at the different parts of the antenna. The trick to understanding this is to carefully do and understand the mathematics that are involved. |
Spherical radiation pattern
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:35:28 -0500, tom wrote:
Years is a fallacy. You showed up with your fantasies quite recently, not even 2 years ago, at least with the nonsense you currently spout. If it's true, prove it. Hi Tom, Actually Art arrived back in the dark ages of the fin-de-siecle. He had just had a patent issued for a new invented antenna and asked if anyone could explain how it worked. (drum-roll) Several were astonished (as I have already mentioned) to find that his antenna design had reflector (the new and improved model had two) elements that were shorter than the driven element, and the director elements longer. Well, when no one could fulfill that request, we've been sub-morons ever since. It's a rare honour that he keeps coming back here for the validation of cretins when the Nobel Committee is located in Sweden. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Spherical radiation pattern
"Richard Fry" wrote ... On Sep 14, 12:41 pm, Szczepan Białek wrote: In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate? Parts with r-f-current flow, the greatest radiation occurring from locations along the radiator where current is greatest. Your words: "Only the change in current and charge, over time, produces EM radiation." At oscillations the current start from zero, accelerate to max speed and deccelerate to zero. At the max speed no acceleration at all. Current flow is near zero at the ends of any unloaded dipole, and at the top of any unloaded vertical monopole (even those in directional arrays). At the ends are the max accelerations and the max radiation. S* |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com