|
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:37:05 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote: Yes indeed. If those wires were not, in themselves, decoupled; then they became radiators. Further discussion about these wires allowing RF to slither through what would ordinarily be impenetrable holes. Those holes, whose circulating currents prohibit any coupling of fields through them, as long as they are very small in relation to the wavelength, can turn into free-flowing fountains of power with some rather simple additions. As mentioned, merely pass an insulated wire through the hole. If that wire reaches into the interior where an RF field presents a very high potential difference to the Faraday shield, then you have a capacitive coupling to the exterior of the shield, through the hole, along that wire. On the other hand, if you loop that interior wire back onto the interior surface of the shield, AND that loop resides within the RF field where it presents a very high magnetic component; then you have an inductive coupling to the exterior of the shield, through the hole, along that wire. Simply terminate the outside extension of that wire to a suitable load, observing the conventions of matching, and remove as much power as is practicable. This is nothing more complex than the usual design conventions already discussed under the coaxial transmission line considerations in the post this derives from. The point of this aside is to remark how easily (or difficulty) the Faraday shield can be corrupted through indifference to first principles. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:51:05 -0500, Registered User
wrote: On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:42:00 -0800, Richard Clark wrote: On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:22:08 -0500, Registered User wrote: I'm under the impression the current flow is identical whether metal rods or wire mesh is used in the antenna's construction. A discone does not exhibit any quality of shielding, so it wanders off in that regard. Maybe I'm confused and can't distinguish between Art's all-band mesh antennas and his mesh Faraday shields. I can understand the confusion. To return to your question above, there is NOTHING about the discone that falls under the topic of Faraday shield. I was questioning Art's statement -quote- When you feed a time varying current to the mesh it is best to view it in small parts, say a square in the mesh. The hole is a static field alongside the applied current flows. - end quote - The idea of examining the characteristics of a single square of mesh seems impractical. The impact of adjacent squares should be accounted for otherwise the single square is a loop. I discussed both the single mesh opening, and the total contribution of all mesh openings. To respond to your last statement, yes, the single square is a loop. A very, very inefficient coupler of energy. Either way I've learned as current varies the fields it produces will vary. If the fields vary they're not static. Too simplistic? What am I missing? Static comes in two flavors. One means "not moving." The other means high potential (which can be "not moving" AND, ironically, "moving"). Such is the legacy of electrostatic potential covering DC to Gamma. The difference between rods, number of rods, thickness of rods, and mesh all speak to bandwidth. 2, 3, or 4 rods will not be remarkable. 16 rods will closely approximate a cone of sheet metal (as would a grid of similar spacing). The same can be said of the rod/rods/mesh/sheet in the upper section approximating a solid disk. IIUC the current flows around the cone of a discone regardless of solid, sheet or mesh construction. This appears to be contrary to the quote above where current flows around each individual hole in the mesh. Well, language can be a barrier here when you say "around the cone." Go to: http://www.antenna-theory.com/antenn...rture/slot.php I don't endorse this page, but it gives you a beginning for slot antennas and especially the construction mimicry between them and a dipole. Note in figure two that a "source" appears across the two. In the case of the slot antenna, this source would give rise to a circulating current. If you were to approach this with knowing the current alone, it would follow that the source is "apparent." In other words, the two models (or experiences) are equivalent. Do not confuse this circulating current with a larger, general current UNLESS that more general one can spawn the circulating one. I wrote to this already and to put it shortly, it is physical length vs. wave length dependant. Again, all these "appearances" are a strict function of wavelength to physical length and spacing relationships. I've built several discones over the years and understand these relationships. How well is subject to conjecture hi. http://www.qsl.net/kb7qhc/antenna/Discone/discone.htm will illustrate how varying the flare of the skirt shifts the operating properties of the discone. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Dec 3, 3:37*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:29:53 -0800, Richard Clark wrote: This small, resonant plate load, is quite specifically designed for RF with low in resistive loss - and yet it is miserable as a propagator of that same RF. *The physical size compared to the wavelength size dominates that efficiency with a fourth power law. To extend this to Art's misinterpretation of Faraday Shields: In the old days, breadboard design was exactly that - your rig was built on (hammered to) a breadboard. *It was open wiring with open components. *It radiated well with an antenna, and poorly without one. However, as poorly as it radiated without an antenna, if you had a separate receiver, you would hear yourself. *This was sometimes useful and gave us what is called "side tone." * The monitor was born. Of course, with antennas connected, the receiver was bound to get more than enough of that anyway and if the two were closely spaced, feedback could drive all circuits into saturation. *Not a good thing. The Faraday shield for the transmitter was born. It, as many can witness from simple observation, was composed of a fine grid mesh of wire either tied to ground, or to a heavily AC/RF filtered DC potential. *As with all Faraday shields that came before it (indeed since Faraday invented it), it completely encapsulated the RF power source. *The screen or mesh was simply a contrivance to allow cool air to move in and hot air to move out. *Modern implementations use finned constructions and heat wicks - but this is topic drift. With this added to the breadboard, other circuits also came to be shielded, and generally so with the appearance of sheet metal chassis with suitably wavelength small openings for access and heat transfer. As the breadboard went into this RF impenetrable shell for both receivers and transmitters (and with even more care for transceivers), there arose a problem: *What about the wires that go in and out? Yes indeed. *If those wires were not, in themselves, decoupled; then they became radiators. *The lesson to be learned was that those wires had to be held at the same potential as the Faraday shield. *This could be accomplished by a simple connection, but with more than one wire this leads to dead shorts between wires. *Not a good thing. The solution was to use AC/RF shorts (capacitors) to the shield from the wire and the wire could only penetrate the shield through a very small (in proportion to wavelength) opening. *This was not always a good thing. A capacitor could be good, but it exhibits a roll-off of only 6dB per octave, or 10dB per decade isolation. *If your line going in and out was a DC control line, and your principle frequency was 1MHz (talking about the old days now); then you had 6 decades of separation between 1Hz and 1MHz - pretty good. *If in the intervening years you pushed the technology envelope and added voice modulation and that came through the same wire; then your system shrunk to 3 decades of separation between 10,000Hz and 1MHz. *This might work, sometimes it didn't. As the years spun on, more wires penetrated that RF barrier, and they needed to not only be isolated from the RF, but each other; and often they contained very small signals that needed suitable signal to noise ratio (noise being that soup of RF that was stewing inside the shield). * Inline bypass filters were born. The lines that penetrate a Faraday shield now appear to be more multi-stage low pass filters with repeating sections of shunt capacitors and series inductors. *Their common (ground to the old brass pounder) was the shield which was RF free (as it was decoupled to a sanctioned earth ground). *And lest we forget the principle penetration of that old time Faraday shield: The coaxial transmission line was born. By all appearances, this line satisfies the convention of a small opening through the Faraday shield. *It's diameter is easily very small in relation to the wavelength of the RF power it reaches into the shield to tap. *In a sense, it extends that hole in the shield to some very remote area that is far from the operating position, and then allows a wire(s) to emerge without regard for further shielding: The antenna is born. Funny thing, however, is that presumption of the shield of the coax being inert, un-perturbing, quiescent, invisible, benign - for that presumption is an illusion, a grand delusion. *The line is very long with respect to wavelength, it is in the field of excitation that has been drawn out of the soup within the cage, and it is as much an antenna as the wire that emerged from its end. *Many familiar problems rise from the ashes of this illusion. *The exterior of the coaxial cable appears to the field to be a very long, grounded radiator. However, at any appreciable length (wavelength raises its familiar visage with an ironic grin), this exterior surface ceases to be the familiar DC grounding strap material, and becomes a full-fledge radiator according to its physical length vs. wavelength relationship. Not a very good thing, untill: The transmission line choke is born. To decouple the OUTSIDE of the coaxial line, the convention that has been observed (to widespread validation) is to either wind some sections of the line into Inductive chokes, or to add ferrites which serve the same purpose. *These chokes, to be fully useful to their purpose, should be found at not only one point along the line, but at several so as to suppress (wavelength based) couplings along the line, by the line and by the field. When the combination of all these methods are employed, then the Faraday shield does what it has done for these several hundred years while allowing the migration of RF power to a remote drive point, and without allowing that RF power to re-intrude into the shield, nor along the coaxial cable. *Thus, the only evidence of RF from inside the Faraday shield is that which arrives over-the-air from the remote antenna. Any other claim is a profanation of Faraday. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC So after a degree in literature you have taken to reading up on science. But you have only regurgutated what you have read in a physics book. When I introduced this group to first principles every body on this group were apaulled. When I stated, and it was confirmed by Dr Davis, all started waving the hands and insulted Davis and I." What" you said "you can mix up statics with electromechanics"? "What foolishness is being stated here." In your posting you never mentioned any thing of that! You and nobody in the group has presented anything that refutes what I have stated. All this group have agreed on is that I am promoting a new fangled science where all is already known. Now Avitar has never stated any sort of physics that shows that he has studied in college other than waving his hands. Ofcourse we have the ham who got kicked out of high school so he couldn't graduate. Not his fault I might add, just some mis understandings why he would not go to school, and it goes on. And then we have Richard who says, why do we need new design antennas, we have the yagi, what more can you want? So the group is not going to rely on physics to disprove my comments because they have found that deformation, insults and loud voices is all they have to crush my claims, and it is just not working. Have they made one? No. They know the true facts on radiation so they continue to sit on the couch and wave their hands and yell |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Dec 3, 4:24*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
You and nobody in the group has presented anything that refutes what I have stated. I have, and on more than one occasion. But it goes through your head faster than a blue light special announcement to the average K-mart shopper. They know the true facts on radiation so they continue to sit on the couch and wave their hands and yell I don't sit on a couch. I sit in an office style chair. And it probably should be replaced as it tends to molest my differential after a while. Needs more particuls between the frame and the top particul retaining cover. Due to the weak force of my differential constantly being supported by these particuls, they have achieved equilibrium and no longer want to do any useful work. |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Dec 3, 5:35*pm, wrote:
On Dec 3, 4:24*pm, Art Unwin wrote: You and nobody in the group has presented anything that refutes what I have stated. I have, and on more than one occasion. But it goes through your head faster than a *blue light special announcement to the average K-mart shopper. They know the true facts on radiation so they continue to sit on the couch and wave their hands and yell I don't sit on a couch. I sit in an office style chair. And it probably should be replaced as it tends to molest my differential after a while. Needs more particuls between the frame and the top particul retaining cover. Due to the weak force of my differential constantly being supported by these particuls, they have achieved equilibrium and no longer want to do any useful work. No you have not! Every thing comes back to the initial finding that by adding a time varying current to the arbitrary border of Gauss which surrounds a field of static particles provides the same conditions implied by Maxwell's equations. The group denies this fact possibly because the word equilibrium was not of their understanding. Without understanding the connection between Maxwell and Gauss with respect to the addition of time makes to a static field ala a dynamic field, it is impossible to procede with respect to radiation. If one starts from the middle of the story where coupling of waves is considered a basic physics understanding the debate leads no where. Now I am not asking people to follow solely the path of mathematics but of the concepts involved where the presence of particles is present., To start from a small portion of the current flow and thinking in terms of DC or the suggestion that time varying fields cannot surround a static field is just ludicrous. The subject is Classical Physics and one should keep on subject if one is to fully understand radiation. Denial of select parts of classical physics without supplying reason ans substituting insults instead is not going to solve anything. And as you did not graduate from high school it is perfectly understandable that you will find difficulties in parts of the debate and yet you would like to contribute to the debate. But insults will not get the job done. Of course one can go back to the basics of mathematics way back in Arabic times where the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance. The equal sign is part of Maxwells equations so equilibrium is in effect. This immediatly tells you that any radiator considered must be a function of a full wavelength or a period with respect to a continuing variable sign wave. Immediately one should note that a half wave has no place in our calculations as the two areas under curve for a period can never be the same because of overshoot phenomina, thus it is the period that is repeatable and to be used. One can also deduce that a radiator must be in equilibrium to be part of the same reasoning thus resonance on its own is not part of the mathematics. There are plenty of ways to see how current thinking on antennas is certainly not inline with the equations of Maxwell, thus it is very important to start from "first "principles and not just accept the books. And that the importance of adding time to a static field enclosed by an arbitrary boundary to ensure the correct metrics will be used at the outset. Art |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Dec 3, 12:25*am, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
( Richard Feynman lectures) ... I don't know if he's written anything a layman can easily work through, that doesn't come with lots of maths without which accompanying text doesn't help much, but if he has I'll try to read it. I think one of the key things that made his physics lectures popular is that they were delivered without a whole lot of math. You could get into that if you wanted, but you could also get a lot out of just listening to the _ideas_. If you drop me an email, perhaps I can send you a bit more about this particular lecture... Cheers, Tom |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Dec 3, 6:52*pm, K7ITM wrote:
On Dec 3, 12:25*am, Lostgallifreyan wrote: ( *Richard Feynman lectures) ... I don't know if he's written anything a layman can easily work through, that doesn't come with lots of maths without which accompanying text doesn't help much, but if he has I'll try to read it. I think one of the key things that made his physics lectures popular is that they were delivered without a whole lot of math. *You could get into that if you wanted, but you could also get a lot out of just listening to the _ideas_. If you drop me an email, perhaps I can send you a bit more about this particular lecture... Cheers, Tom That is oh so true! The masters started with an observation of an occurence and not from a rendering of mathematics. With more observations it became natural to align the Universe via mathematics which, as with a jig saw puzzle, fits together nicely., It would seem today that scientists today are using mathematics via a computer to churn out bundles of equations leaving the operator to think of an observation that would fit the math. Of course, mathematics provide imaginary answers similar to a quadratic equation that finish up as multiple of false leads and deductions which eventually requires the multiple use of constants to provide a semblance of understanding of what has been provided. |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
Art Unwin wrote:
No you have not! Temper, temper little boy. Every thing comes back to the initial finding that by adding a time varying current to the arbitrary border of Gauss which surrounds a field of static particles provides the same conditions implied by Maxwell's equations. Made up physics again. Unproven by any math or demonstrable effects. Try a new line of argument, this one gets you nowhere. The group denies this fact possibly because the word equilibrium was not of their understanding. Without understanding the connection between Maxwell and Gauss with respect to the addition of time makes to a static field ala a dynamic field, it is impossible to procede with respect to radiation. If one starts from the middle of the story where coupling of waves is considered a basic physics understanding the debate leads no where. Denied by the group because it contradicts everything that is proven to work, as well as all published and mathematically backed theories. And provide some proof. Even just a little. Rhetoric doesn't count. You accuse others of sitting on their asses and not building antennas and measuring them, when you have never once done it yourself. I have built many antennas and provided many independent performance measurements right here. And so has almost evreyone you argue with. We all make things and MEASURE them. You don't. Now I am not asking people to follow solely the path of mathematics but of the concepts involved where the presence of particles is present., To start from a small portion of the current flow and thinking in terms of DC or the suggestion that time varying fields cannot surround a static field is just ludicrous. The subject is Classical Physics and one should keep on subject if one is to fully understand radiation. Denial of select parts of classical physics without supplying reason ans substituting insults instead is not going to solve anything. And as you did not graduate from high school it is perfectly understandable that you will find difficulties in parts of the debate and yet you would like to contribute to the debate. But insults will not get the job done. Of course one can go back to the basics of mathematics way back in Arabic times where the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance. The equal sign is part of Maxwells equations so equilibrium is in effect. This immediatly tells you that any radiator considered must be a function of a full wavelength or a period with respect to a continuing variable sign wave. Immediately one should note that a half wave has no place in our calculations as the two areas under curve for a period can never be the same because of overshoot phenomina, thus it is the period that is repeatable and to be used. One can also deduce that a radiator must be in equilibrium to be part of the same reasoning thus resonance on its own is not part of the mathematics. There are plenty of ways to see how current thinking on antennas is certainly not inline with the equations of Maxwell, thus it is very important to start from "first "principles and not just accept the books. And that the importance of adding time to a static field enclosed by an arbitrary boundary to ensure the correct metrics will be used at the outset. Uh Art? There are no rational concepts in your presentation, please provide some. And there's no "math" at all in your mathematical presentations, just a bunch of bafflegab. Please provide math. Oh, I forgot, you can't. All you can do is babble. And accuse people of foolishness in their disbelief. I must say, you are entertaining when you don't take your medications. And you still can't spell or put together a sentence. I would suggest a spell checker at the very least. tom K0TAR |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Dec 3, 6:42*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 3, 5:35*pm, wrote: On Dec 3, 4:24*pm, Art Unwin wrote: You and nobody in the group has presented anything that refutes what I have stated. I have, and on more than one occasion. But it goes through your head faster than a *blue light special announcement to the average K-mart shopper. They know the true facts on radiation so they continue to sit on the couch and wave their hands and yell I don't sit on a couch. I sit in an office style chair. And it probably should be replaced as it tends to molest my differential after a while. Needs more particuls between the frame and the top particul retaining cover. Due to the weak force of my differential constantly being supported by these particuls, they have achieved equilibrium and no longer want to do any useful work. No you have not! Every thing comes back to the initial finding that by adding a time varying current to the arbitrary border of Gauss which surrounds a field of static particles provides the same conditions implied by Maxwell's equations. The group denies this fact possibly because the word equilibrium was not of their understanding. Without understanding the connection between Maxwell and Gauss with respect to the addition of time makes to a static field ala a dynamic field, it is impossible to procede with respect to radiation. If one starts from the middle of the story where coupling of waves is considered a basic physics understanding the debate leads no where. Now I am not asking people to follow solely the path of mathematics but of the concepts involved where the presence of particles is present., To start from a small portion of the current flow and thinking in terms of DC or the suggestion that time varying fields cannot surround a static field is just ludicrous. The subject is Classical Physics and one should keep on subject if one is to fully understand radiation. Denial of select parts of classical physics without supplying reason ans substituting insults instead is not going to solve anything. And as you did not graduate from high school it is perfectly understandable that you will find difficulties in parts of the debate and yet you would like to contribute to the debate. But insults will not get the job done. Of course one can go back to the basics of mathematics way back in Arabic times where the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance. The equal sign is part of Maxwells equations so equilibrium is in effect. This immediatly tells you that any radiator considered must be a function of a full wavelength or a period with respect to a continuing variable sign wave. Immediately one should note that a half wave has no place in our calculations as the two areas under curve for a period can never be the same because of overshoot phenomina, thus it is the period that is repeatable and to be used. One can also deduce that a radiator must be in equilibrium to be part of the same reasoning thus resonance on its own is not part of the mathematics. There are plenty of ways to see how current thinking on antennas is certainly not inline with the equations of Maxwell, thus it is very important to start from "first "principles and not just accept the books. And that the importance of adding time to a static field enclosed by an arbitrary boundary to ensure the correct metrics will be used at the outset. Art Bla, bla, bla, bla.. We need to get you a new needle that doesn't skip and play the same broken record over and over again. :/ You whine and moan about my education, which BTW, you have no idea of knowing what I have learned in the 35 years since then, but you stun us with such proof of your all knowing knowledge by referring to sine waves as "sign waves".. Chortle.. Give me a break.. Your education in things RF is probably not much greater than mine is being as you didn't take the relevant courses in school. It might even be less being as I have a decent library and I don't distrust everything I read without actually testing it first. And I actually build and test the antennas I talk about. On the air. In front of real people. I've got nothing to hide. When was the last time you actually compared one of your antennas to a known benchmark? At at a testing range. Or on the air.. In front of real people... I'm afraid using mumbo jumbo pseudoscience theories are not going to propel your obviously inefficient antenna designs to greatness. I realize this must distress you greatly, but it's a situation that can be dealt with with the proper medications and therapy. |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Dec 3, 8:39*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: No you have not! Temper, temper little boy. Every thing comes back to the initial finding that by adding a time varying current to the arbitrary border of Gauss which surrounds a field of static particles provides the same conditions implied by Maxwell's equations. Made up physics again. *Unproven by any math or demonstrable effects. Try a new line of argument, this one gets you nowhere. The group denies this fact possibly because the word equilibrium was not of their understanding. Without understanding the connection between Maxwell and Gauss with respect to the addition of time makes to a static field ala a dynamic field, it is impossible to procede with respect to radiation. If one starts from the middle of the story where coupling of waves is considered a basic physics understanding the debate leads no where. Denied by the group because it contradicts everything that is proven to work, as well as all published and mathematically backed theories. And provide some proof. *Even just a little. *Rhetoric doesn't count. You accuse others of sitting on their asses and not building antennas and measuring them, when you have never once done it yourself. I have built many antennas and provided many independent performance measurements right here. *And so has almost evreyone you argue with. *We all make things and MEASURE them. *You don't. Now I am not asking people to follow solely the path of mathematics but of the concepts involved where the presence of particles is present., To start from a small portion of the current flow and thinking in terms of DC or the suggestion that time varying fields cannot surround a static field is just ludicrous. The subject is Classical Physics and one should keep on subject if one is to fully understand radiation. Denial of select parts of classical physics without supplying reason ans substituting insults instead is not going to solve anything. And as you did not graduate from high school it is perfectly understandable that you will find difficulties in parts of the debate and yet you would like to contribute to the debate. But insults will not get the job done. Of course one can go back to the basics of mathematics way back in Arabic times where the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance. The equal sign is part of Maxwells equations so equilibrium is in effect. This immediatly tells you that any radiator considered must be a function of a full wavelength or a period with respect to a continuing variable sign wave. Immediately one should note that a half wave has no place in our calculations as the two areas under curve for a period can never be the same because of overshoot phenomina, thus it is the period that is repeatable and to be used. One can also deduce that a radiator must be in equilibrium to be part of the same reasoning thus resonance on its own is not part of the mathematics. There are plenty of ways to see how current thinking on antennas is certainly not inline with the equations of Maxwell, thus it is very important to start from "first "principles and not just accept the books. And that the importance of adding time to a static field enclosed by an arbitrary boundary to ensure the correct metrics will be used at the outset. Uh Art? *There are no rational concepts in your presentation, please provide some. And there's no "math" at all in your mathematical presentations, just a bunch of bafflegab. *Please provide math. Oh, I forgot, you can't. *All you can do is babble. *And accuse people of foolishness in their disbelief. I must say, you are entertaining when you don't take your medications. And you still can't spell or put together a sentence. *I would suggest a spell checker at the very least. tom K0TAR Tom Give me a clue whether you are in junior high school or have a track record of achieving something higher. You have never enunciated or even given a clue that you have ever taken a physics course or for that matter any engineering course in any of your postings. It seems like you are awful young and not yet an adult to put some scence or logic to any thing that you say! You talk of no "rational" in my statements, but as yet have not presented anything to back you up. I have read thru a lot of your postings but as yet have not come across anything from which I can gauge some of your knowledge and expertise with respect to antennas and radiation. I have gathered that you have had some experience in installing consumer dishes and I recall you stating that dishes can only be used in the giga hertz range, without mention that it is the size of the antenna determines whether a dish orreflecter is pertinant or not. Very strange! Because of lack of comment from others one can assume that they know you better than I do and are content with a glance in the air with a sigh and maybe I should follow like wise. I read your post again and note that you want the math. If I gave you a starter with respect to Gauss and Maxwell would you give me a hint with respect to your present understandings with mathematics. Lets face it, you never proved the mathematics wrong when it was presented to you by the good doctor where every body also denied its correctness, so it is awfully difficult to proceed when you deny the feasability of the initiating statement. If it makes you feel good then continue with your insults in leu of not knowing anything else to say. |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
Art Unwin wrote:
Of course one can go back to the basics of mathematics way back in Arabic times where the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance. The equal sign is part of Maxwells equations so equilibrium is in effect. "the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance" So sayeth the master of the physical universe - Art Unwin... Hmmm, so if there is an equal sign, it means it's in equilibrium. So a half wave antenna = 468/f(Mhz). It is therefore in equilibrium. tom K0TAR |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
Art Unwin wrote:
I have gathered that you have had some experience in installing consumer dishes and I recall you stating that dishes can only be used in the giga hertz range, without mention that it is the size of the antenna determines whether a dish orreflecter is pertinant or not. Very strange! Dishes are usable based upon their size relative to the frequency of use. You seem not to understand that. They work by reflecting the EM waves directed at them. The gain is set by the area of the dish in square wavelengths, and your pretend physics can't change that. A DSS dish isn't even a pinpoint to reflect off of at 160m, which is your favorite example. A dish that provides only 3dB gain at 160m would be approximately a kilometer in diameter. How big is your mom's garden? tom K0TAR |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Dec 3, 9:10*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: Of course one can go back to the basics of mathematics way back in Arabic times where the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance. The equal sign is part of Maxwells equations so equilibrium is in effect. "the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance" So sayeth the master of the physical universe - Art Unwin... Hmmm, so if there is an equal sign, it means it's in equilibrium. So a half wave antenna = 468/f(Mhz). It is therefore in equilibrium. tom K0TAR So stupid. A half wave does not have a measurement that is repeatable therefore it is not in equilibrium. The point of repeatability is a "period". Surely you learned that in Jnr High! |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
Art Unwin wrote:
So stupid. A half wave does not have a measurement that is repeatable therefore it is not in equilibrium. The point of repeatability is a "period". Surely you learned that in Jnr High! Your own statement was "the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance". I rest my case. And stupid is as stupid does. Stupid boy. tom K0TAR |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Dec 3, 9:31*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: I have gathered that you have had some experience in installing consumer dishes *and I recall you stating that dishes can only be used in the giga hertz range, without mention that it is the size of the antenna determines whether a dish orreflecter is pertinant or not. Very strange! Dishes are usable based upon their size relative to the frequency of use. *You seem not to understand that. They work by reflecting the EM waves directed at them. *The gain is set by the area of the dish in square wavelengths, and your pretend physics can't change that. A DSS dish isn't even a pinpoint to reflect off of at 160m, which is your favorite example. A dish that provides only 3dB gain at 160m would be approximately a kilometer in diameter. *How big is your mom's garden? tom K0TAR Again how foolish you are. There are many radiators that have reflectors that are way below the GIGA Hz level. You are basing your statement on laws applicable to planar forms of radiators. Heck! There are many helix antennas in use that have reflectors that are used in the Mega Hz range. There is absolutely no good reason why a antenna for top band must have a reflector a kilometer in diameter if the antenna itself replicates a point source. I think you have shown everybody the extent of your limitations with respect to antennas! |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
|
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Dec 3, 9:57*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: So stupid. A half wave does not have a measurement that is repeatable therefore it is not in equilibrium. The point of repeatability is a "period". Surely you learned that in Jnr High! Your own statement was "the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance". I rest my case. And stupid is as stupid does. *Stupid boy. tom K0TAR That's correct. The equal sign denotes the presence of balance. Making up an equation that is not in balance is not corrected by the addition of an equal sign. Starting with fraud in mind never can later be corrected other than the continuance of fraud. Seems like your efforts in persuading others of your expertise is not working out as you thought.Just the opposite. |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:13:57 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote: On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:51:05 -0500, Registered User wrote: - good stuff from RC snipped - Either way I've learned as current varies the fields it produces will vary. If the fields vary they're not static. Too simplistic? What am I missing? Static comes in two flavors. One means "not moving." The other means high potential (which can be "not moving" AND, ironically, "moving"). Such is the legacy of electrostatic potential covering DC to Gamma. I was wondering about the latter as a possibility but couldn't find the proper words. My interpretation is although the individual fields may vary the total potential of the fields is constant. Is this correct? The difference between rods, number of rods, thickness of rods, and mesh all speak to bandwidth. 2, 3, or 4 rods will not be remarkable. 16 rods will closely approximate a cone of sheet metal (as would a grid of similar spacing). The same can be said of the rod/rods/mesh/sheet in the upper section approximating a solid disk. IIUC the current flows around the cone of a discone regardless of solid, sheet or mesh construction. This appears to be contrary to the quote above where current flows around each individual hole in the mesh. Well, language can be a barrier here when you say "around the cone." I should have said the current flows around the cone parallel to its base. - more snippage - I appreciate the clarifications and the links. It all helps to better my knowledge and understanding of these topics. Thank you |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
Art Unwin wrote:
Again how foolish you are. There are many radiators that have reflectors that are way below the GIGA Hz level. You are basing your statement on laws applicable to planar forms of radiators. Heck! There are many helix antennas in use that have reflectors that are used in the Mega Hz range. There is absolutely no good reason why a antenna for top band must have a reflector a kilometer in diameter if the antenna itself replicates a point source. I think you have shown everybody the extent of your limitations with respect to antennas! A typical helical antenna would be in the "mega" hertz range would be for 435 MHz. The planar reflector for that antenna is 70cm, or 1 wavelength. Which would lead one to conclude that a planar reflector for top band would be about 160m. And now Art will make up more new physics for his response. tom K0TAR |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
Art Unwin wrote:
Again how foolish you are. There are many radiators that have reflectors that are way below the GIGA Hz level. You are basing your statement on laws applicable to planar forms of radiators. Heck! There are many helix antennas in use that have reflectors that are used in the Mega Hz range. There is absolutely no good reason why a antenna for top band must have a reflector a kilometer in diameter if the antenna itself replicates a point source. I think you have shown everybody the extent of your limitations with respect to antennas! And you just might want to look up the definition of "axial mode". tom K0TAR |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:04:28 -0500, Registered User
wrote: Static comes in two flavors. One means "not moving." The other means high potential (which can be "not moving" AND, ironically, "moving"). Such is the legacy of electrostatic potential covering DC to Gamma. I was wondering about the latter as a possibility but couldn't find the proper words. My interpretation is although the individual fields may vary the total potential of the fields is constant. Is this correct? Electrostatic is properly applied to charge that is NOT moving, or moving very slowly. The same thing can be said of Magnetostatics as being derived from a current that is constant, or altering very slowly. The sense of either of these strict terms residing in the RF denotes the poverty of idea that takes up residence here as invention. There is plenty of examples to be found on the Web too. It is unfortunate, like the camel's nose under the Arab's tent, that taking "very slowly" and winding out the tach to 100GHz is the pollution of meaning. What we are concerned here with is electromagnetics infrequently known as electrodynamics and rarely as magnetodynamics. The sense behind electromagnetics is inclusive of dynamics of which statics is a special case. Dynamics, of course, means time-varying. In EMF, or electromagnetics, what varies is magnitude and/or polarity of the electric and magnetic field. What you find "constant" about the fields (properly observed as plural) is in their orthogonality (one field is building the other as it decays in amplitude). Well, language can be a barrier here when you say "around the cone." I should have said the current flows around the cone parallel to its base. That doesn't happen. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
"Richard Clark" wrote ... On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:04:28 -0500, Registered User wrote: Static comes in two flavors. One means "not moving." The other means high potential (which can be "not moving" AND, ironically, "moving"). Such is the legacy of electrostatic potential covering DC to Gamma. I was wondering about the latter as a possibility but couldn't find the proper words. My interpretation is although the individual fields may vary the total potential of the fields is constant. Is this correct? Electrostatic is properly applied to charge that is NOT moving, or moving very slowly. The same thing can be said of Magnetostatics as being derived from a current that is constant, or altering very slowly. The sense of either of these strict terms residing in the RF denotes the poverty of idea that takes up residence here as invention. There is plenty of examples to be found on the Web too. It is unfortunate, like the camel's nose under the Arab's tent, that taking "very slowly" and winding out the tach to 100GHz is the pollution of meaning. What we are concerned here with is electromagnetics infrequently known as electrodynamics and rarely as magnetodynamics. The sense behind electromagnetics is inclusive of dynamics of which statics is a special case. Between statics and dynamics is kinetics. EM is the kinetics. S* Dynamics, of course, means time-varying. In EMF, or electromagnetics, what varies is magnitude and/or polarity of the electric and magnetic field. What you find "constant" about the fields (properly observed as plural) is in their orthogonality (one field is building the other as it decays in amplitude). Well, language can be a barrier here when you say "around the cone." I should have said the current flows around the cone parallel to its base. That doesn't happen. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in
: Between statics and dynamics is kinetics. EM is the kinetics. This could either get very confusing, or very revealing, not sure which yet. I found that no terms I knew fitted that well so I ended up using 'flux' and 'stasis' NOT to be confused with motion and stillness. By which I mean motion and stillness are the phenomenon, but flux and stasis are what lies beyond, in a pattern of information for want of better expression. To illustrate, a tap turned to release a flow of water often shows a stationary pattern while water is obviously flowing. That pattern is a stasis, but the water is not still. I don't know how useful this is when resolving a distinction between kinetics and dynamics, but it does look like we have to be careful about how we use these terms or we might not know which we're talking about, the standing pattern, or a manifest stillness. If we can't be clear on it we might as well be trying to pin down the 'evanescence of soul'. (Richard Clark, that was a good one, it's right up there with the better phrases from Douglas Adams.) |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:10:28 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote: that writing has topspin, it carries. I might try it. It was written 101 years ago. Freely available at: http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/b#a859 Other Bennett titles I recommend: "The Card, a Story of Adventure in the Five Towns" "The Grand Babylon Hotel" "How to Live on 24 Hours a Day" 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
Richard Clark wrote in
: On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:10:28 -0600, Lostgallifreyan wrote: that writing has topspin, it carries. I might try it. It was written 101 years ago. Freely available at: http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/b#a859 Other Bennett titles I recommend: "The Card, a Story of Adventure in the Five Towns" "The Grand Babylon Hotel" "How to Live on 24 Hours a Day" 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Strange! So many things make me think of a certain style that goes with the time, that feels old, the kind of thing that pervades early science fiction or romance or Victoriana in general. That extract had a drive a clarity that could easily be taken for something post-William-Gibson but without the obvious futuristic affectations. My dad was born 100 years ago, so I will read this stuff, it might give a useful perspective on how people saw their times, instead of how we have been so often made to see them. (And if anyone can find anything to do with antennas here now I admire their skill :) |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:29:37 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote: (And if anyone can find anything to do with antennas here now I admire their skill :) Art has made claims for discovering antennas that were commonplace for Bellini and Tosi who he refuses to acknowledge predating his "theories" 102 years ago. http://www.astrosol.ch/thisandthat/5...e07/index.html And, as you are such a willing prospect for situational humour (as just such as we indulge here anyway without regard for literary nor scientific merit); I push the envelope by enlarging upon parallels to Art - both literal and figurative (as evidenced by the last line): This unique seat was occupied by the principal player, who wore a humorous wig and a brilliant and expensive scarlet costume. He was a fairly able judge, but he had mistaken his vocation; his rare talent for making third-rate jokes would have brought him a fortune in the world of musical comedy. His salary was a hundred a week; better comedians have earned less. On the present occasion he was in the midst of a double row of fashionable hats, and beneath the hats were the faces of fourteen feminine relatives and acquaintances. These hats performed the function of 'dressing' the house. The principal player endeavoured to behave as though under the illusion that he was alone in his glory, but he failed. There were four other leading actors: Mr. Pennington, K.C., and Mr. Vodrey, K.C., engaged by the plaintiff, and Mr. Cass, K.C., and Mr. Crepitude, K.C., engaged by the defendant. These artistes were the stars of their profession, nominally less glittering, but really far more glittering than the player in scarlet. Their wigs were of inferior quality to his, and their costumes shabby, but they did not mind, for whereas he got a hundred a week, they each got a hundred a day. Three junior performers received ten guineas a day apiece: one of them held a watching brief for the Dean and Chapter of the Abbey, who, being members of a Christian fraternity, were pained and horrified by the defendants' implication that they had given interment to a valet, and who were determined to resist exhumation at all hazards. The supers in the drama, whose business it was to whisper to each other and to the players, consisted of solicitors, solicitors' clerks, and experts; their combined emoluments worked out at the rate of a hundred and fifty pounds a day. Twelve excellent men in the jury-box received between them about as much as would have kept a K.C. alive for five minutes. The total expenses of production thus amounted to something like six or seven hundred pounds a day. The preliminary expenses had run into several thousands. The enterprise could have been made remunerative by hiring for it Convent Garden Theatre and selling stalls as for Tettrazzini and Caruso, but in the absurd auditorium chosen, crammed though it was to the perilous doors, the loss was necessarily terrific. Fortunately the affair was subsidized; not merely by the State, but also by those two wealthy capitalists, Whitney C. Witt and Mr. Oxford; and therefore the management were in a position to ignore paltry financial considerations and to practise art for art's sake. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
Richard Clark wrote in
: The principal player endeavoured to behave as though under the illusion that he was alone in his glory, but he failed. Interesting. A very different Art comes to mind he Arthur Daley. Fits like the proverbial. |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
"Lostgallifreyan" wrote . .. "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in : Between statics and dynamics is kinetics. EM is the kinetics. Should be kinematics (not kinetcs): "Branch of physics concerned with the geometrically possible motion of a body or system of bodies, without consideration of the forces involved. It describes the spatial position of bodies or systems, their velocities, and their acceleration". The kinematics describes motions without consideration what and why. This could either get very confusing, or very revealing, not sure which yet. EM is the first step. No the next for the incompressible fluid. The electron were discovered and the dynamics are done for them. I found that no terms I knew fitted that well so I ended up using 'flux' and 'stasis' NOT to be confused with motion and stillness. By which I mean motion and stillness are the phenomenon, but flux and stasis are what lies beyond, in a pattern of information for want of better expression. To illustrate, a tap turned to release a flow of water often shows a stationary pattern while water is obviously flowing. That pattern is a stasis, but the water is not still. I don't know how useful this is when resolving a distinction between kinetics and dynamics, but it does look like we have to be careful about how we use these terms or we might not know which we're talking about, the standing pattern, or a manifest stillness. If we can't be clear on it we might as well be trying to pin down the 'evanescence of soul'. (Richard Clark, that was a good one, it's right up there with the better phrases from Douglas Adams.) For flows are also the flow kinematics and the flow dynamics. "An accurate theory of electromagnetism, known as classical electromagnetism, was developed by various physicists over the course of the 19th century, culminating in the work of James Clerk Maxwell, who unified the preceding developments into a single theory and discovered the electromagnetic nature of light. In classical electromagnetism, the electromagnetic field obeys a set of equations known as Maxwell's equations, and the electromagnetic force is given by the Lorentz force law. " It seams that EM is the field kinematics. S* |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:44:40 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote: Richard Clark wrote in : The principal player endeavoured to behave as though under the illusion that he was alone in his glory, but he failed. Interesting. A very different Art comes to mind he Arthur Daley. Fits like the proverbial. I am not familiar with Arthur Daley, but your close editing has very much converged on the psychology of this side-topic. We have with us now a late-coming ankle bighter kinetically trying to compete for that humorous wig. However, that aside and in fitting to the context of the group, I offered a link to an equally old reference of Bellini and Tosi that should be very interesting to you, as a SWLer. If you revisit that reference, then take note of the goniometer where its receive application would allow you to perform your own crude beam steering using two orthogonal long wire antennas (or crossed dipoles). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
Richard Clark wrote in
: On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:44:40 -0600, Lostgallifreyan wrote: Richard Clark wrote in m: The principal player endeavoured to behave as though under the illusion that he was alone in his glory, but he failed. Interesting. A very different Art comes to mind he Arthur Daley. Fits like the proverbial. I am not familiar with Arthur Daley, but your close editing has very much converged on the psychology of this side-topic. We have with us now a late-coming ankle bighter kinetically trying to compete for that humorous wig. Daley's great, well worth trying to see. (Minder, TV shows circa 1979 or so). The books aren't high literature but they are good (written by Anthony Masters) and do offer something beyond the shows, and they stand some repeat reading too. I think Wodehouse is better and funnier, but Minder really has its perks. Cheerful Charlie Chisolm, for example... Best detective since Clouseau. However, that aside and in fitting to the context of the group, I offered a link to an equally old reference of Bellini and Tosi that should be very interesting to you, as a SWLer. If you revisit that reference, then take note of the goniometer where its receive application would allow you to perform your own crude beam steering using two orthogonal long wire antennas (or crossed dipoles). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Yes, I ought to have said, that IS interesting to me. I've often wondered about direction finding so I earmarked it on the strength of that for a full read soon. (Didn't have time today..) |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Richard Clark wrote in : On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:44:40 -0600, Lostgallifreyan wrote: Richard Clark wrote in : The principal player endeavoured to behave as though under the illusion that he was alone in his glory, but he failed. Interesting. A very different Art comes to mind he Arthur Daley. Fits like the proverbial. I am not familiar with Arthur Daley, but your close editing has very much converged on the psychology of this side-topic. We have with us now a late-coming ankle bighter kinetically trying to compete for that humorous wig. Daley's great, well worth trying to see. (Minder, TV shows circa 1979 or so). The books aren't high literature but they are good (written by Anthony Masters) and do offer something beyond the shows, and they stand some repeat reading too. I think Wodehouse is better and funnier, but Minder really has its perks. Cheerful Charlie Chisolm, for example... Best detective since Clouseau. However, that aside and in fitting to the context of the group, I offered a link to an equally old reference of Bellini and Tosi that should be very interesting to you, as a SWLer. If you revisit that reference, then take note of the goniometer where its receive application would allow you to perform your own crude beam steering using two orthogonal long wire antennas (or crossed dipoles). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Yes, I ought to have said, that IS interesting to me. I've often wondered about direction finding so I earmarked it on the strength of that for a full read soon. (Didn't have time today..) This discussion has significantly diverged from allowable r.r.a.a specifications. This non-group discussion is almost certainly disturbing others within this group since many are very sensitive and can't use the delete key. Please discontinue further discussions using this mode. Thank you. |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Dec 5, 7:14*pm, tom wrote:
*This non-group discussion is almost certainly disturbing others within this group since many are very sensitive and can't use the delete key. *Please discontinue further discussions using this mode. Thank you. I suspect Art is about to have a litter of kittens.. :/ |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
|
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Dec 6, 1:14*am, tom wrote:
Lostgallifreyan wrote: Richard Clark wrote in : On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:44:40 -0600, Lostgallifreyan wrote: Richard Clark wrote in : The principal player endeavoured to behave as though under the illusion that he was alone in his glory, but he failed. Interesting. A very different Art comes to mind he Arthur Daley. Fits like the proverbial. I am not familiar with Arthur Daley, but your close editing has very much converged on the psychology of this side-topic. *We have with us now a late-coming ankle bighter kinetically trying to compete for that humorous wig. Daley's great, well worth trying to see. (Minder, TV shows circa 1979 or so). The books aren't high literature but they are good (written by Anthony Masters) and do offer something beyond the shows, and they stand some repeat reading too. I think Wodehouse is better and funnier, but Minder really has its perks. Cheerful Charlie Chisolm, for example... Best detective since Clouseau. However, that aside and in fitting to the context of the group, I offered a link to an equally old reference of Bellini and Tosi that should be very interesting to you, as a SWLer. *If you revisit that reference, then take note of the goniometer where its receive application would allow you to perform your own crude beam steering using two orthogonal long wire antennas (or crossed dipoles). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Yes, I ought to have said, that IS interesting to me. I've often wondered about direction finding so I earmarked it on the strength of that for a full read soon. (Didn't have time today..) This discussion has significantly diverged from allowable r.r.a.a specifications. *This non-group discussion is almost certainly disturbing others within this group since many are very sensitive and can't use the delete key. *Please discontinue further discussions using this mode. Thank you.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - at least it is a civil discourse and the material is at least well grounded in basic facts as opposed to the way the thread started. |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Dec 3, 9:10*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: Of course one can go back to the basics of mathematics way back in Arabic times where the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance. The equal sign is part of Maxwells equations so equilibrium is in effect. "the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance" So sayeth the master of the physical universe - Art Unwin... Hmmm, so if there is an equal sign, it means it's in equilibrium. So a half wave antenna = 468/f(Mhz). It is therefore in equilibrium. tom K0TAR The book what you read lied to you! When you look at a sinosoidal curve the area above and below the datum line is never equal ! If it were you have invented perpetual motion. Power is continually being injected to make up for frictional losses incurred. After a full cycle you get to what is a repeatable point termed as a period where you have adjusted the energy contained to equal that of the beginning. With the areas not being equal because of frictional losses the curve crosses the datum line at a point not at the half way point of a period. This point is resistive, where as. if you put it next to the true half way point you would see that the points were not one and the same. This sequence of events is that of a "tank circuit" which you would learn about if you went to college! Resonance is the point where the curve is totally resistive only and it does not represent a point of equilibrium. A period or a FW point is also totally resistive and in a state of equilibrium, a point of repeatablity which the half wave point does not When dealing with the laws of Maxwell, which includes an equal sign, metrics used are only those that represent equilibrium which, in the case of radiation requires multiples of a full wave (FW) where the use of the half wave would nullify the equal sign and the whole equation No where does Maxwell's equations suggests a particular shape or elevation or even straght when describing a radiator, only that it is at a state of equilibrium. Thus a radiator can conform to Maxwell's equations when totally compressed to a point source which certanly would not require a reflector representing a straight length of the magnitude you have stated. Note also that Maxwells equations refer to distributed loads only and not lumped loads which, if present, MUST therefore be canceled. Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg (uk) Hopefully you are now back on track with respect to the science of radiation. |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Dec 6, 4:49*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 3, 9:10*pm, tom wrote: Art Unwin wrote: Of course one can go back to the basics of mathematics way back in Arabic times where the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance. The equal sign is part of Maxwells equations so equilibrium is in effect. "the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance" So sayeth the master of the physical universe - Art Unwin... Hmmm, so if there is an equal sign, it means it's in equilibrium. So a half wave antenna = 468/f(Mhz). It is therefore in equilibrium. tom K0TAR The book what you read lied to you! When you look at a sinosoidal curve the area above and below the datum line is never equal ! If it were you have invented perpetual motion. Power is continually being injected to make up for frictional losses incurred. After a full cycle you get to what is a repeatable point termed as a period where you have adjusted the energy contained to equal that of the beginning. With the areas not being equal because of frictional losses the curve crosses the datum line at a point not at the half way point of a period. This point is resistive, where as. if you put it next to the true half way point you would see that the points were not one and the same. This sequence of events is that of a "tank circuit" which you would learn about if you went to college! Resonance is the point where the curve is totally resistive only and it does not represent a point of equilibrium. A period or a FW point is also totally resistive and *in a state of equilibrium, a point of repeatablity which the half wave point does not When dealing with the laws of Maxwell, which includes an equal sign, metrics used are only those that represent equilibrium which, in the case of radiation requires multiples of a full wave (FW) where the use of the half wave would nullify the equal sign and *the whole equation No where does Maxwell's equations suggests a particular shape or elevation or even straght when describing a radiator, only that it is at a state of equilibrium. Thus a radiator can conform to Maxwell's equations when totally compressed to a point source which certanly would not require a reflector representing a straight *length of the magnitude you have stated. Note also that Maxwells equations refer to distributed loads only and not lumped loads which, if present, MUST therefore be canceled. Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg (uk) Hopefully you are now back on track with respect to the science of radiation.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - rotflmao |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 some gomer wrote:
No where does Maxwell's equations suggests a particular shape or elevation or even straght when describing a radiator Hmmmm, Did Maxwell design antennas? Did he describe them? If he had no particular shape in mind, did that mean it was a mesh like a fish net cast over the rocks? Did he try working the international space station with this limp radiator powered by the feeble force? WWMD? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Dec 6, 1:10*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 some gomer wrote: No where does Maxwell's equations suggests a particular shape or elevation or even straght when describing a radiator Hmmmm, Did Maxwell design antennas? *Did he describe them? *If he had no particular shape in mind, did that mean it was a mesh like a fish net cast over the rocks? *Did he try working the international space station with this limp radiator powered by the feeble force? WWMD? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Maxwell dealt only with the mathematics of the time where many people had arrived at equations with respect to scientific observations. Many of these equations from different countries were actually duplicates so he was able to side line some. reduce some and even combined some such that he has a set of equations. Ofcourse he was aware that with observations within the Universe one must obey the requirement of equilibrium. You can do this by placing all metrics on one side of the equal or equal ibrium side and zero ion the other side. One of his final equations did not, in fact, equal zero and in fact the metric of time was missing among other things. Now he couldn't go back to Gauss or anybody for an explanation. If he had spoken to Gauss he may have told him that if he made a static field dynamic he could correct the initial equations provided as the product was one and the same! Instead Maxwell concerned himself only with the metrics of the equations and not the scale. So he cancelled the metrics that were available and then added some metrics so he could cancel what was remaining which implied equil ibrium noy knowing what the additions added signified. At that time he could not have cared less as he primarily a mathematician. When Yagi and Uda came along they stumbled on intercoupling of planar forms with out any regard to Maxwells equations. For them, the use of half wave length was of no concern as it provided answers that were within 10% of real life. That aproach lasted to this very day when I came along and pointed out that by using the Gaussian law of statics they could then account for the remaining 10% of radiation by accounting for other forces which could provide for 100% efficiency. When this observation was shared on the internet it met with disdain by those who in the absence of knoweledge followed the trend of the written books of science known for their plagarisms. After all, those who followed the books to the letter were resting on the mantle of perceived experts where all agreed on the same thing. Rather than learning new things about physics they decided to agree to bestow on the teacher the myth that he was wearing no clothes and threw away all the mesh available . To this day nobody can apply a time varying field and note that it radiated more efficiently than any radiater known and occupy a smaller volume than previously .possible thus preventing those with small gardens become such loud mouths as others were that were preventing the advance of science. Now the antenna industry realizes that with the gaussian knowledge being denied to them the only resort they had for advancement was to invent a new technology so they could carry the battle to those who cannot accept change. Unfortunately God made only one technology for radiation leaving the industry to ponder for another 100 years. Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 some gomer wrote: No where does Maxwell's equations suggests a particular shape or elevation or even straght when describing a radiator Hmmmm, Did Maxwell design antennas? Did he describe them? If he had no particular shape in mind, did that mean it was a mesh like a fish net cast over the rocks? Did he try working the international space station with this limp radiator powered by the feeble force? WWMD? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC What Would Unwin Do? Make up an answer, of course! tom K0TAR |
Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
On Dec 6, 2:52*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 6, 1:10*pm, Richard Clark wrote: On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 some gomer wrote: No where does Maxwell's equations suggests a particular shape or elevation or even straght when describing a radiator Hmmmm, Did Maxwell design antennas? *Did he describe them? *If he had no particular shape in mind, did that mean it was a mesh like a fish net cast over the rocks? *Did he try working the international space station with this limp radiator powered by the feeble force? WWMD? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Maxwell dealt only with the mathematics of the time where many people had arrived at equations with respect to scientific observations. Many of these equations from different countries were actually duplicates so he was able to side line some. reduce some and even combined some such that he has a set of equations. Ofcourse he was aware that with observations within the Universe one must obey the requirement of equilibrium. You can do this by placing all metrics on one side of the equal or equal ibrium side and zero ion the other side. One of his final equations did not, in fact, equal zero and in fact the metric of time was missing among other things. Now he couldn't go back to Gauss or anybody for an explanation. If he had spoken to Gauss he may have told him that if he made a static field dynamic he could correct the initial equations provided as the product was one and the same! Instead Maxwell concerned himself only with the metrics of the equations and not the scale. So he cancelled the metrics that were available and then added some metrics so he could cancel what was remaining which implied equil ibrium noy knowing what the additions added signified. At that time he could not have cared less as he primarily a mathematician. When Yagi and Uda came along they stumbled on intercoupling of planar forms with out any regard to Maxwells equations. For them, the use of half wave length was of no concern as it provided answers that were within 10% of real life. That aproach lasted to this very day when I came along and pointed out that by using the Gaussian law of statics they could then account for the remaining 10% of radiation by accounting for other forces which could provide for 100% efficiency. When this observation was shared on the internet it met with disdain by those who in the absence of knoweledge followed the trend of the written books of science known for their plagarisms. After all, those who followed the books to the letter were resting on the mantle of perceived experts where all agreed on the same thing. Rather than learning new things about physics they decided to agree to bestow on the teacher the myth that he was wearing no clothes and threw away all the mesh available . To this day nobody can apply a time varying field and note that it radiated more efficiently than any radiater known and occupy a smaller volume than previously .possible thus preventing those with small gardens become such loud mouths as others *were that were preventing the advance of science. Now the antenna industry realizes that with the gaussian knowledge being denied to them the only resort they had for advancement was to invent a new technology so they could carry the battle to those who cannot accept change. Unfortunately God made only one technology for radiation leaving the industry to ponder for another 100 years. Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg Ofcourse the biggest thing to come from the Gaussian observation was that his static particles must be in equilibrium and also could only come to rest without harm was a diamagnetic material which could encapsulate vie their density. Most other things on earth are considered diamagnetic including water. Many people have seen beads of water that can exist in a pherical shape as you see with mercury and the like. This is because the liquid is bound so tight by the resting particles that they assume the shape of a sphere where internal pressure equates to the outside pressure. When the winds pick up particles are drawn up while clinging to the water where the surface area of water diminishes with altitude The resting electrons or particles receive a charge via the assending movement while at the same time struggle to look for a viable new resting place such as a close by cloud while all the time gathering increased charge. These electrons collect in a cloud like form themselves as points of rest diminish such they are attracted away from the higher elevation back to earth which is now the easiest place to reach and rest. Thus we have lightning produced when the cloud of electrons hit the ground such that the charge removes itself from the charge. You might also notice that the radiation resistance increases as the metallic resistance decreases. This is due to the encapsulating electrons carry more and more of the current available such that the skin depth starts to disapear such that we have to review what the lowest impedance that can be handled for radiatiation. The action that removes the encapsulating particles is both a directive force and one of spin. These same two forces are responsible for all actions on earth such as gravity associated with spin all the way back to the big bang where equilibrium is broken via a emerging particle from the suns boundary. So what was originall thought of as being a wave is now seen as a total error as the particle is the initial subject of force together with spin which thus brings to the fore the formation of voltage, light magnetism and even gravity byt he adherance to Newtons law that require s from every action an equal and opposite reaction which travels thru the Universe by the single ejection of a particle creating the two basic forces from which everything comes about. Even the Faraday shield follows the same pattern where the field outside equals the field inside until the internal or external equilibrium is broken creating the same two originating forces of the universe. Now if I made all that up myself wouldn't one think of me as a visionary that really should write a physics book to steer the world in the right direction of fictional law? Had a great long week end in StLouis which has revitalised me back home in Central Illinois to with stand the new oncomming insults who feel that they know all about antennas before I was born. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com