Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 10, 8:07 pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

A Faraday shield allows for magnetic and elerctrical fields to
separate and cancell leaving a RF current thast radios are designed to
handle
No, that's absolutely incorrect. Nothing is separated. And what's left
over, if anything measurable is, is an electromagnetic wave.

The shield unlike what we view as radiators has two side that
are independent of each other where as a "normal" radiators surface is
not separated electrically. The Faraday shield operates at 90 degrees
to an oncomming signal by a blocking method and does not operate as a
recieving type surface
that is directly connected to a radio.
No it doesn't. You are wrong.

The Faraday shield as a single



wall still has a blocking action as fields can encircle the wall but
it cannot protect all. It does however protect the rear surface from
field impingement and the field usually will connefct to a alternate
surface leaving a void directly behind the shielding wall.
The Faraday shield on the other hand is an enclosure that shields the
inside from encroachment on the outside such thast fields do not
interfere with activities within. It does not perform the function of
field separation. In most radio circuits you will see examples of bot
enclosures and shields where the latter incorporates physically
unconnected surfaces for electricaly closed loops.
I don't mind your postings Tom as it provides those that are educated
some idea of your true standing in life.
With respect to a closely aligned feed which to your mind leaves an
imediate short;.
I suggest you look at a three band dipole all connected at the same
point. Each dipole provides a low resistance path for a particular
applied frequency in its seach for a closed circuit. The applied
current will not divert to a path of higher resistance or impedance in
this case because we have to consider the effect of phase differences.
With these sort of actions we can have several different paths for the
current to follow but I assure you that it will pick the same one
every time dependent on the frequency applied.
Now to the wire mesh curtain. It provides a separate low impedence
path for every frequency applied to it as well as a separate path for
the displacement current that encloses a separate field ( see my page)
which has the abilitity to accellerate mass as with an electric
gun.The maximum accelleration applied to mass is obviously determined
by its intrinsic mass where a minimum mass determines the speed of
light. Today the smallest particle found is that of a Neutrino thus
one can see the connection of the Sun to communication as we see it
today.
Regarding your description of the shield to a long wire or dipole,
gthe curtain or shield does not provide a electrical connection for
both sides of the shield as a dipole or long wire does.
See Tom, your past postings are completely devoid of technical content
and probably provide all readers with a silent chucklel
By the way, a curtain is able to supply a very large aperture which is
synonimous with the amount of gain it supplies. You might want to
ponder on that aspect before you disparage it.
The above is provided for you and your friends to salivate apon so you
may provide a few more chuckles to those on the side lines.
Note I have left some grammerr and spelling errors for you to comment
upon in the absence of any technical content.
Cheers and beers
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg
And I'll just summarize all the last part, since it would be a total
waste of time to comment individually on points -

YOU ARE WRONG. Totally, completely, and terribly wrong.

And no, I'm not going into how or why, because you never ever listen or
understand.

tom
K0TAR

Oh My. I am wrong but you are unable to describe how I am wrong,how
convenient!

If you were to supply a sufficient description of what you have done,
you might to get more detailed responses. For example, it is unclear how
you have connected the feed line to the mesh. A photo (you have a
website, you could post it there) would make the details much clearer.
You have not specified the nature of the mesh (the material, the
thickness of the wire (assuming it is wire), how the intersections are
joined, etc.). The orientation of the mesh relative to the ground is not
specified.

You seem to expect detailed responses without out providing any details
on your part.

You need to brush up on attenuation versus skin depth, surface
conduction and a host of other things such as a sealed surface can be
considered as an aperture with respect to shielding. I would recommend
a book on shielding etc by Ralph Morrison 5 th edition that will bring
you up to date on the function of perforated shielding plates,
screening etc.

Just saying that I am wrong without explanation or
explaining your record on the subject is nothing more than the voice
of a child exercising free speech.

Just believing you are right without providing any details does not mean
we have to accept what you say.


If you can provide technical data to
support your position we can discuss but just saying one is wrong
serves nobody.

Where are the technical details to support what you are syaing about
this antenna? Frequency of operation: unspecified. Performace relative
to known/understood reference antennas: unspecified. Feedpoint
impedance: unspecified. Test conditions/setup: unspecified.


One thing you really need to understand is the nature of a
accellerated and decellerated charge and its connection with a time
varient current, the latter being the only connection
that a xmitter or rcvr can handle to provide communication and its
connection with a parallel tank circuit.


You have failed to show how a parallel tank circuit applies.


Have a happy day
Art

On Mar 11, 12:22*pm, joe wrote:

You seem to expect detailed responses without out providing any details
on your part.

And the details Art does provide he makes up as he goes along. His
time would be better spent telling stories to his granddaughter. She
night better appreciate his nonsense fantasies.

"joe" wrote in message
...
Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 10, 8:07 pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

A Faraday shield allows for magnetic and elerctrical fields to
separate and cancell leaving a RF current thast radios are designed to
handle
No, that's absolutely incorrect. Nothing is separated. And what's left
over, if anything measurable is, is an electromagnetic wave.

The shield unlike what we view as radiators has two side that
are independent of each other where as a "normal" radiators surface is
not separated electrically. The Faraday shield operates at 90 degrees
to an oncomming signal by a blocking method and does not operate as a
recieving type surface
that is directly connected to a radio.
No it doesn't. You are wrong.

The Faraday shield as a single



wall still has a blocking action as fields can encircle the wall but
it cannot protect all. It does however protect the rear surface from
field impingement and the field usually will connefct to a alternate
surface leaving a void directly behind the shielding wall.
The Faraday shield on the other hand is an enclosure that shields the
inside from encroachment on the outside such thast fields do not
interfere with activities within. It does not perform the function of
field separation. In most radio circuits you will see examples of bot
enclosures and shields where the latter incorporates physically
unconnected surfaces for electricaly closed loops.
I don't mind your postings Tom as it provides those that are educated
some idea of your true standing in life.
With respect to a closely aligned feed which to your mind leaves an
imediate short;.
I suggest you look at a three band dipole all connected at the same
point. Each dipole provides a low resistance path for a particular
applied frequency in its seach for a closed circuit. The applied
current will not divert to a path of higher resistance or impedance in
this case because we have to consider the effect of phase differences.
With these sort of actions we can have several different paths for the
current to follow but I assure you that it will pick the same one
every time dependent on the frequency applied.
Now to the wire mesh curtain. It provides a separate low impedence
path for every frequency applied to it as well as a separate path for
the displacement current that encloses a separate field ( see my page)
which has the abilitity to accellerate mass as with an electric
gun.The maximum accelleration applied to mass is obviously determined
by its intrinsic mass where a minimum mass determines the speed of
light. Today the smallest particle found is that of a Neutrino thus
one can see the connection of the Sun to communication as we see it
today.
Regarding your description of the shield to a long wire or dipole,
gthe curtain or shield does not provide a electrical connection for
both sides of the shield as a dipole or long wire does.
See Tom, your past postings are completely devoid of technical content
and probably provide all readers with a silent chucklel
By the way, a curtain is able to supply a very large aperture which is
synonimous with the amount of gain it supplies. You might want to
ponder on that aspect before you disparage it.
The above is provided for you and your friends to salivate apon so you
may provide a few more chuckles to those on the side lines.
Note I have left some grammerr and spelling errors for you to comment
upon in the absence of any technical content.
Cheers and beers
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg
And I'll just summarize all the last part, since it would be a total
waste of time to comment individually on points -

YOU ARE WRONG. Totally, completely, and terribly wrong.

And no, I'm not going into how or why, because you never ever listen or
understand.

tom
K0TAR

Oh My. I am wrong but you are unable to describe how I am wrong,how
convenient!

If you were to supply a sufficient description of what you have done, you
might to get more detailed responses. For example, it is unclear how you
have connected the feed line to the mesh. A photo (you have a website, you
could post it there) would make the details much clearer. You have not
specified the nature of the mesh (the material, the thickness of the wire
(assuming it is wire), how the intersections are joined, etc.). The
orientation of the mesh relative to the ground is not specified.

You seem to expect detailed responses without out providing any details on
your part.

Where are the technical details to support what you are syaing about this
antenna? Frequency of operation: unspecified. Performace relative to
known/understood reference antennas: unspecified. Feedpoint impedance:
unspecified. Test conditions/setup: unspecified.
joe
I'm with joe,
Some of us may be interested enough to actually build and test some
of the antennas you write about, but there is never enough detail for
anyone to attempt a build. And why don't you post a link to your site?
Mike

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:48:18 -0600, "amdx" wrote:

Where are the technical details to support what you are syaing about this
antenna? Frequency of operation: unspecified. Performace relative to
known/understood reference antennas: unspecified. Feedpoint impedance:
unspecified. Test conditions/setup: unspecified.
joe
I'm with joe,
Some of us may be interested enough to actually build and test some
of the antennas you write about, but there is never enough detail for
anyone to attempt a build. And why don't you post a link to your site?

Hi All,

This is not going to resolve issues. I have seen enough of Art's
details contributed in quotations (folks should be more selective in
both quotes and focus on one point) to see he claims ALL of HF at less
than 2:1 and specifically the 160M band - when he uses a tuner
continuously (an odd requirement adorning the claim in the advance
over conventional designs there). He also reports not hearing
anything on it. The two statements easily support each other in
revealing the inordinate loss due to the proximity of ground. This is
nothing that hasn't been reported for years by others as they
encounter the silent blessings of distributed loss.

The language of Faraday shields has been corrupted to suit a fantasy,
however. And Art has abandoned the arguments demanding length
efficiency; and no requirement for tilting the radiator (this one is
specifically described as being strictly parallel); and skewed
elements (aka guss's radiators)are gone; and contra wound coils have
disappeared; and what happened to paramagnetics?; and....

Well, Art's claims are like a long burning fuse that sparks for a
moment leaving a trail of ash behind. The mesh burns with a
sputtering flicker before it too is abandoned for the next fad when it
will be discovered that the sun's particels would go through the mesh
openings instead of hitting this peculiar antenna.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:48:18 -0600, "amdx" wrote:

Where are the technical details to support what you are syaing about this
antenna? Frequency of operation: unspecified. Performace relative to
known/understood reference antennas: unspecified. Feedpoint impedance:
unspecified. Test conditions/setup: unspecified.
joe
I'm with joe,
Some of us may be interested enough to actually build and test some
of the antennas you write about, but there is never enough detail for
anyone to attempt a build. And why don't you post a link to your site?

Hi All,

This is not going to resolve issues.

I can concur. I won't go so far as to say they won't "work" - whatever
work is defined as, but I don't see any new ground being broken.

ANother of Art's antennas, the rotatable coil on a stick is a tuned
circuit on a stick, and probably functions as a EH antenna. I'd guess
that most of it's radiation would be from the coax. Looking at the
instructions given, I figured that's what it was going to do, so didn't
take it any further.

This mesh device is either a wide dipole or a somethingorother worked
against ground. It will probably tune and put out a signal. I wonder how
things will work as it corrodes? Might get complex.

If you need to use a tuner, you might as well just put up as much number
12 THHN wire, and tune it. My doublet with an MFJ tuner works great.

- 73 de Mike -

On Mar 11, 1:12*pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:48:18 -0600, "amdx" wrote:

Where are the technical details to support what you are syaing about this
antenna? Frequency of operation: unspecified. Performace relative to
known/understood reference antennas: unspecified. Feedpoint impedance:
unspecified. Test conditions/setup: unspecified.
* * * * * * * * *joe
*I'm with joe,
Some of us may be interested enough to actually build and test some
of the antennas you write about, but there is never enough detail for
anyone to attempt a build. And why don't you post a link to your site?

Hi All,

This is not going to resolve issues.

I can concur. I won't go so far as to say they won't "work" - whatever
work is defined as, but I don't see any new ground being broken.

ANother of Art's antennas, the rotatable coil on a stick is a tuned
circuit on a stick, and probably functions as a EH antenna. I'd guess
that most of it's radiation would be from the coax. Looking at the
instructions given, I figured that's what it was going to do, so didn't
take it any further.

This mesh device is either a wide dipole or a somethingorother worked
against ground. It will probably tune and put out a signal. I wonder how
things will work as it corrodes? Might get complex.

If you need to use a tuner, you might as well just put up as much number
12 THHN wire, and tune it. My doublet with an MFJ tuner works great.

* * * * - 73 de Mike -

Guys, I can't explain the antenna if you do not accept the basic
premise of adding a time varying field to the law of Gauss is the same
as Maxwells law for radiation. All of you state it is a false premise
which means nothing is acceptable! For my part I am dealing with known
laws of physics only which is what you are rejecting.Ask any body such
as a professor or anybody who teaches theoretic physics for an
opinion. At the same time find out what Gauss equation in cgs units
changes to when you add a time varying field!
To me it is obvious that as the old timers pass on they are being
replaced by operators of a hand mike who have absolutely no interest
in experimentation,how a radio works or the physics background of
same. Having one of the new licenses to hold a microphone does not
make one an expert of any sort let alone a major in physics. Nobody
but nobody has ventured forth the resulting equation or proffered
anything to justify allegations of radiation from the feed line or any
other scientific fact in rebuttal to what I propose. So based on your
postings I can only consider you to be microphone holders with
absolutely no interest in physics and only interested in the straw men
that you manufacture based on untruths to which you base your
arguements upon. Frankly none of you can handle the truth or change
from the past. I suppose this particular thread has now come to an end
as your understanding of physics results in different result from mine
and you now prefer to supply insults or spamming in line with your
fellow poster KB9QRZ who now appears to be using different calls to
attack to hide his identity based on the content of the posts.
Cheers and beers
Art Unwin......KB9MZ.....xg

Guys, I can't explain the antenna if you do not accept the basic
premise of adding a time varying field to the law of Gauss is the same
as Maxwells law for radiation.


Gauss and Maxwell have nothing to do with describing the areas I mentioned.


All of you state it is a false premise
which means nothing is acceptable! For my part I am dealing with known
laws of physics only which is what you are rejecting.Ask any body such
as a professor or anybody who teaches theoretic physics for an
opinion. At the same time find out what Gauss equation in cgs units
changes to when you add a time varying field!

The laws of physics were not questioned. I just wanted to know how you
made the antenna. You are evading the issue.

To me it is obvious that as the old timers pass on they are being
replaced by operators of a hand mike who have absolutely no interest
in experimentation,how a radio works or the physics background of
same. Having one of the new licenses to hold a microphone does not
make one an expert of any sort let alone a major in physics. Nobody
but nobody has ventured forth the resulting equation or proffered
anything to justify allegations of radiation from the feed line or any
other scientific fact in rebuttal to what I propose. So based on your
postings I can only consider you to be microphone holders with
absolutely no interest in physics and only interested in the straw men
that you manufacture based on untruths to which you base your
arguements upon. Frankly none of you can handle the truth or change
from the past.


So, you choose to throw more insults.


I suppose this particular thread has now come to an end

It comes to an end because you won't supply any details. It becomes
clear that you are NOT looking for any meaningful discussion.


as your understanding of physics results in different result from mine
and you now prefer to supply insults or spamming in line with your
fellow poster KB9QRZ who now appears to be using different calls to
attack to hide his identity based on the content of the posts.

.... and more insulting remarks.

Cheers and beers
Art Unwin......KB9MZ.....xg

Art Unwin wrote:

snip the normal nonsense, and on with the new...

I suppose this particular thread has now come to an end
as your understanding of physics results in different result from mine
and you now prefer to supply insults

snip more hallucinations

Cheers and beers
Art Unwin......KB9MZ.....xg

You nailed it. Your understanding of physics differs from mine. It
also differs from any physics professor you would care to speak to,
which is why none have shown up to support your nonsense. And differs
from everyone here that has designed (that is an important word) an
antenna that works as predicted. With real testable numbers and all
that silly stuff.

tom
K0TAR