|
antenna physics question
On Dec 8, 11:38*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
So what is the reason you inserted yourself into this thread? I reinserted myself back into this thread to let Sean know that I don't mind the banter between you and him. I reinserted myself back into this thread to let Sean know that I find you fairly hilarious, and better than the Comedy Channel. I reinserted myself back into this thread because I know it chaps your ass that anyone would dare question you and your blatant pseudo science bafflegab. I reinserted myself back into this thread because.. well.. I can. I'm paying for high speed cable internet, and dagnabit, I'm going to get my moneys worth. :) Rest of inane gibberish deleted.. Sorry.. I don't debate pseudo science theories. We'll leave that to your various sock puppets.. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 8, 8:11*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 8, 5:09*pm, K1TTT wrote: On Dec 8, 10:21*pm, Sean Con wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:52:21 +0100, Sean Con wrote: It is difficult to separate the report from the reporter here (if, in fact, such a distinction exists): some resistance leads to energy loss .. probably energy is being converted to heat, not loss. Heat is not loss if heat is your objective. *This is a curious boy... what is happening here - i feel lost firstly, Art, temperature IS involved, when we are talking about solar wind plasmas second, richard, i guess my sentencing style is confusing "some resistance leads to energy loss .. " -- this is copied from art's previous message (if you follow the messages, you would notice the copying) "probably energy is being converted to heat, not loss." -- this is what i commented probably now you see why some other sentences appear self contradicting because the first part is art's message, second part is what i write and sorry for writing "feel", english is not my mother language, but i believe you understood what i wanted to express ..... Art, can you please contact me to my email address directly, because i feel people dont like us discussing something. you can see my email address in the message, can you please also make some diagrams etc.. ? thank you no, please do continue on here!! *it helps keep the rest of us amused watching art spin new bafflegab in response to questions. *just don't expect any of it to make sense. Sean, I agree, stand your ground.There are a few good people in this group it is just that some post more than others without content. If their posts have no content for debate then they are of no interest to you. You personally had no trouble with respect to particles while others are still struggling with it So your expectations of them to provide info is just misplaced. It is my belief that they reject Maxwells addition with respect to displacement current as they do not understand and also deny simple levitation. As a radio ham you knew before hand as you *that skip represented straight line trajectory and you easily recognized the tran as well as the transition from static to dynamic. I am sure you also know that only units used by Mawell represent the path to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be *unity. At the same time you must also be aware that once the particle is raised it is in *equilibrium the same as the maglev train removes friction from the equation. For efficiency in radiation you are only interested in radiation resistance and once applied current rises to the surface of a conductor the particle *has nothing to resist the applied current accelerating it. What is important in all these transitions is the term diamagnetic which REJECTS a magnetic field whereas a magnet attracts. Forsuperconductors a similar thing happens in that the conductor becomes diamagnetic and rejects a magnetic field, it is no longer intrinsically carrying a current. The idea to explain straight line trajectory of a charge was the notion that no mass was involved for gravity to act upon. Not only does Gauss point to the error in this thinking but 20th century experiments show that mass is present. But all still resist change but have nothing, but nothing, and thus keep their hands clenched inside the cookie jar. Now look at the Yagi antenna, it is not in equilibrium and it actively uses magnetism as its driving force. It certainly does a good job in producing productive gain in a particular direction but for efficiency it is miserable when compared to a dish radiator. Why? because it deals with two separate resistances where Maxwell implies only one. Efficiency means that all work done is solely to produce a said requirement without unrequired and incidental loss. Now think about the reciprocal of transmission with the Faraday shield in mind. It is the only thing that separates electrical and magnetic charge/fields to leave just current., Now put a radiator inside such that the fields produced changes the enclosure to a diamagnetic structure. I will leave you to figure out the rest with respect to what flows on the surface and not within the shield just like a superconductor. Start off with a radiator where a field can increase no more such that it moves to increase another field to generate an exceedingly strong field while reducing the field from which it was transferred. Now watch for the hyena howls from those who resist change and see what they have to offer. Regards Art KB9MZ....xg Sean, let us review the initial question again but this time with respect to the Faraday shield. You may have seen a yagi antenna inside a circle or boundary to explain a mathematical point. Well boundary rules state internally must be in a state of equilibrium and a yagi antenna is clearly not in equilibrium. Now a air solenoid can be considered in a state of equilibrium which is resistive because it is a meander form. Its strength can be determined by K n sq/length so we only need the solenoid to be the width of two wire where a closed circuit is formed which is a requirement of equilibrium.If this solenoid/ pancake antenna is placed inside a Faraday cage it can radiate a signal if an opening in the cage is supplied. To receive the Faraday shield can revert to a time varying current because both the electrical and magnetic field which are the constituent part of the current can only travel on the surface of the cage i.e. one field on the inside and the other on the inside so they each cancel leaving only the applied current in its singular form. One can argue about the presence of skin depth but it is really of no concern here. Now let us consider transmit. The pancake when energized will generate a non frequency dependent radiating field which means it has a bandwidth that can cover all amateur bands with a constant impedance of 50 ohms as long as enough wire is used. It does this when the cage being diamagnetic repels the magnetic field generated by the solenoid which one can declared as non contributrary to RF generation. This way we have isolated radiation generating force from non productive forces such as element resistance both in transmit and recieve thus proving the reciprical effect. When the above is applied to Nec programs in the form of a helix in a closed circuit form it shows that if enough wire is present you can get a very broard band where the gain increases to the high 20s dbi as the magnetic field is rejected by the Faraday shield and where the reactance deviations are so small that the arrangement can be considered non frequency relevent. Key points in this discussion is equilibrium ala closed circuit that is resistive and the presence of a diamagnetic field that does not get swamped by a magnetic field that removes skin effect interfering with the movement of current to the outside of the confines of a element. Now to make one of these radiaters one can use computer conductor tape strips stapled together and wound in between two flat plywood boards to a minimum of 2 ft dia and feed at the center. When removing the board spray a skin of foam over the pancake so that it can be easily handles. Tho the tape are electrically connected the current flow will still be the same as a contiuous wire or radiater. The pancake can be placed directly on the ground inside of a bowl made of wire mesh where the outside of the bowl is directly grounded close by to syphon off noise. Sorry about not using a spell checker to fend off the hyeanas. Cheers and beers Art |
antenna physics question
On Dec 9, 8:27*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 8, 8:11*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Dec 8, 5:09*pm, K1TTT wrote: On Dec 8, 10:21*pm, Sean Con wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:52:21 +0100, Sean Con wrote: It is difficult to separate the report from the reporter here (if, in fact, such a distinction exists): some resistance leads to energy loss .. probably energy is being converted to heat, not loss. Heat is not loss if heat is your objective. *This is a curious boy... what is happening here - i feel lost firstly, Art, temperature IS involved, when we are talking about solar wind plasmas second, richard, i guess my sentencing style is confusing "some resistance leads to energy loss .. " -- this is copied from art's previous message (if you follow the messages, you would notice the copying) "probably energy is being converted to heat, not loss." -- this is what i commented probably now you see why some other sentences appear self contradicting because the first part is art's message, second part is what i write and sorry for writing "feel", english is not my mother language, but i believe you understood what i wanted to express ..... Art, can you please contact me to my email address directly, because i feel people dont like us discussing something. you can see my email address in the message, can you please also make some diagrams etc.. ? thank you no, please do continue on here!! *it helps keep the rest of us amused watching art spin new bafflegab in response to questions. *just don't expect any of it to make sense. Sean, I agree, stand your ground.There are a few good people in this group it is just that some post more than others without content. If their posts have no content for debate then they are of no interest to you. You personally had no trouble with respect to particles while others are still struggling with it So your expectations of them to provide info is just misplaced. It is my belief that they reject Maxwells addition with respect to displacement current as they do not understand and also deny simple levitation. As a radio ham you knew before hand as you *that skip represented straight line trajectory and you easily recognized the tran as well as the transition from static to dynamic. I am sure you also know that only units used by Mawell represent the path to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be *unity. At the same time you must also be aware that once the particle is raised it is in *equilibrium the same as the maglev train removes friction from the equation. For efficiency in radiation you are only interested in radiation resistance and once applied current rises to the surface of a conductor the particle *has nothing to resist the applied current accelerating it. What is important in all these transitions is the term diamagnetic which REJECTS a magnetic field whereas a magnet attracts. Forsuperconductors a similar thing happens in that the conductor becomes diamagnetic and rejects a magnetic field, it is no longer intrinsically carrying a current. The idea to explain straight line trajectory of a charge was the notion that no mass was involved for gravity to act upon. Not only does Gauss point to the error in this thinking but 20th century experiments show that mass is present. But all still resist change but have nothing, but nothing, and thus keep their hands clenched inside the cookie jar. Now look at the Yagi antenna, it is not in equilibrium and it actively uses magnetism as its driving force. It certainly does a good job in producing productive gain in a particular direction but for efficiency it is miserable when compared to a dish radiator. Why? because it deals with two separate resistances where Maxwell implies only one. Efficiency means that all work done is solely to produce a said requirement without unrequired and incidental loss. Now think about the reciprocal of transmission with the Faraday shield in mind. It is the only thing that separates electrical and magnetic charge/fields to leave just current., Now put a radiator inside such that the fields produced changes the enclosure to a diamagnetic structure. I will leave you to figure out the rest with respect to what flows on the surface and not within the shield just like a superconductor. Start off with a radiator where a field can increase no more such that it moves to increase another field to generate an exceedingly strong field while reducing the field from which it was transferred. Now watch for the hyena howls from those who resist change and see what they have to offer. Regards Art KB9MZ....xg Sean, let us review the initial question again but this time with respect to the Faraday shield. You may have seen a yagi antenna inside a circle or boundary to explain a mathematical point. Well boundary rules state internally must be in a state of equilibrium and a yagi antenna is clearly not in equilibrium. Now a air solenoid can be considered in a state of equilibrium which is resistive because it is a meander form. Its strength can be determined by K n sq/length so we only need the solenoid to be the width of two wire where a closed circuit is formed which is a requirement of equilibrium.If this solenoid/ pancake antenna is placed inside a Faraday cage it can radiate a signal if an opening in the cage is supplied. To receive the Faraday shield can revert to a time varying current because both the electrical and magnetic field which are the constituent part of the current can only travel on the surface of the cage i.e. one field on the inside and the other on the inside so they each cancel leaving only the applied current in its singular form. One can argue about the presence of skin depth but it is really of no concern here. Now let us consider transmit. The pancake when energized will generate a non frequency dependent radiating field which means it has a bandwidth that can cover all amateur bands with a constant impedance of 50 ohms as long as enough wire is used. It does this when the cage being diamagnetic repels the magnetic field generated by the solenoid which one can declared as non contributrary to RF generation. This way we have isolated radiation generating force from non productive forces such as element resistance both in transmit and recieve thus proving the reciprical effect. When the above is applied to Nec programs in the form of a helix in a closed circuit form it shows that if enough wire is present you can get a very broard band where the gain increases to the high 20s dbi as the magnetic field is rejected by the Faraday shield and where the reactance deviations are so small that the arrangement can be considered non frequency relevent. Key points in this discussion is equilibrium ala closed circuit that is resistive and the presence of a diamagnetic field that does not get swamped by a magnetic field that removes skin effect interfering with the movement of current to the outside of the confines of a element. Now to make one of these radiaters one can use computer conductor tape strips stapled together and wound in between two flat plywood boards to a minimum of 2 ft dia and feed at the center. When removing the board spray a skin of foam over the pancake so that it can be easily handles. Tho the tape are electrically connected the current flow will still be the same as a contiuous wire or radiater. The pancake can be placed directly on the ground inside of a bowl made of wire mesh where the outside of the bowl is directly grounded close by to syphon off noise. Sorry about not using a spell checker to fend off the hyeanas. Cheers and beers Art ah art, i'm glad to see you ran out of your meds again and are back in good form. |
antenna physics question
On 12/8/2010 5:12 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
You are correct, the group does not like this sort of thing being discussed and so will attack you.But to go private is to run away from them. None of them have offered alternative solutions or even addressed the problem so they present no harm to any discussion as it is all beyond their ken Cheers and beers Art I will wager a nicely pulled beer at your pub of choice in the Minneapolis metro area that no one from the normal crowd, and I use "normal" intentionally, will "attack" Sean. tom K0TAR |
antenna physics question
On 12/8/2010 9:47 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 8, 8:18 pm, wrote: On Dec 8, 4:21 pm, Sean wrote: Art, can you please contact me to my email address directly, because i feel people dont like us discussing something. Actually, quite the opposite. I think he's a hoot, and look forward to his posts. It's better than the comedy channel. Feel free to carry on. Sean, the poster is qualified to speak into a microphone as he has a ham licence. However he freely admits to not graduating from high school, so please judge his comments on his background. He is not the only one in this group that has ham licence and feels qualified in physics to a University level. There was a man who did not graduate high school that many considered a fool and a kook. And to prove it, well maybe to prove it, he named his daughter Shanda. That's a bit odd maybe, but his last name was Lear. So he made a joke. Whether poor or not I won't judge. Obviously different than the pack, though. So this non-high-school-graduate that had probably never even taken physics or chemistry decided to be an engineer. He read a lot, thought a lot, worked a lot, and designed something others said was not feasible - a small, inexpensive and reliable jet aircraft. The Lear Jet. Putting people down because of their lack of a high school degree when they are obviously intelligent as well as quite thoroughly self educated brands YOU as unintelligent, not them. tom K0TAR |
antenna physics question
On 12/8/2010 11:38 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 8, 11:07 pm, wrote: snip My first post in this thread detailed a simple way for you to prove or disprove all of your pseudo science theories. It was so simple, even a caveman could do it. But not that crap for brains Art Unwin... Noooooooooo! He's still lost in the fog, clutching at straws, and barking at the levitating neutrinos. And trying to figure out how to spell knowledge. :/ So what is the reason you inserted yourself into this thread? What is it that you wanted to offer to this thread? Do you have a problem with the levitation of neutrinos that you just can't let go?Just pull out a point stated in this thread and supply a reasoned technical approach as to why it couldn't possibly be so. Perhaps you can start with the Gaussian contribution with respect to particles instead of waves which got you started way back when. Your choice and chance to share your technical expertise with respect to radiation and where you have a quarrel with what I present or propose. So Sean as you can see there is considerable opposition to talk in technical terms about radiation where SWR discussions is considered to be the cusp of ham radio. One of the things that highlights your intellect is how you never deal with the responses from the people, all you do is change the subject. tom K0TAR |
antenna physics question
tom wrote:
On 12/8/2010 9:47 PM, Art Unwin wrote: On Dec 8, 8:18 pm, wrote: On Dec 8, 4:21 pm, Sean wrote: Art, can you please contact me to my email address directly, because i feel people dont like us discussing something. Actually, quite the opposite. I think he's a hoot, and look forward to his posts. It's better than the comedy channel. Feel free to carry on. Sean, the poster is qualified to speak into a microphone as he has a ham licence. However he freely admits to not graduating from high school, so please judge his comments on his background. He is not the only one in this group that has ham licence and feels qualified in physics to a University level. There was a man who did not graduate high school that many considered a fool and a kook. And to prove it, well maybe to prove it, he named his daughter Shanda. That's a bit odd maybe, but his last name was Lear. So he made a joke. Whether poor or not I won't judge. Obviously different than the pack, though. So this non-high-school-graduate that had probably never even taken physics or chemistry decided to be an engineer. He read a lot, thought a lot, worked a lot, and designed something others said was not feasible - a small, inexpensive and reliable jet aircraft. The Lear Jet. Bill Lear attended school until the eighth grade when he dropped out and joined the Navy as a WWI radio operator. That is the extent of his formal education. Besides the jet, he invented the first practical car radio, the patents to which he sold to what became Motorola. He developed radio direction finders, autopilots, automatic landing systems, and avionics for general aviation aircraft. He came up with the 8-track stereo originally to provide music systems for his business jets. The Canadair CL-600 Challenger bussiness jet is a Bill Lear design. The Hannibal Regional Airport, William P. Lear Field was named in his honor. Not bad for a high school drop out from Missouri. Putting people down because of their lack of a high school degree when they are obviously intelligent as well as quite thoroughly self educated brands YOU as unintelligent, not them. tom K0TAR -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 9, 8:05*pm, wrote:
tom wrote: On 12/8/2010 9:47 PM, Art Unwin wrote: On Dec 8, 8:18 pm, wrote: On Dec 8, 4:21 pm, Sean *wrote: Art, can you please contact me to my email address directly, because i feel people dont like us discussing something. Actually, quite the opposite. I think he's a hoot, and look forward to his posts. It's better than the comedy channel. Feel free to carry on. Sean, the poster is qualified to speak into a microphone as he has a ham licence. However he freely admits to not graduating from high school, so please judge his comments on his background. He is not the only one in *this group that has ham licence and feels qualified in physics to a University level. There was a man who did not graduate high school that many considered a fool and a kook. *And to prove it, well maybe to prove it, he named his daughter Shanda. *That's a bit odd maybe, but his last name was Lear. So he made a joke. *Whether poor or not I won't judge. *Obviously different than the pack, though. So this non-high-school-graduate that had probably never even taken physics or chemistry decided to be an engineer. *He read a lot, thought a lot, worked a lot, and designed something others said was not feasible - a small, inexpensive and reliable jet aircraft. *The Lear Jet. Bill Lear attended school until the eighth grade when he dropped out and joined the Navy as a WWI radio operator. That is the extent of his formal education. Besides the jet, he invented the first practical car radio, the patents to which he sold to what became Motorola. He developed radio direction finders, autopilots, automatic landing systems, and avionics for general aviation aircraft. He came up with the 8-track stereo originally to provide music systems for his business jets. The Canadair CL-600 Challenger bussiness jet is a Bill Lear design. The Hannibal Regional Airport, William P. Lear Field was named in his honor. Not bad for a high school drop out from Missouri. Putting people down because of their lack of a high school degree when they are obviously intelligent as well as quite thoroughly self educated brands YOU as unintelligent, not them. tom K0TAR -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. To Jim,Tom, Sux etc Why are you using different names addreses etc on the same thread, All of which are talking to each other and using the same computer to provide the thoughts of you, yourself and other peoples names in a effort to show a unity of thought. Looking up past posts of all these people show that a lot of people are using your computer and talking to each other on the same subject, like talking to the choir. All of your split personalities are easily reckognizable when you use them to put down different people on the net. Stop trying to hide your identity as your character always gives you away. A fool is a fool which always stays a fool which is his character that he can't shake. Which one of your split personalities are you confering with on the subject of antennas |
antenna physics question
On 12/9/2010 10:21 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
To Jim,Tom, Sux etc Why are you using different names addreses etc on the same thread, All of which are talking to each other and using the same computer to provide the thoughts of you, yourself and other peoples names in a effort to show a unity of thought. Looking up past posts of all these people show that a lot of people are using your computer and talking to each other on the same subject, like talking to the choir. All of your split personalities are easily reckognizable when you use them to put down different people on the net. Stop trying to hide your identity as your character always gives you away. A fool is a fool which always stays a fool which is his character that he can't shake. Which one of your split personalities are you confering with on the subject of antennas Wow. tom K0TAR |
antenna physics question
Art Unwin wrote:
To Jim,Tom, Sux etc Why are you using different names addreses etc on the same thread, All of which are talking to each other and using the same computer to provide the thoughts of you, yourself and other peoples names in a effort to show a unity of thought. Looking up past posts of all these people show that a lot of people are using your computer and talking to each other on the same subject, like talking to the choir. All of your split personalities are easily reckognizable when you use them to put down different people on the net. Stop trying to hide your identity as your character always gives you away. A fool is a fool which always stays a fool which is his character that he can't shake. Which one of your split personalities are you confering with on the subject of antennas This is a new height in your lunacy. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 10, 5:06*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: To Jim,Tom, Sux etc Why are you using different names addreses etc on the same thread, All of which are talking to each other and using the same computer to provide the thoughts of you, yourself and other peoples names in a effort to show a unity of thought. Looking up past posts of all these people show that a lot of people are using your computer and talking to each other on the same subject, like talking to the choir. All of your split personalities are easily reckognizable when you use them to put down different people on the net. Stop trying to hide your identity as your character always gives you away. A fool is a fool which always stays a fool which is his character that he can't shake. Which one of your split personalities are you confering with on the subject of antennas This is a new height in your lunacy. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. yeah, he must really be out of meds... starting to get paranoid now. |
antenna physics question
Art Unwin wrote:
I am sure you also know that only units used by Mawell represent the path to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be unity. Art KB9MZ....xg 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 |
antenna physics question
On Dec 10, 8:37*am, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: *I am sure you also know that only units used by Mawell represent the path to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be *unity. Art KB9MZ....xg 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 I will be happy to do so Root L/C = 1 This means that L/C both of which are loss contributors are removed from any formulae Art |
antenna physics question
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 10, 5:06Â*am, wrote: Art Unwin wrote: To Jim,Tom, Sux etc Why are you using different names addreses etc on the same thread, All of which are talking to each other and using the same computer to provide the thoughts of you, yourself and other peoples names in a effort to show a unity of thought. Looking up past posts of all these people show that a lot of people are using your computer and talking to each other on the same subject, like talking to the choir. All of your split personalities are easily reckognizable when you use them to put down different people on the net. Stop trying to hide your identity as your character always gives you away. A fool is a fool which always stays a fool which is his character that he can't shake. Which one of your split personalities are you confering with on the subject of antennas This is a new height in your lunacy. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. yeah, he must really be out of meds... starting to get paranoid now. His dementia is slowly getting worse, but it is definitely getting worse. It shouldn't be much longer now. Actually it is rather sad to watch. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 10, 4:12*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 10, 8:37*am, joe wrote: Art Unwin wrote: *I am sure you also know that only units used by Mawell represent the path to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be *unity. Art KB9MZ....xg 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 I will be happy to do so Root L/C = 1 This means that L/C both of which are loss contributors are removed from any formulae Art neither L nor C contributes any loss in any kind of circuit analysis i have ever seen.... its always the R that converts the electrical energy to heat to remove it from doing something useful besides heating the room. |
antenna physics question
Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 10, 8:37 am, joe wrote: Art Unwin wrote: I am sure you also know that only units used by Mawell represent the path to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be unity. Art KB9MZ....xg 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 I will be happy to do so Root L/C = 1 This means that L/C both of which are loss contributors are removed from any formulae Art Art, That does not address the question at all. How do the Henries in L and the Farads in C cancel to give a dimensionless number? A real world example would have numbers and a description the one could duplicate to better understand what you are syaing. joe |
antenna physics question
On Dec 11, 10:14*am, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: On Dec 10, 8:37 am, joe wrote: Art Unwin wrote: I am sure you also know that only units used by Mawell represent the path to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be unity. Art KB9MZ....xg 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 I will be happy to do so Root L/C = 1 This means that L/C both of which are loss contributors are removed from any formulae Art Art, That does not address the question at all. How do the Henries in L and the Farads in C cancel to give a dimensionless number? A real world example would have numbers and a description the one could duplicate to better understand what you are syaing. joe Think about it Joe If you had an equation for efficiency it would be dimensionless. Typically you would have a portion in that equation that depicts perfection and also a portion depicting deviation from perfection.So the second portion points to what creates losses and the first part points to perfection. Now look at root L/C which points to the constitution of that which creates losses. Now ideally we would like this portion to be 1 which states zero losses, an ideal situation. Thus we can say the losses involved equals root L/C which must equal "1" Logic therefore tells you that both L and C are loss leaders whether they be lumped or distributed and therefore not part of the vectors that create acceleration of charge. Remember for legitimacy all formulae must equal zero for equilibrium and therefore resolves into zero units. Now if you are unaware where root L/C appears in the study of radiation this is a good time to hit the books to fill that gap. Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ xg What has been proved so far with this theory? Particles and not waves Magnetic fiels removal removes skin depth Reprosity The importance of diamagnetics Vectors of currents, time varying and displacement are the equal and opposite of gravity and rotation L and C are loss leaders Particles/ free electrons, are not the constituent of the radiating element. The Standard Forces are resolved by just the two vectors only created by the Big Bang or the fracture of the original boundary depicted by Newtons law. And it goes on but hams deny change. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 10, 2:40*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 10, 4:12*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Dec 10, 8:37*am, joe wrote: Art Unwin wrote: *I am sure you also know that only units used by Mawell represent the path to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be *unity. Art KB9MZ....xg 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 I will be happy to do so Root L/C = 1 This means that L/C both of which are loss contributors are removed from any formulae Art neither L nor C contributes any loss in any kind of circuit analysis i have ever seen.... its always the R that converts the electrical energy to heat to remove it from doing something useful besides heating the room. Silly Impedance consists of resistance Ra and reactance jxx. You can remove resistance Ra from an element while the reactance constituent can still remain. Thus the impedance remains real. Don't give up your job just yet! |
antenna physics question
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:31:39 -0600, some gomer wrote:
None of them have offered alternative solutions or even addressed the problem so they present no harm to any discussion A superior alternative solution from the 1940s (edited to length): Work has been proceeding in order to bring perfection to the crudely conceived idea that would not only supply inverse reactive current for use in unilateral phase detractors, but would also be capable of automatically synchronizing cardinal grammeters. The main winding is of the normal lotus-o-delta type placed in panendermic semi-boloid slots in the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a nonreversible trem'e pipe to the differential girdlespring on the 'up' end of the grammeters. Forty-one manestically spaced grouting brushes were arranged to feed into the rotor slipstream a mixture of high S-value phenylhydrobenzamine and 5% reminative tetryliodohexamine. Both of these liquids have specific pericosities given by P = 2.5(C · n^6) - 7 where n is the diathetical evolute of retrograde temperature phase disposition and C is Cholmondeley's annular grillage coefficient. Initially, n was measured with the aid of a metapolar refractive pilfrometer ... but up to the present date nothing has been found to equal the transcendental hopper dadoscope. ... It has been successfully used for operating nofer trunnions. In addition, whenever a barescent skor motion is required, it may be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocating dingle arm to reduce sinusoidal depleneration. Citation: Little, Arthur. Technical Description of the Turbo-Encabulator, 24 August 1942, cited in Kagan, Claude (13 May 1992). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
antenna physics question
On Dec 11, 7:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:40*pm, K1TTT wrote: On Dec 10, 4:12*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Dec 10, 8:37*am, joe wrote: Art Unwin wrote: *I am sure you also know that only units used by Mawell represent the path to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be *unity. Art KB9MZ....xg 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 I will be happy to do so Root L/C = 1 This means that L/C both of which are loss contributors are removed from any formulae Art neither L nor C contributes any loss in any kind of circuit analysis i have ever seen.... its always the R that converts the electrical energy to heat to remove it from doing something useful besides heating the room. Silly Impedance consists of resistance Ra and reactance *jxx. You can remove resistance Ra from an element while the reactance constituent can still remain. *Thus the impedance remains real. Don't give up your job just yet! lets see, you remove the resistance which is the 'real' part of the impedance, which gives you the imaginary reactance part as noted by the 'j' above, and you think its real... probably just as real as your pancake antenna in its faraday cage. you never have explained how my ferromagnetic antenna works without your magical diamagnetic levitating neutrinos. |
antenna physics question
"Art Unwin" wrote about his "tipped vertical" belief:
Put it to test by placing a vertical at an angle on a antenna optomizer program and see if it corrects the model to the vertical. ____________ Art: 1) Only YOU are the one espousing this belief. 2) Computer programs don't give the correct answer if the model is invalid, and/or its results are misunderstood by the user of that program. 3) Real-world, measured results may or may not support calculated results. If your beliefs correspond to real-world performance, then YOU (and others) will be able to prove that using scientifically accurate methodologies in such real-world measurements. That result has been claimed by nobody, so far. As this is YOUR peculiar belief, YOU should be willing to prove that it is true in the real world. And if you are unable to do that, Art, perhaps you might see the wisdom in refraining to state and defend such a belief. RF |
antenna physics question
On Dec 11, 2:57*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I was born in the docklands of London UK The naysayers or rejectionists are all American. Could this be another case where America imposes itself on science is to be viewed thru out the World? Or are there no hams outside America using the same power of communication (!.5 Kw) such they are forced to stand inline (and behind)? If one uses a manly antenna, there is no need to run 1500 watts. Of course, with your usual designs, I can see how an amp could be helpful.. Or at least until the moment where your design erupts into flames due to the massive RF horsepower being fed to it. Of course, you could extend the available working time by installing your design into a 55 gal drum of mineral oil. :| Myself, I have a couple of amps. One is a manly Henry console. But I rarely use them anymore. I really don't need them, unless I just want to be a radio bully. I run efficient antennas, and shun dummy loads on sticks. BTW, I was born a poor black child, directly across the street from where a man named Kennedy was pronounced dead 7 years later. After hitching about the country for a while, I ended up working at a gas station that had defective cans. But then I invented the Optigrab, and the rest of my renaissance man existence is pretty much history. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 11, 5:57*pm, wrote:
On Dec 11, 2:57*pm, Art Unwin wrote: I was born in the docklands of London UK The naysayers or rejectionists are all American. Could this be another case where America imposes itself on science is to be viewed thru out the World? Or are there no hams outside America using the same power of communication (!.5 Kw) such they are forced to stand inline (and behind)? If one uses a manly antenna, there is no need to run 1500 watts. Of course, with your usual designs, I can see how an amp could be helpful.. Or at least until the moment where your design erupts into flames due to the massive RF horsepower being fed to it. Of course, you could extend the available working time by installing your design into a 55 gal drum of mineral oil. *:| Myself, I have a couple of amps. One is a manly Henry console. But I rarely use them anymore. I really don't need them, unless I just want to be a radio bully. I run efficient antennas, and shun dummy loads on sticks. BTW, I was born a poor black child, directly across the street from where a man named Kennedy was pronounced dead 7 years later. After hitching about the country for a while, I ended up working at a gas station that had defective cans. But then I invented the Optigrab, and the rest of my renaissance man existence is pretty much history. Excellent, now share with the others how you were able to shoot me down on my antenna theory that I am sharing with all. I want the theory to be probed so I can rethink any errors and put it right. Others are very anxious to shoot me down and would just love your explanation as they do not have anything to work around up to now We now have been joined by another hyena who was a radio engineer and is expressing his shock at the idea of a tilted vertical, please help him out. When you have a vertical antenna used for defensive purposes you really can't live with a" hole" in the donut pattern. You must tilt it to close that hole in your defences so that you have true omni pattern protection. Regards Art Regards Art |
antenna physics question
On Dec 11, 6:28*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 11, 5:57*pm, wrote: On Dec 11, 2:57*pm, Art Unwin wrote: I was born in the docklands of London UK The naysayers or rejectionists are all American. Could this be another case where America imposes itself on science is to be viewed thru out the World? Or are there no hams outside America using the same power of communication (!.5 Kw) such they are forced to stand inline (and behind)? If one uses a manly antenna, there is no need to run 1500 watts. Of course, with your usual designs, I can see how an amp could be helpful.. Or at least until the moment where your design erupts into flames due to the massive RF horsepower being fed to it. Of course, you could extend the available working time by installing your design into a 55 gal drum of mineral oil. *:| Myself, I have a couple of amps. One is a manly Henry console. But I rarely use them anymore. I really don't need them, unless I just want to be a radio bully. I run efficient antennas, and shun dummy loads on sticks. BTW, I was born a poor black child, directly across the street from where a man named Kennedy was pronounced dead 7 years later. After hitching about the country for a while, I ended up working at a gas station that had defective cans. But then I invented the Optigrab, and the rest of my renaissance man existence is pretty much history. Excellent, now share with the others how you were able to shoot me down on my antenna theory that I am sharing with all. I want the theory to be probed so I can rethink any errors and put it right. Others are very anxious to shoot me down and would just love your explanation as they do not have anything to work around up to now We now have been joined by another hyena who was a radio engineer and is expressing his shock at the idea of a tilted vertical, please help him out. When you have a vertical antenna used for defensive purposes you really can't live with a" hole" in the donut pattern. You must tilt it to close that hole in your defences so that you have true omni pattern protection. Regards Art Regards Art You need to get with the modeling program. Note this design. http://home.comcast.net/~disk200/wow.jpg Now tell me, what is wrong with this picture? A modeling program spit this out. So it must surely illustrate reality as we know it. Right? BTW, I wouldn't presume to tell an actual trained RF engineer his business. Not that there is any obvious need to, from what I see... But as a retired mechanical engineer with signs of advancing dementia , I suppose that gives you a leg up, and an obvious wormhole to reality as we don't know it... :/ BTW, my 40+ dbi gain seems to be superior to your generated spectacles of advanced mal-modeling. Should I file a patent? |
antenna physics question
On Dec 11, 6:53*pm, wrote:
On Dec 11, 6:28*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Dec 11, 5:57*pm, wrote: On Dec 11, 2:57*pm, Art Unwin wrote: I was born in the docklands of London UK The naysayers or rejectionists are all American. Could this be another case where America imposes itself on science is to be viewed thru out the World? Or are there no hams outside America using the same power of communication (!.5 Kw) such they are forced to stand inline (and behind)? If one uses a manly antenna, there is no need to run 1500 watts. Of course, with your usual designs, I can see how an amp could be helpful.. Or at least until the moment where your design erupts into flames due to the massive RF horsepower being fed to it. Of course, you could extend the available working time by installing your design into a 55 gal drum of mineral oil. *:| Myself, I have a couple of amps. One is a manly Henry console. But I rarely use them anymore. I really don't need them, unless I just want to be a radio bully. I run efficient antennas, and shun dummy loads on sticks. BTW, I was born a poor black child, directly across the street from where a man named Kennedy was pronounced dead 7 years later. After hitching about the country for a while, I ended up working at a gas station that had defective cans. But then I invented the Optigrab, and the rest of my renaissance man existence is pretty much history. Excellent, now share with the others how you were able to shoot me down on my antenna theory that I am sharing with all. I want the theory to be probed so I can rethink any errors and put it right. Others are very anxious to shoot me down and would just love your explanation as they do not have anything to work around up to now We now have been joined by another hyena who was a radio engineer and is expressing his shock at the idea of a tilted vertical, please help him out. When you have a vertical antenna used for defensive purposes you really can't live with a" hole" in the donut pattern. You must tilt it to close that hole in your defences so that you have true omni pattern protection. Regards Art Regards Art You need to get with the modeling program. Note this design.http://home.comcast.net/~disk200/wow.jpg Now tell me, what is wrong with this picture? A modeling program spit this out. So it must surely illustrate reality as we know it. Right? BTW, I wouldn't presume to tell an actual trained RF engineer his business. Not that there is any obvious need to, from what I see... But as a retired mechanical engineer with signs of advancing dementia , I suppose that gives you a leg up, and an obvious wormhole to reality as we don't know it... *:/ BTW, my 40+ dbi gain seems to be superior to your generated spectacles of advanced mal-modeling. Should I file a patent? Strueth, so now computer programs are so difficult to use correctly that they are worthless A sailor came on the net a couple of weeks to show his ship with all the antennas tilted so we have moved beyond the 20 th century tho many of the sailboat are fighting the reasonability of doing that ! Many old hams are convinced that "all is known" about antennas because their era have found nothing that sheds new light and are content with reading how to solder connections and discuss the meanings of a swr readout. Now we have a new generation coming along and all are adament they will all line up and sign on to the lead provided by the present dying generation. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 11, 7:14*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Strueth, so now computer programs are so difficult to use correctly that they are worthless What is a Strueth? Does it involve apples? Sounds like some new kind of desert.. A sailor came on the net a couple of weeks to show his ship with all the antennas tilted so we have moved beyond the 20 th century tho many of the sailboat are fighting the reasonability of doing that ! I've never owned a sail boat. But if I did, you can be sure I would have the manliest antennas possible for the available room. Many old hams are convinced that "all is known" about antennas because their era have found nothing that sheds new light and are content with reading how to solder connections and discuss the meanings of a swr readout. Being as you are a much older ham than I am, I'm not sure what to make of this statement. I learned how to solder 40 years ago. And the meanings of the readouts of SWR meters bores me. I have several of them. And they are all boring. Even the ones with lit up meters and little blinky things. Now we have a new generation coming along and all are adament they will all line up and sign on to the lead provided by the present dying generation. I suspect they will. Make no mistake, not all is known about antennas. But that fact does not make your pseudo science gibberish become truth. The problem with you, is you never do any actual testing to see if your theories hold water. You never build or demonstrate any antennas that take advantage of your theories. So you are like a dog that chases it's tail, while barking at the moon that looms brightly overhead. I could call you an outright fraud, but I actually think you believe all the nonsense you conjure up. So being as I'm not the type to kick someone when they are down, I just view you as a pretty good comedy show. BTW, it's not my job to do your work for you. So if you really want me to expend much effort to debate your claims, I will require money. A check for $5000.00 mailed to my address, "good on QRZ", might provide me the neccesary motivation to take this much farther. And I consider that letting you off cheap. I have much better things to do than pollute my mind pondering silly pseudo science theories with a geriatric old fart. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 11, 7:39*pm, wrote:
On Dec 11, 7:14*pm, Art Unwin wrote: Strueth, so now computer programs are so difficult to use correctly that they are worthless What is a Strueth? Does it involve apples? Sounds like some new kind of desert.. A sailor came on the net a couple of weeks to show his ship with all the antennas tilted so we have moved beyond the 20 th century tho many of the sailboat are fighting the reasonability of doing that ! I've never owned a sail boat. But if I did, you can be sure I would have the manliest antennas possible for the available room. Many old hams are convinced that "all is known" about antennas because their era have found nothing that sheds new light and are content with reading how to solder connections and discuss the meanings of a swr readout. Being as you are a much older ham than I am, I'm not sure what to make of this statement. I learned how to solder 40 years ago. *And the meanings of the readouts of SWR meters bores me. I have several of them. And they are all boring. Even the ones with lit up meters and little blinky things. Now we have a new generation coming along and all are adament they will all line up and sign on to the lead provided by the present dying generation. I suspect they will. *Make no mistake, not all is known about antennas. But that fact does not make your pseudo science gibberish become truth. The problem with you, is you never do any actual testing to see if your theories hold water. You never build or demonstrate any antennas that take advantage of your theories. So you are like a dog that chases it's tail, while barking at the moon that looms brightly overhead. I could call you an outright fraud, but I actually think you believe all the nonsense you conjure up. So being as I'm not the type to kick someone when they are down, I just view you as a pretty good comedy show. BTW, it's not my job to do your work for you. So if you really want me to expend much effort to debate your claims, I will require money. A check for $5000.00 mailed to my address, "good on QRZ", might provide me the neccesary motivation to take this much farther. And I consider that letting you off cheap. I have much better things to do than pollute my mind pondering silly pseudo science theories with a geriatric old fart. So what is your problem with the viewing of old theory and the efforts in generating a possible new approach? What is your problem with somebody other than yourself suggesting a new approach? Years ago the hyenas on this thread denied that the boundary approach also leads to Maxwells equations and we are not talking magnetics.A doctrate guy from MIT showed the math to support me but it was to late, he and now I are continually trashed for generating falsities with respect to ham radio. But for why? Is there a fear that the self appointed experts on the group may well be over estimating their thinking processes? Does it really matter that a proposal is provided that the experts want washed away? Experts can provide points that are debatable that will uproot faulty theorems so why do they feel forced to abandon true and tried methods of debate? State Farm has created a home for over a thousand teckies from overseas stating that what is available in this country is not equipped to do the job? Have we placed the old methods of debate and the approach to science while others advance? Can we continue to deny that we are not the leading nation anymore while we are on this downward slope. You state that despite not obtaining a high school certificate you, a black boy, made it anyway and thus are able to deny all that you dislike shows a possible passage for Americas hopes, Think about it. Why are the self ap,rized experts so determined that a new theory,, if correct, could take hold? What does the future hold if we try to continue the practices of the past which are responsible for our present position? What is the route you would like your grandchildren to take? Follow your path or strive for the new with curiosity. Industry today in America is asking for something better so good times can come back. Think about it! Is the example being set by this group sufficient for the future. So back to the beginning, why does this group deny the extension to a Gaussin boundary in the form of a time variant current equals Maxwells equation? What good are these denials achieving by the actions of spam and insults? Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg |
antenna physics question
On 12/11/2010 8:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
and tried methods of debate? State Farm has created a home for over a thousand teckies from overseas stating that what is available in this country is not equipped to do the job? What in the hell are you talking about? You often inject nonsense sentences into your rants. What is their purpose? Are you thinking that we will be thrown off balance by them? If that's the intent, it fails. tom K0TAR |
antenna physics question
Art Unwin wrote:
Think about it Joe If you had an equation for efficiency it would be dimensionless. It depends upon how efficiency is measured. My more efficient car gets 30 MPG, My less efficient car gets 15 MPG. Any equation defining efficiency in terms of miles per gallon does not have a dimensionless result. A meaningful measure of the efficiency of a transmitting antenna may relate to field strength per watt input, which is not dimensionless. What is your equation? Typically you would have a portion in that equation that depicts perfection and also a portion depicting deviation from perfection.So the second portion points to what creates losses and the first part points to perfection. OK, but what equation are you using for an antenna that has those portions and where does L/C fit? Now look at root L/C which points to the constitution of that which creates losses. Now ideally we would like this portion to be 1 which states zero losses, an ideal situation. Without providing your equation, we don't know how L/C fits. From what you say it is just some term out of nowhere. Thus we can say the losses involved equals root L/C which must equal "1" Logic therefore tells you that both L and C are loss leaders whether they be lumped or distributed and therefore not part of the vectors that create acceleration of charge. How do L and C contribute to loss? Since current and voltage for each is out of phase, the power lost is 0. How do you reconcile this discrepancy with your position? Remember for legitimacy all formulae must equal zero for equilibrium and therefore resolves into zero units. Now if you are unaware where root L/C appears in the study of radiation this is a good time to hit the books to fill that gap. The books don't reflect your views. I'm trying to understand your position, not some book. Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ xg |
antenna physics question
On Dec 11, 8:49*pm, tom wrote:
On 12/11/2010 8:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote: and tried methods of debate? State Farm has created a home for over a thousand teckies from overseas stating that what is available in this country is not equipped to do the job? What in the hell are you talking about? *You often inject nonsense sentences into your rants. *What is their purpose? *Are you thinking that we will be thrown off balance by them? *If that's the intent, it fails. tom K0TAR Jim You can deny the truth in what is stated above. Your present position on science provides enough proof. Anybody can view the archives of "tom" "Jim" and others that you assume to see what manner of man you are by your various accusations. They can judge all your identities on their own without my help. You too may have made it on your own without the required education ,and deserve congratulations. But do you want others to follow that same path and finish up just like you? What are your motives with respect to your denials ? Would it not be better to discuss antennas where one can learn and enjoy others? Art |
antenna physics question
On 12/11/2010 9:11 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
motives with respect to your denials ? Would it not be better to discuss antennas where one can learn and enjoy others? Art But you don't discuss antennas. Ever. You discuss physics that you have made up. tom K0TAR |
antenna physics question
On Dec 11, 9:04*pm, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: Think about it Joe If you had an equation for efficiency it would be dimensionless. It depends upon how efficiency is measured. My more efficient car gets 30 MPG, My less efficient car gets 15 MPG. Any equation defining efficiency in terms of miles per gallon does not have a dimensionless result. A meaningful *measure of the efficiency of a transmitting antenna may relate to field strength per watt input, which is not dimensionless. What is your equation? Typically you would have a portion in that equation that depicts perfection and also a portion depicting deviation from perfection.So the second portion points to what creates losses and the first part points to perfection. OK, but what equation are you using for an antenna that has those portions and where does L/C fit? Now look at root L/C which points to the constitution of that which creates losses. Now ideally we would like this portion to be 1 which states zero losses, an ideal situation. Without providing your equation, we don't know how L/C fits. From what you say it is just some term out of nowhere. Thus we can say the losses involved equals root L/C which must equal "1" Logic therefore tells you that both L and C are loss leaders whether they be lumped or distributed and therefore not part of the vectors that create acceleration of charge. How do L and C contribute to loss? Since current and voltage for each is out of phase, the power lost is 0. How do you reconcile this discrepancy with your position? * Remember for legitimacy all formulae must equal zero for equilibrium and therefore resolves into zero units. Now if you are unaware where root L/C appears in the study of radiation this is a good time to hit the books to fill that gap. The books don't reflect your views. I'm trying to understand your position, not some book. Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ *xg Tom. I don't trust you because of your prior posts but I am following the norm where homework is for copying from the screen before dismissal. As far as research goes their are many discussions available that give support to my position so you have an avenue to research for yourself without denial of mine. If what you say is true regarding L and C then there is indeed a problem. Provide a situation where both inductors and capacitance do not provide losses and is instrumental in creating propagation and I don't mind you providing an excerpt from a book as to what is understood as to how the losses incurred are part and parcel of the resultant forces. Why not quote a formula on efficiency where the inefficiency is not applied as a simple number but instead supplies the constituent values that make up that number. I don't mind you quoting from the books the same as I am doing. Think about it Tom, a capacitor conserves energy and you know that an inductor provides a magnetic field by retaining half of what was supplied, Thus no amount of elements can account for the disposition of all the power supplied. Please note that I am not running away while missiles are being thrown. I am stubborn ,and I am staying, and will respond, and I certainly will not run away! I do thank you in your pursuit but in the absence of believing me your answers will come from researching what I state. Why not start in stating what you do believe about my research ? Gauss and Maxwell Particles not waves The actions of being diamagnetic Levitation Surface flow of current external to the radiator and so on IN ORDER from my given description. I need to see what base you are operating from and what you do accept so I can build upon it. I will stay with you. If you don't care about what I propose then take leave of the thread because it lacks importance to you. Best regards Art Regard Art |
antenna physics question
On 12/11/2010 10:00 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 11, 9:04 pm, wrote: Art Unwin wrote: Think about it Joe If you had an equation for efficiency it would be dimensionless. It depends upon how efficiency is measured. My more efficient car gets 30 MPG, My less efficient car gets 15 MPG. Any equation defining efficiency in terms of miles per gallon does not have a dimensionless result. A meaningful measure of the efficiency of a transmitting antenna may relate to field strength per watt input, which is not dimensionless. What is your equation? Typically you would have a portion in that equation that depicts perfection and also a portion depicting deviation from perfection.So the second portion points to what creates losses and the first part points to perfection. OK, but what equation are you using for an antenna that has those portions and where does L/C fit? Now look at root L/C which points to the constitution of that which creates losses. Now ideally we would like this portion to be 1 which states zero losses, an ideal situation. Without providing your equation, we don't know how L/C fits. From what you say it is just some term out of nowhere. Thus we can say the losses involved equals root L/C which must equal "1" Logic therefore tells you that both L and C are loss leaders whether they be lumped or distributed and therefore not part of the vectors that create acceleration of charge. How do L and C contribute to loss? Since current and voltage for each is out of phase, the power lost is 0. How do you reconcile this discrepancy with your position? Remember for legitimacy all formulae must equal zero for equilibrium and therefore resolves into zero units. Now if you are unaware where root L/C appears in the study of radiation this is a good time to hit the books to fill that gap. The books don't reflect your views. I'm trying to understand your position, not some book. Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ xg Tom. I don't trust you because of your prior posts but I am following He responded to me! I am honored. I guess. But alas, it wasn't me. Again, WOW! tom K0TAR |
antenna physics question
On 12/11/2010 10:00 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
nonsense Hey Art. Do you know what a header is? It's how you tell where things that show up here came from. tom K0TAR |
antenna physics question
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 17:39:11 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Strueth, so now computer programs are so difficult to use correctly that they are worthless What is a Strueth? It's olde English for God's Truth, just as Zounds is olde English for God's Wounds. ....probably from the storm scene in the last act of King Lear. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
antenna physics question
joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: Think about it Joe If you had an equation for efficiency it would be dimensionless. It depends upon how efficiency is measured. My more efficient car gets 30 MPG, My less efficient car gets 15 MPG. Any equation defining efficiency in terms of miles per gallon does not have a dimensionless result. That isn't "efficiency", which is what is applies to antennas and it is ALWAY a dimenionless number. What you are talking about is "fuel efficiency", a different thing entirely. The efficiency of a car is the useful energy output divided by the energy in the fuel. A modern gasoline automobile engine has an efficiency of around 35%, the remaining 65% is mostly lost as heat in the exhaust. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 12, 4:00*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 11, 9:04*pm, joe wrote: Art Unwin wrote: Think about it Joe If you had an equation for efficiency it would be dimensionless. It depends upon how efficiency is measured. My more efficient car gets 30 MPG, My less efficient car gets 15 MPG. Any equation defining efficiency in terms of miles per gallon does not have a dimensionless result. A meaningful *measure of the efficiency of a transmitting antenna may relate to field strength per watt input, which is not dimensionless. What is your equation? Typically you would have a portion in that equation that depicts perfection and also a portion depicting deviation from perfection.So the second portion points to what creates losses and the first part points to perfection. OK, but what equation are you using for an antenna that has those portions and where does L/C fit? Now look at root L/C which points to the constitution of that which creates losses. Now ideally we would like this portion to be 1 which states zero losses, an ideal situation. Without providing your equation, we don't know how L/C fits. From what you say it is just some term out of nowhere. Thus we can say the losses involved equals root L/C which must equal "1" Logic therefore tells you that both L and C are loss leaders whether they be lumped or distributed and therefore not part of the vectors that create acceleration of charge. How do L and C contribute to loss? Since current and voltage for each is out of phase, the power lost is 0. How do you reconcile this discrepancy with your position? * Remember for legitimacy all formulae must equal zero for equilibrium and therefore resolves into zero units. Now if you are unaware where root L/C appears in the study of radiation this is a good time to hit the books to fill that gap. The books don't reflect your views. I'm trying to understand your position, not some book. Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ *xg Tom. I don't trust you because of your prior posts but I am following the norm where homework is for copying from the screen before dismissal. As far as research goes their are many discussions available that give support to my position so you have an avenue to research for yourself without denial of mine. If what you say is true regarding L and C then there is indeed a problem. Provide a situation where both inductors and capacitance do not provide losses and is instrumental in creating propagation and I don't mind you providing an excerpt from a book as to what is understood as to how the losses incurred are part and parcel of the resultant forces. Why not quote a formula on efficiency where the inefficiency is not applied as a simple number but instead supplies the constituent values that make up that number. I don't mind you quoting from the books the same as I am doing. Think about it Tom, a capacitor conserves energy and you know that an inductor provides a magnetic field by retaining half of what was supplied, Thus no amount of elements can account for the disposition of all the power supplied. Please note that I am not running away while missiles are being thrown. I am stubborn ,and I am staying, and will respond, and I certainly will not run away! I do thank you in your pursuit but in the absence of believing me your answers will come from researching what I state. Why not start in stating what you do believe about my research ? Gauss and Maxwell Particles not waves The actions of being diamagnetic Levitation Surface flow of current external to the radiator and so on IN ORDER *from my given description. I need to see what base you are operating from and what you do accept so I can build upon it. I will stay with you. If you don't care about what I propose then take leave of the thread because it lacks importance to you. Best regards Art Regard Art great, keep spewing more technobafflegab, the wx is bad here and i could use a few good laughs! i would like to see you get your mit buddy back here again, i think he split when he saw how loony your theory really was and when you didn't really understand his explanation of Gauss and Maxwell... which as i have pointed out, with references, already are dynamic and result in wave propagation not magical levitating diamagnetic solar neutrinos flying off your pickup stick patented antenna. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 12, 4:00*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 11, 9:04*pm, joe wrote: Art Unwin wrote: Think about it Joe If you had an equation for efficiency it would be dimensionless. It depends upon how efficiency is measured. My more efficient car gets 30 MPG, My less efficient car gets 15 MPG. Any equation defining efficiency in terms of miles per gallon does not have a dimensionless result. A meaningful *measure of the efficiency of a transmitting antenna may relate to field strength per watt input, which is not dimensionless. What is your equation? Typically you would have a portion in that equation that depicts perfection and also a portion depicting deviation from perfection.So the second portion points to what creates losses and the first part points to perfection. OK, but what equation are you using for an antenna that has those portions and where does L/C fit? Now look at root L/C which points to the constitution of that which creates losses. Now ideally we would like this portion to be 1 which states zero losses, an ideal situation. Without providing your equation, we don't know how L/C fits. From what you say it is just some term out of nowhere. Thus we can say the losses involved equals root L/C which must equal "1" Logic therefore tells you that both L and C are loss leaders whether they be lumped or distributed and therefore not part of the vectors that create acceleration of charge. How do L and C contribute to loss? Since current and voltage for each is out of phase, the power lost is 0. How do you reconcile this discrepancy with your position? * Remember for legitimacy all formulae must equal zero for equilibrium and therefore resolves into zero units. Now if you are unaware where root L/C appears in the study of radiation this is a good time to hit the books to fill that gap. The books don't reflect your views. I'm trying to understand your position, not some book. Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ *xg Tom. I don't trust you because of your prior posts but I am following the norm where homework is for copying from the screen before dismissal. As far as research goes their are many discussions available that give support to my position so you have an avenue to research for yourself without denial of mine. If what you say is true regarding L and C then there is indeed a problem. Provide a situation where both inductors and capacitance do not provide losses and is instrumental in creating propagation and I don't mind you providing an excerpt from a book as to what is understood as to how the losses incurred are part and parcel of the resultant forces. Why not quote a formula on efficiency where the inefficiency is not applied as a simple number but instead supplies the constituent values that make up that number. I don't mind you quoting from the books the same as I am doing. Think about it Tom, a capacitor conserves energy and you know that an inductor provides a magnetic field by retaining half of what was supplied, Thus no amount of elements can account for the disposition of all the power supplied. Please note that I am not running away while missiles are being thrown. I am stubborn ,and I am staying, and will respond, and I certainly will not run away! I do thank you in your pursuit but in the absence of believing me your answers will come from researching what I state. Why not start in stating what you do believe about my research ? Gauss and Maxwell Particles not waves The actions of being diamagnetic Levitation Surface flow of current external to the radiator and so on IN ORDER *from my given description. I need to see what base you are operating from and what you do accept so I can build upon it. I will stay with you. If you don't care about what I propose then take leave of the thread because it lacks importance to you. Best regards Art Regard Art great, keep spewing more technobafflegab, the wx is bad here and i could use a few good laughs! i would like to see you get your mit buddy back here again, i think he split when he saw how loony your theory really was and when you didn't really understand his explanation of Gauss and Maxwell... which as i have pointed out, with references, already are dynamic and result in wave propagation not magical levitating diamagnetic solar neutrinos flying off your pickup stick patented antenna. |
antenna physics question
|
antenna physics question
On Dec 12, 2:01*pm, Registered User wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 06:26:29 -0000, wrote: joe wrote: Art Unwin wrote: Think about it Joe If you had an equation for efficiency it would be dimensionless. It depends upon how efficiency is measured. My more efficient car gets 30 MPG, My less efficient car gets 15 MPG. Any equation defining efficiency in terms of miles per gallon does not have a dimensionless result. That isn't "efficiency", which is what is applies to antennas and it is ALWAY a dimenionless number. Efficiency is a measure so it must have one or more dimensions to have relative meaning. The subject doesn't really matter. If Nigel Tufnel says his antenna has an efficiency of 11 what does the number represent beyond being one more efficient than ten? One more what? Without any metadata the value is just a number, it just as well could be 3.14159265 or 0xBADF00D. A measure such as SWR might appear to be dimension-less because it is a calculated value based upon dimensional values. What you are talking about is "fuel efficiency", a different thing entirely. It's not really different, units consumed is a measure and units traveled is a dimension. An attribute of the dimension is city or highway driving. By adding metadata in the form of additional dimensions, attributes and hierarchies more meaning can be given to the measure. The efficiency of a car is the useful energy output divided by the energy in the fuel. Limited dimensions suggest that 4 passenger vehicle's 40 MPG is more fuel efficient than a 40 passenger bus getting 8 MPG. Add the dimension of passengers carried, change the measure to passenger*miles per gallon, and the bus (320 PMPG) becomes more fuel efficient than the car (160 PMPG). More metadata provides more meaning to measures which in turn provides better foundation information for effective decision making. In every case dimensions add meaning to the measure. The whole issue with Art's magic antennas is he values their efficiency by presenting measures that have no relative dimensions. The efficiency of his antennas may well be 11. The question remains eleven what? in art's mind the efficiency of his antennas is 110% |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com