Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 8:52*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 21, 7:38*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....
On Mar 21, 3:25 pm, Bill wrote:

On Mar 21, 4:59 pm, joe wrote:

If it is this
article,http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos...sm/SkinDepth/S...
Then more was given.

It was an experiment in skin depth.

Strictly speaking the page describes a demonstration from page 321 of
this book:

G. Bekefi and A. H. Barrett, Electromagnetic Vibrations, Waves and
Radiation, (MIT Press, 1977)

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek....

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...d=7576&ttype=2

A reviewer comments, "MITonline offers the course based on this book
for free. The course is great! This book is a less engaging, but a
more comprehensive version of A.P. French's original text for the
course. There are many gems in the book, such as insights into
microwave oven fundamentals, that are not present in basic texts.
Beware the softcover binding, it needs a gentle hand. "

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek....

What does the book point to, waves or particles? We all have plenty of
books and all cannot agree on the subject on radiation! In other words
they have placed their own interpretations of the observations seen
with the double slit experiment as over ruling of all and cast in
stone. This is what the physics forum sponsered by Scientific American
said to me as they banned me because of my temerety in challenging
their position.In addition they stated that it is not possible outside
the physcics spectrum to challenge anything which thus puts all in the
spectrum of crackpots. Dr Davis of MIT provided the mathematics
that confirmed the presense of particles, but mathematics was not
considered a reputable answer compared to the majority argument that
the mathematical aproach was illegal.
So waves hold the majority in the books but by its very presence all
understanding of radiation has been *stymied for the last hundred
years by the resistance to change without any accumpanying facts and
where physicists refuse to review to re examine what they state is now
"cast in stone." New books are written every year via plagarisation
for personal profit where the professor orders purchase of such books
for his pay off. Not one has come out with a review of radiation and
why progress has been stymied. And that goes for Radcom and QST who
have no real interest in advancing the hobby of its members.
Regards
Art

Art,

The double slit experiment clearly points to particles or photons. The slits
are very narrow (otherwise the experiments don't work) and the wave like
properties are caused by the interaction of the particles with the atoms in
the walls of the slit as they pass through. The slit is modulating the
particles if you like.

We know that individual particles are involved because they can be counted
one by one through a detector.
We know that wave like properties are involved because of the effects
observed on a screen placed behind a diffraction grid.

The observed properties are due to influence exerted on the particles as
they pass through the diffraction grid by the atomic structure of the grid
itself. Unless the experiment were carried out at absolute zero, the atoms
in the walls of the slit are vibrating and must influence the photon as it
passes through.

At absolute zero, nothing would be moving, including the photon, so the
experiment collapses at this point.

Photons are particles that display wave like behaviour under particular
conditions.

Mike g0uli

I totally agree. Many things have attributes that other things have
but humans say that if it has a tail like a dog then it is a dog!
History shows that the interpretations ascertained from this
experiment was expanded to provide *data to conclusavly say that
radiation" is" a accellerated wave and that is carved in stone i.e.
conclusive by physicists who made that descision without over sight
from another discipline.Cast in stone is a finality for physicists
who time after time dtate that their manipulation of mathematics prove
the existence of another particle that is predictable but we have just
not found it!
Now the shoe is on another foot, I have to provide an alternative PLUS
prove it where others don't have to.
To respond I used *EXISTING LAWS and the mathematics that represent
them. Gauss stated his law as a measure of "an instant" in time
recognising that flux is mobile where at any "instant" of time the
boundary was in equilibrium. So I added a length of time where a time
varying *field was added. All this being in cgs units. When the units
were changed to be the same as Maxwells equations (MKS) they showed
that they were one and the same which cemented the position of
particles as being present in the makings of radiation.
I am using common mathematics with established accepted laws and
nothing more but I am being asked to prove its legality which is
beyond reason.This establishes some consistency in the use of both
classical and other strains of physics that when applied to the same
problem also provides the same answer. What more can be said? Articles
now declare that interpretations made years ago are not as we thought,
but it is to late now for change as decisions in physics are the
result of polls and not reality.

As I run through some other physics books I see situations that abound
where a static field is made dynamic! It just doesn't make sense that
hams who consider themselves as experts with respect to antennas can
now suddenly declare that it is now deemed illegal
I suppose with respect to free speech one can say anything if they do
not care about their credability of being an expert.This is not just a
single ham but the majority of the hams
commenting on this group. If a poll is taken then hams have proved
them selves to be in the right and truly expert.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 22, 2:25*am, Art Unwin wrote:

As I run through some other physics books I see situations that abound
where a static field is made dynamic! It just doesn't make sense that
hams who consider themselves as experts with respect to antennas can
now suddenly declare that it is now deemed illegal
I suppose with respect to free speech one can say anything if they do
not care about their credability of being an expert.This is not just a
single ham but the majority of the hams
commenting on this group. If a poll is taken then hams have proved
them selves to be in the right and truly expert.

What fraction of the ham population is on r.r.a.a. do you think?

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 8:49*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek...

What does the book point to, waves or particles?

Look for yourself.

they have placed their own interpretations of the observations seen
with the double slit experiment as over ruling of all and cast in
stone. This is what the physics forum sponsored by Scientific American
said to me as they banned me because of my temerity in challenging
their position

You are such a martyr. My guess is that you were banned from a
moderated forum because you made a nuisance of yourself. But your will
always be able to come to r.r.a.a. and be as absurd as you care to be.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 10:19*pm, Bill wrote:
On Mar 22, 2:25*am, Art Unwin wrote:



As I run through some other physics books I see situations that abound
where a static field is made dynamic! It just doesn't make sense that
hams who consider themselves as experts with respect to antennas can
now suddenly declare that it is now deemed illegal
I suppose with respect to free speech one can say anything if they do
not care about their credability of being an expert.This is not just a
single ham but the majority of the hams
commenting on this group. If a poll is taken then hams have proved
them selves to be in the right and truly expert.

What fraction of the ham population is on r.r.a.a. do you think?

Odd question but I will respond to prevent bad thoughts.
For this group this discusion has lasted several years and only two
agree that the theory is worth reviewing. On qrz there have been two
threads which has in the order of 8000 + views including a posting by
Tom W8 TI which pleased me as he always follows up with a full
analysis that destroys various claimes put forward. This time he has
failed to place his resonings in writing so basically he is agreeing
with other hams that it is a fraud. Nobody on QRZ expressed any
confidence in my theory and again nobody provided anything to back up
the opinion of fraud. If one went by poll within the amateur group
there would be rousing agreement that it all is a fraud both in
thought and action. If one was judged in terms of debate then it is
two to zero as they were the only ones to express "why" it was worth
consideration. So If hams are the experts they think they are they do
not have to prove their competance and just go by the polls.
As an aside Jeffries who is the antenna adviser for a U.S.magazine
stated that static had no part in ac or dc circuits. I believe he is a
professor or teacher at a university in Sussex U.K. having held
similar positions in the U.S.
I believe that the above answers are the truth as I see it and what
you asked for.
Kotar has been the most critical and I leave it for you to review the
archives for his postings explaining his position which appears to be
par for the course on this newsgroup.
Regards
Art
Regards
Art

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 10:35*pm, Bill wrote:
On Mar 21, 8:49*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek....

What does the book point to, waves or particles?

Look for yourself.

they have placed their own interpretations of the observations seen
with the double slit experiment as over ruling of all and cast in
stone. This is what the physics forum sponsored by Scientific American
said to me as they banned me because of my temerity in challenging
their position

You are such a martyr. *My guess is that you were banned from a
moderated forum because you made a nuisance of yourself. But your will
always be able to come to r.r.a.a. and be as absurd as you care to be.

No I was banned for not conforming with known physics which was
considered arguementive. I was given the option of showing an
understanding and aproval of known physics for reinstatement. I
supplied such information to you as a sample of the truth regardless
whether it was in my favour or not knowing full well one might seize
upon it
to my detriment.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 20, 11:49*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
*Intuition tells me that when using a perforated plate the lower the
frequency then the smaller the perforations in the shield to create a
blocking effect. ...* The books state for a mesh shield the perforations
should be less than 1/10 of a WL which on the surface opposes
the results obtained by the box experiment! ... Where has my intuition
gone wrong in opposing the books?

If reality will help shape your intuition, then you may be interested
in this paste-up from an IEEE paper linked below.

Note that the spacing of the conductors in the mesh forming these
cavities is much greater than your intuition says is required "to
create a blocking effect."

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...y_Radiator.gif

RF

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 22, 6:20*am, Richard Fry wrote:
On Mar 20, 11:49*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

*Intuition tells me that when using a perforated plate the lower the
frequency then the smaller the perforations in the shield to create a
blocking effect. ...* The books state for a mesh shield the perforations
should be less than 1/10 of a WL which on the surface opposes
the results obtained by *the box experiment! ... Where has my intuition
gone wrong in opposing the books?

If reality will help shape your intuition, then you may be interested
in this paste-up from an IEEE paper linked below.

Note that the spacing of the conductors in the mesh forming these
cavities is much greater than your intuition says is required "to
create a blocking effect."

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...Cavity_Radiato...

RF

Interesting. thank you.It would appear that they are using approx .1
lamda sections but the beam pattern appears to be what is expected
other than the differential between E and H
as shown on my page.
Ofcourse it doesnt show how it is fed which can make a lot of
difference.The size of the squares really determine whether the
currents slides across the surface or follow a paths per a normal
radiator. I certainly would not feel comfortable using such openings
as protection against lightning.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 22, 8:23*am, Art Unwin wrote:
I certainly would not feel comfortable using such openings
as protection against lightning.

Real comfort is produced by real (proven) knowledge, not intuition.

The purposes of the gridded cavity are (1) to isolate its radiating
elements from coupling into the nearby supporting tower, (2) to
minimize coupling into adjacent cavities on the same level and those
installed above and below, (3) to minimize the windload of the
installed antenna compared to using solid cavities, and (4) to create
predictable, unit radiation patterns that can be used together to
generate specific, directional radiation patterns for the array that
meet given specifications in the azimuth and elevation planes.

The cavity, and all of its components operate nearly at earth ground
potential in the low r-f spectrum, where induced energy from nearby
lightning strikes is greatest.

Arrays of these cavity antennas have been in operation at the top of
the Sears Tower in Chicago and many other "tall-tower" sites for more
than 25 years now, with zero lightning damage.

RF

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 7:38*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Mar 21, 3:25 pm, Bill wrote:



On Mar 21, 4:59 pm, joe wrote:

If it is this
article,http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos...sm/SkinDepth/S...
Then more was given.

It was an experiment in skin depth.

Strictly speaking the page describes a demonstration from page 321 of
this book:

G. Bekefi and A. H. Barrett, Electromagnetic Vibrations, Waves and
Radiation, (MIT Press, 1977)

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek...

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...d=7576&ttype=2

A reviewer comments, "MITonline offers the course based on this book
for free. The course is great! This book is a less engaging, but a
more comprehensive version of A.P. French's original text for the
course. There are many gems in the book, such as insights into
microwave oven fundamentals, that are not present in basic texts.
Beware the softcover binding, it needs a gentle hand. "

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek...

What does the book point to, waves or particles? We all have plenty of
books and all cannot agree on the subject on radiation! In other words
they have placed their own interpretations of the observations seen
with the double slit experiment as over ruling of all and cast in
stone. This is what the physics forum sponsered by Scientific American
said to me as they banned me because of my temerety in challenging
their position.In addition they stated that it is not possible outside
the physcics spectrum to challenge anything which thus puts all in the
spectrum of crackpots. Dr Davis of MIT provided the mathematics
that confirmed the presense of particles, but mathematics was not
considered a reputable answer compared to the majority argument that
the mathematical aproach was illegal.
So waves hold the majority in the books but by its very presence all
understanding of radiation has been *stymied for the last hundred
years by the resistance to change without any accumpanying facts and
where physicists refuse to review to re examine what they state is now
"cast in stone." New books are written every year via plagarisation
for personal profit where the professor orders purchase of such books
for his pay off. Not one has come out with a review of radiation and
why progress has been stymied. And that goes for Radcom and QST who
have no real interest in advancing the hobby of its members.
Regards
Art

Art,

The double slit experiment clearly points to particles or photons. The slits
are very narrow (otherwise the experiments don't work) and the wave like
properties are caused by the interaction of the particles with the atoms in
the walls of the slit as they pass through. The slit is modulating the
particles if you like.

We know that individual particles are involved because they can be counted
one by one through a detector.
We know that wave like properties are involved because of the effects
observed on a screen placed behind a diffraction grid.

The observed properties are due to influence exerted on the particles as
they pass through the diffraction grid by the atomic structure of the grid
itself. Unless the experiment were carried out at absolute zero, the atoms
in the walls of the slit are vibrating and must influence the photon as it
passes through.

At absolute zero, nothing would be moving, including the photon, so the
experiment collapses at this point.

Photons are particles that display wave like behaviour under particular
conditions.

Mike g0uli

Interesting video on the double slit experiment which reverses "waves"
back to "particles".
I wonder how long before the books are changed back to the thoughts of
Newton and possibly my proof with respect to particles? Its a shame
that the professors on the physics
forum are still in a pattern against change or just not up to date in
the absence of a new up to date book. Of course it will take much
longer for the ham community to reconcile themselves and it may take a
new generation to adjust.
And a bit longer for QST and Radcom as they have a back log of
articles with respect to soldering connections on coax, morse code key
design and push pull tubes used in radios!
I am extremely happy regarding the helical spin shown which I
determined as a scalar reaction to the rotation of the Earth as it
gives more credability to my position that it is one of the two forces
that make up the Standard Model.( see unwin antenna page) as well as
the notion of tipped verticles to reflect same
http://vimeo.com/3747866
Best Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

Richard Fry wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:23 am, Art Unwin wrote:
I certainly would not feel comfortable using such openings
as protection against lightning.

Real comfort is produced by real (proven) knowledge, not intuition.

The purposes of the gridded cavity are (1) to isolate its radiating
elements from coupling into the nearby supporting tower, (2) to
minimize coupling into adjacent cavities on the same level and those
installed above and below, (3) to minimize the windload of the
installed antenna compared to using solid cavities, and (4) to create
predictable, unit radiation patterns that can be used together to
generate specific, directional radiation patterns for the array that
meet given specifications in the azimuth and elevation planes.

The cavity, and all of its components operate nearly at earth ground
potential in the low r-f spectrum, where induced energy from nearby
lightning strikes is greatest.

Arrays of these cavity antennas have been in operation at the top of
the Sears Tower in Chicago and many other "tall-tower" sites for more
than 25 years now, with zero lightning damage.

RF

Do you have any web references to gridded cavity antennas?

My intuition says your statements are correct. It is likely not wrong.

Thanks.

tom
K0TAR