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

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

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

"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*

"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*

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*

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

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

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

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