K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 15, 8:49Â*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:29:12 -0000, wrote:

Registered User wrote:
The IEEE Standard Definitions Terms for Antennas (IEEE Std 145-1993)
provides no definition for 'antenna efficiency' per se.

So what?

snip babble

The post concerning "a unique and unambigous definition" which "can be
found in any textbook on electromagnetics" and subsequent
back-pedaling appears to fit that model. Your "So what?" provides the
meh.

Yeah, the "back-pedaling" which consisted of changing "any textbook" to
"many textbooks".

And nowhere did I reference any standard, IEEE, ISO, or any other standards
body.

well, maybe you should have... after all, some of us do use things
written by those bodies. some of us help write and test those
standards. and it sure would be nice if we could refer to a standard
way of describing antenna performance.

If I were you I would be more concerned why so many of you posts appear
twice.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Dec 15, 11:12*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 15, 8:49*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:29:12 -0000, wrote:

Registered User wrote:
The IEEE Standard Definitions Terms for Antennas (IEEE Std 145-1993)
provides no definition for 'antenna efficiency' per se.

So what?

snip babble

The post concerning "a unique and unambigous definition" which "can be
found in any textbook on electromagnetics" and subsequent
back-pedaling appears to fit that model. Your "So what?" provides the
meh.

Yeah, the "back-pedaling" which consisted of changing "any textbook" to
"many textbooks".

And nowhere did I reference any standard, IEEE, ISO, or any other standards
body.

well, maybe you should have... after all, some of us do use things
written by those bodies. *some of us help write and test those
standards. *and it sure would be nice if we could refer to a standard
way of describing antenna performance.

If this is so important to you, I am sure you will be researching all
the electromagnetics textbooks, antenna texbooks, industry and trade
publications, the ARRL, the RSGB, manufacturers, and everyone else with
any interest in antennas to determine the "correct" usage and definition
of the terms in question, and submitting a draft proposal to the IEEE.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

nope, i don't care that much, but you sure seem to be insisting there
is a correct usage when obviously it hasn't ever been really agreed
upon by the right people. so you are the one who should be trying to
get all the worlds authors to agree to define it the same way and get
it into all the text books where its been missing all these years.

K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 15, 11:12Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 15, 8:49Â*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:29:12 -0000, wrote:

Registered User wrote:
The IEEE Standard Definitions Terms for Antennas (IEEE Std 145-1993)
provides no definition for 'antenna efficiency' per se.

So what?

snip babble

The post concerning "a unique and unambigous definition" which "can be
found in any textbook on electromagnetics" and subsequent
back-pedaling appears to fit that model. Your "So what?" provides the
meh.

Yeah, the "back-pedaling" which consisted of changing "any textbook" to
"many textbooks".

And nowhere did I reference any standard, IEEE, ISO, or any other standards
body.

well, maybe you should have... after all, some of us do use things
written by those bodies. Â*some of us help write and test those
standards. Â*and it sure would be nice if we could refer to a standard
way of describing antenna performance.

If this is so important to you, I am sure you will be researching all
the electromagnetics textbooks, antenna texbooks, industry and trade
publications, the ARRL, the RSGB, manufacturers, and everyone else with
any interest in antennas to determine the "correct" usage and definition
of the terms in question, and submitting a draft proposal to the IEEE.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

nope, i don't care that much, but you sure seem to be insisting there
is a correct usage when obviously it hasn't ever been really agreed
upon by the right people. so you are the one who should be trying to
get all the worlds authors to agree to define it the same way and get
it into all the text books where its been missing all these years.

So if the IEEE doesn't mention it in some standard everyone else is wrong?

Since there are electromagnetics textbooks, antenna texbooks, ARRL books
and web sites that all say the same thing, it appears there is some
agreement out there in the real world.

As for what's missing in some selection of books, I'm quite sure that if
you do a comparison of every book on a given subject there will be
differences in the topics covered.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:49:39 -0000, wrote:

Registered User wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:29:12 -0000, wrote:

Registered User wrote:
The IEEE Standard Definitions Terms for Antennas (IEEE Std 145-1993)
provides no definition for 'antenna efficiency' per se.

So what?


snip babble

That would be babble about why making blanket statements without
adequate research is not an effective decision. That is what you did
isn't it? Does everything that questions your highly self-valued input
become babble?

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:54:40 -0000, wrote:

The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and
can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics.

Speaking of babble, which parts of that statement have been shown to
be true? The balance can truly be considered babble.

The post concerning "a unique and unambigous definition" which "can be
found in any textbook on electromagnetics" and subsequent
back-pedaling appears to fit that model. Your "So what?" provides the
meh.

Yeah, the "back-pedaling" which consisted of changing "any textbook" to
"many textbooks".

And let us not overlook how the "a unique and unambigous definition"
became "the term is in common use". Adding conditionals to what was a
statement of absolute certainty does not make the original assertion
any less flawed. That's just woulda, coulda, shoulda revisionism, an
attempt to change the question to make it better fit the known answer.
What makes that path better than the simple admission of having made a
mistake?

And nowhere did I reference any standard, IEEE, ISO, or any other standards
body.

Yep you made no reference to any standards except for the ones you
made up. Now you're making excuses for failing to refer to any other
standards before making assertions which turned out to be wrong..
Alibi all you wish but the flaws in your assertion of "a unique and
unambigous definition" which "can be found in any textbook on
electromagnetics" have been exposed.

snip remaining long winded babble

What you call long-winded babble was

- quote -

You took what may be a perfectly valid general rule, tried to convert
it to an absolute certainty, and failed. That's so what.

- end quote -

How could those two sentences be made to contain less babble and be
made more concise?

Denigrate the messenger all you wish but that will not change the fact
your blanket statement was nothing more than an uneducated, unfounded
opinion. Please note I refer to the opinion as being uneducated and
unfounded not the individual. Whatever your education, skills and
experience are, the aggregate is unrelated to the fact you come across
in the context of a small person who is rather full of himself. Let me
just pat you on the head and say 'you win, you're right because you
say so'.

Registered User wrote:

snip rambling rehashes, nothing left


If it is in Electromagnetics by Kraus and Carver, that's good enough for me
as an engineer.

If it is in the ARRL Antenna Handbook, that's good enough for me as a ham.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On 12/14/2010 9:47 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

Art, You have just mentioned a constraint on antennas that I was not aware
of. Specifically "the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be unity".

This is new to me. Please tell me how I go about making capacitance and
inductance equal so their ratio can be unity. How do you get the Farads and
Henries to cancel out, leaving a dimensionless number.

Can you give me some real world examples?

joe

Joe,
Snip large meaningless verbiage
Regards
Art

More concisely stated "No".

tom
K0TAR

On Dec 15, 11:13*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 15, 8:49*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:29:12 -0000, wrote:

Registered User wrote:
The IEEE Standard Definitions Terms for Antennas (IEEE Std 145-1993)
provides no definition for 'antenna efficiency' per se.

So what?

snip babble

The post concerning "a unique and unambigous definition" which "can be
found in any textbook on electromagnetics" and subsequent
back-pedaling appears to fit that model. Your "So what?" provides the
meh.

Yeah, the "back-pedaling" which consisted of changing "any textbook" to
"many textbooks".

And nowhere did I reference any standard, IEEE, ISO, or any other standards
body.

well, maybe you should have... after all, some of us do use things
written by those bodies. *some of us help write and test those
standards. *and it sure would be nice if we could refer to a standard
way of describing antenna performance.

If I were you I would be more concerned why so many of you posts appear
twice.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

i think i have figured that out... if i post to the group it takes me
right back to reading messages... and then if i do a refresh it must
try to do the same post it just did since that is how it got to the
current page. i'll try to remember to go back to the message list
first which seems to avoid that problem.

On Nov 28, 9:32*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I have been struggling with this for some time
so maybe somebody can set me straight.
We wind a flat plate spiral antenna and we get to a point where the
center medium becomes saturated with flux.
Now I add even more coils. What action does that precipitate? I would
like to think that the Meissner effect *( perfect diamagnetism) then
takes over and swamps the external magnetic field as with a
superconductor ( ie opposite to that of a paramagnetic) The skin
effect is thus removed allowing the current flow to the surface by
allowing the atomic structure to relax, and add to the current already
in place to allow fully efficient radiation as it now lies outside the
confines of conductor resistance.
This is my effort in determining what is it that drives the constant
impedance attributes of a meander type array?
Regards
Art

oh, and the answer is R.