On Nov 15, 4:14*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 15, 6:18*am, Dave wrote:





On Nov 15, 6:23*am, Art Unwin wrote:

Cebic found when comparing different style programs that some behaved
well in certain circumstance where others did not. Yet all antenna
programs
are based on the use of Maxwells equations where all programs should
have the same results, after all Maxwells equations are exact and not
fudged. One of the reasons is that since Maxwells laws are exact
radiators used must be resonant at repeatable points designated as a
period.
* *Fact is that most users use fractional wavelength designs, usually
a half wavelength, that is not resonant at repeatable points where
the area around the datum line of a sine wave is never equal when
generated around a tank circuit.
* * The reason for this is "voltage over shoot" which gets smaller
with every cycle but never disappears. Thus when programs are used
based on fractional wavelength radiators the results will never show
100% accountability and in fact efficiencies derived will be in the
order of 92%!
* If the radiator is of a wavelength then one is not using a "fudge"
figure
in the calculations and *then becomes possible to attain total
accountability with efficiency of 100%. regardles of what type program
is used.
* *If one is to use exact equations, as are Maxwell equations, then
one must also use measurements that are also exact and repeatable and
that is definitely not fractional wavelengths!
*What one gains from this aproach is that any radiator of any shape,
*size or elevation can provide figures in the order of 100% as long as
the radiator is a multiple of a wavelength where it is *resonant at
exact and repeatable measurements.
If anybody can give pointers that refute the accuracy of the above I
would be very interested in hearing them

the key is that while all the programs are based on maxwell's
equations, it is impossible to implement maxwell's equations with 100%
accuracy on a digital computer. *this is true of any and all
simulation and modeling programs for electrical or mechanical design.
all such programs make approximations and take shortcuts to reduce
calculation time while maintaining some minimum level of accuracy and
precision. *it is important to understand the assumptions and
simplifications that have been made in order to make proper use of the
programs. *typical traps in antenna simulations are that they don't
like very small or very large length/diameter ratios... so using them
for extrement long or short wires or very fat or very thin wires may
produce results that aren't realistic. *many of them also don't like
very small spacing between wires, this is where most optimizer
programs fall apart, they start moving wires close together and get
strange results like super gain or unrealizable narrow beam patterns,
often accompanied by a very low feedpoint impedance.

most reputable programs like NEC have been validated very diligently
over many years and their accuracy is well documented... as are the
restrictions and assumptions that apply, but you have to read ALL the
documentation, not just the quick start guide. *Other programs like
mininec, ao, yo, yagimax, and others make even more simplifications
and therefore added restrictions so they can run on a desktop
relatively quickly. *unfortunately they don't always document the
limitations as well as the professional level products. *after all the
professionals have millions of dollars riding on the accuracy of
designs, hams have only pennies, so it just doesn't pay to write lots
of documentation or do lots of testing that won't be read for ham
users.

so, while all the programs must be based on the same equations, the
results they generate, especially in the fringe cases, may be vastly
different. *remember two maxims... 'garbage in - garbage out', and
'you get what you pay for'.

Exactly.
If one uses a "period" of a cycle or a full wave instead of fractional
wavelengths
Maxwell's equations can be used in antenna programs to achieve 100%
accountability
or efficiency Where as the fudge figure of fractional wavelengths can
only achieve efficiencies in the lower 90s unless voltage over shoot
is accounted for.
Programs with optimizers recognize over shoot by providing radiators
that are all multiples of a wavelength and resonant so that the array
is also resonant as a whole.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

what exactly is 'voltage overshoot' and why does it affect modeling
programs? you can model an antenna without ever calculating a
voltage. all that is needed is current, which is usually much easier
to track. all voltages can be calculated from the current after the
fact if needed for figuring insulation requirements.

On Nov 15, 12:59*pm, Dave wrote:
On Nov 15, 4:14*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Nov 15, 6:18*am, Dave wrote:

On Nov 15, 6:23*am, Art Unwin wrote:

Cebic found when comparing different style programs that some behaved
well in certain circumstance where others did not. Yet all antenna
programs
are based on the use of Maxwells equations where all programs should
have the same results, after all Maxwells equations are exact and not
fudged. One of the reasons is that since Maxwells laws are exact
radiators used must be resonant at repeatable points designated as a
period.
* *Fact is that most users use fractional wavelength designs, usually
a half wavelength, that is not resonant at repeatable points where
the area around the datum line of a sine wave is never equal when
generated around a tank circuit.
* * The reason for this is "voltage over shoot" which gets smaller
with every cycle but never disappears. Thus when programs are used
based on fractional wavelength radiators the results will never show
100% accountability and in fact efficiencies derived will be in the
order of 92%!
* If the radiator is of a wavelength then one is not using a "fudge"
figure
in the calculations and *then becomes possible to attain total
accountability with efficiency of 100%. regardles of what type program
is used.
* *If one is to use exact equations, as are Maxwell equations, then
one must also use measurements that are also exact and repeatable and
that is definitely not fractional wavelengths!
*What one gains from this aproach is that any radiator of any shape,
*size or elevation can provide figures in the order of 100% as long as
the radiator is a multiple of a wavelength where it is *resonant at
exact and repeatable measurements.
If anybody can give pointers that refute the accuracy of the above I
would be very interested in hearing them

the key is that while all the programs are based on maxwell's
equations, it is impossible to implement maxwell's equations with 100%
accuracy on a digital computer. *this is true of any and all
simulation and modeling programs for electrical or mechanical design.
all such programs make approximations and take shortcuts to reduce
calculation time while maintaining some minimum level of accuracy and
precision. *it is important to understand the assumptions and
simplifications that have been made in order to make proper use of the
programs. *typical traps in antenna simulations are that they don't
like very small or very large length/diameter ratios... so using them
for extrement long or short wires or very fat or very thin wires may
produce results that aren't realistic. *many of them also don't like
very small spacing between wires, this is where most optimizer
programs fall apart, they start moving wires close together and get
strange results like super gain or unrealizable narrow beam patterns,
often accompanied by a very low feedpoint impedance.

most reputable programs like NEC have been validated very diligently
over many years and their accuracy is well documented... as are the
restrictions and assumptions that apply, but you have to read ALL the
documentation, not just the quick start guide. *Other programs like
mininec, ao, yo, yagimax, and others make even more simplifications
and therefore added restrictions so they can run on a desktop
relatively quickly. *unfortunately they don't always document the
limitations as well as the professional level products. *after all the
professionals have millions of dollars riding on the accuracy of
designs, hams have only pennies, so it just doesn't pay to write lots
of documentation or do lots of testing that won't be read for ham
users.

so, while all the programs must be based on the same equations, the
results they generate, especially in the fringe cases, may be vastly
different. *remember two maxims... 'garbage in - garbage out', and
'you get what you pay for'.

Exactly.
If one uses a "period" of a cycle or a full wave instead of fractional
wavelengths
Maxwell's equations can be used in antenna programs to achieve 100%
accountability
or efficiency Where as the fudge figure of fractional wavelengths can
only achieve efficiencies in the lower 90s unless voltage over shoot
is accounted for.
Programs with optimizers recognize over shoot by providing radiators
that are all multiples of a wavelength and resonant so that the array
is also resonant as a whole.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

what exactly is 'voltage overshoot' and why does it affect modeling
programs? *you can model an antenna without ever calculating a
voltage. *all that is needed is current, which is usually much easier
to track. *all voltages can be calculated from the current after the
fact if needed for figuring insulation requirements.

When a energy switching action occurs as with energy exchange between
an inductance
and a capacitance a transient spur of voltage is created beyond the
point of balance or equilibrium of the circuit. Tho this is only
momentary, it delays the return of energy back to the capacitance to a
lesser time. The capacitor then returns the energy back to the
inductance but with a lesser voltage which again creates a transient
spike of a now lesser value than before, such that the amplitude of a
balanced "loss less" circuit is lost to one that defines vibration
which in the human ear also creates communication. (When delving into
the mathematical laws of vibration where the amplitude change and the
similarity to vibration can be readily be seen.
Any way, it can be seen that with the amplitude of vibration is ever
changing, so must the point where the amplitude is repeatable ie
resonant, must also change. Yes, you can model anything without ever
considering voltage when you choose to omit the presence of overshoot
for easability over accuracy.
Regards
Art
where the amplitude

On Nov 15, 12:29*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
What one gains from this aproach is that any radiator
of any shape, size or elevation can provide figures in
the order of 100% as long as the radiator is a multiple
of a wavelength where it is resonant at exact and
repeatable measurements.
then Art wrote:
The use of the term "nearly" does not imply total accuracy.

Note that your use of the phrase "in the order of" does not
imply total accuracy, either -- even for radiators meeting
your criteria.

To use Maxwell's equations for accuracy one cannot introduce
metrics that are not absolute. 1/4 or 1/2 wave radiators cannot
supplant the "period" of a wave form and thus introduce
inaccuracies.

Apparently you believe that only full-wave radiators are
"perfect" (exactly 100% efficient).
Until antenna programs all of which are based om Maxwell's equations
provide accountability of all forces involved to provide the 100%
efficiency, as shown by the use of
full wave radiators I have no other choice. It is as the catholic
religeon teachings when it says "give me the child and I will give you
the man." Its equivalent in education is to believe
only what the professor tells you that is written in his books as it
is he who determines
who graduates or not. Many of the masters did not have a formal
education such as Greene who had to justify from first principles
himself to determine what was correct and what was not. After serving
most of your years in life by adhering to the books it make no sense
in changing from a follower to a reseacher when the past has satisfied
your need.
As with religeon faith will always overide the tenents of science,
more so as you get older.

However a full-wave, center-fed dipole has a radiation resistance of
about 2,000 ohms, and a feedpoint reactance exceeding 1,000 ohms
(capacitive). *That impedance would present a very high VSWR to a
normal transmitter unless some kind of matching network was used.

Even if there was no matching or transmission line loss (or r-f ground
loss in the case of a monopole), that full-wave radiator still would
not be 100% efficient because of the ohmic losses encountered by the r-
f current flowing along the radiating structure (NOT the radiation
resistance).

RF

On Nov 15, 8:10*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 15, 12:59*pm, Dave wrote:





On Nov 15, 4:14*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Nov 15, 6:18*am, Dave wrote:

On Nov 15, 6:23*am, Art Unwin wrote:

Cebic found when comparing different style programs that some behaved
well in certain circumstance where others did not. Yet all antenna
programs
are based on the use of Maxwells equations where all programs should
have the same results, after all Maxwells equations are exact and not
fudged. One of the reasons is that since Maxwells laws are exact
radiators used must be resonant at repeatable points designated as a
period.
* *Fact is that most users use fractional wavelength designs, usually
a half wavelength, that is not resonant at repeatable points where
the area around the datum line of a sine wave is never equal when
generated around a tank circuit.
* * The reason for this is "voltage over shoot" which gets smaller
with every cycle but never disappears. Thus when programs are used
based on fractional wavelength radiators the results will never show
100% accountability and in fact efficiencies derived will be in the
order of 92%!
* If the radiator is of a wavelength then one is not using a "fudge"
figure
in the calculations and *then becomes possible to attain total
accountability with efficiency of 100%. regardles of what type program
is used.
* *If one is to use exact equations, as are Maxwell equations, then
one must also use measurements that are also exact and repeatable and
that is definitely not fractional wavelengths!
*What one gains from this aproach is that any radiator of any shape,
*size or elevation can provide figures in the order of 100% as long as
the radiator is a multiple of a wavelength where it is *resonant at
exact and repeatable measurements.
If anybody can give pointers that refute the accuracy of the above I
would be very interested in hearing them

the key is that while all the programs are based on maxwell's
equations, it is impossible to implement maxwell's equations with 100%
accuracy on a digital computer. *this is true of any and all
simulation and modeling programs for electrical or mechanical design.

On Nov 15, 1:23*am, Art Unwin wrote:
Cebic found when comparing different style programs that some behaved
well in certain circumstance where others did not. Yet all antenna
programs
are based on the use of Maxwells equations where all programs should
have the same results, after all Maxwells equations are exact and not
fudged. One of the reasons is that since Maxwells laws are exact
radiators used must be resonant at repeatable points designated as a
period.
* *Fact is that most users use fractional wavelength designs, usually
a half wavelength, that is not resonant at repeatable points where
the area around the datum line of a sine wave is never equal when
generated around a tank circuit.
* * The reason for this is "voltage over shoot" which gets smaller
with every cycle but never disappears. Thus when programs are used
based on fractional wavelength radiators the results will never show
100% accountability and in fact efficiencies derived will be in the
order of 92%!
* If the radiator is of a wavelength then one is not using a "fudge"
figure
in the calculations and *then becomes possible to attain total
accountability with efficiency of 100%. regardles of what type program
is used.
* *If one is to use exact equations, as are Maxwell equations, then
one must also use measurements that are also exact and repeatable and
that is definitely not fractional wavelengths!
*What one gains from this aproach is that any radiator of any shape,
*size or elevation can provide figures in the order of 100% as long as
the radiator is a multiple of a wavelength where it is *resonant at
exact and repeatable measurements.
If anybody can give pointers that refute the accuracy of the above I
would be very interested in hearing them

How about giving some pointers as to where you got this BS. Sounds
like you just made a bunch of stuff up.


Jimmie

On Nov 15, 3:44*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Nov 15, 1:23*am, Art Unwin wrote:



Cebic found when comparing different style programs that some behaved
well in certain circumstance where others did not. Yet all antenna
programs
are based on the use of Maxwells equations where all programs should
have the same results, after all Maxwells equations are exact and not
fudged. One of the reasons is that since Maxwells laws are exact
radiators used must be resonant at repeatable points designated as a
period.
* *Fact is that most users use fractional wavelength designs, usually
a half wavelength, that is not resonant at repeatable points where
the area around the datum line of a sine wave is never equal when
generated around a tank circuit.
* * The reason for this is "voltage over shoot" which gets smaller
with every cycle but never disappears. Thus when programs are used
based on fractional wavelength radiators the results will never show
100% accountability and in fact efficiencies derived will be in the
order of 92%!
* If the radiator is of a wavelength then one is not using a "fudge"
figure
in the calculations and *then becomes possible to attain total
accountability with efficiency of 100%. regardles of what type program
is used.
* *If one is to use exact equations, as are Maxwell equations, then
one must also use measurements that are also exact and repeatable and
that is definitely not fractional wavelengths!
*What one gains from this aproach is that any radiator of any shape,
*size or elevation can provide figures in the order of 100% as long as
the radiator is a multiple of a wavelength where it is *resonant at
exact and repeatable measurements.
If anybody can give pointers that refute the accuracy of the above I
would be very interested in hearing them

How about giving some pointers as to where you got this BS. Sounds
like you just made a bunch of stuff up.

Jimmie

No Jim. Ideas with what is presented to me in science, where such can
be obtained from first principles and with agreement with known LAWS
of science rather than various theories. In this case the aproach of
Gauss provided a mathematical connection to Maxwells equations which
by the use of antenna programs based on Maxwell only provide
accountability of all forces. This is easily proven when use of a
program that is optimized to account for all forces involved in
radiation such that the solution provided is termed 100% efficient as
opposed to planar or other designs that cannot achieve 100% efficiency
because of the non accountability of the recognition of "over shoot".
One always looks for 100% accountability of all forces such that 100%
efficiency is achieved.
If you are in the early stages of education it would be folly to bring
forth suggestions to the contrary of those presented in the books and
your professor since these are the standards against which determines
whether you graduate or not. Obviously this is not the time to debate
differences. As life proceedes one becomes comfortable with alignment
with ideas and teachings that conform with those around you because in
general your wages depend on it. Thus you are dealing with faith
regardless of the attainment via first principles that produce
conflict.
So yes, your only response to continue a science debate is to provide
counter proof from first principles that is available some where in a
book! Compared to that task it is so much more convenient to exit the
debate on a statement that does not require a proof. Thus anger comes
to the fore and debate or a thread comes to an end.
Cheers
Art

On Nov 15, 3:00*pm, Dave wrote:
On Nov 15, 8:10*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Nov 15, 12:59*pm, Dave wrote:

On Nov 15, 4:14*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Nov 15, 6:18*am, Dave wrote:

On Nov 15, 6:23*am, Art Unwin wrote:

Cebic found when comparing different style programs that some behaved
well in certain circumstance where others did not. Yet all antenna
programs
are based on the use of Maxwells equations where all programs should
have the same results, after all Maxwells equations are exact and not
fudged. One of the reasons is that since Maxwells laws are exact
radiators used must be resonant at repeatable points designated as a
period.
* *Fact is that most users use fractional wavelength designs, usually
a half wavelength, that is not resonant at repeatable points where
the area around the datum line of a sine wave is never equal when
generated around a tank circuit.
* * The reason for this is "voltage over shoot" which gets smaller
with every cycle but never disappears. Thus when programs are used
based on fractional wavelength radiators the results will never show
100% accountability and in fact efficiencies derived will be in the
order of 92%!
* If the radiator is of a wavelength then one is not using a "fudge"
figure
in the calculations and *then becomes possible to attain total
accountability with efficiency of 100%. regardles of what type program
is used.
* *If one is to use exact equations, as are Maxwell equations, then
one must also use measurements that are also exact and repeatable and
that is definitely not fractional wavelengths!
*What one gains from this aproach is that any radiator of any shape,
*size or elevation can provide figures in the order of 100% as long as
the radiator is a multiple of a wavelength where it is *resonant at
exact and repeatable measurements.
If anybody can give pointers that refute the accuracy of the above I
would be very interested in hearing them

the key is that while all the programs are based on maxwell's
equations, it is impossible to implement maxwell's equations with 100%
accuracy on a digital computer. *this is true of any and all
simulation and modeling programs for electrical or mechanical design.
all such programs make approximations and take shortcuts to reduce
calculation time while maintaining some minimum level of accuracy and
precision. *it is important to understand the assumptions and
simplifications that have been made in order to make proper use of the
programs. *typical traps in antenna simulations are that they don't
like very small or very large length/diameter ratios... so using them
for extrement long or short wires or very fat or very thin wires may
produce results that aren't realistic. *many of them also don't like
very small spacing between wires, this is where most optimizer
programs fall apart, they start moving wires close together and get
strange results like super gain or unrealizable narrow beam patterns,
often accompanied by a very low feedpoint impedance.

most reputable programs like NEC have been validated very diligently
over many years and their accuracy is well documented... as are the
restrictions and assumptions that apply, but you have to read ALL the
documentation, not just the quick start guide. *Other programs like
mininec, ao, yo, yagimax, and others make even more simplifications
and therefore added restrictions so they can run on a desktop
relatively quickly. *unfortunately they don't always document the
limitations as well as the professional level products. *after all the
professionals have millions of dollars riding on the accuracy of
designs, hams have only pennies, so it just doesn't pay to write lots
of documentation or do lots of testing that won't be read for ham
users.

so, while all the programs must be based on the same equations, the
results they generate, especially in the fringe cases, may be vastly
different. *remember two maxims... 'garbage in - garbage out', and
'you get what you pay for'.

Exactly.
If one uses a "period" of a cycle or a full wave instead of fractional
wavelengths
Maxwell's equations can be used in antenna programs to achieve 100%
accountability
or efficiency Where as the fudge figure of fractional wavelengths can
only achieve efficiencies in the lower 90s unless voltage over shoot
is accounted for.
Programs with optimizers recognize over shoot by providing radiators
that are all multiples of a wavelength and resonant so that the array
is also resonant as a whole.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

what exactly is 'voltage overshoot' and why does it affect modeling
programs? *you can model an antenna without ever calculating a
voltage. *all that is needed is current, which is usually much easier
to track. *all voltages can be calculated from the current after the
fact if needed for figuring insulation requirements.

When a energy switching action occurs as with energy exchange between
an inductance
and a capacitance a transient spur of voltage is created beyond the
point of balance or equilibrium of the circuit. Tho this is only
momentary, it delays the return of energy back to the capacitance to a
lesser time. The capacitor then returns the energy back to the
inductance but with a lesser voltage which again creates a transient
spike of a now lesser value than before, such that the amplitude of a
balanced "loss less" circuit is lost to one that defines vibration
which in the human ear also creates communication. (When delving into
the mathematical laws of vibration where the amplitude change and the
similarity to vibration can be readily be seen.
* Any way, it can be seen that with the amplitude of vibration is ever
changing, so must the point where the amplitude is repeatable *ie
resonant, must also change. Yes, you can model anything without ever
considering voltage when you choose to omit the presence of overshoot
for easability over accuracy.
Regards
Art
where the amplitude- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

yeah, whatever you have been smoking is spiked with something. *LC
resonant circuits do not have 'spikes', they have nice sinusoidal
energy transfer... maybe you envision the electrons sloshsing back and
forth like that swill in your glass? *sorry, it just don't work that
way. *enjoy your own little world, it just got one person smaller.

Well David prove it based on science instead of expecting me to accept
you on faith.
That is only accomplished by the source providing replacement such
that consistent amplitude is maintained. Without this replacement the
amplitude will show degradement as seen with vibration or a simple
pendulum clock that exhibits the two vectors previously mentioned ie
one linear and one circircular. There is no free lunch as with
perpetual motion
when equilibrium is broken.
Cheers
Art

On Nov 15, Art Unwin wrote:

As with religeon [sic] faith will always overide [sic] the
tenents [sic] of science, more so as you get older.

then

Well David prove it based on science instead of expecting me
to accept you on faith.
_____________

Art, you are the Master here at asking the readers of your posts to
accept them on faith, while having provided no scientific proof for
your posts whatsoever -- and while denying or at least ignoring the
validity of other posts containing provable scientific and
experiential evidence to the contrary.

Why should any well-educated person accept _your_ faith-based, and
unproven beliefs?

RF

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:23:05 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

Cebic found when comparing different style programs that some behaved
well in certain circumstance where others did not.

True. When circumstances dictate that I pay attention and I'm in a
good mood, most programs behave normally. However, when circumstances
are not so favorable, such as last week when I replaced my septic
tank, all of the software I was using literally stunk.

Fact is that most users use fractional wavelength designs, usually
a half wavelength, that is not resonant at repeatable points where
the area around the datum line of a sine wave is never equal when
generated around a tank circuit.

Last time I checked, the definition of a half wave automagically
includes any external or magical factors that might change its length.
For example, if you submerge the antenna under water, the increased
dielectric constant will cause the half wave length to somewhat
shorten. While the previous length has changed, the new shorter
length is still a half wavelength.

The reason for this is "voltage over shoot" which gets smaller
with every cycle but never disappears.

Overshoot can easily be fixed with a Cutts Compensator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutts_compensator
Every time you cycle your antenna, the recoil tends to make the barrel
climb a bit. This is the cause of the overshoot. A suitable Cutts
Compensator attached opposite the feed point should help prevent
overshooting the target.

Thus when programs are used
based on fractional wavelength radiators the results will never show
100% accountability and in fact efficiencies derived will be in the
order of 92%!

95.718% of all statistics are wrong. If you're using single digit
accuracy and single digit significant figures, 92% rounded off is
equal to 100%.

If the radiator is of a wavelength then one is not using a "fudge"
figure
in the calculations and then becomes possible to attain total
accountability with efficiency of 100%. regardles of what type program
is used.

Half wave wire dipoles do tend to be resonant somewhat shorter than
the free space wavelength. That's due to sales and value added tax
placed on antennas by the government. You'll always come out a bit
short when dealing with them. However, the last time I checked, the
cut length was only about 5% shorter than the free space half-wave
length. Did the antenna tax increase to 8%?

If one is to use exact equations, as are Maxwell equations, then
one must also use measurements that are also exact and repeatable and
that is definitely not fractional wavelengths!

My antennas are exact and repeatable. Not only that, I can also
repeat my mistakes every time.

What one gains from this aproach is that any radiator of any shape,
size or elevation can provide figures in the order of 100% as long as
the radiator is a multiple of a wavelength where it is resonant at
exact and repeatable measurements.

Perhaps. If you buy your antennas out of state or on eBay, you can
avoid paying the 5% antenna length tax. However, you are required to
pay Use Tax on any out of state purchases where the vendor neglected
to collect the antenna tax and forward it to the Calif Franchise Tax
Bored:
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/current/usetax.shtml

If anybody can give pointers that refute the accuracy of the above I
would be very interested in hearing them

Why? You haven't proven your point, demonstrated the phenomenon, or
otherwise provided anything worth tearing apart. For all I know, your
antennas are shorter than expected because of magic, enchantment,
sloppy construction, mis-measurement, or all the aforementioned.
Anyway, the problem is easily solved. Just increase your AC power
line voltage about 5% and your numbers should increase by the same
amount.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Nov 15, 5:49*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:23:05 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
Cebic found when comparing different style programs that some behaved
well in certain circumstance where others did not.

True. *When circumstances dictate that I pay attention and I'm in a
good mood, most programs behave normally. *However, when circumstances
are not so favorable, such as last week when I replaced my septic
tank, all of the software I was using literally stunk.

Fact is that most users use fractional wavelength designs, usually
a half wavelength, that is not resonant at repeatable points where
the area around the datum line of a sine wave is never equal when
generated around a tank circuit.

Last time I checked, the definition of a half wave automagically
includes any external or magical factors that might change its length.
For example, if you submerge the antenna under water, the increased
dielectric constant will cause the half wave length to somewhat
shorten. *While the previous length has changed, the new shorter
length is still a half wavelength.

Very true, but the measured length is never repeatable. Only at the
point of a period
is where it is repeatable which is how a cycle comes into being.



The reason for this is "voltage over shoot" which gets smaller
with every cycle but never disappears.

Overshoot can easily be fixed with a Cutts Compensator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutts_compensator


Ofshoot can be essentially removed or minimised by just the addition
of a resister but such methods are not included in antenna computer
programs.
Every time you cycle your antenna, the recoil tends to make the barrel
climb a bit. *This is the cause of the overshoot. *A suitable Cutts
Compensator attached opposite the feed point should help prevent
overshooting the target.

Thus when programs are used
based on fractional wavelength radiators the results will never show
100% accountability and in fact efficiencies derived will be in the
order of 92%!

95.718% of all statistics are wrong. *If you're using single digit
accuracy and single digit significant figures, 92% rounded off is
equal to 100%.

Again what ever trips your trigger, horse shoes or Maxwells equations.
Only when accurate metrics are inserted in a program can the accuracy
of Maxwell's equations be shown and the half wave length can never be
stated accurately.

If the radiator is of a wavelength then one is not using a "fudge"
figure
in the calculations and *then becomes possible to attain total
accountability with efficiency of 100%. regardles of what type program
is used.

Half wave wire dipoles do tend to be resonant somewhat shorter than
the free space wavelength. *That's due to sales and value added tax
placed on antennas by the government. *You'll always come out a bit
short when dealing with them. *However, the last time I checked, the
cut length was only about 5% shorter than the free space half-wave
length. *Did the antenna tax increase to 8%?

If one is to use exact equations, as are Maxwell equations, then
one must also use measurements that are also exact and repeatable and
that is definitely not fractional wavelengths!

My antennas are exact and repeatable. *Not only that, I can also
repeat my mistakes every time.

Yes you have shown evidence of that.

What one gains from this aproach is that any radiator of any shape,
size or elevation can provide figures in the order of 100% as long as
the radiator is a multiple of a wavelength where it is *resonant at
exact and repeatable measurements.

Perhaps. *If you buy your antennas out of state or on eBay, you can
avoid paying the 5% antenna length tax. *However, you are required to
pay Use Tax on any out of state purchases where the vendor neglected
to collect the antenna tax and forward it to the Calif Franchise Tax
Bored:
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/current/usetax.shtml

If anybody can give pointers that refute the accuracy of the above I
would be very interested in hearing them

Why? *You haven't proven your point, demonstrated the phenomenon, or
otherwise provided anything worth tearing apart. *For all I know, your
antennas are shorter than expected because of magic, enchantment,
sloppy construction, mis-measurement, or all the aforementioned.
Anyway, the problem is easily solved. *Just increase your AC power
line voltage about 5% and your numbers should increase by the same
amount.
Maybe true but physics demands accuracy which explains the heavy
useage of constant added to justify the use of an equal sign. Same
thing goes for the myriad of particles invented that are not seen or
measurable. This because those who delve in physics sometimes replace
a constant with a new invented particle that can substantiate
equilibrium or its cousin "equal"

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
You know, a well known former ham Stephen Best got hold of a new
antenna program
that had strict adherence to Maxwells laws. The program relied on
Poynting circle as being representitive for all forces in radiation.
The program ,probably more than I can afford. produced a radiator that
was not straight according to the old wives tale that is propagated by
hams. It showed something like a tennis ball where multiple
wavelengths of radiator were stuffed inside and where balance or
equilibrium was obtained. In his study which was around a half wave
radiater produced a radiation pattern that was a perfect hemisphere
that all on this group stated was impossible to attain. ( actually it
was based on a full wave where the ground plane supplied the mirror
image) Possibly in our time, that will make it into the newer physics
books, that will force the re thinking of radiation. This paper is on
the WWW but I leave it to you to show that it must be in error as it
is not yet in the books!
At the same time opponents will bring forwards Toms adage W8TI, that
for maximum efficiency a radiator must be straight, thus leaving him
with the onus of showing that Steven Best efforts were all wrong by
the use of the soon to be corrected theory corrections
before old theories are fully discounted where all may read it for
themselves in a book.
Art
Art
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558