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)

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.

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

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.

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

"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.

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

Richard Clark wrote:
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

So are his fantasies new? Or did he have them before and just got a
stump from the patent office?

I truthfully don't remember him being around until lately.

The amazing thing is that his story slowly morphs with time, although it
might be better to say he adds more layers of manure.

tom
K0TAR

On Sep 15, 8:20*pm, tom wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
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

So are his fantasies new? *Or did he have them before and just got a
stump from the patent office?

I truthfully don't remember him being around until lately.

The amazing thing is that his story slowly morphs with time, although it
might be better to say he adds more layers of manure.

tom
K0TAR

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

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