[Mike Kaliski]

snip
I have an example
of that on my page Unwin antennas where I specifically state the
rudiments of current flow. As yet nobody has supplied scientific data
to show that flow is otherwise. Thru out the ages it has been
understood that the datum line for the laws of physics is the state of
equilibrium such that all forces are accounted for. For radio this
requires the use of radiators of a full wavelength which supplies
equilibrium and resoinance. Yet for some reason many including Kraus
has rejected this undeniable fact, Thus when applying Maxwells
equations they can never attain 100 percent efficiency. This can ONLY
be attained when an array is resonant and in equilibrium as must be
the individual radiators that consist same. On top of that, there is
no reason that a radiator should be straight only that it is in a
state of equilibrium. snip

Art,

I think this paragraph may be one of the reasons for all the protests. It
isn't necessary to achieve 100% efficiency or to use a full wavelength
radiator in order to broadcast (or receive) a radio signal. It may be
desirable, but it isn't necessary. Modern equipment has sufficient power to
overcome the inefficiencies when transmitting and can hear signals well
below the noise floor when receiving. A 50% efficient antenna is fine for
most applications and perhaps 10% or less will do at a pinch.

The patent office floors are littered with designs for better, more
effective mousetraps, but that 99 cent (pence) bit of wood with a powerful
spring will kill mice just as dead. :-)

The particle wave duality of electromagnetic waves was settled back in the
1930's and further refinements have only gone on to prove that
electromagnetic waves act as both particles and waves depending on
circumstances and measurement. There is nothing wrong in considering the
generation of an electromagnetic wave using particles, so long as the end
results are in agreement with measurements taken using standard scientific
equipment.

If your antenna calculations show 100% power transfer to the antenna and
100% power radiated, then that should be capable of being substantiated by
standard measuring techniques in the near and far fields.

If your antenna only shows these readings when a similar receiving antenna
is used and attached to the measuring equipment (rather than a standard
dipole) then you have either invented an entirely new field of physics, or
the calculations are wrong.

I'm sure your compact antennas do perform better than others contained
within similar physical dimensions. A full wavelength resonant radiator must
theoretically be better than a fractional or loaded system. But proving that
it is worthwhile, better and more convenient to Joe Public is a much harder
sell. Your ideas about particles might be correct, but do they give a better
understanding and predictions of antenna behaviour than the currently
accepted theories? In order to succeed, I would suggest that your theory
would need to match all current observations but then go on to make some new
predictions about antennas which can be measured and verified. That is the
way that western science has progressed since the Greek philosophers tried
to explain the world around them. Some Asian cultures are allegedly more
amenable to accepting that some things in the world are just the way they
are and require less stringent proof. It allowed them to leapfrog the West
and make significant practical developments of everyday useful stuff without
worrying about how it all worked exactly. The only problem with this
approach is that if you hit a wall in development, it usually isn't clear
how to make further improvements or solve the problem except by trial and
error.

Keep up the good work.

Regards

Mike G0ULI

[Bill[_4_]]

On Jan 7, 2:13*am, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:


Art,


I'm sure your compact antennas do perform better than
others contained within similar physical dimensions.


Mike G0ULI

WHAT antennas would those be?

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 6, 9:31*pm, Bill wrote:
On Jan 7, 2:13*am, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:



Art,

I'm sure your compact antennas do perform better than
others contained within similar physical dimensions.

Mike G0ULI

WHAT antennas would those be?

He clearly stated fractional and loaded antennas. What is so hard to
read what he stated?

[Bill[_4_]]

On Jan 7, 4:21*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 9:31*pm, Bill wrote:

On Jan 7, 2:13*am, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:

Art,

I'm sure your compact antennas do perform better than
others contained within similar physical dimensions.

Mike G0ULI

WHAT antennas would those be?

He clearly stated fractional and loaded antennas. What is so hard to
read what he stated?

It is impossible to read what you have stated. Has anyone seen your
antennas, you old fraud?

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
snip
I have an example
of that on my page Unwin antennas where I specifically state the
rudiments of current flow. As yet nobody has supplied scientific data
to show that flow is otherwise. Thru out the ages it has been
understood that the datum line for the laws of physics is the state of
equilibrium such that all forces are accounted for. For radio this
requires the use of radiators of a full wavelength which supplies
equilibrium and resoinance. Yet for some reason many including Kraus
has rejected this undeniable fact, Thus when applying Maxwells
equations they can never attain 100 percent efficiency. This can ONLY
be attained when an array is resonant and in equilibrium as must be
the individual radiators that consist same. On top of that, there is
no reason that a radiator should be straight only that it is in a
state of equilibrium. *snip

Art,

I think this paragraph may be one of the reasons for all the protests. It
isn't necessary to achieve 100% efficiency or to use a full wavelength
radiator in order to broadcast (or receive) a radio signal. It may be
desirable, but it isn't necessary. Modern equipment has sufficient power to
overcome the inefficiencies when transmitting and can hear signals well
below the noise floor when receiving. A 50% efficient antenna is fine for
most applications and perhaps 10% or less will do at a pinch.

The patent office floors are littered with designs for better, more
effective mousetraps, but that 99 cent (pence) bit of wood with a powerful
spring will kill mice just as dead. *:-)


all above agreed with


The particle wave duality of electromagnetic waves was settled back in the
1930's and further refinements have only gone on to prove that
electromagnetic waves act as both particles and waves depending on
circumstances and measurement. There is nothing wrong in considering the
generation of an electromagnetic wave using particles, so long as the end
results are in agreement with measurements taken using standard scientific
equipment.

Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole
spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it
quite clear that static particles can become a dynamic field
according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher
end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the
subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am
working with.


If your antenna calculations show 100% power transfer to the antenna and
100% power radiated, then that should be capable of being substantiated by
standard measuring techniques in the near and far fields.

Quite true


If your antenna only shows these readings when a similar receiving antenna
is used and attached to the measuring equipment (rather than a standard
dipole) then you have either invented an entirely new field of physics, or
the calculations are wrong.

I dont see it that way since a 4 ft dia mesh has many WL of wire
contained for top band so it should be able to choose its own route
for
a particular frequency resonance. The more WL you have the more likely
resonance would occur.

I'm sure your compact antennas do perform better than others contained
within similar physical dimensions. A full wavelength resonant radiator must
theoretically be better than a fractional or loaded system.
On my page I show instances of resonance using 6 inch samples of
mesh which match the amateur bands so i see it as a huge step with
respect to small radiators. also pundits state there is a need for
smaller broadcast antennas( cross field) without ground plain.
I personally see the advantage of double the skip distance even when
ground situated. Military would see similar advantages. I see the
confusion as purely my position that with respect to radio we simply
have particles without evidence of waves and the fact that from a
specific rule point equilibrium exists only at the period point and
not 1/2WL. It is the recognition of this mathematical point that
allows
both resonance and equiulibrium which allows for compression. To use a
1/2 wl is a violation of the universal rule, simple as that.

But proving that
it is worthwhile, better and more convenient to Joe Public is a much harder
sell.

That is true but if there really is a true need for a technology for
smaller volume radiators together with human shielding protection to
go along side present miniaturization, then it will sell itself.

Your ideas about particles might be correct, but do they give a
better
understanding and predictions of antenna behaviour than the currently
accepted theories? In order to succeed, I would suggest that your theory
would need to match all current observations but then go on to make some new
predictions about antennas which can be measured and verified. That is the
way that western science has progressed since the Greek philosophers tried
to explain the world around them. Some Asian cultures are allegedly more
amenable to accepting that some things in the world are just the way they
are and require less stringent proof. It allowed them to leapfrog the West
and make significant practical developments of everyday useful stuff without
worrying about how it all worked exactly. The only problem with this
approach is that if you hit a wall in development, it usually isn't clear
how to make further improvements or solve the problem except by trial and
error.

Yes, that is always true but I see as significant is that radiation
can now be shielded when used and is not automatically sky wave at
ground level and, ofcourse, that it is small. The old adage of putting
up as much wire that you can is neatly solved with mesh while staying
in equilibrium. What more can you want?
How many questions do we see for an antenna without room for a ground
plain? How many questions do we get for a broad band scanner antenna.
How can a submarine transmitt with out detection trailing a humoungos
radiator where the wash is seen for miles?
How can we prevent moon dust from contaminating rockets. It just
doesn't stop.
When you can transmit from ground level without height interference to
TOA you are effectively doubling the range for the same power.
On top of that the public is easily convinced of its use when the
advertisers state that damage to the brain cannot now possibly occur
because of shielding.
It just blows my mind that amateurs have lost interest in new antenna
design based purely on a mob that denies the possibility that it
cannot work without stating why.As for me I have no more need for a
tower.
Best regards
Art Unwin
The PTO did not turn down my response to questions regarding the first
patent application so I assume it will be awarded in good time.

Keep up the good work.

Regards

Mike G0ULI

[Dave[_22_]]

On Jan 7, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:


The particle wave duality of electromagnetic waves was settled back in the
1930's and further refinements have only gone on to prove that
electromagnetic waves act as both particles and waves depending on
circumstances and measurement. There is nothing wrong in considering the
generation of an electromagnetic wave using particles, so long as the end
results are in agreement with measurements taken using standard scientific
equipment.

Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole
spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it
quite clear that *static particles can become a dynamic field
according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher
end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the
subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am
working with.

there is no exception for radio waves, they act as photon particles
also, just like the ones at visible light frequencies and higher. this
too has been accepted for many years.

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 7, 7:24*am, Dave wrote:
On Jan 7, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:

The particle wave duality of electromagnetic waves was settled back in the
1930's and further refinements have only gone on to prove that
electromagnetic waves act as both particles and waves depending on
circumstances and measurement. There is nothing wrong in considering the
generation of an electromagnetic wave using particles, so long as the end
results are in agreement with measurements taken using standard scientific
equipment.

Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole
spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it
quite clear that *static particles can become a dynamic field
according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher
end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the
subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am
working with.

there is no exception for radio waves, they act as photon particles
also, just like the ones at visible light frequencies and higher. this
too has been accepted for many years.

David, I won't fight you but I would like to take advantage of your
expertise. The question whether you may make a gaussian field dynamic
such that Maxwells equations can be used is the beginning of this saga
as the group will not accept it.
So I will move on to the Faraday cage.
There is an animation of what exactly happens on the web with respect
to radio, you may want to look it up.
But for openers you would get my attention in explaning this phenomina
with the use of waves instead of the actions of mass or a particle.
This is a sincere request as it seems discussion of duallity means
talking past each other when there is a clear difference between the
action of waves and those of particles,namely attraction. versus
cancellation.
You supplying this may get the subject back to a level plane of
politeness where the postings will supply enlightment instead of
derision.
Thanks for reading
Art

[Bill[_4_]]

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 7, 7:24*am, Dave wrote:

From www.unwinantennas.com
"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

[Dave[_22_]]

On Jan 7, 4:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 7, 7:24*am, Dave wrote:



On Jan 7, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote:

On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:

The particle wave duality of electromagnetic waves was settled back in the
1930's and further refinements have only gone on to prove that
electromagnetic waves act as both particles and waves depending on
circumstances and measurement. There is nothing wrong in considering the
generation of an electromagnetic wave using particles, so long as the end
results are in agreement with measurements taken using standard scientific
equipment.

Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole
spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it
quite clear that *static particles can become a dynamic field
according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher
end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the
subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am
working with.

there is no exception for radio waves, they act as photon particles
also, just like the ones at visible light frequencies and higher. this
too has been accepted for many years.

David, I won't fight you but I would like to take advantage of your
expertise. The question whether you may make a gaussian field dynamic
such that Maxwells equations can be used is the beginning of this saga
as the group will not accept it.
So I will move on to the Faraday cage.
*There is an animation of what exactly happens on the web with respect
to radio, you may want to look it up.
But for openers you would get my attention in explaning this phenomina
with the use of waves instead of the actions of mass or a particle.
This is a sincere request as it seems discussion of duallity means
talking past each other when there is a clear difference between the
action of waves and those of particles,namely attraction. versus
cancellation.
You supplying this may get the subject back to a level plane of
politeness where the postings will supply enlightment instead of
derision.
Thanks for reading
Art

duality applies to all frequencies of electromagnetic waves and
photons... it all depends on which is more useful for whatever you are
working on. particle physicists like photons because they can draw
them in feynman diagrams nicely and they like to talk about them
getting absorbed and emitted by valence electrons, engineers generally
prefer waves and fields because they are easy to calculate over
macroscopic distances using maxwell's equations.

and i still say your extension of a time parameter in gauss's equation
is unnecessary since the equation applies at all times. just because
no 't' shows in the equation doesn't mean it is necessarily static,
just that it is not an explicit function of time. actually if you
study all 4 of maxwell's equations closely you will see that NONE of
them are explicit functions of time. two of them do contain
dervitives with respect to time, but none of them contains 't' as an
independent variable.

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 7, 1:09*pm, Dave wrote:
On Jan 7, 4:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jan 7, 7:24*am, Dave wrote:

On Jan 7, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote:

On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:

The particle wave duality of electromagnetic waves was settled back in the
1930's and further refinements have only gone on to prove that
electromagnetic waves act as both particles and waves depending on
circumstances and measurement. There is nothing wrong in considering the
generation of an electromagnetic wave using particles, so long as the end
results are in agreement with measurements taken using standard scientific
equipment.

Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole
spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it
quite clear that *static particles can become a dynamic field
according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher
end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the
subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am
working with.

there is no exception for radio waves, they act as photon particles
also, just like the ones at visible light frequencies and higher. this
too has been accepted for many years.

David, I won't fight you but I would like to take advantage of your
expertise. The question whether you may make a gaussian field dynamic
such that Maxwells equations can be used is the beginning of this saga
as the group will not accept it.
So I will move on to the Faraday cage.
*There is an animation of what exactly happens on the web with respect
to radio, you may want to look it up.
But for openers you would get my attention in explaning this phenomina
with the use of waves instead of the actions of mass or a particle.
This is a sincere request as it seems discussion of duallity means
talking past each other when there is a clear difference between the
action of waves and those of particles,namely attraction. versus
cancellation.
You supplying this may get the subject back to a level plane of
politeness where the postings will supply enlightment instead of
derision.
Thanks for reading
Art

duality applies to all frequencies of electromagnetic waves and
photons... it all depends on which is more useful for whatever you are
working on. *particle physicists like photons because they can draw
them in feynman diagrams nicely and they like to talk about them
getting absorbed and emitted by valence electrons, engineers generally
prefer waves and fields because they are easy to calculate over
macroscopic distances using maxwell's equations.

and i still say your extension of a time parameter in gauss's equation
is unnecessary since the equation applies at all times. *just because
no 't' shows in the equation doesn't mean it is necessarily static,
just that it is not an explicit function of time. *actually if you
study all 4 of maxwell's equations closely you will see that NONE of
them are explicit functions of time. *two of them do contain
derivitives with respect to time, but none of them contains 't' as an
independent variable.
One short point. Time is omitted because it is based on equilibrium
alone where nothing is happening and all is balanced The Big bang was
the instance that time began and equilibrium is broken by movement or
energy exchange. It is the energy exchange subject which alone gives
us the picture of change without which there is nothing.


David
Well that is a good opening or introduction, tho I wish you had not
mentioned your thought of adding time to Maxwell as the response to
that was explosive years ago. I hope that others will put that aside
so we can concentrate on the main thrust of the problem.
I will be very interested in what you will use as the subject for
explanations to how the wave actually works. From the above, I really
believe you have the background or track record to explain all and how
things are working to the satisfaction of all. This could be exciting
Regards
Art