I just completed a experiment with my antenna optimizer program where
I had a dipole in free space and where I increased the diameter until
it was close to.003 ohms resistive
What this means is the current flow is right at the surface where
there is no skin depth
penetration involved and thus close to zero material resistance. This
means that the total resistance is the radiation resistance of the
surface encapsulating particles. The radiation was 35 db in a shape
close to that of a sphere. (when the resistance of the aluminum dipole
went to zero the radiation went to a perfect sphere) Efficiency was
stated at 100% efficient pointing to 100% accountability for all
forces involved and where losses were at a minimum.
Regards
Art

On May 10, 12:35*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
.... The radiation was 35 db in a shape
close to that of a sphere. (when the resistance of the aluminum dipole
went to zero the radiation went to a perfect sphere)

The radiation was "35 db" compared to what reference value?

BTW, a single, linear radiator cannot generate a perfectly spherical
radiation pattern, no matter what your model tells you.

Even an "infinitesimally" short, center-fed linear dipole has a figure
8 radiation pattern with a directivity (gain) of 1.5 X, or 1.76 dBi
-- see any antenna engineering textbook.

RF

On May 10, 1:05*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On May 10, 12:35*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

* .... The radiation was 35 db in a shape
close to that of a sphere. (when the resistance of the aluminum dipole
went to zero the radiation went to a perfect sphere)

The radiation was "35 db" compared to what reference value?

BTW, a single, linear radiator cannot generate a perfectly spherical
radiation pattern, no matter what your model tells you.

Even an "infinitesimally" short, center-fed linear dipole has a figure
8 radiation pattern with a directivity (gain) of 1.5 X, or 1.76 dBi
-- see any antenna engineering textbook.

RF

I believe the computer programs to be more up to date than the books!
There certainly have been more advances since they have come into
being.
The programs reflect Maxwells equations which support the presence of
particles which is what provide the radiation resistance and not the
dipole itself. The dipole will show a donut pattern that will
gradually deform to a perfect sphere when resistance drops to zero as
per Poynting.
I would also point out that the programs support the presence of
Gaussian static particles as does mathematics. I would imagine that no
matter what programs you decide to use you will get the same results
as you increase the element diameter until the impedance is zero.No
point in trashing computer programs in advance because of personal
intuition. All I have done is removing resistance losses that do not
contribute to radiation.

On May 10, 6:49*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 10, 1:05*pm, Richard Fry wrote:



On May 10, 12:35*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

* .... The radiation was 35 db in a shape
close to that of a sphere. (when the resistance of the aluminum dipole
went to zero the radiation went to a perfect sphere)

The radiation was "35 db" compared to what reference value?

BTW, a single, linear radiator cannot generate a perfectly spherical
radiation pattern, no matter what your model tells you.

Even an "infinitesimally" short, center-fed linear dipole has a figure
8 radiation pattern with a directivity (gain) of 1.5 X, or 1.76 dBi
-- see any antenna engineering textbook.

RF

I believe the computer programs to be more up to date than the books!
There certainly have been more advances since they have come into
being.
The programs reflect Maxwells equations which support the presence of
particles which is what provide the radiation resistance and not the
dipole itself. The dipole will show a donut pattern that will
gradually deform to a perfect sphere when resistance drops to zero as
per Poynting.
I would also point out that the programs support the presence of
Gaussian static particles as does mathematics. I would imagine that no
matter what programs you decide to use you will get the same results
as you increase the element diameter until the impedance is zero.No
point in trashing computer programs in advance because of personal
intuition. All I have done is removing resistance losses that do not
contribute to radiation.

the programs are based on the books... but even worse, they are
digital approximations of the continuous formulas and as such are not
completely accurate. this is especially true when extremely large or
small numbers are used or there are a large number of additions done,
as is common in antenna modeling programs. there are also assumptions
made in the development of most of those programs that are often not
stated to, or not understood by, the user, such as you. so when you
set something to optimize forever or start making elements extremely
skinny, fat, short, or long, or too close together, you are most
likely going to get wrong, or physically unrealizable results.

On May 10, 5:26*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On May 10, 6:49*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On May 10, 1:05*pm, Richard Fry wrote:

On May 10, 12:35*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

* .... The radiation was 35 db in a shape
close to that of a sphere. (when the resistance of the aluminum dipole
went to zero the radiation went to a perfect sphere)

The radiation was "35 db" compared to what reference value?

BTW, a single, linear radiator cannot generate a perfectly spherical
radiation pattern, no matter what your model tells you.

Even an "infinitesimally" short, center-fed linear dipole has a figure
8 radiation pattern with a directivity (gain) of 1.5 X, or 1.76 dBi
-- see any antenna engineering textbook.

RF

I believe the computer programs to be more up to date than the books!
There certainly have been more advances since they have come into
being.
The programs reflect Maxwells equations which support the presence of
particles which is what provide the radiation resistance and not the
dipole itself. The dipole will show a donut pattern that will
gradually deform to a perfect sphere when resistance drops to zero as
per Poynting.
I would also point out that the programs support the presence of
Gaussian static particles as does mathematics. I would imagine that no
matter what programs you decide to use you will get the same results
as you increase the element diameter until the impedance is zero.No
point in trashing computer programs in advance because of personal
intuition. All I have done is removing resistance losses that do not
contribute to radiation.

the programs are based on the books... but even worse, they are
digital approximations of the continuous formulas and as such are not
completely accurate. *this is especially true when extremely large or
small numbers are used or there are a large number of additions done,
as is common in antenna modeling programs. *there are also assumptions
made in the development of most of those programs that are often not
stated to, or not understood by, the user, such as you. *so when you
set something to optimize forever or start making elements extremely
skinny, fat, short, or long, or too close together, you are most
likely going to get wrong, or physically unrealizable results.

Obviously you are very experienced in generating
and bug catching in antenna programs having large experiences of
finding antenna errors.
What exactly in the nature of antenna computer programs, which have
been around for some time now, have you found them to be suspect ?
In my case the program verified what mathematics show as the presence
of particles on the surface and where the total input forces were used
for particle propagation. Now I am aware you have taken the position
that particles are not involved in radiation and thus you will resist
what computer programs arrive at relying on your intuition at all
times which requires no personal experience on the subject
However, I am taking the program that I purchased on trust especially
when it follows the maxwell equations and where I am not adverse to
change.
I look forward to specific examples that buttress your thoughts in a
scientific manner so I may decide what to do with my program purchase.
May I recommend you do the same thing with the program of your choice
where you can specifically point to the areas of error where they do
not meet your expectations. Why not do the same with EZNEC so Roy can
learn from your personal experiences and intuitions and institute the
appropriate corrections. Never mind the length of the dipole just make
the diameter very very fat and see what EZNEC does.

On May 10, 7:04*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 10, 5:26*pm, K1TTT wrote:



On May 10, 6:49*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On May 10, 1:05*pm, Richard Fry wrote:

On May 10, 12:35*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

* .... The radiation was 35 db in a shape
close to that of a sphere. (when the resistance of the aluminum dipole
went to zero the radiation went to a perfect sphere)

The radiation was "35 db" compared to what reference value?

BTW, a single, linear radiator cannot generate a perfectly spherical
radiation pattern, no matter what your model tells you.

Even an "infinitesimally" short, center-fed linear dipole has a figure
8 radiation pattern with a directivity (gain) of 1.5 X, or 1.76 dBi
-- see any antenna engineering textbook.

RF

I believe the computer programs to be more up to date than the books!
There certainly have been more advances since they have come into
being.
The programs reflect Maxwells equations which support the presence of
particles which is what provide the radiation resistance and not the
dipole itself. The dipole will show a donut pattern that will
gradually deform to a perfect sphere when resistance drops to zero as
per Poynting.
I would also point out that the programs support the presence of
Gaussian static particles as does mathematics. I would imagine that no
matter what programs you decide to use you will get the same results
as you increase the element diameter until the impedance is zero.No
point in trashing computer programs in advance because of personal
intuition. All I have done is removing resistance losses that do not
contribute to radiation.

the programs are based on the books... but even worse, they are
digital approximations of the continuous formulas and as such are not
completely accurate. *this is especially true when extremely large or
small numbers are used or there are a large number of additions done,
as is common in antenna modeling programs. *there are also assumptions
made in the development of most of those programs that are often not
stated to, or not understood by, the user, such as you. *so when you
set something to optimize forever or start making elements extremely
skinny, fat, short, or long, or too close together, you are most
likely going to get wrong, or physically unrealizable results.

Obviously you are very experienced in generating
and bug catching in antenna programs having large experiences of
finding antenna errors.
What exactly in the nature of antenna computer programs, which have
been around for some time now, have you found them to be suspect ?
In my case the program verified what mathematics show as the presence
of particles on the surface and where the total input forces were used
for particle propagation. Now I am aware you have taken the position
that particles are not involved in radiation and thus you will resist
what computer programs arrive at relying on your intuition at all
times which requires no personal experience on the subject
However, I am taking the program that I purchased on trust especially
when it follows the maxwell equations and where I am not adverse to
change.
I look forward to specific examples that buttress your thoughts in a
scientific manner so I may decide what to do with my program purchase.
May I recommend you do the same thing with the program of your choice
where you can specifically point to the areas of error where they do
not meet your expectations. Why not do the same with EZNEC so Roy can
learn from your personal experiences and intuitions and institute the
appropriate corrections. Never mind the length of the dipole just make
the diameter very very fat and see what EZNEC does.

Groan... Let me tell you the story about 24 dbi gain dipoles...
Simple to model.. Then again, no, it's a futile waste of time trying
to
convince you of the error of your ways.. :/
Continue with fantasy hour... :/

On May 10, 12:35*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I just completed a experiment with my antenna optimizer program where
I had a dipole in free space and where I increased the diameter until
it was close to.003 ohms resistive
What this means is the current flow is right at the surface where
there is no skin depth
penetration involved and thus close to zero material resistance. This
means that the total resistance is the radiation resistance of the
surface encapsulating particles. The radiation was 35 db in a shape
close to that of a sphere. (when the resistance of the aluminum dipole
went to zero the radiation went to a perfect sphere) Efficiency was
stated at 100% efficient pointing to 100% accountability for all
forces involved and where losses were at a minimum.
Regards
Art

Where is Lurch when I need him.... Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...
Once again , delusions of grandeur induced by misuse of antenna
modeling programs. :/

On 5/10/2010 3:12 PM, wrote:
On May 10, 12:35 pm, Art wrote:
I just completed a experiment with my antenna optimizer program where
I had a dipole in free space and where I increased the diameter until
it was close to.003 ohms resistive
What this means is the current flow is right at the surface where
there is no skin depth
penetration involved and thus close to zero material resistance. This
means that the total resistance is the radiation resistance of the
surface encapsulating particles. The radiation was 35 db in a shape
close to that of a sphere. (when the resistance of the aluminum dipole
went to zero the radiation went to a perfect sphere) Efficiency was
stated at 100% efficient pointing to 100% accountability for all
forces involved and where losses were at a minimum.
Regards
Art

Where is Lurch when I need him.... Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...
Once again , delusions of grandeur induced by misuse of antenna
modeling programs. :/

As Clint said in the wonderful old movie, "A man's gotta know his
limits". For antenna modelers it should read, "A man's gotta know the
program's limits".

Of course, Art thinks things have changed and the computer modelers have
a better grasp upon reality than the ones even he calls "the masters".
He is an example of the blind man leading himself.

tom
K0TAR

"tom" wrote in message
t...
On 5/10/2010 3:12 PM, wrote:
As Clint said in the wonderful old movie, "A man's gotta know his limits".
For antenna modelers it should read, "A man's gotta know the program's
limits".

Of course, Art thinks things have changed and the computer modelers have a
better grasp upon reality than the ones even he calls "the masters". He is
an example of the blind man leading himself.

tom
K0TAR

The computer program should know its limits. Anytine a program allows the
data entered to be too large or small for the calculations, it should be
flagged as being out of range. Also many computer programs will use
simplified formulars that can mast the true outcome. Usually it is not very
much, but as all errors start to add up the end results may be way off.

I often enter data that I know will be difficult for programs to use. If
the program gives an answer then I usually don't use that program expecting
a exect answer.
Back in the Windows 3.1 and 3.11 days the simple calculator would give wrong
answers to simple problems. I think if you entered 3.11 and subtracted 3.1
from it you got the wrong answer. That program was not corrected by
Microsoft.

On 5/10/2010 9:34 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

The computer program should know its limits. Anytine a program allows the
data entered to be too large or small for the calculations, it should be
flagged as being out of range. Also many computer programs will use
simplified formulars that can mast the true outcome. Usually it is not very
much, but as all errors start to add up the end results may be way off.

I often enter data that I know will be difficult for programs to use. If
the program gives an answer then I usually don't use that program expecting
a exect answer.
Back in the Windows 3.1 and 3.11 days the simple calculator would give wrong
answers to simple problems. I think if you entered 3.11 and subtracted 3.1
from it you got the wrong answer. That program was not corrected by
Microsoft.



I disagree. The program cannot "know" its limits if the problem it's
modeling is complex enough. So the user must understand the program and
especially the math related to what the program is modeling.

Blaming the program for giving you the "wrong" answer is like blaming
the tires for hitting the guard rail because you exceeded their limits.
Those limits are not the same under varying conditions and must be
filtered by experience and understanding.

tom
K0TAR