|
receive polarity
Richard Clark wrote:
I wonder whatever happened to the golden city shining on the top of the hill that Art called "length efficiency?" A back of the envelope calculation of Art's 20M antenna reveals elements that are conventional half wave. This raises the more immediate head-scratcher: whatever happened to the golden calf of his designs being in equalithium? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC I believe his designs are the result of lackolithium. tom K0TAR |
receive polarity
On Feb 24, 7:50*pm, tom wrote:
tom wrote: Thanks Roy. *I was rushed at the time and also didn't care too much, since it was obvious that even though the elements weren't parallel or on quite the same centerline, they were very close to it. *He picks at nits when he says his antennas are different. *I could get similar results from a good windstorm. tom K0TAR Ok, revisiting things now that I have time, I discovered something, which The Art may (ok, will) get off into an incomprehensible rant about. I did a simple normalization. *I calculated the lengths of the elements and the location of their centerpoints. *I then calculated the distance between the centerpoints. *I then put it all in a nice level and square 2 element array. *I left the diameters alone. New endpoints - -37.455 * -219.135 * 707 * -37.455 * *219.135 * 707 * 1 * 37.455 * -195.45 * *707 * *37.455 * *195.45 * *707 * 1.25 Results at 14.175 using EZNEC+ 5 * * * * * * * Gain * * * F/B Original * * 9.87 dBi * 7.84 Normalized *10.29 dBi * 8.58 The impedance curves were not different enough to be of note and were matchable to 50 ohms with good efficiency. I'll take the one with better gain and F/B that's also nice looking with elements that are easier to mount because they're at 90 degree angles, thank you. *Yes, run-on sentence. tom K0TAR Tom I have no problem with your choice of going with the one with the best front to back, what ever one that is. The crux of the matter is under the equations of Maxwell optimiser programs do not provide the planar form as the best radiator. I understand that Roy now has an optimiser program for sale and I fully expect for it to follow the same pattern as well as prove my point on the circular wound antenna as apparently he supplies more than enough segments assuming the computer has the power to use them. However a look at the larger picture the same particulars provided state that one can manipulate the elements to occupy a small volume as long as the resonance and equilibrium restrictions are held to. I see that as the real prize that will come from my workif one had the equipment to do the optimization. Ofcourse if Roy's program still provide the yagi as the optimizer result then there is a definate conflict with other computer programs that use Maxwells equations. Looking back at the idea that waves are the carrier of communication it leaves us with the silly propersition that a Faraday cage perforations must be less in size to that of the incoming wave! Thus for a cage for use on the top band can live with openings that are a bit smaller than 180 metres! Now some text books have dropped the size opening to approx 1/10 of a WL which is still way to large to enclose the eddy current rotation.Einstein failed to prove his theorem and was forced to invent quantum mechanics which provided the answer of particles that he anticipated and now with the above standard physics figures supplies the same result. So it is up to the ham himself to decide whether it is worthwhile to have an antenna sensitive to all signals that are thrown at it, where it operates in a smaller volume than the yagi or stay with one more pleasing on the eye. I personally do not have the equipment to pursue what appears to be smaller antennas than presently used all the way down to point radiation. What hams have to recognise now is that the much vaunted antenna programs do not consider the yagi as an optimized array and to decide whether to ditch the programs or pursue what the programs based on Maxwell provide to its limits. Art Unwin KB9MZ......xg |
receive polarity
Art Unwin wrote:
On Feb 24, 7:50 pm, tom wrote: tom wrote: Thanks Roy. I was rushed at the time and also didn't care too much, since it was obvious that even though the elements weren't parallel or on quite the same centerline, they were very close to it. He picks at nits when he says his antennas are different. I could get similar results from a good windstorm. tom K0TAR Ok, revisiting things now that I have time, I discovered something, which The Art may (ok, will) get off into an incomprehensible rant about. I did a simple normalization. I calculated the lengths of the elements and the location of their centerpoints. I then calculated the distance between the centerpoints. I then put it all in a nice level and square 2 element array. I left the diameters alone. New endpoints - -37.455 -219.135 707 -37.455 219.135 707 1 37.455 -195.45 707 37.455 195.45 707 1.25 Results at 14.175 using EZNEC+ 5 Gain F/B Original 9.87 dBi 7.84 Normalized 10.29 dBi 8.58 The impedance curves were not different enough to be of note and were matchable to 50 ohms with good efficiency. I'll take the one with better gain and F/B that's also nice looking with elements that are easier to mount because they're at 90 degree angles, thank you. Yes, run-on sentence. tom K0TAR Tom I have no problem with your choice of going with the one with the best front to back, what ever one that is. The crux of the matter is under the equations of Maxwell optimiser programs do not provide the planar form as the best radiator. I understand that Roy now has an optimiser program for sale and I fully expect for it to follow the same pattern as well as prove my point on the circular wound antenna as apparently he supplies more than enough segments assuming the computer has the power to use them. However a look at the larger picture the same particulars provided state that one can manipulate the elements to occupy a small volume as long as the resonance and equilibrium restrictions are held to. I see that as the real prize that will come from my workif one had the equipment to do the optimization. Ofcourse if Roy's program still provide the yagi as the optimizer result then there is a definate conflict with other computer programs that use Maxwells equations. Looking back at the idea that waves are the carrier of communication it leaves us with the silly propersition that a Faraday cage perforations must be less in size to that of the incoming wave! Thus for a cage for use on the top band can live with openings that are a bit smaller than 180 metres! Now some text books have dropped the size opening to approx 1/10 of a WL which is still way to large to enclose the eddy current rotation.Einstein failed to prove his theorem and was forced to invent quantum mechanics which provided the answer of particles that he anticipated and now with the above standard physics figures supplies the same result. So it is up to the ham himself to decide whether it is worthwhile to have an antenna sensitive to all signals that are thrown at it, where it operates in a smaller volume than the yagi or stay with one more pleasing on the eye. I personally do not have the equipment to pursue what appears to be smaller antennas than presently used all the way down to point radiation. What hams have to recognise now is that the much vaunted antenna programs do not consider the yagi as an optimized array and to decide whether to ditch the programs or pursue what the programs based on Maxwell provide to its limits. Art Unwin KB9MZ......xg Yup, I was correct, pretty much incomprehensible nonsense. And the comprehensible parts were worthless, as usual. Go back on your meds kid. And stay there. tom K0TAR |
receive polarity
On Feb 24, 8:14*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:50:47 -0600, tom wrote: Ok, revisiting things now that I have time, I discovered something, which The Art may (ok, will) get off into an incomprehensible rant about.. This outrage is largely due in part to revealing an inferior design: * * * * * * *Gain * * * F/B Original * * 9.87 dBi * 7.84 Normalized *10.29 dBi * 8.58 I wonder whatever happened to the golden city shining on the top of the hill that Art called "length efficiency?" *A back of the envelope calculation of Art's 20M antenna reveals elements that are conventional half wave. *This raises the more immediate head-scratcher: whatever happened to the golden calf of his designs being in equalithium? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard, I am sharing results provided by computer optimizers where an array must be in equilibrium. I am not party to how these programs were generated or how closely they adhere to maxwells equations.If they provide results that are different then that seller has to answer for it. Obviously clever people such as yourself will guide hams on the correct path to follow as well as to explain why Maxwells equations do not favor the yagi. Hopefully you will supply technical details and not just wordy fluff. I would point out that Tom provided a planar form, which you copied, for a different frequency to the one that I supplied which provided f/ b/r that greatly exceeded his design. If your idea is to be a pied piper to lead ham radio away from examining change then such tactics will certainly do the job. But first to justify your dreams as a leader you have to provide reasons that make optimizer programs suspect. A point in your favor would be that Roy declares that his optimizer do NOT supply the results that others do so that experts such as you can direct your talents where they would be more profitable. Since you are not wired the same as I am I will not respond to you any more so that guilt by association may not be applied. But I will mention to all that you are in total disagreement with the association of a static field being made dynamic which is a staple in physics around which this discussion rests upon. Nobody, nobody, has come forward to provide academic reasons why this staple should not be held to or why people such as you should trash pursuit of that what I disclose. What I have provided is that computer programs side lines yagis in favor of arrays where elements are not parallel but all are resonant and where the array as a whole is in equilibrium. They do this because Maxwell supports the physics staple I proffer which you declare as NOT being correct but without supporting data other than you said so. |
receive polarity
tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: I understand that Roy now has an optimiser program for sale. . . Regretfully, I don't. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
receive polarity
On Feb 24, 9:24*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Hopefully you will supply technical details and not just wordy fluff. Talk about spray painting the kettle flat black... :/ |
receive polarity
|
receive polarity
On Feb 26, 10:59*am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:45:09 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Feb 24, 9:24 pm, Art Unwin wrote: Hopefully you will supply technical details and not just wordy fluff. Talk about spray painting the kettle flat black... *:/ Is Art straining to come to terms with gain comparisons? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Patent number 1 on my page has now been approved . If there is anything there then my grandchildren will benefit. If there isn't you can visit my grave and say "I told you so." Now I await the 2nd request to go thru. Yes anybody can get a patent and yes you knew all about that years ago and couldn't be bothered. And yes it doesn't prove anything at least at this point. So I have saved you from having to post. The other spammers can now go right aheadand show who and what they really are and add to their profiles. Look up patent number 2 on my page and start storing ammunition ready to throw my way. With respect to gain comparison, what I am providing is sensitivity to all polarizations thrown at the antenna instead of concentrating on horizontal alone and neglecting receipt of all others. Gain is just one measurement but it is nice if you can hear what others neglect or not sensitive to or cannot hear. If you want to see a model of the arrays in number 2 I can supply. |
receive polarity
On Feb 26, 10:15*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Feb 26, 10:59*am, Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:45:09 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Feb 24, 9:24 pm, Art Unwin wrote: Hopefully you will supply technical details and not just wordy fluff.. Talk about spray painting the kettle flat black... *:/ Is Art straining to come to terms with gain comparisons? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Patent number 1 on my page has now been approved . If there *is anything there then my grandchildren will benefit. If there isn't you can visit my grave and say "I told you so." *Now I await the 2nd request to go thru. Yes anybody can get a patent and yes you knew all about that years ago and couldn't be bothered. And yes it doesn't prove anything at least at this point. So I have saved you from having to post. The other spammers can now go right aheadand show who and what they really are and add to their profiles. Look up patent number 2 on my page and start storing ammunition ready to throw my way. With respect to gain comparison, what I am providing is sensitivity to all polarizations thrown at the antenna instead of concentrating on horizontal alone and neglecting receipt of all others. Gain is just one measurement but it is nice if you can hear what others neglect or not sensitive to or cannot hear. If you want to see a model of the arrays in number 2 I can supply. oh, oh, what is the number for it so i can submit it to the bad patents examples page???? |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com