Spherical radiation pattern
 

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

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

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

Art has never gotten past this historical hiccup.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

Spherical radiation pattern
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

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

Only in students homework.

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

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

- - moderate-sized snip --


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


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


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

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

Chris

Spherical radiation pattern
 

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

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

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

Spherical radiation pattern
 

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

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

Chris

Hi Chris,

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


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

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

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

Chris

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

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

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote
...

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

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


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

It is than "tipping".


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


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

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

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

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


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

Chris

Spherical radiation pattern
 

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



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

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

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

Chris

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

*Jaro

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

Jimmie

OUCH bad timing Jimmie

Spherical radiation pattern
 

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

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

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

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

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

RF

Spherical radiation pattern
 

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

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

Hi Chris,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Spherical radiation pattern
 

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

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

Just wanting to learn.

RF

Spherical radiation pattern
 

jaroslav lipka wrote:

And you would know seeing as you are full of it,
Art has posed the question can you answer it or are you
going to duck it as you usually do by making demands
and no offerings.

Jaro


Jaro

Welcome to the group! This is what, maybe your 3rd post? And you have
done nothing but snipe in all of them.

Art has posed no questions with any meaning to me, or for anyone else
for that matter. And I have said nothing that disagrees with reality.
Unlike Art, who is trying to prove fantasy with empty contrived
arguments that change day by day. He lives on diamagnetic levitating sand.

So yes, I will duck the non-question.

tom
K0TAR

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:53:55 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fry
wrote:

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

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

The math behind this has been terribly abused by Cecil in the past,
but we shouldn't let that poison the well. It is based in optics, a
field that predates RF by several centuries.

"... S1 and S2 are two point sources of light each
emitting a sinusoidal wave of the same angular
frequency omega. They have position vectors r1
and r2. The field point P where we evaluate the
intensity [flux density] has position r. The electric
field at P resulting from the two sources is assumed
to be of the form....
"The total relative phase Psi0 between the two waves
at P thus consists of two parts: a part Phi2 - Phi1
coming from the relative phases at the two sources,
and a part -Dell coming from the different
retardation in phase suffered by the two
beams resulting from the propagation
from S2 to P and from S1 to P.
"An important special case occurs when
A1 == A2. Then we can write
I = 2·I1·(1 + cos(phi2 - phi1 - Dell))"

Every point along the radiator is considered to be a point source with
the same frequency. However, each point is not at the same phase by
virtue of its distance from the feedpoint and its distance from other
points. Each point is not at the same distance from P (a point in the
far field) which gives rise to a retardation of that altered phase.
Thus the phase accumulates over two distances: one from the excitation
source to the point on the radiator; and, two, from the point on the
radiator to the point of the lobe where we are observing all of the
effects of the combined illumination from all point sources along the
length of the radiator. The extract above speaks to the contributions
of only two points, an antenna comprises many, many more.

I will add here that the intensity variable now draws in the
discussion of the superposed forward and reflected currents. This is
the remaining part of the analysis which is more instructive for your
very simple example. Clearly, from a very small dipole to a half
wave, there is little variation in the far field pattern and it is
appealing to infer that the differences in length suggest that that
additional length suggests nothing is going on in the ends. However,
when we add only a slightly longer length (by proportion*), this
negates the appealing suggestion. The superposed current distribution
change accounts for this and we are still talking about simple linear
elements (and there is still zero current at the ends).

If we were to succumb to the argument of "length efficiency" as
offered in the practice and Art of Antenna Bris, then the additional
gain of that proportionate smaller length addition would have been
lost to that invalid proposition.

The NEC method of moments is by definition the application of the
formula above to the middle of EVERY segment to EVERY point in three
space. The resulting curve is an abstraction of that fog of numbers
that is reduced to a planar curve (or to a solid model in the 3D
representation).

[* What is this proportional and proportionate mean? For a dipole of
0.05 WL to a dipole of 0.5WL, the far field change for that 10:1
variation is negligible. However, for a dipole of 0.5WL to a dipole
of 1.25WL, the far field change for that 2.5:1 (a smaller proportion)
variation is very noticeable.]

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Spherical radiation pattern
 

Art Unwin wrote:
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

Gimmi,Gimmi, Gimme. Eat your heart out or get a nights sleep.

Just what I expected. Art's normal non-answer.

Tell you what, I'll get a night's sleep (it's possessive stupid), and
you try and get a dose of reality.

But you won't and you'll continue to be wrong.

Mr Fraud.

tom
K0TAR

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

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

Only in students homework.

So what speed do your measurements indicate for
free electrons on an antenna?

You assume: "The value for conduction electrons / m^3 matched the number of
atoms / m^3, within the error of the copper's density"

It is not true. So the speed for steady current is bigger.
But in antennas is oscillating current. To describe the electrons one must
take into account acceleratin and compressibility. Speed at small movements
can be small but acceleration huge.
S*

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:53:55 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fry
wrote:

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

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

The math behind this has been terribly abused by Cecil in the past,
but we shouldn't let that poison the well. It is based in optics, a
field that predates RF by several centuries.

"... S1 and S2 are two point sources of light each
emitting a sinusoidal wave of the same angular
frequency omega. They have position vectors r1
and r2. The field point P where we evaluate the
intensity [flux density] has position r. The electric
field at P resulting from the two sources is assumed
to be of the form....
"The total relative phase Psi0 between the two waves
at P thus consists of two parts: a part Phi2 - Phi1
coming from the relative phases at the two sources,
and a part -Dell coming from the different
retardation in phase suffered by the two
beams resulting from the propagation
from S2 to P and from S1 to P.
"An important special case occurs when
A1 == A2. Then we can write
I = 2·I1·(1 + cos(phi2 - phi1 - Dell))"

Every point along the radiator is considered to be a point source with
the same frequency. However, each point is not at the same phase by
virtue of its distance from the feedpoint and its distance from other
points. Each point is not at the same distance from P (a point in the
far field) which gives rise to a retardation of that altered phase.
Thus the phase accumulates over two distances: one from the excitation
source to the point on the radiator; and, two, from the point on the
radiator to the point of the lobe where we are observing all of the
effects of the combined illumination from all point sources along the
length of the radiator. The extract above speaks to the contributions
of only two points, an antenna comprises many, many more.

"Every point along the radiator is considered to be a point source with
the same frequency".
But the intesity of radiation is not the same. Electron at the end of the
open circuit are extremally compressed. Intensity of radiation is
compression dependent. Of course radiation means alternate electric field
(Art's "Gauss law with time").

I will add here that the intensity variable now draws in the
discussion of the superposed forward and reflected currents. This is
the remaining part of the analysis which is more instructive for your
very simple example. Clearly, from a very small dipole to a half
wave, there is little variation in the far field pattern

Antenna is the last part of the open circuit. If it has the half wave or
less such dipole antenna has only one intesive source of radiation on one
radiator.

and it is
appealing to infer that the differences in length suggest that that
additional length suggests nothing is going on in the ends.

See abowe.

However,
when we add only a slightly longer length (by proportion*), this
negates the appealing suggestion.

If "visible" part of an antanna is longer than the 1/4 WL the next source
appears.

The superposed current distribution
change accounts for this and we are still talking about simple linear
elements (and there is still zero current at the ends).

If we were to succumb to the argument of "length efficiency" as
offered in the practice and Art of Antenna Bris, then the additional
gain of that proportionate smaller length addition would have been
lost to that invalid proposition.

The NEC method of moments is by definition the application of the
formula above to the middle of EVERY segment to EVERY point in three
space. The resulting curve is an abstraction of that fog of numbers
that is reduced to a planar curve (or to a solid model in the 3D
representation).

[* What is this proportional and proportionate mean? For a dipole of
0.05 WL to a dipole of 0.5WL, the far field change for that 10:1
variation is negligible.

The both (0.05 WL to a dipole of 0.5WL have only the two sources at the both
ends.

However, for a dipole of 0.5WL to a dipole
of 1.25WL, the far field change for that 2.5:1 (a smaller proportion)
variation is very noticeable.]

Each "long wire antenna" has additional sources for each 0.5WL.

"The full length of the radiator" means the "vissible" and spaced part of
feeding line. Yor: "If you ran a twin line up into the air to an open
connection, then you would have two closely space radiators."

Step by step and the discussion should end with the full agreement (I am
sure).
S*

Spherical radiation pattern
 

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

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

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

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote
...

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

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


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

It is than "tipping".


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

Thanks large radius we have radiation not sparks. The electrostatic field
strength may be much stronger because we can use very high voltage.


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

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

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

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


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

R. Clark wrote: "Clearly, from a very small dipole to a half
wave, there is little variation in the far field pattern "

Now is time for the very small dipole with tipping. Now is also time to
prepare a shelf in library for the new books.
S*

Spherical radiation pattern
 

Art Unwin wrote:
Skin effect refers to current flow along the aluminum.

Actually, it is more complicated than that. Since
the current impulse travels at the speed of light,
the current impulse energy transfer necessarily involves
photons. Note there is no current impulse traveling at
the speed of light under steady-state DC conditions
which is the only kind of current being carried 100% by
electrons. Any current, e.g. RF current, traveling at
the speed of light, involves photons, even the DC impulse
current.

When you get to
the point when the impedance is zero it shows that all applied
current has been applied outside the aluminum which is now not
carrying ANY of the applied current. WOW!

It is true that one can set EZNEC to lossless conditions but
one cannot do that in the real world. Aluminum and copper
are only ever lossless at superconductor temperatures.

You also stated that applying a time varying field
is an example of typical failures! No idea where that comes from.

Me either since I don't remember anything about "typical
failures". What I said is that the electrons excited by
HF+ RF energy move hardly at all. It is akin to tossing
a stone into a still pond - the water molecules (carriers)
move hardly at all except up and down.

Another brou har ensued with the implication was that
both the upward and downward travels of the applied current was on the
same skin deep surfaces! Very wierd.

Again consider tossing a stone into a still pond. When the
waves reach the shore, they are reflected thus forming
standing waves on the water. Again the water molecules
move primarily up and down, moving hardly at all in the
direction of propagation of the forward and reflected waves.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Spherical radiation pattern
 

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

For the MOM calculations inside NEC, the net segment
*current* determines the incremental far-field.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Spherical radiation pattern
 

Richard Clark wrote:
The math behind this has been terribly abused by Cecil in the past,
but we shouldn't let that poison the well.

NEC would be interested in your proof that the
method of moments is abuse and poison.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Sep 16, 6:46*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Skin effect refers to current flow along the aluminum.

Actually, it is more complicated than that. Since
the current impulse travels at the speed of light,
the current impulse energy transfer necessarily involves
photons. Note there is no current impulse traveling at
the speed of light under steady-state DC conditions
which is the only kind of current being carried 100% by
electrons. Any current, e.g. RF current, traveling at
the speed of light, involves photons, even the DC impulse
current.

When you get to
the point when the impedance is zero it shows that all applied
current has been applied outside the aluminum which is now not
carrying ANY of the applied current. WOW!

It is true that one can set EZNEC to lossless conditions but
one cannot do that in the real world. Aluminum and copper
are only ever lossless at superconductor temperatures.


73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com
Let me make myself quite clear on this point before the thread closes.
My position is that a radiator must be 1WL to achieve equilibrium.
When considering a
1/2 wave vertical one can only make it a closed circuit of 1 WL is by
adding a ground plane
rather than assuming that we have conflicting charge directions on the
surface of the 1/2 WL.
We now review the circuit (tank circuit) that applies to radiation. We
now accept that particles do rest on diamagnetic surfaces per the
Gauss extension. In fact, this surface or sleeve of particles is so
tightly formed that it has the hoop stress of a arbitrary boundary
such that nothing is removed from the diamagnetic material itself. In
the case where a particle is driven away from this border its place is
immediately taken up by one of the billions of particles floating
around looking for a diamagnetic place to rest.
We can now see that current applied to a radiating element splits into
two paths in parallel
One leg is in the intervening space between the particles and the
diamagnetic material and the other leg IN the surface of the
diamagnetic material called skin effect.
A computer program only recognizes the diamagnetic element such that
it only points to the impedance presented by that separate current
track .
Thus with increase in radiation the impedance referred to by the
computer is SOLELY
of that presented by the diamagnetic material. Thus when the program
states zero impedance it is stating that no current is being applied
to the diamagnetic material
and where all current is routed to the arbitrary boundary consisting
of tightly bound particles.
The concept of extreme cooling for zero resistance is not required
when no current is applied! All the current is now being carried by
the arbitrary border where all forces can be accounted for since there
are no losses incurred! Of-course the program itself leaves the
operator to sort this out because it did not supply a complete circle
of energy flow by ignoring the current applied to the particle sleeve
or boundary, where the energy lost in the
programs element is not supplanted with the energy gain of the
arbitrary border! This suggests that somewhere in the program the
positive and the minus signs were accidently interchanged. If the
programmer had recognised the existance of the Gaussian border
he would have the provided the means of energy transfer to it and thus
fully abided with the concept of equilibrium.
Art

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

- - almighty great snip - -


R. Clark wrote: "Clearly, from a very small dipole to a half
wave, there is little variation in the far field pattern "

Now is time for the very small dipole with tipping. Now is also time to
prepare a shelf in library for the new books.
S*


Doesn't seem like you visit a library very often, on the basis of what
you've posted, so why change the habit of a lifetime?

Chris

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Sep 16, 9:16*am, Art Unwin wrote:
Let me make myself quite clear on this point before the thread closes.
My position is that a radiator must be 1WL to achieve equilibrium.

And why is your "equilibrium" needed?

Note that antennas of every length produce very efficient radiation
from all of the r-f current that can be made to flow on them.

For a given r-f source and antenna, maximizing that current is a
matter of providing a non-reactive match of the antenna feedpoint
impedance to whatever is connected there.

There are good reasons to prefer one antenna length over others, such
as the radiation pattern produced, or the ease of providing a good
match to a transmission line.

But "equilibrium" is not one of them.

RF

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:24:16 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

S*

Can you read English?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:19:58 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:


"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

- - almighty great snip - -


R. Clark wrote: "Clearly, from a very small dipole to a half
wave, there is little variation in the far field pattern "

Now is time for the very small dipole with tipping. Now is also time to
prepare a shelf in library for the new books.
S*


Doesn't seem like you visit a library very often, on the basis of what
you've posted, so why change the habit of a lifetime?

I wonder if he saw a car at a great distance, would he presume it was
driven by a pygmy? A new shelf for anthropology needs to be opened in
the library.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
Art Unwin wrote:

Me either since I don't remember anything about "typical
failures". What I said is that the electrons excited by
HF+ RF energy move hardly at all. It is akin to tossing
a stone into a still pond - the water molecules (carriers)
move hardly at all except up and down.

They move along the eliptic trajectory. The longitudinal component is large
than the transversal.

Another brou har ensued with the implication was that
both the upward and downward travels of the applied current was on the
same skin deep surfaces! Very wierd.

Again consider tossing a stone into a still pond. When the
waves reach the shore, they are reflected thus forming
standing waves on the water. Again the water molecules
move primarily up and down, moving hardly at all in the
direction of propagation of the forward and reflected waves.

See above.
S*

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Sep 16, 12:15*pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
*"Cecil Moore" ...

Art Unwin wrote:

Me either since I don't remember anything about "typical
failures". What I said is that the electrons excited by
HF+ RF energy move hardly at all. It is akin to tossing
a stone into a still pond - the water molecules (carriers)
move hardly at all except up and down.

They move along the eliptic trajectory. The longitudinal component is large
than the transversal.



Another brou har ensued with the implication was that
both the upward and downward travels of the applied current was on the
same skin deep surfaces! *Very wierd.

Again consider tossing a stone into a still pond. When the
waves reach the shore, they are reflected thus forming
standing waves on the water. Again the water molecules
move primarily up and down, moving hardly at all in the
direction of propagation of the forward and reflected waves.

See above.
S*

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

Spherical radiation pattern
 

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

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.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Spherical radiation pattern
 

Richard Clark. KB7QHC wrote:
"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."

Of course no one could prove for Art how his antenna worked. They
weren`t gifted with his type of genius.

As Terman says on page 906 0f his 1955 opus:
"The fact that a parasitic antenna placed close to a radiaring antenna
can be used either to reflect or to direct the radiated energy can be
taken advantage of to obtain a compact directional antenna system. A
simple example is shown in Fig. 23-39 where the reflector length is such
that it is resonant at a lower frequency than that being transmitted,
while the the director length is chosen so that it is resonant at a
higher frequency than is being transmitted."

Most everyone in this newsgroup has tried the classic Yagi arrangement
and knows that Terman has it right.

Art`s patent does not prove Terman wrong.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"tom" wrote in message
. net...
Art Unwin wrote:
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

Gimmi,Gimmi, Gimme. Eat your heart out or get a nights sleep.

Just what I expected. Art's normal non-answer.

Tell you what, I'll get a night's sleep (it's possessive stupid), and you
try and get a dose of reality.

its going to take something MUCH stronger than a dose of reality to get art
up to speed.

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 6:46 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
We
now accept that particles do rest on diamagnetic surfaces per the
Gauss extension. In fact, this surface or sleeve of particles is so
tightly formed that it has the hoop stress of a arbitrary boundary
such that nothing is removed from the diamagnetic material itself.


he still hasn't figured out how my ferromagnetic antennas work without his
magical levitating diamagnetic neutrino hoops around them all jumping off in
response to his current pulses.

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