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