On Sep 11, 2:37*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 11, 1:04*pm, "Dave" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....

There has been some "talk" that the spherical radiation pattern shown
via Poynting's vector is impossible or just a theoretical thing. There
are many things that point to this such as point radiatiion as well as
not being a realistic concept. I offer the following as an opposite
aproach for the news group.

of course you will... that doesn't make it right, or even logical.

First, I rely on the basic radiator as being in equilibrium which
naturally points to a full wave length or reference to one period.

only in your brain since none of us understand your constantly changing
explanation of what equilibrium is.

Secondly, I point to a radiator as being the circuit of a tank circuit
which is essentially perpetual motion if one removes the frictional
aspect.

ah, perpetual motion, now we are getting somewhere!

Thus the approach by Maxwell is the ultimate point of maximum
efficiency where all forces are accounted for and ALL contribute to
radiation.

maxwell's equations have nothing about gravity, the weak force, or the
strong force, or efficiency included in them...

From the above it is natural that a radiator is tipped to equal the
outside vectors of the arbitrary boundary which are gravity and the
Coriolis effect.

the Coriolis effect is not a vector nor a force, it is a method of
explaining what someone on a rotating sphere thinks they see... purely a
figment of your imagination.

We then have to allow the radiator to have near zero resistiveness
such that all input power is used solely for radiation ( super cooled
I suppose)
From this approach we can state that, in the limit of zero resistance
all power is converted into radiation!

this one statement may contain some small smidgen of reality... you are
slipping art!

Thus if we have a radiator of one WL
that is tipped in space and of near zero resistance in the impedance
metric we will then attain a spherical radiation pattern as with
Poynting's vector and thus a demonstration of point radiation together
with *further evidence that radiation is of a particle and not one of
waves.

nope, sorry, still won't work. *it will still have the distorted doughnut
pattern.

By the way, since the phenomina of radiation is created solely by the
electo-magnetic and electro-static fields per the tank circuit it
becomes very clear that radiation is not continuous but in "packets or
"pulses" because of the momentary stop as shown at the center of a
sine wave.

you have been listening to that other kook too much and have picked up his
signature pulses... next you'll be talking about speakers and pressure wave
interference to explain your equilibrium.

When I get back I look forward with interest how the group tries to
counter above with presently known facts or the common retreat to
insults or just rest comfortably assured that the prior postings
explain all.
See you all later and have a great week end

insults are so much more fun than trying to educate the insane!

That appears to be true. However I have always used Bernollis
experiments with liquid as being synonamous with current flow. So to
mention Bernolles findings to the question of Eddy flow appears to me
to have some merit., Introduction of pressure in both liquids,
current flow and air flow I would consider having some merit.
I once mentioned the similarity of a mechanical pump which is designed
around Bernollies experiments producing the same deflections that we
see with changing cross sections
of electrical conductors, which then must produce cavitation and thus
eddy curwrents.
Roy instantly pushed me aside on that one saying the functions are
different which immediately declares the Standard forces theory as
nonsense. ( Sorry about that Einstein)
Gotta go. Excuse me plse
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.

"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.

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.

Maxwells laws are all about accountability for ALL forces involved. In
non diamagnetic materials one cannot account for energy that provides
hysteresis losses.
Thus equilibrium cannot be quantisized.ie balance of vectors. If the
energy movement or decay per unit of time can be resolved then
Maxwell's laws can be modified to include losses, such that all
forces are accounted for. Until then Maxwells laws are governed by
diamagnetic materials used as radiators as they do not retain
hysteresis energy. As for "magic" one only has to play with magnets to
see evidence of elevation together with the undeniability of twist. I
welcome from you an alternative action that arises with a different
application that deviates from The Standard Model per classical
physics. As for Neutrinos,
I prefer to allude to them as particles and not Leptons which
describes particles emitted from the Sun. Unlike Cecil I cannot
explain any properties that they gain or lose or what ever on their
journey from the Sun.(Protons) Thus I am comfortable with the term
"particles" which do not suggest that "neutrinos" cannot and do not
change properties during their journey.
Especially in the light of present thinking at CERN that such
particles can penetrate to the other side of Earth when they cannot
even break the glass of a CRT which they impinge upon.

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.

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.

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.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"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*

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:24:27 -0500, (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."

Hi Richard,

Lot of contradiction in the short space of one sentence, isn't there?

Tipped in space? Who but an astronaut know this? Is an antenna
tipped if he wasn't there? (The logical knot formerly known as "If a
tree falls in the forest, does it make waves or particles?")

A vector creates a sphere? A vector with no tail, and all head? Must
be a new science of mechanics there. If there is any lesson to be
learned from the past, then Newton has been discarded for heresy.

Where "radiation is ... not of waves" invalidates every patent
description Art has ever submitted - fortunately that doesn't have any
impact on the legality of their issue.

Let's see, where one of Art's patents teaches that reflectors are
shorter than the driven element, and the directors are longer, was
this due to the newly revealed particle theory? Art has steadfastly
refused to explain this novel design feature until - well certainly
not now (or ever?) and I will never see his mea culpa. Such an
admission would plunge the postings count into oblivion without that
full quota of nonsense.

What happened to his other patent's teaching of "length efficiency?"
Now that we have witnessed the dawn of the tilted equilibrated full
wave radiator (TEFWR), it would seem that "length efficiency" (which
formerly compressed the antenna by snipping off the ends that didn't
radiate) has been sent to the neighborhood Re-education Kamp.

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.

Yes, I realize the irony in caps and terms chosen to illustrate this,
the Ritual Art of Antenna Bris. The careful reader may wish to count
the number of accumulated ironies, retorts, confutations, and quips;
and submit them on a sheet of paper inclosed with $2 in postage stamps
inside an envelope (send no coins), posted to me. Those who can show
the correlation between each and the appropriate patent number will be
awarded Mauve bonus points. Winners will be announced at a future
date. [Offer void where permitted by law.]

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.

Well, there's the match for this pair of bookends. Cecil could have
as easily contributed with an inventory of his left pocket's contents.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"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*

"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. 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.

Chris

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

Chr