On Aug 28, 3:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Superconductors have been used as antennas where the gain has been
much much more than ham antennas. It does this by removing or
resisting the external magnetic field thus allowing the current flow
to exit the material and travel along its surface. Thus we are able to
reduce material
true resistance or losses and contribute solely to radiation.
By the same token, coils can be wound where it is totally resistive by
removing reactive forces. This also means the disappearance of skin
depth where the external magnetic field gains a foot hold. Thus, as
with a superconductor, we have removed the presence of resistive skin
depth resistance by allowing the current flow to exit the metallic
material and travel on its surface.
There are two resistances that must be dealt with in determining
efficiency where one is controlled by radiation that requires a equal
and opposite effect thus leaving only the metallic resistance to
concentrate upon
to increase efficiency. *In both of the above cases we have been able
to divert current flow to the surface of the radiator to avoid the
intrinsic resistance of the radiating element, thus allowing all
alternating current flow to devote itself to creating radiation.
Art Unwin

old hat, come on art, you can do better than try to latch onto someone
else's patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5105200.html

On Aug 28, 1:36*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Aug 28, 3:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



Superconductors have been used as antennas where the gain has been
much much more than ham antennas. It does this by removing or
resisting the external magnetic field thus allowing the current flow
to exit the material and travel along its surface. Thus we are able to
reduce material
true resistance or losses and contribute solely to radiation.
By the same token, coils can be wound where it is totally resistive by
removing reactive forces. This also means the disappearance of skin
depth where the external magnetic field gains a foot hold. Thus, as
with a superconductor, we have removed the presence of resistive skin
depth resistance by allowing the current flow to exit the metallic
material and travel on its surface.
There are two resistances that must be dealt with in determining
efficiency where one is controlled by radiation that requires a equal
and opposite effect thus leaving only the metallic resistance to
concentrate upon
to increase efficiency. *In both of the above cases we have been able
to divert current flow to the surface of the radiator to avoid the
intrinsic resistance of the radiating element, thus allowing all
alternating current flow to devote itself to creating radiation.
Art Unwin

old hat, come on art, you can do better than try to latch onto someone
else's patent:http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5105200.html

Where is the beef? Where is the patent? What exactly do you think the
patent is claiming?
Is the claim legitimate? Has the ham community
agreed on the removal of an external magnetic field for maximum
efficiency? You have consistently denied over the years and now
miraculesly you rush to defend it. Why are you so evil? As I stated
earlier your intuitions are leading you astray in the absence of
physics teachings or classes. Go to the Physics forum and ask for the
truth.

On Aug 28, 7:46*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Aug 28, 1:36*pm, K1TTT wrote:



On Aug 28, 3:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Superconductors have been used as antennas where the gain has been
much much more than ham antennas. It does this by removing or
resisting the external magnetic field thus allowing the current flow
to exit the material and travel along its surface. Thus we are able to
reduce material
true resistance or losses and contribute solely to radiation.
By the same token, coils can be wound where it is totally resistive by
removing reactive forces. This also means the disappearance of skin
depth where the external magnetic field gains a foot hold. Thus, as
with a superconductor, we have removed the presence of resistive skin
depth resistance by allowing the current flow to exit the metallic
material and travel on its surface.
There are two resistances that must be dealt with in determining
efficiency where one is controlled by radiation that requires a equal
and opposite effect thus leaving only the metallic resistance to
concentrate upon
to increase efficiency. *In both of the above cases we have been able
to divert current flow to the surface of the radiator to avoid the
intrinsic resistance of the radiating element, thus allowing all
alternating current flow to devote itself to creating radiation.
Art Unwin

old hat, come on art, you can do better than try to latch onto someone
else's patent:http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5105200.html

Where is the beef? Where is the patent? What exactly do you think the
patent is claiming?
Is the claim legitimate? Has the ham community
agreed on the removal of an external magnetic field for maximum
efficiency? You have consistently denied over the years and now
miraculesly you rush to defend it. Why are you so evil? As I stated
earlier your intuitions are leading you astray in the absence of
physics teachings or classes. Go to the Physics forum and ask for the
truth.

i just want to you say more silly stuff, i need a good laugh this
weekend.

On Aug 28, 6:15*pm, K1TTT wrote:

old hat, come on art, you can do better than try to latch onto someone
else's patent:http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5105200.html

Where is the beef? Where is the patent? What exactly do you think the
patent is claiming?
Is the claim legitimate? Has the ham community
agreed on the removal of an external magnetic field for maximum
efficiency? You have consistently denied over the years and now
miraculesly you rush to defend it. Why are you so evil? As I stated
earlier your intuitions are leading you astray in the absence of
physics teachings or classes. Go to the Physics forum and ask for the
truth.

i just want to you say more silly stuff, i need a good laugh this
weekend.

You evil evil man... chortle..
Superconductor, whooplaconductor.. My antennas already
function in the 90% plus range as far as efficiency.
If I used superconductor material for these antennas instead
of ordinary wire, would that make me a radio bully? :/
As one mentioned the other day.. It takes time to conjure up
good baffle gab, but I knew that comment would bring the baffler out
of the woodwork in short order. I was not disappointed.

The lack of comprehension of fundamental physics on this newsgroup is
astounding, so it's no surprise that a less-known fact has been missed:

A superconductor has zero resistance only at DC. The resistance at RF
depends, among other things, the frequency and the material's
temperature. Because the resistivity of copper drops dramatically at
cryogenic temperatures, it can be difficult to make a superconductor
with resistance as low as copper at the same temperature.

Very small superconducting antennas have been demonstrated, but they
still have a very large near field which sustains loss by coupling to
nearby objects, and a large reactance which necessitates potentially
lossy matching networks.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:22:11 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

The lack of comprehension of fundamental physics on this newsgroup is
astounding, so it's no surprise that a less-known fact has been missed:

A superconductor has zero resistance only at DC. The resistance at RF
depends, among other things, the frequency and the material's
temperature. Because the resistivity of copper drops dramatically at
cryogenic temperatures, it can be difficult to make a superconductor
with resistance as low as copper at the same temperature.

Zero resistance is not strictly a function of direct current. It is
simply the most often reported experimental characteristic in the
popular press. Impracticality of the additional RF characteristic
(which I presume in this forum to be confined to UHF and below) is
unwarranted in materials research at this point, but EHF/IR and above
results are frequently reported in association with other research -
plasmonics and phonon/electron interaction.

The resistivity of copper falls with temperature, true, but we
encounter diminishing returns as we approach absolute zero: the drop
fails to follow through to the expected final zero resistance. This
was an experimental dissappointment decades ago. Silver and gold are
rarely chosen for their electrical properties in the nano-dimension -
chilled or otherwise (although gold is suitable, gold is far more
useful in association with thiols). In fact, what are typically poor
conductors exhibit less low temperature resistance than copper (cold
or warm). I won't go into that list, it is enough to consider that
such "wires" would be confined to thin film depositions on a flexible
tape substrate - pretty exotic.

Going further, it isn't even necessary to drive temperatures to the
basement for improved conduction. Carbon nanotubes are exemplars of
high conductivity (several orders of magnitude better than what we
consider good metals) at room temperature where a carbon macrotube
would be called a resistor. Conductivity and superconductivity
research has long ago left the realm of temperature and has entered
the realm of crystal alignment.

However, even this academic. Carbon Nanotube construction at a scale
to compete with standard copper wire is off by a scale of a million to
billions (of dollars, much less practicability).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

Going further, it isn't even necessary to drive temperatures to the
basement for improved conduction. Carbon nanotubes are exemplars of
high conductivity (several orders of magnitude better than what we
consider good metals) at room temperature where a carbon macrotube
would be called a resistor. Conductivity and superconductivity
research has long ago left the realm of temperature and has entered
the realm of crystal alignment.

However, even this academic. Carbon Nanotube construction at a scale
to compete with standard copper wire is off by a scale of a million to
billions (of dollars, much less practicability).

This may have changed also, I'm no expert in superconductors (though I
do play one on TV) Don't the high temperature superconductors have
issues with current capacity, and does this translate into problems with
impedance?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Aug 28, 2:46*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Aug 28, 1:36*pm, K1TTT wrote:



On Aug 28, 3:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Superconductors have been used as antennas where the gain has been
much much more than ham antennas. It does this by removing or
resisting the external magnetic field thus allowing the current flow
to exit the material and travel along its surface. Thus we are able to
reduce material
true resistance or losses and contribute solely to radiation.
By the same token, coils can be wound where it is totally resistive by
removing reactive forces. This also means the disappearance of skin
depth where the external magnetic field gains a foot hold. Thus, as
with a superconductor, we have removed the presence of resistive skin
depth resistance by allowing the current flow to exit the metallic
material and travel on its surface.
There are two resistances that must be dealt with in determining
efficiency where one is controlled by radiation that requires a equal
and opposite effect thus leaving only the metallic resistance to
concentrate upon
to increase efficiency. *In both of the above cases we have been able
to divert current flow to the surface of the radiator to avoid the
intrinsic resistance of the radiating element, thus allowing all
alternating current flow to devote itself to creating radiation.
Art Unwin

old hat, come on art, you can do better than try to latch onto someone
else's patent:http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5105200.html

Where is the beef? Where is the patent? What exactly do you think the
patent is claiming?
Is the claim legitimate? Has the ham community
agreed on the removal of an external magnetic field for maximum
efficiency? You have consistently denied over the years and now
miraculesly you rush to defend it. Why are you so evil? As I stated
earlier your intuitions are leading you astray in the absence of
physics teachings or classes. Go to the Physics forum and ask for the
truth.

I finally got around to read that patent you were referring to. It
involves the increase in radiation that can be achieved by
superconductors in temperatures way below that seen by humans.
for hams and industry using this knowledge by far the biggest expense
is the extreme cooling equipment that is required as evidenced by MRI
costs which is more than the most avid ham could afford. There is no
doubt that the repelling of external magnetic fields removes the
formation
of resistive skin depth of these ultra cool materials.
I advocate the use of the Meissner effect with antennas that does not
require the extensive cooling costs equipment required by
superconductors to remove the presence of the resistive skin effect
that superconductors have shown is very advantageous when designing
antennas. These are differences in both of these methods in removing
the unnecessary losses of magnetic field generation but the
commonality
between them is the increased efficiency in radiation. A side issue is
that the idea of smaller radiators is a reality as the idea of
radiators must be straight is totally false. The bottom line being
that every inch of current flow produces radiation
whether we like it or not and cannot be suppressed.
Tom, you should avoid trying to give the impression that you are
skilled in physics. You are not an engineer and you only work under a
engineers supervision because of your lack of knowledge.

On Aug 28, 11:26*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Aug 28, 2:46*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Aug 28, 1:36*pm, K1TTT wrote:

On Aug 28, 3:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Superconductors have been used as antennas where the gain has been
much much more than ham antennas. It does this by removing or
resisting the external magnetic field thus allowing the current flow
to exit the material and travel along its surface. Thus we are able to
reduce material
true resistance or losses and contribute solely to radiation.
By the same token, coils can be wound where it is totally resistive by
removing reactive forces. This also means the disappearance of skin
depth where the external magnetic field gains a foot hold. Thus, as
with a superconductor, we have removed the presence of resistive skin
depth resistance by allowing the current flow to exit the metallic
material and travel on its surface.
There are two resistances that must be dealt with in determining
efficiency where one is controlled by radiation that requires a equal
and opposite effect thus leaving only the metallic resistance to
concentrate upon
to increase efficiency. *In both of the above cases we have been able
to divert current flow to the surface of the radiator to avoid the
intrinsic resistance of the radiating element, thus allowing all
alternating current flow to devote itself to creating radiation.
Art Unwin

old hat, come on art, you can do better than try to latch onto someone
else's patent:http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5105200.html

Where is the beef? Where is the patent? What exactly do you think the
patent is claiming?
Is the claim legitimate? Has the ham community
agreed on the removal of an external magnetic field for maximum
efficiency? You have consistently denied over the years and now
miraculesly you rush to defend it. Why are you so evil? As I stated
earlier your intuitions are leading you astray in the absence of
physics teachings or classes. Go to the Physics forum and ask for the
truth.

I finally got around to read that patent you were referring to. It
involves the increase in radiation that can be achieved by
superconductors in temperatures way below that seen by humans.
for hams and industry using this knowledge by far the biggest expense
is the extreme cooling equipment that is required as evidenced by MRI
costs which is more than the most avid ham could afford. There is no
doubt that the repelling of external magnetic fields removes the
formation
of resistive skin depth of these ultra cool materials.
I advocate the use of the Meissner effect with antennas that does not
require the extensive cooling costs equipment required by
superconductors to remove the presence of the resistive skin effect
that superconductors have shown is very advantageous when designing
antennas. These are differences in both of these methods in removing
the unnecessary losses *of magnetic field generation but the
commonality
between them is the increased efficiency in radiation. A side issue is
that the idea of smaller radiators is a reality as the idea of
radiators must be straight is totally false. The bottom line being
that every inch of current flow produces radiation
whether we like it or not and cannot be suppressed.
Tom, you should avoid trying to give the impression that you are
skilled in physics. You are not an engineer and you only work under a
engineers supervision because of your lack of knowledge.

but of course you can't radiate without generating a magnetic field
and any current produces a magnetic field so everything you are saying
is junk.

On Aug 28, 6:49*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Aug 28, 11:26*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Aug 28, 2:46*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Aug 28, 1:36*pm, K1TTT wrote:

On Aug 28, 3:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Superconductors have been used as antennas where the gain has been
much much more than ham antennas. It does this by removing or
resisting the external magnetic field thus allowing the current flow
to exit the material and travel along its surface. Thus we are able to
reduce material
true resistance or losses and contribute solely to radiation.
By the same token, coils can be wound where it is totally resistive by
removing reactive forces. This also means the disappearance of skin
depth where the external magnetic field gains a foot hold. Thus, as
with a superconductor, we have removed the presence of resistive skin
depth resistance by allowing the current flow to exit the metallic
material and travel on its surface.
There are two resistances that must be dealt with in determining
efficiency where one is controlled by radiation that requires a equal
and opposite effect thus leaving only the metallic resistance to
concentrate upon
to increase efficiency. *In both of the above cases we have been able
to divert current flow to the surface of the radiator to avoid the
intrinsic resistance of the radiating element, thus allowing all
alternating current flow to devote itself to creating radiation.
Art Unwin

old hat, come on art, you can do better than try to latch onto someone
else's patent:http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5105200.html

Where is the beef? Where is the patent? What exactly do you think the
patent is claiming?
Is the claim legitimate? Has the ham community
agreed on the removal of an external magnetic field for maximum
efficiency? You have consistently denied over the years and now
miraculesly you rush to defend it. Why are you so evil? As I stated
earlier your intuitions are leading you astray in the absence of
physics teachings or classes. Go to the Physics forum and ask for the
truth.

I finally got around to read that patent you were referring to. It
involves the increase in radiation that can be achieved by
superconductors in temperatures way below that seen by humans.
for hams and industry using this knowledge by far the biggest expense
is the extreme cooling equipment that is required as evidenced by MRI
costs which is more than the most avid ham could afford. There is no
doubt that the repelling of external magnetic fields removes the
formation
of resistive skin depth of these ultra cool materials.
I advocate the use of the Meissner effect with antennas that does not
require the extensive cooling costs equipment required by
superconductors to remove the presence of the resistive skin effect
that superconductors have shown is very advantageous when designing
antennas. These are differences in both of these methods in removing
the unnecessary losses *of magnetic field generation but the
commonality
between them is the increased efficiency in radiation. A side issue is
that the idea of smaller radiators is a reality as the idea of
radiators must be straight is totally false. The bottom line being
that every inch of current flow produces radiation
whether we like it or not and cannot be suppressed.
Tom, you should avoid trying to give the impression that you are
skilled in physics. You are not an engineer and you only work under a
engineers supervision because of your lack of knowledge.

but of course you can't radiate without generating a magnetic field
and any current produces a magnetic field so everything you are saying
is junk.

Read, read again, then read again. The magnetic field referred to is
the EXTERNAL magnetic field.
A superconductor REJECTS any EXTERNAL magnetic field. With respect to
a "double helix" one can prevent the external magnetic field by
ensuring that the helix is resistive at all points along its length.
This results in a constant current along its length regardless of
frequency applied.
When amateurs in ham radio cling to the idea that radiators should be
straight they are advocating the generation of external magnetic
fields which only provides losses and less radiation. This is a spill
over from the old idea that waves produce
propagation instead of particles which is resisted
by the older generation who are adverse to change.
Tom you should not adopt the mantle which you have not earned as you
only are cheating yourself.
To others skilled in the art you are painfully transparent.