Radiating coils
 

I just modeled two coils counter wound and one inside the other as a
complete closed circuit , end fed. Counter winding is quite the norm
with special purpose machinery to prevent inter tangling of coils when
compressed.
With the coils wound opposite to each other
it made quite a nice antenna when placed on a flat plate. Beam was
pencil shaped without side lobes and sensitive to all polarities.Thus
any such dishes could be used for 'point to point' using any type
circular polarization. Smaller in size compared to other designs is
rather obvious. Where Kraus determined such an antenna single wound
form demanded a certain angular pitch such a requirement is not
apparent with this design. Kraus assumed a certain pitch was required
when wave composition clashed, but the opposite happens when particles
vectors add. Another example of particle versus waves disputes.It also
confirms Maxwells equation by removing the effect of lumped loads
which was not included in his equation as was not the stipulation that
a radiator must be straight.

Caution:
Above details not yet "printed" in a book so it must be considered
questionable.
Regards
Art

Radiating coils
 

On May 23, 3:17*am, Art Unwin wrote:
I just modeled two coils counter wound and one inside the other as a
complete closed circuit...
Caution:
Above details not yet "printed" in a book so it must be considered
questionable.
Regards
Art

The book was written by Watson and Crick. You could look it up.

Radiating coils
 

On May 23, 2:17*am, Art Unwin wrote:
I just modeled two coils counter wound and one inside the other as a
complete closed circuit , end fed. Counter winding is quite the norm
with special purpose machinery to prevent inter tangling of coils when
compressed.
With the coils wound opposite to each other
it made quite a nice antenna when placed on a flat plate. Beam was
pencil shaped without side lobes and sensitive to all polarities.Thus
any such dishes could be used for 'point to point' using any type
circular polarization. *Smaller in size compared to other designs is
rather obvious. Where Kraus determined such an antenna single wound
form demanded a certain angular pitch such a requirement is not
apparent with this design. Kraus assumed a certain pitch was required
when wave composition clashed, but the opposite happens when particles
vectors add. Another example of particle versus waves disputes.It also
confirms Maxwells equation by removing the effect of lumped loads
which was not included in his equation as was not the stipulation that
a radiator must be straight.

Caution:
Above details not yet "printed" in a book so it must be considered
questionable.
Regards
Art

you have a nice little web site, please publish the design file and
picture of the antenna so we can all have a good laugh at it.

Radiating coils
 

On May 27, 6:22*am, K1TTT wrote:
On May 23, 2:17*am, Art Unwin wrote:



I just modeled two coils counter wound and one inside the other as a
complete closed circuit , end fed. Counter winding is quite the norm
with special purpose machinery to prevent inter tangling of coils when
compressed.
With the coils wound opposite to each other
it made quite a nice antenna when placed on a flat plate. Beam was
pencil shaped without side lobes and sensitive to all polarities.Thus
any such dishes could be used for 'point to point' using any type
circular polarization. *Smaller in size compared to other designs is
rather obvious. Where Kraus determined such an antenna single wound
form demanded a certain angular pitch such a requirement is not
apparent with this design. Kraus assumed a certain pitch was required
when wave composition clashed, but the opposite happens when particles
vectors add. Another example of particle versus waves disputes.It also
confirms Maxwells equation by removing the effect of lumped loads
which was not included in his equation as was not the stipulation that
a radiator must be straight.

Caution:
Above details not yet "printed" in a book so it must be considered
questionable.
Regards
Art

you have a nice little web site, please publish the design file and
picture of the antenna so we can all have a good laugh at it.

I expect to put some more things on my page
especially the model that I am honing now.
Now I have a 8 inch dia coil about 4 inches high relatively close
wound. Inside is the counter wound coil connected to the other coil to
make a closed circuit. It is placed on a perfect ground in leau of a
reflector. What I have done is balanced the inductance with the
capacitance, as you move around in frequency it will always be close
to resistive because of the balancing I have done.
It takes a while for the program to work from near
near resistance (.01 ohms) and I have now reached 11 ohms for 16.5 dbi
gain where the lower resistance gave me about 30 dbi
The resistance values are wave like as is the variation in gain per
cycle. Field shape so far varies from elliptical to something like the
double. zepp. My intention is to plot up to 20 ohms and that will take
several times longer than that taken already. The model has about a
dozen sections per
winding and I am pretty much limited to 10 segments per section. All
very interesting because I am following the idea of canceling all
lumped loads in line with Maxwells laws that deals only with
distributed loads. Frequency range covered up to now is 685 to 1200Mhz
With this amount of information you can start laughing now well
before I put it up
Art

Radiating coils
 

On Jun 5, 6:59*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 27, 6:22*am, K1TTT wrote:



On May 23, 2:17*am, Art Unwin wrote:

I just modeled two coils counter wound and one inside the other as a
complete closed circuit , end fed. Counter winding is quite the norm
with special purpose machinery to prevent inter tangling of coils when
compressed.
With the coils wound opposite to each other
it made quite a nice antenna when placed on a flat plate. Beam was
pencil shaped without side lobes and sensitive to all polarities.Thus
any such dishes could be used for 'point to point' using any type
circular polarization. *Smaller in size compared to other designs is
rather obvious. Where Kraus determined such an antenna single wound
form demanded a certain angular pitch such a requirement is not
apparent with this design. Kraus assumed a certain pitch was required
when wave composition clashed, but the opposite happens when particles
vectors add. Another example of particle versus waves disputes.It also
confirms Maxwells equation by removing the effect of lumped loads
which was not included in his equation as was not the stipulation that
a radiator must be straight.

Caution:
Above details not yet "printed" in a book so it must be considered
questionable.
Regards
Art

you have a nice little web site, please publish the design file and
picture of the antenna so we can all have a good laugh at it.

I expect to put some more things on my page
especially the model that I am honing now.
Now I have a 8 inch dia coil about 4 inches high relatively close
wound. Inside is the counter wound coil connected to the other coil to
make a closed circuit. It is placed on a perfect ground in leau of a
reflector. What I have done is balanced the inductance with the
capacitance, *as you move around in frequency it will always be close
to resistive because of the balancing I have done.
It takes a while for the program to work from near
near resistance (.01 ohms) and I have now reached 11 ohms for 16.5 dbi
gain where the lower resistance gave me about 30 dbi
The resistance values are wave like as is the variation in gain per
cycle. Field shape so far varies from elliptical to something like the
double. zepp. My intention is to plot up to 20 ohms and that will take
several times longer than that taken already. The model has about a
dozen sections per
winding and I am pretty much limited to 10 segments per section. All
very interesting because I am following the idea of canceling all
lumped loads in line with Maxwells laws that deals only with
distributed loads. Frequency range covered up to now is 685 to 1200Mhz
With this amount of information you can start laughing now *well
before I put it up
Art

just did a check at 3 Ghz. 20 dbi at 5 ohm resistive
so I may not get to 20- ohm resistive So after I get a reasonable
graph I will have to modify the model
to see if I can increase the resistance spam.
Note that the metallic resistance calculated is to gauge losses and is
not the source impeadance

Radiating coils
 

On 6/5/2010 8:36 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 5, 6:59 pm, Art wrote:
On May 27, 6:22 am, wrote:



On May 23, 2:17 am, Art wrote:

I just modeled two coils counter wound and one inside the other as a
complete closed circuit , end fed. Counter winding is quite the norm
with special purpose machinery to prevent inter tangling of coils when
compressed.
With the coils wound opposite to each other
it made quite a nice antenna when placed on a flat plate. Beam was
pencil shaped without side lobes and sensitive to all polarities.Thus
any such dishes could be used for 'point to point' using any type
circular polarization. Smaller in size compared to other designs is
rather obvious. Where Kraus determined such an antenna single wound
form demanded a certain angular pitch such a requirement is not
apparent with this design. Kraus assumed a certain pitch was required
when wave composition clashed, but the opposite happens when particles
vectors add. Another example of particle versus waves disputes.It also
confirms Maxwells equation by removing the effect of lumped loads
which was not included in his equation as was not the stipulation that
a radiator must be straight.

Caution:
Above details not yet "printed" in a book so it must be considered
questionable.
Regards
Art

you have a nice little web site, please publish the design file and
picture of the antenna so we can all have a good laugh at it.

I expect to put some more things on my page
especially the model that I am honing now.
Now I have a 8 inch dia coil about 4 inches high relatively close
wound. Inside is the counter wound coil connected to the other coil to
make a closed circuit. It is placed on a perfect ground in leau of a
reflector. What I have done is balanced the inductance with the
capacitance, as you move around in frequency it will always be close
to resistive because of the balancing I have done.
It takes a while for the program to work from near
near resistance (.01 ohms) and I have now reached 11 ohms for 16.5 dbi
gain where the lower resistance gave me about 30 dbi
The resistance values are wave like as is the variation in gain per
cycle. Field shape so far varies from elliptical to something like the
double. zepp. My intention is to plot up to 20 ohms and that will take
several times longer than that taken already. The model has about a
dozen sections per
winding and I am pretty much limited to 10 segments per section. All
very interesting because I am following the idea of canceling all
lumped loads in line with Maxwells laws that deals only with
distributed loads. Frequency range covered up to now is 685 to 1200Mhz
With this amount of information you can start laughing now well
before I put it up
Art

just did a check at 3 Ghz. 20 dbi at 5 ohm resistive
so I may not get to 20- ohm resistive So after I get a reasonable
graph I will have to modify the model
to see if I can increase the resistance spam.
Note that the metallic resistance calculated is to gauge losses and is
not the source impeadance

I assume you are using AOPro, since that is what you have previously
stated when asked what you use for analysis. AOPro is an old version of
Mininec wrapped in an optimizer with 2D and 3D result presentation. It
has none of the current corrections to fix the mathematical mistakes
that were made in the original Mininec. Sometimes those mistakes are
relevant, sometimes not. In the case of an antenna like you describe,
they probably mostly are.

If AOPro say 5 ohms + or - j something, the 5 is the real part of the
feedpoint impedance. It is not the loss as you state.

The maximum wire diameters of your model seem to be impractical for use
with Mininec where it is not advisable to go beyond .001 wavelengths
from what I'm able to determine. Based on that assumption I get a
maximum usable wire gauge for 685MHz of 25, and for 1200MHz 30. At 3000
it's a number not even on the AWG table I have -38. So to model this
antenna at 3000MHz you should use 38 AWG or smaller wire for any chance
of accurate results.

You also stated that it is close spaced but gave no numbers, so I can't
comment on that. But I have a feeling that too may violate the limits
of Mininec's calculation engine.

Be careful of what you model and how you model it. Distrust miraculous
results not confirmed by other methods.

tom
K0TAR

Radiating coils
 

On 6/5/2010 10:27 PM, tom wrote:

The maximum wire diameters of your model seem to be impractical for use
with Mininec where it is not advisable to go beyond .001 wavelengths
from what I'm able to determine. Based on that assumption I get a
maximum usable wire gauge for 685MHz of 25, and for 1200MHz 30. At 3000
it's a number not even on the AWG table I have -38. So to model this
antenna at 3000MHz you should use 38 AWG or smaller wire for any chance
of accurate results.

The guage was not meant to be -38, I missed the spacebar. It should
have read

"not even on the AWG table I have - 38."

tom
K0TAR

Radiating coils
 

On Jun 5, 7:59*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 27, 6:22*am, K1TTT wrote:



On May 23, 2:17*am, Art Unwin wrote:

I just modeled two coils counter wound and one inside the other as a
complete closed circuit , end fed. Counter winding is quite the norm
with special purpose machinery to prevent inter tangling of coils when
compressed.
With the coils wound opposite to each other
it made quite a nice antenna when placed on a flat plate. Beam was
pencil shaped without side lobes and sensitive to all polarities.Thus
any such dishes could be used for 'point to point' using any type
circular polarization. *Smaller in size compared to other designs is
rather obvious. Where Kraus determined such an antenna single wound
form demanded a certain angular pitch such a requirement is not
apparent with this design. Kraus assumed a certain pitch was required
when wave composition clashed, but the opposite happens when particles
vectors add. Another example of particle versus waves disputes.It also
confirms Maxwells equation by removing the effect of lumped loads
which was not included in his equation as was not the stipulation that
a radiator must be straight.

Caution:
Above details not yet "printed" in a book so it must be considered
questionable.
Regards
Art

you have a nice little web site, please publish the design file and
picture of the antenna so we can all have a good laugh at it.

I expect to put some more things on my page
especially the model that I am honing now.
Now I have a 8 inch dia coil about 4 inches high relatively close
wound. Inside is the counter wound coil connected to the other coil to
make a closed circuit. It is placed on a perfect ground in leau of a
reflector. What I have done is balanced the inductance with the
capacitance, *as you move around in frequency it will always be close
to resistive because of the balancing I have done.
It takes a while for the program to work from near
near resistance (.01 ohms) and I have now reached 11 ohms for 16.5 dbi
gain where the lower resistance gave me about 30 dbi
The resistance values are wave like as is the variation in gain per
cycle. Field shape so far varies from elliptical to something like the
double. zepp. My intention is to plot up to 20 ohms and that will take
several times longer than that taken already. The model has about a
dozen sections per
winding and I am pretty much limited to 10 segments per section. All
very interesting because I am following the idea of canceling all
lumped loads in line with Maxwells laws that deals only with
distributed loads. Frequency range covered up to now is 685 to 1200Mhz
With this amount of information you can start laughing now *well
before I put it up
Art

Art you must have quite an impressive antenna lab and range. I will be
in Peoria in a couple of weeks for about 3 weeks I would like to come
over and see your setup.

Jimmie

Radiating coils
 

On Jun 5, 10:34*pm, tom wrote:
On 6/5/2010 10:27 PM, tom wrote:

The maximum wire diameters of your model seem to be impractical for use
with Mininec where it is not advisable to go beyond .001 wavelengths
from what I'm able to determine. Based on that assumption I get a
maximum usable wire gauge for 685MHz of 25, and for 1200MHz 30. At 3000
it's a number not even on the AWG table I have -38. So to model this
antenna at 3000MHz you should use 38 AWG or smaller wire for any chance
of accurate results.

The guage was not meant to be -38, I missed the spacebar. *It should
have read

"not even on the AWG table I have - 38."

tom
K0TAR

The important point that I put forward is that the program is based
around Maxwells formula. In the engineering world this is factual. If
something deviates from Maxwells laws you cannot say 'don't go there'
and you cannot overthrow what the program provides and at the same
time when it is in accordance with Maxwells laws. To follow that path
is to over throw Maxwell to reinforce your own will. That is not
science.
This approach overthrows fact for success in favor of the present
approach on this group that is based on perceived probabilities that
all other competing theories are based upon.
I continue to use my program and let all the chips fall where they
may. So far, and I have a long way to go, is that skin depth minimises
as current flow
moves out of the metallic member and closer to encapsulating particles
provided by the Gaussian equation. There is no reason to put a halt to
this work until it is proven that the program deviates from Maxwells
equations and thus is fraudulent.
I and nobody else, has pointed at any specific point of my work that
specifically states that my approach is in error based on known
boundary rules and classical physics. All assaults have been based
purely on opinion, mostly in a derogatory way to preserve resistance
to change rather than the path of better understanding.

Radiating coils
 

On Jun 6, 6:26*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 5, 10:34*pm, tom wrote:



On 6/5/2010 10:27 PM, tom wrote:

The maximum wire diameters of your model seem to be impractical for use
with Mininec where it is not advisable to go beyond .001 wavelengths
from what I'm able to determine. Based on that assumption I get a
maximum usable wire gauge for 685MHz of 25, and for 1200MHz 30. At 3000
it's a number not even on the AWG table I have -38. So to model this
antenna at 3000MHz you should use 38 AWG or smaller wire for any chance
of accurate results.

The guage was not meant to be -38, I missed the spacebar. *It should
have read

"not even on the AWG table I have - 38."

tom
K0TAR

The important point that I put forward is that the program is based
around Maxwells formula. In the engineering world this is factual. If
something deviates from Maxwells laws you cannot say 'don't go there'
and you cannot overthrow what the program provides and at the same
time when it is in accordance with Maxwells laws. To follow that path
is to over throw Maxwell to reinforce your own will. That is not
science.
This approach overthrows fact for success in favor of the present
approach on this group that is based on perceived probabilities that
all other competing theories are based upon.
I continue to use my program and let all the chips fall where they
may. So far, and I have a long way to go, is that skin depth minimises
as current flow
moves out of the metallic member and closer to encapsulating particles
provided by the Gaussian equation. There is no reason to put a halt to
this work until it is proven that the program deviates from Maxwells
equations and thus is fraudulent.
I and nobody else, has pointed at any specific point of my work that
specifically states that my approach is in error based on known
boundary rules and classical physics. All assaults have been based
purely on opinion, mostly in a derogatory way to preserve resistance
to change rather than the path of better understanding.

oh please put an end to it... i will tell you outright that the
program deviates from maxwell's equations! at very small or very
large extremes it deviates quite a lot! and that is of course why all
your results that you let it optimize too far are garbage, you are not
conforming with maxwell.

Radiating coils
 

On Jun 6, 2:13*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Jun 6, 6:26*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jun 5, 10:34*pm, tom wrote:

On 6/5/2010 10:27 PM, tom wrote:

The maximum wire diameters of your model seem to be impractical for use
with Mininec where it is not advisable to go beyond .001 wavelengths
from what I'm able to determine. Based on that assumption I get a
maximum usable wire gauge for 685MHz of 25, and for 1200MHz 30. At 3000
it's a number not even on the AWG table I have -38. So to model this
antenna at 3000MHz you should use 38 AWG or smaller wire for any chance
of accurate results.

The guage was not meant to be -38, I missed the spacebar. *It should
have read

"not even on the AWG table I have - 38."

tom
K0TAR

The important point that I put forward is that the program is based
around Maxwells formula. In the engineering world this is factual. If
something deviates from Maxwells laws you cannot say 'don't go there'
and you cannot overthrow what the program provides and at the same
time when it is in accordance with Maxwells laws. To follow that path
is to over throw Maxwell to reinforce your own will. That is not
science.
This approach overthrows fact for success in favor of the present
approach on this group that is based on perceived probabilities that
all other competing theories are based upon.
I continue to use my program and let all the chips fall where they
may. So far, and I have a long way to go, is that skin depth minimises
as current flow
moves out of the metallic member and closer to encapsulating particles
provided by the Gaussian equation. There is no reason to put a halt to
this work until it is proven that the program deviates from Maxwells
equations and thus is fraudulent.
I and nobody else, has pointed at any specific point of my work that
specifically states that my approach is in error based on known
boundary rules and classical physics. All assaults have been based
purely on opinion, mostly in a derogatory way to preserve resistance
to change rather than the path of better understanding.

oh please put an end to it... i will tell you outright that the
program deviates from maxwell's equations! *at very small or very
large extremes it deviates quite a lot! *and that is of course why all
your results that you let it optimize too far are garbage, you are not
conforming with maxwell.

no facts. just opinion

Radiating coils
 

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:13:10 -0700 (PDT), K1TTT wrote:

your results that you let it optimize too far are garbage

Models are doomed to succeed.

There should be a cautionary label applied to them all:
"Use only with the supervision of a curious child."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Radiating coils
 

On Jun 6, 7:18*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 6, 2:13*pm, K1TTT wrote:



On Jun 6, 6:26*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Jun 5, 10:34*pm, tom wrote:

On 6/5/2010 10:27 PM, tom wrote:

The maximum wire diameters of your model seem to be impractical for use
with Mininec where it is not advisable to go beyond .001 wavelengths
from what I'm able to determine. Based on that assumption I get a
maximum usable wire gauge for 685MHz of 25, and for 1200MHz 30. At 3000
it's a number not even on the AWG table I have -38. So to model this
antenna at 3000MHz you should use 38 AWG or smaller wire for any chance
of accurate results.

The guage was not meant to be -38, I missed the spacebar. *It should
have read

"not even on the AWG table I have - 38."

tom
K0TAR

The important point that I put forward is that the program is based
around Maxwells formula. In the engineering world this is factual. If
something deviates from Maxwells laws you cannot say 'don't go there'
and you cannot overthrow what the program provides and at the same
time when it is in accordance with Maxwells laws. To follow that path
is to over throw Maxwell to reinforce your own will. That is not
science.
This approach overthrows fact for success in favor of the present
approach on this group that is based on perceived probabilities that
all other competing theories are based upon.
I continue to use my program and let all the chips fall where they
may. So far, and I have a long way to go, is that skin depth minimises
as current flow
moves out of the metallic member and closer to encapsulating particles
provided by the Gaussian equation. There is no reason to put a halt to
this work until it is proven that the program deviates from Maxwells
equations and thus is fraudulent.
I and nobody else, has pointed at any specific point of my work that
specifically states that my approach is in error based on known
boundary rules and classical physics. All assaults have been based
purely on opinion, mostly in a derogatory way to preserve resistance
to change rather than the path of better understanding.

oh please put an end to it... i will tell you outright that the
program deviates from maxwell's equations! *at very small or very
large extremes it deviates quite a lot! *and that is of course why all
your results that you let it optimize too far are garbage, you are not
conforming with maxwell.

no facts. just opinion

yes, that is my opinion as a professional software developer who has
written simulation programs that model lightning on high voltage power
lines, on towers, and in ground conductors. And also as a user of AO
from many years ago... that program is prone to optimizing into
unrealizable and obviously incorrect results, often first seen as
rapid changes in currents and gain values. so if you really want to
continue, have fun, we all get a good laugh out of your naivety and
attempts to explain it with your own version of physics.

Radiating coils
 

On 6/6/2010 1:26 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 5, 10:34 pm, wrote:
On 6/5/2010 10:27 PM, tom wrote:

The maximum wire diameters of your model seem to be impractical for use
with Mininec where it is not advisable to go beyond .001 wavelengths
from what I'm able to determine. Based on that assumption I get a
maximum usable wire gauge for 685MHz of 25, and for 1200MHz 30. At 3000
it's a number not even on the AWG table I have -38. So to model this
antenna at 3000MHz you should use 38 AWG or smaller wire for any chance
of accurate results.

The guage was not meant to be -38, I missed the spacebar. It should
have read

"not even on the AWG table I have - 38."

tom
K0TAR

The important point that I put forward is that the program is based
around Maxwells formula. In the engineering world this is factual. If
something deviates from Maxwells laws you cannot say 'don't go there'
and you cannot overthrow what the program provides and at the same
time when it is in accordance with Maxwells laws. To follow that path
is to over throw Maxwell to reinforce your own will. That is not
science.
This approach overthrows fact for success in favor of the present
approach on this group that is based on perceived probabilities that
all other competing theories are based upon.
I continue to use my program and let all the chips fall where they
may. So far, and I have a long way to go, is that skin depth minimises
as current flow
moves out of the metallic member and closer to encapsulating particles
provided by the Gaussian equation. There is no reason to put a halt to
this work until it is proven that the program deviates from Maxwells
equations and thus is fraudulent.
I and nobody else, has pointed at any specific point of my work that
specifically states that my approach is in error based on known
boundary rules and classical physics. All assaults have been based
purely on opinion, mostly in a derogatory way to preserve resistance
to change rather than the path of better understanding.

You need to get a grip. All I did was point out that you may be
exceeding the limits of the program you use.

Take your meds.

tom
K0TAR

Radiating coils
 

On 6/6/2010 1:26 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

The important point that I put forward is that the program is based
around Maxwells formula. In the engineering world this is factual. If
something deviates from Maxwells laws you cannot say 'don't go there'
and you cannot overthrow what the program provides and at the same
time when it is in accordance with Maxwells laws. To follow that path
is to over throw Maxwell to reinforce your own will. That is not
science.
This approach overthrows fact for success in favor of the present
approach on this group that is based on perceived probabilities that
all other competing theories are based upon.
I continue to use my program and let all the chips fall where they
may. So far, and I have a long way to go, is that skin depth minimises
as current flow
moves out of the metallic member and closer to encapsulating particles
provided by the Gaussian equation. There is no reason to put a halt to
this work until it is proven that the program deviates from Maxwells
equations and thus is fraudulent.
I and nobody else, has pointed at any specific point of my work that
specifically states that my approach is in error based on known
boundary rules and classical physics. All assaults have been based
purely on opinion, mostly in a derogatory way to preserve resistance
to change rather than the path of better understanding.

And people have pointed out gaping holes (monstrously large errors) in
the nonsense you proclaim on a daily basis. You just refuse to
acknowledge it.

Time for the rubber room again for a while.

tom
K0TAR

Radiating coils
 

On Jun 6, 3:59*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Jun 6, 7:18*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jun 6, 2:13*pm, K1TTT wrote:

On Jun 6, 6:26*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Jun 5, 10:34*pm, tom wrote:

On 6/5/2010 10:27 PM, tom wrote:

The maximum wire diameters of your model seem to be impractical for use
with Mininec where it is not advisable to go beyond .001 wavelengths
from what I'm able to determine. Based on that assumption I get a
maximum usable wire gauge for 685MHz of 25, and for 1200MHz 30. At 3000
it's a number not even on the AWG table I have -38. So to model this
antenna at 3000MHz you should use 38 AWG or smaller wire for any chance
of accurate results.

The guage was not meant to be -38, I missed the spacebar. *It should
have read

"not even on the AWG table I have - 38."

tom
K0TAR

The important point that I put forward is that the program is based
around Maxwells formula. In the engineering world this is factual. If
something deviates from Maxwells laws you cannot say 'don't go there'
and you cannot overthrow what the program provides and at the same
time when it is in accordance with Maxwells laws. To follow that path
is to over throw Maxwell to reinforce your own will. That is not
science.
This approach overthrows fact for success in favor of the present
approach on this group that is based on perceived probabilities that
all other competing theories are based upon.
I continue to use my program and let all the chips fall where they
may. So far, and I have a long way to go, is that skin depth minimises
as current flow
moves out of the metallic member and closer to encapsulating particles
provided by the Gaussian equation. There is no reason to put a halt to
this work until it is proven that the program deviates from Maxwells
equations and thus is fraudulent.
I and nobody else, has pointed at any specific point of my work that
specifically states that my approach is in error based on known
boundary rules and classical physics. All assaults have been based
purely on opinion, mostly in a derogatory way to preserve resistance
to change rather than the path of better understanding.

oh please put an end to it... i will tell you outright that the
program deviates from maxwell's equations! *at very small or very
large extremes it deviates quite a lot! *and that is of course why all
your results that you let it optimize too far are garbage, you are not
conforming with maxwell.

no facts. just opinion

yes, that is my opinion as a professional software developer who has
written simulation programs that model lightning on high voltage power
lines, on towers, and in ground conductors. *And also as a user of AO
from many years ago... that program is prone to optimizing into
unrealizable and obviously incorrect results, often first seen as
rapid changes in currents and gain values. * so if you really want to
continue, have fun, we all get a good laugh out of your naivety and
attempts to explain it with your own version of physics.

I have no problem with your view point and it is something I am
concerned about. Since I have followed this path however, every thing
is meshing
and I am reporting it as I do not fear failure. But to my mind I have
not hit anything to cause me to give up. On top of that nobody has
raised any particular points of discussion either. Remember it took me
years to convince all that extending Gauss
was OK and it provided arrays where all elements were resonant each of
which can be fed. So I was right there and everybody else was in
error, relying on books only and not there own education.
Now I am spreading my wings based on what the former has shown and
will re evaluate again when done. At each time I will continue to
share results
even if it finally shows some errors But I certainly will not stop
because of intuitions from the group which up to now has been proved
wrong. Nothing wrong with following the teachings of the books as
followers but I am attempting to be a leader in finding truths about
radiation. So far I have proved the presence of particles, realised
equilibrium in every way and now I appear to be proving that skin
depth is not a constant. A lot of work to do but as an engineer I knew
it would take a while and on top of that I supplied it to a academic
to break it down
as one always should get an independent evaluation. So far every thing
that Einstein predicted has shown up in my workings such that if he
had seen it there would have been no need for alternate physics
proposals, not that they were without success. The final point is that
it is accepted that the machinations of radiation have not yet been
proven and so far following thru with classical physics has provided
with interesting view points that oppose the present teachings. So I
am a fool to place my engineering experience in search of the truth
where others may be happy as things are.
So I am different from the rest and what is so bad about that? It is
for the group to show that I am inadequate from my aproach and to this
point all
that has been presented has been proven false and I still prevail. I
yearn for closure which could come from those really interested in the
outcome. But at the same time in their absence I will carry on.
Future info will be on the new thread since this one is now dead and
placed in the archives.
Regards
Art

Radiating coils
 

On 6/6/2010 8:27 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 6, 3:59 pm, wrote:
yes, that is my opinion as a professional software developer who has
written simulation programs that model lightning on high voltage power
lines, on towers, and in ground conductors. And also as a user of AO
from many years ago... that program is prone to optimizing into
unrealizable and obviously incorrect results, often first seen as
rapid changes in currents and gain values. so if you really want to
continue, have fun, we all get a good laugh out of your naivety and
attempts to explain it with your own version of physics.

I have no problem with your view point and it is something I am
concerned about. Since I have followed this path however, every thing
is meshing
and I am reporting it as I do not fear failure. But to my mind I have
not hit anything to cause me to give up. On top of that nobody has
raised any particular points of discussion either. Remember it took me
years to convince all that extending Gauss
was OK and it provided arrays where all elements were resonant each of
which can be fed. So I was right there and everybody else was in
error, relying on books only and not there own education.
Now I am spreading my wings based on what the former has shown and
will re evaluate again when done. At each time I will continue to
share results
even if it finally shows some errors But I certainly will not stop
because of intuitions from the group which up to now has been proved
wrong. Nothing wrong with following the teachings of the books as
followers but I am attempting to be a leader in finding truths about
radiation. So far I have proved the presence of particles, realised
equilibrium in every way and now I appear to be proving that skin
depth is not a constant. A lot of work to do but as an engineer I knew
it would take a while and on top of that I supplied it to a academic
to break it down
as one always should get an independent evaluation. So far every thing
that Einstein predicted has shown up in my workings such that if he
had seen it there would have been no need for alternate physics
proposals, not that they were without success. The final point is that
it is accepted that the machinations of radiation have not yet been
proven and so far following thru with classical physics has provided
with interesting view points that oppose the present teachings. So I
am a fool to place my engineering experience in search of the truth
where others may be happy as things are.
So I am different from the rest and what is so bad about that? It is
for the group to show that I am inadequate from my aproach and to this
point all
that has been presented has been proven false and I still prevail. I
yearn for closure which could come from those really interested in the
outcome. But at the same time in their absence I will carry on.
Future info will be on the new thread since this one is now dead and
placed in the archives.
Regards
Art

Yup, meds.

Radiating coils
 

On Jun 7, 2:06*am, tom wrote:
On 6/6/2010 8:27 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jun 6, 3:59 pm, *wrote:
yes, that is my opinion as a professional software developer who has
written simulation programs that model lightning on high voltage power
lines, on towers, and in ground conductors. *And also as a user of AO
from many years ago... that program is prone to optimizing into
unrealizable and obviously incorrect results, often first seen as
rapid changes in currents and gain values. * so if you really want to
continue, have fun, we all get a good laugh out of your naivety and
attempts to explain it with your own version of physics.

I have no problem with your view point and it is something I am
concerned about. Since I have followed this path however, every thing
is meshing
and I am reporting it as I do not fear failure. But to my mind I have
not hit anything to cause me to give up. On top of that nobody has
raised any particular points of discussion either. Remember it took me
years to convince all that extending Gauss
was OK and it provided arrays where all elements were resonant each of
which can be fed. So I was right there and everybody else was in
error, relying on books only and not there own education.
Now I am spreading my wings based on what the former has shown and
will re evaluate again when done. At each time I will continue to
share results
even if it finally shows some errors But I certainly will not stop
because of intuitions from the group which up to now has been proved
wrong. Nothing wrong with following the teachings of the books as
followers but I am attempting to be a leader in finding truths about
radiation. So far I have proved the presence of particles, realised
equilibrium in every way and now I appear to be proving that skin
depth is not a constant. A lot of work to do but as an engineer I knew
it would take a while and on top of that I supplied it to a academic
to break it down
as one always should get an independent evaluation. So far every thing
that Einstein predicted has shown up in my workings such that if he
had seen it there would have been no need for alternate physics
proposals, not that they were without success. The final point is that
it is accepted that the machinations of radiation have not yet been
proven and so far following thru with classical physics has provided
with interesting view points that oppose the present teachings. So I
am a fool to place my engineering experience in search of the truth
where others may be happy as things are.
So I am different from the rest and what is so bad about that? It is
for the group to show that I am inadequate from my aproach and to this
point all
that has been presented has been proven false and I still prevail. I
yearn for closure which could come from those really interested in the
outcome. But at the same time in their absence I will carry on.
Future info will be on the new thread since this one is now dead and
placed in the archives.
Regards
Art

Yup, meds.

STRONG meds!

Radiating coils
 

On 6/7/2010 4:27 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On Jun 7, 2:06 am, wrote:
On 6/6/2010 8:27 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jun 6, 3:59 pm, wrote:
yes, that is my opinion as a professional software developer who has
written simulation programs that model lightning on high voltage power
lines, on towers, and in ground conductors. And also as a user of AO
from many years ago... that program is prone to optimizing into
unrealizable and obviously incorrect results, often first seen as
rapid changes in currents and gain values. so if you really want to
continue, have fun, we all get a good laugh out of your naivety and
attempts to explain it with your own version of physics.

I have no problem with your view point and it is something I am
concerned about. Since I have followed this path however, every thing
is meshing
and I am reporting it as I do not fear failure. But to my mind I have
not hit anything to cause me to give up. On top of that nobody has
raised any particular points of discussion either. Remember it took me
years to convince all that extending Gauss
was OK and it provided arrays where all elements were resonant each of
which can be fed. So I was right there and everybody else was in
error, relying on books only and not there own education.
Now I am spreading my wings based on what the former has shown and
will re evaluate again when done. At each time I will continue to
share results
even if it finally shows some errors But I certainly will not stop
because of intuitions from the group which up to now has been proved
wrong. Nothing wrong with following the teachings of the books as
followers but I am attempting to be a leader in finding truths about
radiation. So far I have proved the presence of particles, realised
equilibrium in every way and now I appear to be proving that skin
depth is not a constant. A lot of work to do but as an engineer I knew
it would take a while and on top of that I supplied it to a academic
to break it down
as one always should get an independent evaluation. So far every thing
that Einstein predicted has shown up in my workings such that if he
had seen it there would have been no need for alternate physics
proposals, not that they were without success. The final point is that
it is accepted that the machinations of radiation have not yet been
proven and so far following thru with classical physics has provided
with interesting view points that oppose the present teachings. So I
am a fool to place my engineering experience in search of the truth
where others may be happy as things are.
So I am different from the rest and what is so bad about that? It is
for the group to show that I am inadequate from my aproach and to this
point all
that has been presented has been proven false and I still prevail. I
yearn for closure which could come from those really interested in the
outcome. But at the same time in their absence I will carry on.
Future info will be on the new thread since this one is now dead and
placed in the archives.
Regards
Art

Yup, meds.

STRONG meds!

And all these miraculous claims without a shred of evidence or formulas
one can check.

And yet he prevails.