JIMMIE wrote:
On Nov 15, 1:23 am, Art Unwin wrote:

snip lots of BULLSH*T


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


Jimmie

Exactly right.

He makes it all up. It's easy to tell if you read him long enough,
because his story is continuously changing. When you stick to the truth
or reality that doesn't happen.

tom
K0TAR

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

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:00:10 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

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.

One cycle = one period = one wavelength
Do you have a problem with this?

Ofshoot can be essentially removed or minimised by just the addition
of a resister but such methods are not included in antenna computer
programs.

Adding a resistor will increase the resonant length of an antenna by
5% to 8%. Amazing. I didn't know that. Since resonance is where the
inductive and cazapative reactances cancel, leaving only the real part
of the antenna impedance, I would think that adding a resistor
anywhere would have no effect on the reactive components.

Again what ever trips your trigger, horse shoes or Maxwells equations.

When I was younger, it was sex, drugs, and rock and roll. These days
it's pills, politics, and entertainment value that keeps me going.

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.

How accurately would you like them to be stated?
1%? 0.1%? 0.00000001%
Accuracy is usually expressed with numbers. I fail to see any
numbers. There's also a question of what's "good enough". Infinite
resolution and accuracy doesn't do me much good if the operating
bandwidth of the antenna is substantial, or the operating requirements
of system are rather minimal.

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

Yes you have shown evidence of that.

To err is human. Reassurances are not required.

For my mistakes, I'll accept responsibility but not blame.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but do eliminate two possibilities,
thus eventually leading to the right answer.

Positive feedback is inherently unstable. One does not learn by
getting positive acclamation and praise. One learns from negative
feedback which is inherently stable and a much more effective learning
experience.

Maybe true but physics demands accuracy

Physics does not demand accuracy. However, my customers might.

which explains the heavy
useage of constant added to justify the use of an equal sign.

None of my work is linear. Therefore constants added as fudge,
finagle, or tweak factors are useless. I prefer to multiple my
results in order to conjure the correct answer.

Same
thing goes for the myriad of particles invented that are not seen or
measurable.

Yep. I suck them up in my vacuum cleaner when they start to become
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"

I'll look in the vacuum cleaner bag next time I have a chance for any
new particles.

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!

I think you mean this:
http://www.cst.com/Content/Applications/Article/A+Small,+Efficient,+Linear-polarized+Omni-directional+Antenna
I've been trying to understand it for some time.

Again, it's not my place to find your errors. It's your place to
prove and demonstrate your allegations.

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.

Dr Best didn't seem to mention anything about the design being any
more efficient than a larger antenna. He had a design requirement to
fit an antenna inside a 0.04 wavelength diameter ball, and optimized
his design around that requirement. Getting 1.6dBi of gain out such a
small antenna is impressive.

Incidentally, his design is NOT a half-hemisphere. He uses the
symmetry of the antenna to dramatically reduce his calculation time.

Yes, there are some things that NEC doesn't so very well, or rather
other programs do much better. For example, for microstrip and slot
antennas, I'm trying to learn Mstrip40:
http://www.spl.ch/software/MultiSTRIP/Manual.htm
when not posting inane drive to Usenet.


--
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, 9:50*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:00:10 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
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.

One cycle = one period = one wavelength
Do you have a problem with this?
Ok jeff your turn wih aiming the cannon.
No ofcourse not, as long as the cycle is complete and terminates
and terminates at the point designated as the period.
Good enough ?

Ofshoot can be essentially removed or minimised by just the addition
of a resister but such methods are not included in antenna computer
programs.

Adding a resistor will increase the resonant length of an antenna by
5% to 8%. *Amazing. *I didn't know that. *Since resonance is where the
inductive and cazapative reactances cancel, leaving only the real part
of the antenna impedance, I would think that adding a resistor
anywhere would have no effect on the reactive components.

Again what ever trips your trigger, horse shoes or Maxwells equations.

When I was younger, it was sex, drugs, and rock and roll. *These days
it's pills, politics, and entertainment value that keeps me going.

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.

How accurately would you like them to be stated? *
1%? *0.1%? 0.00000001%
Enough according to my needs. If the needs are expanded then their is
no point
in expanding errors implanted for past convenience. O.K ?
Accuracy is usually expressed with numbers. *I fail to see any
numbers. *There's also a question of what's "good enough". *Infinite
resolution and accuracy doesn't do me much good if the operating
bandwidth of the antenna is substantial, or the operating requirements
of system are rather minimal.
very true as your needs are minimal OK ?

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

Hmm I wont bite at that bait OK?

Yes you have shown evidence of that.

To err is human. *Reassurances are not required.

For my mistakes, I'll accept responsibility but not blame.

Again very understandable

Two wrongs don't make a right, but do eliminate two possibilities,
thus eventually leading to the right answer.

Quite true. Only one who has experienced many bankrupcys
has the necessary wisdom to become rich The wisdom is usually at the
expense of others
OK?

Positive feedback is inherently unstable.
Why do you think that?

*One does not learn by
getting positive acclamation and praise. *One learns from negative
feedback which is inherently stable and a much more effective learning
experience.
I believe my answer with respect to attaining wisdom is a suitable
response for that!

Maybe true but physics demands accuracy
Exactly where space for a constant is provided as learning improves.

Physics does not demand accuracy. *However, my customers might.
Might is a untangible. If one wants to expand on the design of smaller
antennas one does not pursue a fudge factor which suggests that the
smallest of smallest of radiators will also meet ones needs. That is
like adding height to buildings built on sand
instead of first ataining a sound foundation in advance of any
expansion



which explains the heavy
useage of constant added to justify the use of an equal sign.

None of my work is linear. *Therefore constants added as fudge,
finagle, or tweak factors are useless. *I prefer to multiple my
results in order to conjure the correct answer.

Same
thing goes for the myriad of particles invented that are not seen or
measurable.

Yep. *I suck them up in my vacuum cleaner when they start to become
measurable. Well physics point to a difference in pressures on a carpet from that attained
by that which provides a suction.

This because those who delve in physics sometimes replace
a constant with a new invented particle that can substantiate
equilibrium or its cousin "equal"

I'll look in the vacuum cleaner bag next time I have a chance for any
new particles.
Well an "equal" sign in mathematics designates balance on both sides
of the sign. Was it the arabs that expanded the term to equilibrium
that could accompany the use of boundary laws?





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!

I think you mean this:
http://www.cst.com/Content/Applications/Article/A+Small,+Efficient,+L...
I've been trying to understand it for some time.

I dont recognise that as time has passed by.

Again, it's not my place to find your errors. *It's your place to
prove and demonstrate your allegations.
That cannot be done when others rely on theories because they are seen
written in a book. It takes corroberation with existing laws to supply
a modicom of science teachings where those agreements can then be
built upon. This is a repeat of the battles of faith versus the
observations and deductions provided by science.

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.

Dr Best didn't seem to mention anything about the design being any
more efficient than a larger antenna. *He had a design requirement to
fit an antenna inside a 0.04 wavelength diameter ball, and optimized
his design around that requirement. *Getting 1.6dBi of gain out such a
small antenna is impressive.

Yes, but more important was the ability to stuff wavelengths of
radiator showing past erronius suggestion that a radiator must be
straight.On top of that he attained a hemisperical radiation pattern
that this group stated was impoissible. Thus another false old wives
tale was debunked, By the way the paper in no way suggested a
"electrically" small antenna, only a "physically" smaller antenna, so
you need to re read the paper.

Incidentally, his design is NOT a half-hemisphere. *He uses the
symmetry of the antenna to dramatically reduce his calculation time.

Yes, there are some things that NEC doesn't so very well, or rather
other programs do much better.

I have stated same



*For example, for microstrip and slot
antennas, I'm trying to learn Mstrip40:
http://www.spl.ch/software/MultiSTRIP/Manual.htm
when not posting inane drive to Usenet.

Then you are a better man than I Gunga Din. It was the very
interpretation of the phenomina of a slot antenna that led to
confrontation with the idea of particles as the carriers of radiation.
Perhaps you can find errors in that assertation which is so much less
difficult in convincing same to those who abide purely on faith.

Phew, that was a long questionaire but as always my life and thoughts
is an open book.
I hope the above satisfies your needs!

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

On Nov 15, 10:42*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


Was it the arabs that expanded the term to equilibrium
that could accompany the use of boundary laws?

Lurch imitation.. ugggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......




Again, it's not my place to find your errors. *It's your place to
prove and demonstrate your allegations.

That cannot be done when others rely on theories because they are seen
written in a book. It takes corroberation with existing laws to supply
a modicom of science teachings *where those agreements can then be
built upon. This is a repeat of the battles of faith versus the
observations and deductions provided by science.

It could be done quite easily. All you have to do is build the
antenna, and then compare it with known benchmarks.
But of course, that would be using common sense. :/
It would also prove your theories are flawed, which is why
you won't do this in public, if at all.



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.

#1, it's W8JI, not W8TI, and what he said was correct. You are just
taking what he said out of context and are distorting it to fit your
agenda. If you have a straight radiator of a certain length, yes, the
most efficient configuration will be a straight line.
If you take this same length of wire and mangle it into various
bends, twists and turns, loss will rear it's ugly head.
Deal with it. There is no free lunch.


Dr Best didn't seem to mention anything about the design being any
more efficient than a larger antenna. *He had a design requirement to
fit an antenna inside a 0.04 wavelength diameter ball, and optimized
his design around that requirement. *Getting 1.6dBi of gain out such a
small antenna is impressive.

Yes, but more important was the ability to stuff wavelengths of
radiator showing past erronius suggestion that a radiator must be
straight.On top of that he attained a hemisperical radiation pattern
that this group stated was impoissible. Thus another false old wives
tale was debunked, By the way the paper in no way suggested a
"electrically" small antenna, *only a "physically" smaller antenna, so
you need to re read the paper.

Ugh.. 1.6dbi gain is still less than a straight dipole.. There is no
free lunch when you use linear loading. Which BTW, is a technique
as old as dirt.. :/
Just because someone decides to call it a fancy name such as
"fractal", does not impart magic qualities to this old as dirt
technique.
BTW, it's quite possible one will need a matching device with such an
antenna. Even more loss.
If you don't require matching for this wonder of technology, I'd
suspect you probably have re-invented the dummy load.

But maybe that's a moot point, being as you have ignored others
that point out the same thing over and over again.
IE: all radiators are quite capable of radiating nearly all power
that is applied to them. It's getting the power to them without
it turning to heat which is the real trick. Good luck in the contest.
You are going to need it.


Phew, that was a long questionaire but as always my life and thoughts
is an open book.

I thought you had a problem with books? According to you, books
corrupt the mind. Does that mean we would be best off to ignore
everything you write?

I hope the above satisfies your needs!

I doubt it was as good for him as it was for you. You just seem
to lay there. :/

On Nov 15, 10:50*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:00:10 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
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.

One cycle = one period = one wavelength
Do you have a problem with this?

Ofshoot can be essentially removed or minimised by just the addition
of a resister but such methods are not included in antenna computer
programs.

Adding a resistor will increase the resonant length of an antenna by
5% to 8%. *Amazing. *I didn't know that. *Since resonance is where the
inductive and cazapative reactances cancel, leaving only the real part
of the antenna impedance, I would think that adding a resistor
anywhere would have no effect on the reactive components.

Again what ever trips your trigger, horse shoes or Maxwells equations.

When I was younger, it was sex, drugs, and rock and roll. *These days
it's pills, politics, and entertainment value that keeps me going.

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.

How accurately would you like them to be stated? *
1%? *0.1%? 0.00000001%
Accuracy is usually expressed with numbers. *I fail to see any
numbers. *There's also a question of what's "good enough". *Infinite
resolution and accuracy doesn't do me much good if the operating
bandwidth of the antenna is substantial, or the operating requirements
of system are rather minimal.

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

Yes you have shown evidence of that.

To err is human. *Reassurances are not required.

For my mistakes, I'll accept responsibility but not blame.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but do eliminate two possibilities,
thus eventually leading to the right answer.

Positive feedback is inherently unstable. *One does not learn by
getting positive acclamation and praise. *One learns from negative
feedback which is inherently stable and a much more effective learning
experience.

Maybe true but physics demands accuracy

Physics does not demand accuracy. *However, my customers might.

which explains the heavy
useage of constant added to justify the use of an equal sign.

None of my work is linear. *Therefore constants added as fudge,
finagle, or tweak factors are useless. *I prefer to multiple my
results in order to conjure the correct answer.

Same
thing goes for the myriad of particles invented that are not seen or
measurable.

Yep. *I suck them up in my vacuum cleaner when they start to become
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"

I'll look in the vacuum cleaner bag next time I have a chance for any
new particles.



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!

I think you mean this:
http://www.cst.com/Content/Applications/Article/A+Small,+Efficient,+L...
I've been trying to understand it for some time.

Again, it's not my place to find your errors. *It's your place to
prove and demonstrate your allegations.

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.

Dr Best didn't seem to mention anything about the design being any
more efficient than a larger antenna. *He had a design requirement to
fit an antenna inside a 0.04 wavelength diameter ball, and optimized
his design around that requirement. *Getting 1.6dBi of gain out such a
small antenna is impressive.

Incidentally, his design is NOT a half-hemisphere. *He uses the
symmetry of the antenna to dramatically reduce his calculation time.

Yes, there are some things that NEC doesn't so very well, or rather
other programs do much better. *For example, for microstrip and slot
antennas, I'm trying to learn Mstrip40:
http://www.spl.ch/software/MultiSTRIP/Manual.htm
when not posting inane drive to Usenet.

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

Jeff, Art is going to be your buddy forever. He doesn't care whether
you praise him, bash him or anything in between, but he loves long
replies.

Jimmie

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:56:16 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

Jeff, Art is going to be your buddy forever. He doesn't care whether
you praise him, bash him or anything in between, but he loves long
replies.
Jimmie

Sorry, but I don't have the time to craft a short reply.


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

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:23:05 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:
snip lots of CRAP

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.
snip a bit

And anytime anyone does respond with a credible argument, he makes up
new "facts" to cover his ass.

tom
K0TAR

On Nov 15, 7:16*pm, tom wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:23:05 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:
snip lots of CRAP

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.

snip a bit

And anytime anyone does respond with a credible argument, he makes up
new "facts" to cover his ass.

tom
K0TAR

I do not have to prove anything to you! The first project is to obtain
a patent that is desired by those skilled in the art of making money
on new antenna disclosures.
You have neither of those requirements. Because you are unarmed with
respect to having skill in the science of antennas it is normal to
gravitate towards insults where the record shows that your knowledge
of antennas is negligeable. It is impossible to debate science with
one that excells only with the skill of memory that parrots only that
which can be memorised by a reading of a book with zero understanding.
Ofcourse, if you had a tangible record on the teachings on the science
of antennas you surely would have provided evidence of same, rather
than the use of slander to provide perceived elevation of your station
in the presence of Madame Guillotine, where the loudest voice becomes
a leader of what is just a mob. I have never seen evidence in your
postings that you have had a tangible trail of education that would
substantiate your self perceived expertise in the field of antennas
thus you do not have a real beef to show on this thread.
As for your statement "as for all I know" it is better that you
believe in magic where faith overcomes physics.