Computer model experiment
 

K1TTT wrote:

you can have a spherically symetric static electric field as is easily
shown by gauss's law. but in order to have 'radiation' (implying em
wave propagating through space) you must have movement of some kind,
that immediately removes the spherical symetry by creating an axis
defined by the direction of movement. this is why even the
theoretical infinitesimal dipole still produces a doughnut shaped
field in free space.

That's a very clever qualitative explanation of, for, instance, why
isotropic antennas cannot exist. (without resorting to things like the
Hairy Ball Theorem, which is great for explaining polarization)

Computer model experiment
 

On 5/12/2010 2:26 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
the element resonance. I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation
moved away from the present
algerithms and rely purely on number crunching to obtain systems in
equilibrium. I personaly believe

WTF? Number crunching. Algorithms. Treated as separable.

What an astonishing idea.

tom
K0TAR

Computer model experiment
 

On 5/12/2010 3:16 PM, K7ITM wrote:
On May 12, 12:58 pm, wrote:
...
To see what I mean, try entering D=10mm, N=10, len.=20mm,
d=1mm, and check what C(L,p) is reported. Now try changing D in 1mm
increments up and down. OK, so I don't trust the reported C(L,p)
value, ...

OK, it also helps to RTFM. The text down below the inductance
calculator explains about this some. Also, I should have said that
you need to set the "design frequency" to something low (e.g. 10MHz)
to see the effect. However, the text suggests that C(L,p) value would
be larger than expected...and I've also seen it for some coils to be
considerably smaller. So I end up, then, not finding the lumped model
including C(L,p) being very useful for the things I do, where I want a
model that gives me _decent_ agreement over a broader frequency range,
rather than perhaps more exact agreement over a very limited frequency
range (as happens when the reported value of C(L,p) gets very large;
try "design frequency" = 1MHz for that coil).

Cheers,
Tom



You are amusing in an engineer unix geek kind of way. Just the kind of
thing that annoyed my ex.

tom
K0TAR

Computer model experiment
 

On 5/12/2010 3:49 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

Again I state. If you are using Maxwell equations you cannot stray
from the units supplied.Hams do not follow the rules with respect

"stray from the units"? How can one stray? All the units we are
talking about here are freely convertible.

Is this now religion?

tom
K0TAR

Computer model experiment
 

On 5/12/2010 2:26 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
the element resonance. I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation
moved away from the present
algerithms and rely purely on number crunching to obtain systems in
equilibrium. I personaly believe

WTF? Number crunching. Algorithms. Treated as separable.

What an astonishing idea.

Hi Tom,

It would have been called "coin flipping" by the Indus valley people
of Mehrgarh if someone had had the foresight to invent pockets that
could hold a dime. Unfortunately, it would be another 6000 years
before the first coins were struck. Instead, they flipped mud tablets
performing the world's first "binary search:" Is this the solution?

They solved a lot of the state-of-the-art electromagnetics problems
back then within two to three tosses. Few disputed their claims (mud
is a form of ground) or challenged their accuracies of -50% to +100%
for water conductivity (will the Indus overflow this season? - an
equilibrium problem of the first order).

It would be that same 6000 years later before algerithms would advance
to the point where Archimedes could model equilibrium of water (note
its pre-eminence again) in a bath tub. This improved accuracies to
-50% to +100% once again (the ancient work had been lost in a flood of
the Indus and only recently un-earthed).

Little might have changed since, except that the fluorescence of
newsgroup gurus have enlightened modern civilization with advances in
accuracies now verging on ±6dB where the pre-eminence of water has
been overthrown in favor of photon-stream control. The binary search
that was formerly the cornerstone of modeling has been replaced with
the unary declaration that is self-proven by having been uttered (or
posted to a group that has a vague resemblance to the topic). Hence,
the inaccuracies of coins has been wholly removed to yield perfect
understanding (within ±6dB, of course).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Computer model experiment
 

On Wed, 12 May 2010 22:06:49 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

Little might have changed since, except that the fluorescence of
newsgroup gurus have enlightened modern civilization with advances in
accuracies now verging on ±6dB where the pre-eminence of water has
been overthrown in favor of photon-stream control. The binary search
that was formerly the cornerstone of modeling has been replaced with
the unary declaration that is self-proven by having been uttered (or
posted to a group that has a vague resemblance to the topic). Hence,
the inaccuracies of coins has been wholly removed to yield perfect
understanding (within ±6dB, of course).

That's a fair description of the digital part of antenna design, but
prior to the invention of computing, all such antennas were analog in
nature. The ancient pagans, that found the ideal size and shape of
trees necessary to obtain the attention of the gods were using analog
cut-n-try techniques. Given sufficient time and trees, the design was
eventually optimized.

Somewhat later, the Romans and Greeks discovered that the E and H
directions, the ratio of which was defined by the golden section.
Again, this was not a digital model, but determined with analog
techniques. Once the ratios were accurately determined, the resultant
telephone pole like structure could be used for everything from art to
executions. One of the reasons the Roman Empire lasted so long is
that they didn't have a symbol for zero, thus avoiding the divide by
zero problem. In any case, the design was demonstratively functions,
as installing the design on a hill top, would invariably draw
lightning.

After about a millennium, people started running out of hilltops and
tall trees, and found it more convenient to produce their own
lightning. The previously functional structures were wrapped in
metallic wires and waved around a magnet, thus resulting in home made
lightning. Calculations were again attempted, but since the zero had
been invented, none of the math would work. Once again, civilization
rested on the tried and true analog method of cut-n-try.

Modern antenna design followed the same analog patterns. With the aid
of the analog slide rule, accuracy could be improved to about 2
significant figures. That worked fine until the invention of the
digital computer. Suddenly, 2 sig fig was not enough. The digital
computer could calculate to amazing levels of precision and suddenly
everything had to conform to this standard. Instead of "cut to fit"
and "tweak and tune" it was now necessary to justify the cost of the
new digital computers with absurd accuracies. Good enough lasted only
until the next model computer.

So, here we are, debating the relative merits of the umpteenth decimal
place, splitting hairs multiple times, and digitally modeling to
quantum levels. While useful for justifying the computers, the
resultant antennas look roughly the same as the old cut-n-try models
designed with an analog slide rule.

Whatever your vision of modeling history, one historical observation
remains constant. One must always suffer before enlightenment and
this newsgroup provides that function.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Computer model experiment
 

On Wed, 12 May 2010 23:05:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Whatever your vision of modeling history, one historical observation
remains constant. One must always suffer before enlightenment and
this newsgroup provides that function.

The Aztecs had a far more accurate model of the calendar than Mini NEC
has for antennas.

As for suffering, the Aztecs also experimented with open-heart surgery
- of a sort. Unfortunately like Art, they never perfected nor did
they care about the recovery phase. There were always plenty of
models (aka prisoners) to replace failures. If you could carve, you
had proven your point and a party generally followed.

A superior technology (conquistadors) took over rapidly. The success
rate of open-heart surgery didn't improve, but the population of
models was enlarged to include All of South America (less Brazil where
Portuguese total-heart bypass was attempted), greater Central America,
and portions of North America.

Basically, we have a theory here that has gutted the heart of RF from
electromagnetics to transplant it with magnetics using a broken
stopwatch.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Computer model experiment
 

K1TTT wrote:
On May 11, 8:30 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
When an array is
in equilibrium then Maxwell's equations are exact.

maxwell's equations are ALWAYS exact, it is digital models that are
inexact and have limitations due to the approximations made and the
numeric representations used.

Inexactness of the solution isn't because the method is digital. The
field equations solved by the digital methods simply can't be solved by
other methods, except for a relatively few very simple cases. Many
non-digital methods were developed over the years before high speed
computers to arrive at various approximate solutions, but all have
shortcomings. For example, I have a thick file of papers devoted to the
apparently simple problem of finding the input impedance of a dipole of
arbitrary length and diameter. Even that can't be solved in closed form.
Solution by digital methods is vastly superior, and is capable of giving
much more accurate results, than solution by any known method.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Computer model experiment
 

Jim Lux wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 11, 4:02 pm, Jim Lux wrote:


Again you preach but obviously you are not qualified to address the
issue.

Opinions on qualification differ.

AO pro by Beasley consistently produces an array in equilibrium when
the optimizer is used as well as including the presence of particles
dictated by Gauss., The program is of Minninec foundation which
obviously does not require the patch work aproach that NEC has.

Interestingly, MININEC uses the very same method of moments that NEC
does, but, because it's "mini" it has substantial limitations. It was
developed to fit in small microcomputers of the day. I'd hardly call
NEC "patchwork". The two programs do use different formulations for the
basis function defining the current on the segment.
. . .

That difference in choice of basis functions has profound effects on the
limitations and quirks of the program, however -- they're quite
different for NEC and MININEC. MININEC is, in fact, able to do some
things that NEC can't, despite its simpler formulation.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Computer model experiment
 

On Wed, 12 May 2010 23:05:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
One must always suffer before enlightenment
and this newsgroup provides that function.


YIPES!!! A new usenet sig !!!

Computer model experiment
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On 5/12/2010 2:26 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
the element resonance. I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation
moved away from the present
algerithms and rely purely on number crunching to obtain systems in
equilibrium. I personaly believe
WTF? Number crunching. Algorithms. Treated as separable.

What an astonishing idea.

Hi Tom,

They solved a lot of the state-of-the-art electromagnetics problems
back then within two to three tosses. Few disputed their claims (mud
is a form of ground) or challenged their accuracies of -50% to +100%

its pre-eminence again) in a bath tub. This improved accuracies to
-50% to +100% once again (the ancient work had been lost in a flood of
the Indus and only recently un-earthed).

in
accuracies now verging on ±6dB where the pre-eminence of water has
been overthrown in favor of photon-stream control. The binary search


Well, sometime after Archimedes but before today, someone came up with
the idea of logarithms, allow us to talk in dB instead of percentage ratios.

So there have been advances grin

Computer model experiment
 

On May 13, 8:56*am, Roy Lewallen wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On May 11, 8:30 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
When an array is
in equilibrium then Maxwell's equations are exact.

maxwell's equations are ALWAYS exact, it is digital models that are
inexact and have limitations due to the approximations made and the
numeric representations used.

Inexactness of the solution isn't because the method is digital. The
field equations solved by the digital methods simply can't be solved by
other methods, except for a relatively few very simple cases. Many
non-digital methods were developed over the years before high speed
computers to arrive at various approximate solutions, but all have
shortcomings. For example, I have a thick file of papers devoted to the
apparently simple problem of finding the input impedance of a dipole of
arbitrary length and diameter. Even that can't be solved in closed form.
Solution by digital methods is vastly superior, and is capable of giving
much more accurate results, than solution by any known method.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

quantization of every number in a numeric simulation is but one of the
contributions to inaccuracy. the limitations of the physical model is
another, every modeling program i know of breaks the physical thing
being modeled into small pieces, some with fixed sizes, some use
adaptive methods, but then they all calculate using those small pieces
as if they were a single homogonous piece with step changes at the
edges... that also adds to inaccuracies. the robustness of the
algorithm and the residual errors created are a bit part of getting
more accurate results. There is no doubt that numerical methods have
allowed 'solutions' of many problems that would be extremely difficult
to find closed form solutions for, but they must always be examined
for the acceptibility of the unavoidable errors in the method used.

other non-digital methods also have their limitations. unless you are
using the original differential or integral equations and satisfying
all the boundary conditions, your method will introduce errors.
weather that means you represent an odd shaped solid object by a
sphere, or make other geometic replacements that give you simpler
field configurations, you have introduced errors at some level. you
must of course judge these methods by the same way to determine of the
errors introduced by the simplyfied geometry or other methods used are
acceptible for the problem at hand.

Computer model experiment
 

K1TTT wrote:
On May 13, 8:56 am, Roy Lewallen wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On May 11, 8:30 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
When an array is
in equilibrium then Maxwell's equations are exact.
maxwell's equations are ALWAYS exact, it is digital models that are
inexact and have limitations due to the approximations made and the
numeric representations used.
Inexactness of the solution isn't because the method is digital. The
field equations solved by the digital methods simply can't be solved by
other methods, except for a relatively few very simple cases. Many
non-digital methods were developed over the years before high speed
computers to arrive at various approximate solutions, but all have
shortcomings. For example, I have a thick file of papers devoted to the
apparently simple problem of finding the input impedance of a dipole of
arbitrary length and diameter. Even that can't be solved in closed form.
Solution by digital methods is vastly superior, and is capable of giving
much more accurate results, than solution by any known method.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

quantization of every number in a numeric simulation is but one of the
contributions to inaccuracy. the limitations of the physical model is
another, every modeling program i know of breaks the physical thing
being modeled into small pieces, some with fixed sizes, some use
adaptive methods, but then they all calculate using those small pieces
as if they were a single homogonous piece with step changes at the
edges...

Not all modeling uses step changes. Some modeling approaches use a model
description that is continuous at element boundaries (at least for some
number of derivatives). For example, a cubic spline has smoothly
varying values, first and second derivatives.

The tradeoff in the code is whether you use fewer, better (higher order
modeling) chunks or more simpler chunks. For instance, NEC uses a basis
function that represents the current in a segment (the chunk) as the
combination of a value and two sinusoid sections. Other codes assume
the current is uniform over the segment, yet others assume a sinusoidal
distribution or a triangle.

This leads to a tradeoff in computational resources required: numerical
precision, computational complexity, etc. (lots of simple elements tends
to require bigger precision)

I think that for codes hams are likely to encounter, these are pretty
subtle differences and irrelevant. A lot of the "computational
efficiency" issues are getting smaller, as cheap processor horsepower is
easy to come by.


that also adds to inaccuracies. the robustness of the
algorithm and the residual errors created are a bit part of getting
more accurate results. There is no doubt that numerical methods have
allowed 'solutions' of many problems that would be extremely difficult
to find closed form solutions for, but they must always be examined
for the acceptibility of the unavoidable errors in the method used.

That's why there's all those "validation of modeling code X" papers out
there.

Computer model experiment
 

On 5/14/2010 6:19 AM, K1TTT wrote:

quantization of every number in a numeric simulation is but one of the
contributions to inaccuracy. the limitations of the physical model is
another, every modeling program i know of breaks the physical thing
being modeled into small pieces, some with fixed sizes, some use
adaptive methods, but then they all calculate using those small pieces
as if they were a single homogonous piece with step changes at the
edges... that also adds to inaccuracies. the robustness of the
algorithm and the residual errors created are a bit part of getting
more accurate results. There is no doubt that numerical methods have
allowed 'solutions' of many problems that would be extremely difficult
to find closed form solutions for, but they must always be examined
for the acceptibility of the unavoidable errors in the method used.

I will assume that most here are familiar with Simpson's Rule
Integration. This allows one to compute the "area under the curve" of a
function with a fairly simple algorithm. It's as little as 7 statements
using Fortran. And it is quite amazing how accurate the answer can be
with even just a few slices of the curve from start to finish. If used
properly.

Don't think that seemingly large chunks mean poor accuracy. When the
algorithm is good, and the program selects the chunk size well, the
results can be very close to the true answer.

tom
K0TAR

Computer model experiment
 

On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:07:32 -0500, tom wrote:

Don't think that seemingly large chunks mean poor accuracy. When the
algorithm is good, and the program selects the chunk size well, the
results can be very close to the true answer.

I recall Simpson's Rule from work about 23 years ago that lead me to
finding more accurate methods in a great compendium of
"Numerical Recipes
The Art of Scientific Computing."
Press, Flannery, Teukolsky, Vetterling,
Cambridge University Press, 1986

which has Simpon's 3/8th Rule, and a more extensive
"Bode's rule... This is exact for polynomials up to and
including degree 5.
"At this point the formulas stop being named
after famous personages, so we will not go
any further. Consult Abramowitz and Stegun
for aditional formulas in the sequence."
The book continues with FORTRAN (my first language) and Pascal (my 9th
or 11th language or dialect by that time) interpretations of a
spectrum of math systems for another 700 pages....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Computer model experiment
 

On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:48:57 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

Cambridge University Press, 1986

Honest, no name dropping here. In fact this citation neatly
dove-tails with a film I just finished watching (god bless streaming
Netflix) prior to this post that was about some of Cambridge's (and
Oxford's, hence Oxbridge's) noted Dons: Cleese, Idle, Chapman, Palin,
and Jones (with some Yank called Gilliam)
"Before the Flying Circus"

Some of these remarkable academics acknowledged, with gratitude, the
groundbreaking work of Stanley Unwin - on par with the Goon Show.

Somehow all these loose ends tie together here - eventually. One has
only to wait....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Computer model experiment
 

On 5/15/2010 1:02 AM, Richard Clark wrote:

Some of these remarkable academics acknowledged, with gratitude, the
groundbreaking work of Stanley Unwin - on par with the Goon Show.

Lost on quite a few here I'd think. Who would know who Spike was? Or
what would become of Peter?

tom
K0TAR

Computer model experiment
 

Art wrote:
"I just completed an 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 it is close to zero material resistance. This means the total
resistance is the resistance of the surface encapsulating particles. The
radiation was 35 db in a shape close to that of a sphere."

Ask yourself if the exerimental results are reasonable.

According to Terman:
"Radio waves are produced to some extent whenever a wire in open space
carries a high-frequency current. The laws governing such radiation are
obtained by using Maxwell`s equations to express the fields associated
with the wire; when this is done there is found to be a component,
termed the radiated field, having a strength that varies inversely with
the distance."

The simple very short elemental dipole has a figure of eight pattern
cross section and produces a power gain of 1.5 over an isotropic
radiator, which produces the same radiation in all directions. 1.5 =
about 2 db power gain as 3 db represents about 2X the power.

"Radiation close to that of a sphere" is close to isotropic or uniform
in all directions, the standard for 0 db gain, not 35 db.

About the only asvantage of a fat or cylindrical dipole is broader
bandwidth than a thin wire dipole which has the same gain, is cheaper,
lighter, and has less wind loading.

One beautiful day if Art keeps trying he may have an original idea that
works.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Computer model experiment
 

"Richard Harrison" wrote
...
Art wrote:
"I just completed an 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 it is close to zero material resistance. This means the total
resistance is the resistance of the surface encapsulating particles. The
radiation was 35 db in a shape close to that of a sphere."

Ask yourself if the exerimental results are reasonable.

According to Terman:
"Radio waves are produced to some extent whenever a wire in open space
carries a high-frequency current.

The transmissing line is in open space.
It seems that radio waves are produced from ends of the wire where the
voltage is doubled (at least)

The laws governing such radiation are
obtained by using Maxwell`s equations to express the fields associated
with the wire; when this is done there is found to be a component,
termed the radiated field, having a strength that varies inversely with
the distance."

Maxwell's equations (wrote by Heaviside) are for the incompressible
electricity. Such electricity create the oscillating magnetic whirl. Such
whirls are transwersal.
The Maxwell's hypothesis is erroneous.

The simple very short elemental dipole has a figure of eight pattern
cross section and produces a power gain of 1.5 over an isotropic
radiator, which produces the same radiation in all directions. 1.5 =
about 2 db power gain as 3 db represents about 2X the power.

"Radiation close to that of a sphere" is close to isotropic or uniform
in all directions, the standard for 0 db gain, not 35 db.

About the only asvantage of a fat or cylindrical dipole is broader
bandwidth than a thin wire dipole which has the same gain, is cheaper,
lighter, and has less wind loading.

Half waves dipoles or shorter are always the two sources of waves. The
pattern is a rsult of interference of them.

One beautiful day if Art keeps trying he may have an original idea that
works.

It will be the longitudinal oscilations of electric field.
Best regards,
S*

Computer model experiment
 

On May 19, 3:55*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
It seems that radio waves are produced from ends of the wire where the
voltage is doubled (at least)

The quantum electrodynamics process for the generation of EM waves is
well understood. The electron carriers in the wire are alternately
accelerated and decelerated by the transmit signal energy. During the
acceleration process, electrons absorb energy. During the deceleration
process, electrons emit photons, the quantum particles associated with
the radiated EM waves. Electrons at the ends of a wire dipole are not
accelerated as much as the electrons in the middle of the dipole.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Computer model experiment
 

On May 19, 1:04*am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"I just completed an 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 it is close to zero material resistance. This means the total
resistance is the resistance of the surface encapsulating particles. The
radiation was 35 db in a shape close to that of a sphere."



Ask yourself if the exerimental results are reasonable.
Why
Reasonable means no change from the deductions made in the past aka
resistance to change.

An experiment is an action which requires an explanation otherwise
there is no reason to do it.
I had no expectations of what the results would be that I would have
to provide an explanation for.

Superconductivity reduces resistance which could correlate with
removal of fields from that which the current is applied. If this is
correct I sq R suggests
increased radiation. This would appear reasonable
If the fields transferred to a nearby medium whether it be a
encapsulating material or just a nearby substance one has transfered
the problem
to one where the fields in a adjacent material is handled and where
the applied power is applied to a member without resistance.
Is that reasonable ? Yes it is. Explanable is another question. This
is the very reason for any experiment
with respect to education. Reasonable means that
it does not meet expectations which, if we are not willing to think
about, means discoveries are impossible.
First question to ask is superconductivity a reality ?
Second is whether antenna programs are to be trusted?
I did the experiment with purchased material and it gave me the above
results which I am sharing.
So the question becomes is it correct and why is it not correct. First
thing to look at obviously is can a field or fields be removed from a
conductor?
In boundary laws if we don't consider the passage
of static particles that enter the boundary compared to those that
leave the boundary then things become awkward because we also know
that we are taking account of flux transitions.
If Gaussian laws state that static particles can become dynamic then
the answer is that fields can
exist beyond the sphere to which current is applied.
Now that is my personal suggested interpretation of what happens to
provide agreement with the experiment findings. Other interpretations
provided could appear more valid.
I am not equipped to comment on the validity of the computer programs
as Maxwells equations do not explicitly explain the mechanics of
radiation so I leave it to others to provide better answers for the
situation seen above. Yes, I know that the interpretation of Maxwell
is not fully supplied in the books so I invite others to advance
suitable explanations. Is that so bad?

Computer model experiment
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
On May 19, 3:55 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
It seems that radio waves are produced from ends of the wire where the
voltage is doubled (at least)

The quantum electrodynamics process for the generation of EM waves is
well understood. The electron carriers in the wire are alternately
accelerated and decelerated by the transmit signal energy. During the
acceleration process, electrons absorb energy. During the deceleration
process, electrons emit photons, the quantum particles associated with
the radiated EM waves. Electrons at the ends of a wire dipole are not
accelerated as much as the electrons in the middle of the dipole.

It was a few weeks ago.
Electrons are decelerated at the ands of the dipole.
Next they accelerate and in the middle (of the oryginal Hertz dipole) the
speed of electrons is constant (no acceleration/deceleration).

In textbooks are prsented all theories and hipothesis.
It is your choose which one do you prefer: EM, photons, QED or like sound.

"QED mathematically describes all phenomena involving electrically charged
particles interacting by means of exchange of photons".

QED is about Photons, not EM waves. Photons have the analogy in phonons. So
radio waves are like the sound.
S*

Computer model experiment
 

On May 19, 2:03*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
QED is about Photons, not EM waves.

From "QED", by Feynman: "So now, I present to you the three basic
actions,
from which all the phenomena of light (EM waves) and electrons arise.

-Action #1: A photon goes from place to place.
-Action #2: An electron goes from place to place.
-Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon."

Photons and EM waves are the same quantized phenomena, viewed in
different mathematical ways. A single photon can pass through two
slots
at the same time and interfere with itself on the other side.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Computer model experiment
 

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

Extra information
When resonant at 50 ohms resistive the donut shape was evident and
provided by two vortices.
As the resonant value dropped so did the depth of the two vortices
At 5 ohms resistive the vortice depth really started to reduce in
depth.In other words as the vortice reduced so did the skin depth and
where the reduction in vortice volume was taken up by radiation. When
the resonant point was brought to a fraction of an ohm the vortices
had virtually disappeared and the radiation increased such that the
total radiation became a sphere which equated to a maximum radiation
value. Dropping the resonant value below zero ohms removed the
radiation pattern from its normal progression.
This would infer that zero displacement current was generated which
means that particles were only elevated and not projected or
accelerated in any particular direction which thus permits a sphere of
radiation, contrary to that where particles were accelerated in any
particular direction. Note that it is the intersection of two fields
that created acceleration and direction as shown on my antenna page
and with direction the donut shape is retained. Thus this line of
logic supports the idea of a spherical radiation pattern as, with the
absence of resistance so goes the absence of eddy or displacement
current.

Computer model experiment
 

On 5/19/2010 10:47 PM, Art Unwin 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

Extra information
When resonant at 50 ohms resistive the donut shape was evident and
provided by two vortices.
As the resonant value dropped so did the depth of the two vortices
At 5 ohms resistive the vortice depth really started to reduce in
depth.In other words as the vortice reduced so did the skin depth and

Wow! I'd really like to see this vortex, sorry these vortices, that you
have produced.

Is the rotation right or left handed?

This is REALLY COOL!

Please post the file and which optimizer software that you are using.

Thanks!

tom
K0TAR

Computer model experiment
 

On May 19, 11:09*pm, tom wrote:
On 5/19/2010 10:47 PM, Art Unwin 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

Extra information
When resonant at 50 ohms resistive the donut shape was evident and
provided by two vortices.
As the resonant value dropped so did the depth of the two vortices
At 5 ohms resistive the vortice depth really started to reduce in
depth.In other words as the vortice reduced so did the skin depth and

Wow! *I'd really like to see this vortex, sorry these vortices, that you
have produced.

Is the rotation right or left handed?

This is REALLY COOL!

Please post the file and which optimizer software that you are using.

Thanks!

tom
K0TAR

The presence of these vortices are used to determine imperfections in
materials during manufacturing processes. Removing the presence of
such is the primary reason for laminations instead of solids in the
manufacture of transformers.I am surprised that you are not familiar
with the concept of skin depth when at the same time you consider
yourself as an expert with respect to antennas. The antenna program I
use is
AO Pro purely because it has an optimizer to ensure Maxwell's
equations are adhered to as well as accountability for all vectors
involved. Planar devices are quite efficient such as the Yagi but
planar devices are not in equilibrium which is a requirement of
Maxwell's equations! I imagine that with any program you could fiddle
with a dipole
construction such that it was resonant at a very low impedance to
obtain a progression for radiation
pattern /volume versus impedance if it does not posses optimization
abilities. The free EZNEC program probably will be good enough.
As far as vortices are concerned the same two vectors used with
antennas are also evident with the Earth's weather system. For
instance, a tornado
or a whirlpool presents a vortice by virtue of the intersection of two
vectors involved. Remove one intersecting vector and the vortice
disappears. This is an example of what Einstein saw with respect to
his leanings on the unified theory.

Computer model experiment
 

Uzytkownik "Cecil Moore" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 19, 2:03 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
QED is about Photons, not EM waves.

From "QED", by Feynman: "So now, I present to you the three basic
actions,
from which all the phenomena of light (EM waves) and electrons arise.

-Action #1: A photon goes from place to place.
-Action #2: An electron goes from place to place.
-Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon."

Photons and EM waves are the same quantized phenomena, viewed in
different mathematical ways. A single photon can pass through two
slots at the same time and interfere with itself on the other side.

I wrote: "In textbooks are prsented all theories and hipothesis.
It is your choose which one do you prefer: EM, photons, QED or like sound."

So you prefer the all.
The "like sound" is the oldest and explain the all phenomena.
The new ones: EM, photons, QED explain only some. They are the fantastic
pieces to teach.
S*

Computer model experiment
 

On May 20, 11:42*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
The "like sound" is the oldest and explain the all phenomena.

"All phenomena", including traveling at the speed of light in a
vacuum? :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Computer model experiment
 

On 5/19/2010 11:45 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
Wow! I'd really like to see this vortex, sorry these vortices, that you
have produced.

Is the rotation right or left handed?

This is REALLY COOL!

Please post the file and which optimizer software that you are using.

Thanks!

tom
K0TAR

The presence of these vortices are used to determine imperfections in
materials during manufacturing processes. Removing the presence of
such is the primary reason for laminations instead of solids in the
manufacture of transformers.I am surprised that you are not familiar
with the concept of skin depth when at the same time you consider
yourself as an expert with respect to antennas. The antenna program I
use is
AO Pro purely because it has an optimizer to ensure Maxwell's
equations are adhered to as well as accountability for all vectors
involved. Planar devices are quite efficient such as the Yagi but
planar devices are not in equilibrium which is a requirement of
Maxwell's equations! I imagine that with any program you could fiddle
with a dipole
construction such that it was resonant at a very low impedance to
obtain a progression for radiation
pattern /volume versus impedance if it does not posses optimization
abilities. The free EZNEC program probably will be good enough.
As far as vortices are concerned the same two vectors used with
antennas are also evident with the Earth's weather system. For
instance, a tornado
or a whirlpool presents a vortice by virtue of the intersection of two
vectors involved. Remove one intersecting vector and the vortice
disappears. This is an example of what Einstein saw with respect to
his leanings on the unified theory.

Oh that's right, I forgot. You use my god child. I asked Brian to do
that program for 2 or 3 years before he finally did. I was the alpha
tester on it and other of his programs.

You do know that's just MiniNEC, right? With all the problems MiniNEC
has included for your computing pleasure.

It's off frequency - low. And it gets worse as the wire diameter
INCREASES. Which is what you are doing in your example.

It also doesn't like bent wires, as in things that don't meet at 180
degrees. It breaks down completely at less than 28 degrees.

It doesn't like adjacent segments that are in a ratio greater than 2 to 1.

And it doesn't like adjacent wires that are closer than .23 of a segment
length.

Given some of the things you have posted that you have modeled, I'd
guess that you break a minimum of 1, normally 2, and sometimes 3 of the
above conditions.

No wonder your stuff acts abnormal.

And you are using this tool to attempt to prove your twisted theories
about Maxwell's equations? That's like using a chain saw to do brain
surgery.

tom
K0TAR

Computer model experiment
 

On May 20, 6:54*pm, tom wrote:
On 5/19/2010 11:45 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



Wow! *I'd really like to see this vortex, sorry these vortices, that you
have produced.

Is the rotation right or left handed?

This is REALLY COOL!

Please post the file and which optimizer software that you are using.

Thanks!

tom
K0TAR

The presence of these vortices are used to determine imperfections in
materials during manufacturing processes. Removing the presence of
such is the primary reason for laminations instead of solids in the
manufacture of transformers.I am surprised that you are not familiar
with the concept of skin depth when at the same time you consider
yourself as an expert with respect to antennas. The antenna program I
use is
AO Pro purely because it has an optimizer to ensure Maxwell's
equations are adhered to as well as accountability for all vectors
involved. Planar devices are quite efficient such as the Yagi but
planar devices are not in equilibrium which is a requirement of
Maxwell's equations! I imagine that with any program you could fiddle
with a dipole
construction such that it was resonant at a very low impedance to
obtain a progression for radiation
pattern /volume versus impedance if it does not posses optimization
abilities. The free EZNEC program probably will be good enough.
As far as vortices are concerned the same two vectors used with
antennas are also evident with the Earth's weather system. For
instance, a tornado
or a whirlpool presents a vortice by virtue of the intersection of two
vectors involved. Remove one intersecting vector and the vortice
disappears. This is an example of what Einstein saw with respect to
his leanings on the unified theory.

Oh that's right, I forgot. *You use my god child. *I asked Brian to do
that program for 2 or 3 years before he finally did. *I was the alpha
tester on it and other of his programs.

You do know that's just MiniNEC, right? *With all the problems MiniNEC
has included for your computing pleasure.

It's off frequency - low. *And it gets worse as the wire diameter
INCREASES. *Which is what you are doing in your example.

It also doesn't like bent wires, as in things that don't meet at 180
degrees. *It breaks down completely at less than 28 degrees.

It doesn't like adjacent segments that are in a ratio greater than 2 to 1..

And it doesn't like adjacent wires that are closer than .23 of a segment
length.

Given some of the things you have posted that you have modeled, I'd
guess that you break a minimum of 1, normally 2, and sometimes 3 of the
above conditions.

No wonder your stuff acts abnormal.

And you are using this tool to attempt to prove your twisted theories
about Maxwell's equations? *That's like using a chain saw to do brain
surgery.

tom
K0TAR

All very interesting Tom but frankly you lack credibility. As with
other posts of yours you do not provide specifics and more than often
express opinions. I personally am as pleased as punch in what I
purchased from Brian and I certainly do not believe he would foist on
the ham community anything but his best. Knowing that he is not
exactly a peoples person I suspect he would not shy from a clash with
you when you distribute your personal opinions. So I can imagine why
such a person like you would jump at the chance to savage another's
personality. For my part I use the program strictly for his adherence
to Maxwell's equations which is the approach that I take. This allows
for an over check most times when ensuring
that arrays proffered meet the condition of equilibrium of each part
and all of the provided
array. I doubt very much you would have strayed beyond the Yagi and
other planar designs when testing, but then you are not short of
claiming anything that may boost your position in life.
Thanks for your operative points offered and I will certainly consider
them within the specific technical confines which you so gently
provided.
Regards
Art

Computer model experiment
 

On 5/20/2010 7:40 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
Oh that's right, I forgot. You use my god child. I asked Brian to do
that program for 2 or 3 years before he finally did. I was the alpha
tester on it and other of his programs.

You do know that's just MiniNEC, right? With all the problems MiniNEC
has included for your computing pleasure.

It's off frequency - low. And it gets worse as the wire diameter
INCREASES. Which is what you are doing in your example.

It also doesn't like bent wires, as in things that don't meet at 180
degrees. It breaks down completely at less than 28 degrees.

It doesn't like adjacent segments that are in a ratio greater than 2 to 1.

And it doesn't like adjacent wires that are closer than .23 of a segment
length.

Given some of the things you have posted that you have modeled, I'd
guess that you break a minimum of 1, normally 2, and sometimes 3 of the
above conditions.

No wonder your stuff acts abnormal.

And you are using this tool to attempt to prove your twisted theories
about Maxwell's equations? That's like using a chain saw to do brain
surgery.

tom
K0TAR

All very interesting Tom but frankly you lack credibility. As with
other posts of yours you do not provide specifics and more than often
express opinions. I personally am as pleased as punch in what I
purchased from Brian and I certainly do not believe he would foist on
the ham community anything but his best. Knowing that he is not

It was his best, but based on MiniNEC. He couldn't change that. He did
tweak things in YO because it was special purpose, but I believe he left
the engine in AO pretty much alone.

exactly a peoples person I suspect he would not shy from a clash with
you when you distribute your personal opinions. So I can imagine why
such a person like you would jump at the chance to savage another's
personality. For my part I use the program strictly for his adherence
to Maxwell's equations which is the approach that I take. This allows
for an over check most times when ensuring

It adheres to MiniNEC's core. Which adhere to Maxwell no more and no
less than that. And it has serious and known shortcomings, which you
seem to want to wish away. Brian did a great, hell spectacular, job
with what he started with, but he couldn't make the problems with
MiniNEC disappear. No one has done anything like it that is available
at the prices he charged since then. But the user needs to understand
the limitations of the product.

that arrays proffered meet the condition of equilibrium of each part
and all of the provided

AO knows nothing of the equilibrium of which you speak.

array. I doubt very much you would have strayed beyond the Yagi and
other planar designs when testing, but then you are not short of
claiming anything that may boost your position in life.

You have no idea what I have done, designed or built. But I would bet
I've built more, and that it works better than anything you have come up
with unless you copied it from someone else.

tom
K0TAR

Computer model experiment
 

On 5/20/2010 7:40 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

All very interesting Tom but frankly you lack credibility. As with
other posts of yours you do not provide specifics and more than often
express opinions.

And this comment from someone who never states anything about his
miracle antennas except the fact that they are miraculous.

Yes, you are Mr. Credibility!

tom
K0TAR

Computer model experiment
 

On May 20, 8:21*pm, tom wrote:
On 5/20/2010 7:40 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



All very interesting Tom but frankly you lack credibility. As with
other posts of yours you do not provide specifics and more than often
express opinions.

And this comment from someone who never states anything about his
miracle antennas except the fact that they are miraculous.

Yes, you are Mr. Credibility!

tom
K0TAR

Tom I try to provide the specifics with respect to my posts because
without them there can be no discussion. I do get discussions and
generally they
are not as nice as I would like them to be but others do get involved
while at the same time providing worth while comments such as the
continuity of the donut shape which forced me to reconsider. As far as
minninec is concerned I had no other choice since I required an
optimiser but even so minninec surely has its problems the same as
NEC. If and when NEC tries the optimiser aproach I suspect they will
incorporate minninec in some way. As far as the faults you pointed to
I can't imagine not placing segment opposite each other for close
spaced elements or in fact placing much confidence in bent angles in
the area below 30 degrees whether it be eznec or minninec.
When I started to look away from yagi's and planar devices I followed
the standard rules of mathematics with respect to equilibrium and
Maxwell's rules, I was very pleased that the mininec
conformed to my expectations. This however, did not stop me from
getting confirmation else where using NEC4. So again I have no reason
not to trust
AO any time before I distrust myself when I am more than willing to
declare what I did and who I am. The reason I do respond to your posts
is to encourage you to use free speech and thus force you to disclose
what sort of person you are to other members of the group, and not for
its technical content. I have on my page unwinantennas a sample of an
array ( diversity array)that conforms to my thinking with respect to
Maxwells equations
which were fully revealed to me by the expansion of
Gauss theorem from static to dynamic in every way,
which provided the evidence of particles as the carrier of radiation.
Since nobody on this group is willing to understand the meanings of
equilibrium in physics or the legitamacy of changing static parameters
to dynamic, minninec did supply the backing for my thoughts in every
way which no other program that was available was capable of.
Have a happy day
Art

Computer model experiment
 

On 5/20/2010 9:14 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

Tom I try to provide the specifics with respect to my posts because
without them there can be no discussion. I do get discussions and
generally they
are not as nice as I would like them to be but others do get involved
while at the same time providing worth while comments such as the
continuity of the donut shape which forced me to reconsider. As far as
minninec is concerned I had no other choice since I required an
optimiser but even so minninec surely has its problems the same as
NEC. If and when NEC tries the optimiser aproach I suspect they will
incorporate minninec in some way. As far as the faults you pointed to
I can't imagine not placing segment opposite each other for close
spaced elements or in fact placing much confidence in bent angles in
the area below 30 degrees whether it be eznec or minninec.
When I started to look away from yagi's and planar devices I followed
the standard rules of mathematics with respect to equilibrium and
Maxwell's rules, I was very pleased that the mininec
conformed to my expectations. This however, did not stop me from
getting confirmation else where using NEC4. So again I have no reason
not to trust
AO any time before I distrust myself when I am more than willing to
declare what I did and who I am. The reason I do respond to your posts
is to encourage you to use free speech and thus force you to disclose
what sort of person you are to other members of the group, and not for
its technical content. I have on my page unwinantennas a sample of an
array ( diversity array)that conforms to my thinking with respect to
Maxwells equations
which were fully revealed to me by the expansion of
Gauss theorem from static to dynamic in every way,
which provided the evidence of particles as the carrier of radiation.
Since nobody on this group is willing to understand the meanings of
equilibrium in physics or the legitamacy of changing static parameters
to dynamic, minninec did supply the backing for my thoughts in every
way which no other program that was available was capable of.
Have a happy day
Art

And yet you never, ever, give numbers that define your antennas,
excepting the almost planar example antenna. Which doesn't work all
that well, actually.

You have to present some examples of things that actually work well
before you are considered credible.

And given your claims, you are expected to show antennas that are
demonstrably better than current designs.

So far you have not done any of the above.

tom
K0TAR


tom
K0TAR

Computer model experiment
 

O Jeez! Here we go again!!!! All this about vortices sounds like spin to me.

Irv VE6BP

Computer model experiment
 

On May 20, 9:27*pm, tom wrote:




You have to present some examples of things that actually work well
before you are considered credible.



So far you have not done any of the above.



The Chronicles of Arthur Unwin. :/
Delusions of grandeur induced by abuse and misuse of
antenna modeling programs.
Excessive adult beverage consumption may also be
an issue, but I couldn't really say being as I can't give
him a breathalyzer test over the internet...

Heck, I think more than a few of the common programs
have "optimization" routines. Big deal.
I know the freeware MMANA does..
And having played with it a bit, I know you have to take
the results with a grain of salt, and often the results were
worse than what I would come up with manually. :(

Say optimizing a yagi.. I've seen some fairly peculiar
and below par results using the optimization in that
program. Art's blind trust is rather peculiar. :/

Not to mention some of his peculiar theories and notions.
IE: if the pattern of an antenna displays an isotropic
pattern, how in the heck are you going to have large
amounts of gain? The gain would be near zero if using
isotropic antenna as the reference.
Not 32 dbi or whatever number he came up with.
In order to have gain in any direction, a null must form
in some other direction. No free lunch. Sorry.
Of course, Art seems to confuse efficiency and gain, but
that's a chapter for another day.

Art generally ignores efficiency. In his world, equilibrium,
neutrinos, and solar fairy dust particles with levitating vortex
swirls cause efficiency issues to vanish into thin air.
If the vortex swirls start to resemble what you would see
off a Boeing 757 on a moist cloudy day, you have total
equilibrium and obvious 100% efficiency and 87 dbi gain
in all directions.
Tell Jethro to fix the brakes on the truck. We may be moving
soon. :)

Say as when using an A/C fan motors worth of thin wire wound
on a short stick of PVC and supposedly operated on 160m.. :(
But even Art himself claims to almost never actually use the
transmitter in his rig. Being as even a stick of wound wire can
receive halfway well on the low bands, we have a new miracle!
Never mind that some guy tried the same thing about 85 years
ago I'm sure.. :/ It doesn't work any better now than it did then.
Back to the drawing board for prior Art..

No transmit tests or comparison with known benchmarks are
required in the world of Art. The masters sayeth, so it must
be true! Woe to the non believers! They knoweth not what
they do or say!

They have no equilibrium!

Call the patent office, and get the lawyers on the phone!
Load up the truck, we're moving to Beverly Hills. :)
Did Jethro ever fix the brakes?

In the dark recesses of Art's brain, he applied the theory of
reciprocity to this antenna. It receives fairly well, so it surely
must transmit in a like manner.
If only the world were fair.

Next week.. If you run over a neutrino with a Goodyear
Accutread tire, will a puncture occur?
The answer to this question and many others on the next
installment of Art's Chronicles.

Computer model experiment
 

Uzytkownik "Cecil Moore" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 20, 11:42 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
The "like sound" is the oldest and explain the all phenomena.

"All phenomena", including traveling at the speed of light in a
vacuum? :-)

All without exceptions.
In the space are free electrons (plasma). If you move one of them the next
reacts on it. It is normal pressure wave (electric wave).

It is intresting that the speed of electric waves are the same in vacuum and
in conductors.
In insulators the electric waves travel slower.
S*

Computer model experiment
 

Computer model experiment
 

On May 21, 2:37*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
In the space are free electrons (plasma). If you move one of them the next
reacts on it. It is normal pressure wave (electric wave).

If you are correct, the feedpoint impedance of a 1/2WL standing-wave
dipole should change from 75 ohms to around 600 ohms (traveling wave
antenna) when installed in free space. Does NASA know that resonant
standing-wave antennas, like 1/2WL dipoles, will not work in free
space because of all those free electrons in free space?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Computer model experiment
 

Uzytkownik "Cecil Moore" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 21, 2:37 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
In the space are free electrons (plasma). If you move one of them the
next
reacts on it. It is normal pressure wave (electric wave).

If you are correct, the feedpoint impedance of a 1/2WL standing-wave
dipole should change from 75 ohms to around 600 ohms (traveling wave
antenna) when installed in free space. Does NASA know that resonant
standing-wave antennas, like 1/2WL dipoles, will not work in free
space because of all those free electrons in free space?

Alternate electric field from the ends of the dipole kicks the electrons in
the space and they oscillate (longitudinal electric waves).
S*