On Mar 22, 8:56*pm, tom wrote:

Do you have any web references to gridded cavity antennas?

A good source is the paper from which I posted a few "fair use" clips,
and was published in the Sept 1979 edition of the IEEE Transactions on
Broadcasting. I'm not aware of any web link to it, and it is a
copyrighted work. But probably your local public library would be
able to access it through inter-library services, and provide you with
a copy.

This design was developed by Harris Corporation, and has evolved/
improved over the years especially in the crossed-dipole element used
to excite the cavity.

The design is now available through several manufacturers. The first
link below shows a description of it from the 2004 catalog of
Dielectric Communications, who bought the design from Harris. The
picture shows an array of 12 layers of 3-around cavities that was
built by Harris as a master FM antenna (9 stations) for the Senior
Road Tower Group in Houston.

The second link below shows the measured axial ratio for an
omnidirectional version of the antenna.

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

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

RF

On Mar 23, 6:31*am, Richard Fry wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:56*pm, tom wrote:

A good source is the paper from which I posted a few "fair use" clips,
and was published in the Sept 1979 edition of the IEEE Transactions on
Broadcasting.

CORRECTION, that was the Sept 1976 edition.

Richard Fry wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:56 pm, tom wrote:
Do you have any web references to gridded cavity antennas?

A good source is the paper from which I posted a few "fair use" clips,
and was published in the Sept 1979 edition of the IEEE Transactions on
Broadcasting. I'm not aware of any web link to it, and it is a
copyrighted work. But probably your local public library would be
able to access it through inter-library services, and provide you with
a copy.

This design was developed by Harris Corporation, and has evolved/
improved over the years especially in the crossed-dipole element used
to excite the cavity.

The design is now available through several manufacturers. The first
link below shows a description of it from the 2004 catalog of
Dielectric Communications, who bought the design from Harris. The
picture shows an array of 12 layers of 3-around cavities that was
built by Harris as a master FM antenna (9 stations) for the Senior
Road Tower Group in Houston.

The second link below shows the measured axial ratio for an
omnidirectional version of the antenna.

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

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

RF

Thanks. Gives me plenty to start from.

tom
K0TAR

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

Mike you know and I know that the double split experiment was
interpreted as evidence
that radiation is created by a wave and not a particle as in quantum
mechanics. This being in opposition to the thinking of the masters of
the day . The descision made went far beyond the duallity stage when
they made this interporetation. Now it is called the infamaos
experiment as they have now identified the initial observations as a
result of particles. To my knoweledge there is no books available for
University students to get up to date as physicist are reluctant to
change or to admit errors. Until this is done students will
continue to remember what the books state to pass their examinations.
A long time has passed since the time of Maxwell and the books still
force Universities to stick with fields and waves where nobody can
procede in the search for truth as we do not know the mass
of the waves or the energy mechanism of the revolving door of such.
This group who have been taught to memorize what a professor states
and not to question by first principles of what is stated then they
all know what to encircle at exam time from a to c which is what the
professor said and has nothing to do with reality. It is not
surprising that Einstein failed in his quest to describe the Standard
Model as he was building on the shoulders of those that preceded him
on the assumption that they were free from error. Now with computers
we have a tremedous amount of formulas that are built on errors which
leaves huge gaps in understanding and the number of constants and
predicted particles to make sense of all these manufactured formulae
based on error. It is not surprizing that physicists are getting away
with all this tripe by stating that all those outside the discipline
are all crackpots as they have had no instruction on their version of
the discipline of mathematics. Now we are all paying for the multi
million CERN project that is intended to break the smallest particle
known to obtain a lesser mass so the speed of light can be exceeded.As
for the Higgs field
predicted by their wierd forms of mathematics it will be found as a
constant squared divided by the mas of numourous unfound but predicted
particles!

Joe, I wanted a debate as to why adding a time varying field to a
boundary enclosed static particles in equilibrium is illegal.

your whole concept is malformed. if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field
the particles are going to start moving and won't be in equilibrium
any more... assuming of course the particles are charged or have a
magnetic moment.

This is in opposition to what the books say.

which books. quote titles and paragraphs and what you think you
oppose in them. i have given you my quotes as to why it is not
necessary to add a time parameter to gauss's law and you ignore it.

My whole theory lives or dies on how this is resolved. Nobody will
provide technical details as to why this is illegal.

then you better start hunting for a new theory. i have provided you
formulas in the past and you have ignored them... personally i don't
think you even understand the concepts and have probably ignored me on
purpose just so you can continue to blather on to get more attention.

On Mar 23, 6:34*pm, Dave wrote:
Joe, I wanted a debate as to why adding a time varying field to a
boundary enclosed static particles in equilibrium is illegal.

your whole concept is malformed. *if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field
the particles are going to start moving and won't be in equilibrium
any more... assuming of course the particles are charged or have a
magnetic moment.

This is in opposition to what the books say.

which books. *quote titles and paragraphs and what you think you
oppose in them. *i have given you my quotes as to why it is not
necessary to add a time parameter to gauss's law and you ignore it.

My whole theory lives or dies on how this is resolved. Nobody will
provide technical details as to why this is illegal.

then you better start hunting for a new theory. *i have provided you
formulas in the past and you have ignored them... personally i don't
think you even understand the concepts and have probably ignored me on
purpose just so you can continue to blather on to get more attention.

As i said before, if you do not accept the laws of physics then we
cannot debate physics
Probably the best thing to happen for both of us! You can take a horse
to the water trough
but you can't make it drink. Especially when it puts his arse to the
front and lets loose with hot air.Your last statement shows all who
you are and what you are. Free speech can have its price.

Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 23, 6:34 pm, Dave wrote:
Joe, I wanted a debate as to why adding a time varying field to a
boundary enclosed static particles in equilibrium is illegal.
your whole concept is malformed. if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field
the particles are going to start moving and won't be in equilibrium
any more... assuming of course the particles are charged or have a
magnetic moment.

This is in opposition to what the books say.
which books. quote titles and paragraphs and what you think you
oppose in them. i have given you my quotes as to why it is not
necessary to add a time parameter to gauss's law and you ignore it.

My whole theory lives or dies on how this is resolved. Nobody will
provide technical details as to why this is illegal.
then you better start hunting for a new theory. i have provided you
formulas in the past and you have ignored them... personally i don't
think you even understand the concepts and have probably ignored me on
purpose just so you can continue to blather on to get more attention.

As i said before, if you do not accept the laws of physics then we
cannot debate physics
Probably the best thing to happen for both of us! You can take a horse
to the water trough
but you can't make it drink. Especially when it puts his arse to the
front and lets loose with hot air.Your last statement shows all who
you are and what you are. Free speech can have its price.


Once again, you throw insults when the discussion does not go your way.
I'm not sure you even know who you replied to.

As far as folks not debating you, first present your position in a clear
way with the appropriate math and equations. Allow others to try to
understand your way of thinking. To date, you have not provided the kind
of detail necessary for the kind of debate you would like.

As I said before, just adding "+t" to an equation does not make it
right. If I've interpreted your position wrong, then it is because you
have not clearly expressed it.

The ball, as it has always been, is in your court.

It is not a matter of accepting the laws of physics. It is what you do
with/to them that may be the problem.

If you want to discuss physics, present your case the way those
knowledgeable in the field would do.

On Mar 23, 7:46*pm, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 23, 6:34 pm, Dave wrote:
Joe, I wanted a debate as to why adding a time varying field to a
boundary enclosed static particles in equilibrium is illegal.
your whole concept is malformed. *if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field
the particles are going to start moving and won't be in equilibrium
any more... assuming of course the particles are charged or have a
magnetic moment.

This is in opposition to what the books say.
which books. *quote titles and paragraphs and what you think you
oppose in them. *i have given you my quotes as to why it is not
necessary to add a time parameter to gauss's law and you ignore it.

My whole theory lives or dies on how this is resolved. Nobody will
provide technical details as to why this is illegal.
then you better start hunting for a new theory. *i have provided you
formulas in the past and you have ignored them... personally i don't
think you even understand the concepts and have probably ignored me on
purpose just so you can continue to blather on to get more attention.

As i said before, if you do not accept the laws of physics then we
cannot debate physics
Probably the best thing to happen for both of us! You can take a horse
to the water trough
but you can't make it drink. Especially when it puts his arse to the
front and lets loose with hot air.Your last statement shows all who
you are and what you are. Free speech can have its price.

Once again, you throw insults when the discussion does not go your way.
I'm not sure you even know who you replied to.

As far as folks not debating you, first present your position in a clear
way with the appropriate math and equations. Allow others to try to
understand your way of thinking. To date, you have not provided the kind
of detail necessary for the kind of debate you would like.

As I said before, just adding "+t" to an equation does not make it
right. If I've interpreted your position wrong, then it is because you
have not clearly expressed it.

The ball, as it has always been, is in your court.

It is not a matter of accepting the laws of physics. It is what you do
with/to them that may be the problem.

If you want to discuss physics, present your case the way those
knowledgeable in the field would do.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well you can discuss your ideas on physics with David. There are also
some on the group
who obviously understand classical physics. So you have a choice of a
sensible discussion
on physics as well as a discussion of your idea of physics. I await on
the side lines with interest to see what choice you make!

On 3/23/2010 7:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
your whole concept is malformed. if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field

Equilibrium does not mean not moving.

I won't go any deeper since you have problems with things complex and go
into babble mode when confronted with them.

tom
K0TAR

On 3/23/2010 8:10 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 23, 7:46 pm, wrote:
If you want to discuss physics, present your case the way those
knowledgeable in the field would do.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well you can discuss your ideas on physics with David. There are also
some on the group
who obviously understand classical physics. So you have a choice of a
sensible discussion
on physics as well as a discussion of your idea of physics. I await on
the side lines with interest to see what choice you make!

And Art, as usual, waits on the side defined by fantasy.

tom
K0TAR