|
antenna physics question
Registered User wrote:
Efficiency is a measure so it must have one or more dimensions Efficiency is a ratio usually expressed as a percentage and has no dimensions. The efficiency of an antenna is the radiated power divided by the input power. Power divided by power has no dimensions. The efficiency of an engine is the mechanical energy it produces divided by the thermal energy of the fuel it uses. Energy divided by energy has no dimensions. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 11, 10:00*pm, 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 Joe I have to apologize with respect to my stance on root L/C which is a constant with respect to critical damping in R L C circuitry. For the life of me I cannot retrace my thinking in the matter or my line of thought, so that line of debate is just not on. However, if current removes itself from an element to travel in a medium on the surface and under a enclosing skin of particles we have removed unwanted resistances from the equation as the particles are in equilibrium and their accelleration is now measurable. At the same time the medium supplies a path for a ground vector. Again I apologize for the path I led you Regards Art |
antenna physics question
On Dec 12, 12:47*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 11, 10:00*pm, 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 Joe I have to apologize with respect to my stance on root L/C which is a constant with respect to critical damping in R L C circuitry. For the life of me I cannot retrace my thinking in the matter or my line of thought, so that line of debate is just not on. However, if current removes itself from an element to travel in a medium on the surface and under a enclosing skin of particles we have removed unwanted resistances from the equation as the particles are in equilibrium and their accelleration is now measurable. At the same time the medium supplies a path for a ground vector. Again I apologize for the path I led you Regards Art The following aproach is not necessarily what I had in mind but root L.C. is directly involved in attaining oscillation for a given frequency and thus involved in the resistance implied in the generation of oscillation required for radiation. It is this resistance that represents the other resistance involved other than radiation resistance and removes itself from the element to the medium between the entrapped element and the particles thus leaving the radiation resistance on its own for the generation of charge. A small amount of resistance will remain in the element in the form of recoil from the levitating vector but it is extremely small. I also see this resistance as the spoiler for perpetual motion of a pendulum but that is departing from the subject at hand. and can be neglected. Art |
antenna physics question
On Dec 12, 7:32*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 12, 12:47*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Dec 11, 10:00*pm, 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 Joe I have to apologize with respect to my stance on root L/C which is a constant with respect to critical damping in R L C circuitry. For the life of me I cannot retrace my thinking in the matter or my line of thought, so that line of debate is just not on. However, if current removes itself from an element to travel in a medium on the surface and under a enclosing skin of particles we have removed unwanted resistances from the equation as the particles are in equilibrium and their accelleration is now measurable. At the same time the medium supplies a path for a ground vector. Again I apologize for the path I led you Regards Art The following aproach is not necessarily what I had in mind but root L.C. is *directly involved in attaining oscillation for a given frequency and thus involved in the resistance implied in the generation of oscillation required for radiation. It is this resistance that represents the other resistance involved other than radiation resistance and removes itself from the element to the medium between the entrapped element and the particles thus leaving the radiation resistance on its own for the generation of charge. A small amount of resistance will remain in the element in the form of recoil from the levitating vector but it is extremely small. I also see this resistance as the spoiler for perpetual motion of a pendulum but that is departing from the subject at hand. and can be neglected. Art don't worry we already neglect everything you say. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 12, 1:43*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 12, 7:32*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Dec 12, 12:47*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Dec 11, 10:00*pm, 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 Joe I have to apologize with respect to my stance on root L/C which is a constant with respect to critical damping in R L C circuitry. For the life of me I cannot retrace my thinking in the matter or my line of thought, so that line of debate is just not on. However, if current removes itself from an element to travel in a medium on the surface and under a enclosing skin of particles we have removed unwanted resistances from the equation as the particles are in equilibrium and their accelleration is now measurable. At the same time the medium supplies a path for a ground vector. Again I apologize for the path I led you Regards Art The following aproach is not necessarily what I had in mind but root L.C. is *directly involved in attaining oscillation for a given frequency and thus involved in the resistance implied in the generation of oscillation required for radiation. It is this resistance that represents the other resistance involved other than radiation resistance and removes itself from the element to the medium between the entrapped element and the particles thus leaving the radiation resistance on its own for the generation of charge. A small amount of resistance will remain in the element in the form of recoil from the levitating vector but it is extremely small. I also see this resistance as the spoiler for perpetual motion of a pendulum but that is departing from the subject at hand. and can be neglected. Art don't worry we already neglect everything you say. Well it is interesting to note that the oscillation of a radiater inplanted the notion of a wave as the eye follows the change in amplitude which led to the assumption that the medium entered after leaving the radiator was the Aether of which the product of surface wave came about. Ofcource the medium entered is between the radiator and particle skin where one sees the optical effect on water. It is also interesting to note that element oscillations create a coefficient of discharge on current flow per Bernolli which creates our old friend of Eddy currents such that the two vectors of gravity and rotation continue to survive and where the separation of these two vectors produce light on collisions, but that is speculation on how equilibrium is restored So as Einstein surmised, we followed the route of the two standard vectors or one depending on how you see it using boundary laws, from the containment of the Universe to light emmited from same. It is worthy of note that the helical twist model which represents the beginning of life is also represents the Standard Model as does the "curls" evident on a sea shell artifacts which simulates the equilibrium nature of the pancake antenna and that radiation can be explained by a "point action" (MoM) which also suggest that size or appature does not represent the path to maximum radiation ala the spiral or helical antenna in equilibrium. Kraus was so close but the requirement of equilibrium (closed circuit) under boundary laws which he neglected brought him back to Earth. A final note on the extension of Gauss to the Maxwell equation. As for Einstein he correctly predicted the presence of the STD Model to radiation itself. A Genius no less I came across a science dictionary of sorts by Eric Weinstein, the Nobel prize winner, which is the only reference that I have come across that verifies my explanation of the Gauss extension that everybody denies. So if you are still rigid with respect to "waves": you now have another person to rally against. Regards to all Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg |
antenna physics question
|
antenna physics question
On Dec 12, 4:49*pm, Registered User wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:32:53 -0000, wrote: Registered User wrote: Efficiency is a measure so it must have one or more dimensions Efficiency is a ratio usually expressed as a percentage and has no dimensions. The efficiency of an antenna is the radiated power divided by the input power. There are two dimensions in the calculation, radiated power and input power. Although the units of measure associated with the dimensional data may cancel the dimensional metadata doesn't. 80% is just a number where as 80% antenna efficiency provides meaning through the metadata. That metadata can also be properly expressed in terms of dimensions, the ratio of radiated power to input power is 80%. The units of measure may cancel but the dimensional metadata remains. Power divided by power has no dimensions. The efficiency of an engine is the mechanical energy it produces divided by the thermal energy of the fuel it uses. Energy divided by energy has no dimensions. In both examples there are two dimensional values; the numerator and the denominator but the dimensional data as expressed contains no metadata. As a result the calculated measure is just a number with no meaning. *Without metadata to describe the dimensional values, how can one determine which energy or power value is the numerator and which is the denominator? Energy divided by energy means it's a ratio so which is correct A/B or B/A? Until dimensional metadata is assigned the formula and its result have absolutely no meaning. Don't confuse dimensions and dimensional metadata with units of measure. Dimensions contain data and the attributes of that data with UOM being a possible attribute. The descriptive value of the dimensional metadata remains even if the UOMs cancel in a calculation e.g. *the ratio of radiated power to input power, no units just metadata. Without the metadata we're back to power divided by power yielding a meaningless number. I apologize in providing a 'ratio' as a meaningless number and thank you for the research undertaken by you to alert the group of my meaningless error useage. I have assumed, wrongly, that percentage was digital sampling process to obtain productive and a non productive ratio digital comparison or ratio in the base form of 100. If you have some metadata to spare I request that you insert them for the record such that the theme "baffle gab" is carried on for future readers. I also request that you share your particular expertise in this matter with other groups recognizing we all will be the true loosers if you decide to depart but I for one is willing to provide the hardship presented by your absence for the good of all. Regards Art |
antenna physics question
Registered User wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:32:53 -0000, wrote: Registered User wrote: Efficiency is a measure so it must have one or more dimensions Efficiency is a ratio usually expressed as a percentage and has no dimensions. The efficiency of an antenna is the radiated power divided by the input power. There are two dimensions in the calculation, radiated power and input power. Although the units of measure associated with the dimensional data may cancel the dimensional metadata doesn't. x power/ y power = x/y The units cancel to form a dimensionles, unitless, ratio. This is grade school math. The phrase "dimensional metadata" is meaningless babble. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
antenna physics question
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:11:40 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote: I apologize in providing a 'ratio' as a meaningless number and thank you for the research undertaken by you to alert the group of my meaningless error useage. I have assumed, wrongly, that percentage was digital sampling process sampling of what? to obtain productive and a non productive ratio ratio of what to what? digital comparison digital comparison of what to what? or ratio in the base form of 100. ration of what to what measured in what? If you have some metadata to spare I request that you insert them for the record such that the theme "baffle gab" is carried on for future readers. I also request that you share your particular expertise in this matter with other groups recognizing we all will be the true loosers if you decide to depart but I for one is willing to provide the hardship presented by your absence for the good of all. Nothing you have written in this post makes sense but that should be expected. AFA metadata goes it is invaluable in data analysis applications including antenna modeling programs. Every variable has its own dimension containing potential values. Each combination of dimension variables produces a measure known as a fact. Changing a single dimensional value can change the value of the fact. If one is modeling an antenna and changes the value of height above ground, the calculated value of the measure will change. Height above ground is only one of the many dimensional values used in the calculation of the measure. This all seems relevant because you question antenna modeling applications' calculations and how they are made. I'll go back to lurking after I stretch so I can be looser. Enter OLAP or analysis cube for more information on metadata and its use in analysis applications. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 12, 6:17*pm, Registered User wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:11:40 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin wrote: I apologize in providing a 'ratio' as a meaningless number and thank you for the research undertaken by you to alert the group of my meaningless error useage. I have assumed, wrongly, that percentage was *digital sampling process sampling of what? to obtain *productive and a non productive ratio ratio of what to what? digital comparison digital comparison of what to what? or ratio in the base form of 100. ration of what to what measured in what? If you have some metadata to spare I request that you insert them for the record such that the theme "baffle gab" is carried on for future readers. I also request that you share your particular expertise in this matter with other groups recognizing we all will be the true loosers if you decide to depart but I for one is willing to provide the hardship presented by your absence for the good of all. Nothing you have written in this post makes sense but that should be expected. AFA metadata goes it is invaluable in data analysis applications including antenna modeling programs. Every variable has its own dimension containing potential values. Each combination of dimension variables produces a measure known as a fact. Changing a single dimensional value can change the value of the fact. If one is modeling an antenna and changes the value of height above ground, the calculated value of the measure will change. Height above ground is only one of the many dimensional values used in the calculation of the measure. This all seems relevant because you question antenna modeling applications' calculations and how they are made. I'll go back to lurking after I stretch so I can be looser. Enter OLAP or analysis cube for more information on metadata and its use in analysis applications. Metadata is just a expanded project for archival analysis. It is not intended to revise language in various countries so scientific works and patent will not be withdrawn by non conformance with the program by being termed "meaningless" with respect to the new project. The project has had numorous changes and revisions and certainly has not yet arrived in its final form in libraries and archival uses in computer programs There are no plans as yet to announce that most scientific data is to be revised or declared illegal , patents overturned etc Or the institution of such projects where computer language will be taught in schools as a globalization of the new speech or verbal communication of the day in the way Fortran was once considered since thinkers of the computer era are still in a state of flux as to what should be imposed and who has the authority to change. There will be many enforcement programmers milling around to spread virus regarding the program but generally these self appointed programmers and the like are just trying to impose a new regime on the public at hand via the imposition of expansion regulations in a global fashion |
antenna physics question
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:28:32 -0800, Art Unwin rearranged some electrons to
say: Well it is interesting to note that the oscillation of a radiater inplanted the notion of a wave as the eye follows the change in amplitude which led to the assumption that the medium entered after leaving the radiator was the Aether of which the product of surface wave came about. I think Art has been replaced by a random word generator. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 13, 2:06*am, david wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:28:32 -0800, Art Unwin rearranged some electrons to say: Well it is interesting to note that the oscillation of a radiater inplanted the notion of a wave as the eye follows the change in amplitude which led to the assumption that the medium entered after leaving the radiator was the Aether of which the product of surface wave came about. I think Art has been replaced by a random word generator. no, that is classic art... pseudo random bafflegab that bears no relation to the question that was posed and wanders off into unrelated topics. the result of too much googling combined with lack of knowledge and a need to explain the universe so he feels important. |
antenna physics question
Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 00:13:10 -0000, wrote: Registered User wrote: On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:32:53 -0000, wrote: Registered User wrote: Efficiency is a measure so it must have one or more dimensions Efficiency is a ratio usually expressed as a percentage and has no dimensions. The efficiency of an antenna is the radiated power divided by the input power. There are two dimensions in the calculation, radiated power and input power. Although the units of measure associated with the dimensional data may cancel the dimensional metadata doesn't. x power/ y power = x/y The units cancel to form a dimensionles, unitless, ratio. This is grade school math. unitless yes and in the example given no metadata is provided. The result of the calculation is just a meaningless number. What of the equation : x units of radiated power / y units of input power The units cancel but the metadata doesn't. The result is a number that describes the ratio of radiated power to input power. 2 watt / 10 watt = 0.2 No "metadata". If the 2 watts is the radiated power of an antenna and the 10 watts is the input power, the antenna efficiency is 0.2 or 20% since efficiency is normally expressed as a percentage. If the 2 watts is the output power of some circuit and the 10 watts is the input power, the circuit has a gain of 0.2 or -7db. If the input energy to a heat engine is 10 joules and the output energy is 2 joules, the efficiency of the engine is: 100 * (2 joule / 10 joule) = 20% -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
antenna physics question
Registered User wrote:
You can call it meaningless babble but in its simplest form dimensional metadata provides meaning and additional information to raw data. Yes, meaningless babble. The phrase "antenna efficiency is 80%" says everything you need to know. The phrase "engine efficiency is 35%" says everything yoy need to know. And if antennas is the topic to begin with, the phrase "efficiency is 80%" says everything you need to know. No "dimensional metadata" required. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
antenna physics question
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:34:39 -0500, Registered User
wrote: The phrase "80% antenna efficiency" contains both a unitless number and dimensional metadata. Actually, it doesn't - you are filling in the blanks with presumption. Given that "efficiency" has been hijacked, the phrase above could as easily relate to wind load. 80% survival rate at 100 mph. I could well anticipate the counter-argument that "antenna efficiency" as you intend it is power based, and I would counter-counter that power delivered to the end user is far below 80% by 6 to 9 orders of magnitude. There is nothing efficient about 79.999999% of the power warming clouds and worms. HOWEVER, if the intended recipient receives even that miniscule power with full quieting, then it is in fact 100% efficient. In that regard, 80% and 100% as figures become meaningless when they are both applied to the same statement of efficiency. In this case the metadata describes the dimensional calculation used to produce the result. Remove the dimensional metadata and the phrase becomes "80%". No, efficiency in engineering terms has always been well understood and does not embrace this adornment. In an earlier posting I've seen the distinction of miles-per-gallon and passenger-miles-per-gallon stretched over the argument to fit it to efficiency. No, these two comparisons (and what you largely characterize as the need to include Metadata) are "figure of merit" measures. FOM is also dimensionless but demands the Metadata you speak of. FOM could easily lead you into a very energy (the engineering consideration) inefficient solution (due to social or economic considerations, eg. passenger-miles-per-gallon). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
antenna physics question
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:02:55 -0000, wrote:
Registered User wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 00:13:10 -0000, wrote: Registered User wrote: On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:32:53 -0000, wrote: Registered User wrote: Efficiency is a measure so it must have one or more dimensions Efficiency is a ratio usually expressed as a percentage and has no dimensions. The efficiency of an antenna is the radiated power divided by the input power. There are two dimensions in the calculation, radiated power and input power. Although the units of measure associated with the dimensional data may cancel the dimensional metadata doesn't. x power/ y power = x/y The units cancel to form a dimensionles, unitless, ratio. This is grade school math. unitless yes and in the example given no metadata is provided. The result of the calculation is just a meaningless number. What of the equation : x units of radiated power / y units of input power The units cancel but the metadata doesn't. The result is a number that describes the ratio of radiated power to input power. 2 watt / 10 watt = 0.2 No "metadata". Yes no metadata beyond the UOM and when the UOMs cancel the result is a bare number. Twenty percent of what? If the 2 watts is the radiated power of an antenna and the 10 watts is the input power, the antenna efficiency is 0.2 or 20% since efficiency is normally expressed as a percentage. Now you're adding metadata to provide information about what the 0.2 or 20% means. If the 2 watts is the output power of some circuit and the 10 watts is the input power, the circuit has a gain of 0.2 or -7db. If the input energy to a heat engine is 10 joules and the output energy is 2 joules, the efficiency of the engine is: 100 * (2 joule / 10 joule) = 20% A selected calculated expression provides a ratio which resolved to a value of three-tenths. Which of the three previously shown expressions, if any, was selected to produced the result 0.3? A - antenna efficiency B - engine efficiency C - circuit efficiency D - none of the above It's a simple question with no metadata provided about the calculated expression arguments and no metadata associated with the result. In a nutshell, no metadata what so ever. If metadata is unimportant then there should be no problem answering the question. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 13, 7:32*pm, Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:02:55 -0000, wrote: Registered User wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 00:13:10 -0000, wrote: Registered User wrote: On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:32:53 -0000, wrote: Registered User wrote: Efficiency is a measure so it must have one or more dimensions Efficiency is a ratio usually expressed as a percentage and has no dimensions. The efficiency of an antenna is the radiated power divided by the input power. There are two dimensions in the calculation, radiated power and input power. Although the units of measure associated with the dimensional data may cancel the dimensional metadata doesn't. x power/ y power = x/y The units cancel to form a dimensionles, unitless, ratio. This is grade school math. unitless yes and in the example given no metadata is provided. The result of the calculation is just a meaningless number. What of the equation : * * x units of radiated power / y units of input power The units cancel but the metadata doesn't. The result is a number that describes the ratio of radiated power to input power. 2 watt / 10 watt = 0.2 No "metadata". Yes no metadata beyond the UOM and when the UOMs cancel the result is a bare number. Twenty percent of what? If the 2 watts is the radiated power of an antenna and the 10 watts is the input power, the antenna efficiency is 0.2 or 20% since efficiency is normally expressed as a percentage. Now you're adding metadata to provide information about what the 0.2 or 20% means. If the 2 watts is the output power of some circuit and the 10 watts is the input power, the circuit has a gain of 0.2 or -7db. If the input energy to a heat engine is 10 joules and the output energy is 2 joules, the efficiency of the engine is: 100 * (2 joule / 10 joule) = 20% A selected calculated expression provides a ratio which resolved to a value of three-tenths. Which of the three previously shown expressions, if any, was selected to produced the result 0.3? A - antenna efficiency B - engine efficiency C - circuit efficiency D - none of the above It's a simple question with no metadata provided about the calculated expression arguments and no metadata associated with the result. In a nutshell, no metadata what so ever. If metadata is unimportant then there should be no problem answering the question. the answer is 42 |
antenna physics question
Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:02:55 -0000, wrote: Registered User wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 00:13:10 -0000, wrote: Registered User wrote: On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:32:53 -0000, wrote: Registered User wrote: Efficiency is a measure so it must have one or more dimensions Efficiency is a ratio usually expressed as a percentage and has no dimensions. The efficiency of an antenna is the radiated power divided by the input power. There are two dimensions in the calculation, radiated power and input power. Although the units of measure associated with the dimensional data may cancel the dimensional metadata doesn't. x power/ y power = x/y The units cancel to form a dimensionles, unitless, ratio. This is grade school math. unitless yes and in the example given no metadata is provided. The result of the calculation is just a meaningless number. What of the equation : x units of radiated power / y units of input power The units cancel but the metadata doesn't. The result is a number that describes the ratio of radiated power to input power. 2 watt / 10 watt = 0.2 No "metadata". Yes no metadata beyond the UOM and when the UOMs cancel the result is a bare number. Twenty percent of what? Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means? "Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information required. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
antenna physics question
On 12/12/2010 7:44 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
snip Metadata is just a expanded project for archival analysis. It is not intended to revise language in various countries so scientific works and patent will not be withdrawn by non conformance with the program by being termed "meaningless" with respect to the new project. The project has had numorous changes and revisions and certainly has not yet arrived in its final form in libraries and archival uses in computer programs There are no plans as yet to announce that most scientific data is to be revised or declared illegal , patents overturned etc Or the institution of such projects where computer language will be taught in schools as a globalization of the new speech or verbal communication of the day in the way Fortran was once considered since thinkers of the computer era are still in a state of flux as to what should be imposed and who has the authority to change. There will be many enforcement programmers milling around to spread virus regarding the program but generally these self appointed programmers and the like are just trying to impose a new regime on the public at hand via the imposition of expansion regulations in a global fashion Folks, I think he's about due for a week or 3 disappearance again. The white coated men can't be far away. tom K0TAR |
antenna physics question
On Dec 14, 12:31*am, tom wrote:
On 12/12/2010 7:44 PM, Art Unwin wrote: snip Metadata is just a expanded project for archival analysis. It is not intended to revise language in various countries so scientific works and patent will not be withdrawn by non conformance with the program by being termed "meaningless" with respect to the new project. The project has had numorous changes and revisions and certainly has not yet arrived in its final form in libraries and archival uses in computer programs There are no plans as yet to announce that most scientific data is to be revised or declared illegal , patents overturned etc Or the institution of such projects where computer language will be taught in schools as a globalization of the new speech or verbal communication of the day in the way Fortran was once considered since thinkers of the computer era are still in a state of flux as to what should be imposed and who has the authority to change. There will be many enforcement programmers milling around to spread virus regarding the program but generally these self appointed programmers and the like are just trying to impose a new regime on the public at hand via the imposition of expansion regulations in a global fashion Folks, I think he's about due for a week or 3 disappearance again. *The white coated men can't be far away. tom K0TAR yeah, that's pretty far over the top even for art. |
antenna physics question
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:14:19 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:34:39 -0500, Registered User wrote: The phrase "80% antenna efficiency" contains both a unitless number and dimensional metadata. Actually, it doesn't - you are filling in the blanks with presumption. Given that "efficiency" has been hijacked, the phrase above could as easily relate to wind load. Precisely why metadata is so important to describe data.The generic term 'antenna efficiency' does not provide enough metadata to describe the true meaning of the measure. Some additional metadata turns the potentially ambiguous "80% antenna efficiency" into "the antenna's radiated power divided by its input power results in a percentage of 80%" 80% survival rate at 100 mph. I could well anticipate the counter-argument that "antenna efficiency" as you intend it is power based, and I would counter-counter that power delivered to the end user is far below 80% by 6 to 9 orders of magnitude. There is nothing efficient about 79.999999% of the power warming clouds and worms. HOWEVER, if the intended recipient receives even that miniscule power with full quieting, then it is in fact 100% efficient. In that regard, 80% and 100% as figures become meaningless when they are both applied to the same statement of efficiency. In this case the metadata describes the dimensional calculation used to produce the result. Remove the dimensional metadata and the phrase becomes "80%". No, efficiency in engineering terms has always been well understood and does not embrace this adornment. There are many different expressions that calculate efficiency, so wouldn't the adornment be the context aka metadata which describes the expression used to calculate the result? If I write "80% efficiency"on a piece of paper and hand it to an engineer, how can the engineer know what is 80% efficient without any metadata being provided? In an earlier posting I've seen the distinction of miles-per-gallon and passenger-miles-per-gallon stretched over the argument to fit it to efficiency. No, these two comparisons (and what you largely characterize as the need to include Metadata) are "figure of merit" measures. FOM is also dimensionless but demands the Metadata you speak of. The last sentence tells me you get it. 80% is a FOM with no UOM so for the value to have meaning metadata must be provided. FOM could easily lead you into a very energy (the engineering consideration) inefficient solution (due to social or economic considerations, eg. passenger-miles-per-gallon). The whole purpose of data analysis is to aid in effective decision making. Pretty much every decision requires some sort of trade-off. By analyzing and reporting upon the expression results that different combinations of dimension values provide, more information can be provided the decision makers. The decision makers are the ones who specify what data they wish to view (both dimensional data and the results of multi-dimensional expressions) and the ways they wish to view that data. All that information is placed in a multi-dimensional cube. The decision makers can slice and dice the cube data into how they want to view the data and determine relative FOMs for multiple scenarios. Their questions are which scenario model is most suitable and does the most suitable scenario provide a valid solution for the problem. AFA the passenger-miles-per-gallon calculation, the decision makers could decide that more information is needed in terms of greater granularity. Changing the granularity to stop-by-stop and providing associated passenger and fuel consumption statistics will deliver more information. The decision makers could also ask for data that provides social and economic information. The multidimensional PMPG expression could be changed to include the social and economic data. More data and metadata provides more information. The form of desired social and economic data and how it is to be used in expressions is something the decision makers must determine. All the information about required cube dimensions, attributes, hierarchies, expressions, etc, are determined by the decision makers. Those who build and load the structure have little say in the matter, the decision makers decide what data and metadata is useful for their analysis. An image of a simple multi-dimensional cube can be seen at http://books.google.com/books?id=AFC...page&q&f=false or http://tinyurl.com/337m42z Each dimensional intersection uses the same multi-dimensional expression (MDX) to provide a result. The UOM at each intersection is the same (dollars) but the results differ because different sets of dimensional arguments are used in the MDX. The amount $3,156,834 is raw data but the cube tells us it represents total sales for the Mythic World product in 2005. That metadata must be used to describe the result if that value is to be used away from the cube. Change that cube's dimensions and the values they contain to be antenna-related, add a few more antenna-related dimensions and attributes, create some expressions that use dimension values to provide appropriate measures and the structure could be used for antenna analysis. |
antenna physics question
|
antenna physics question
Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:29:24 -0000, wrote: Registered User wrote: You can call it meaningless babble but in its simplest form dimensional metadata provides meaning and additional information to raw data. Yes, meaningless babble. The phrase "antenna efficiency is 80%" says everything you need to know. The phrase "antenna efficiency" is non-dimensional metadata and to quote Mr. Clark -quote- Given that "efficiency" has been hijacked, the phrase above could as easily relate to wind load. -end quote- The phrase "engine efficiency is 35%" says everything yoy need to know. You assume that engine efficiency is only and always measured in terms of energy efficiency. Of course it is, that is basic physics and the definition. Other things are other things and have qualifiers, especially if they use the word "efficiency", otherwise it is just ignorant babble. snip babble And if antennas is the topic to begin with, the phrase "efficiency is 80%" says everything you need to know. No "dimensional metadata" required. Non-dimensional metadata (antennas) is provided as the topic and the result contains non-dimensional metadata (efficiency) as well. The phrase in question is "dimensional metadata" and now you are switching the subject to "non-dimensional metadata". As Mr. Clark pointed out "antenna efficiency" is a potentially ambiguous phrase. Such ambiguity can be eliminated by using dimensional metadata e.g. antenna efficiency calculated as the ratio of power radiated to input power. The definition of antenna efficiency is the "ratio of power radiated to input power", so stating that is redundant. snip more babble I suppose you argue with writers of recipes when they say "add 1 cup of milk" saying they should say "pour milk into a measuring cup, that is a cup used for measuring liquids, until the milk level, that is the level in the measuring cup, reaches the mark on the measuring that denotes the meauring cup contains 1 fluid cup, in this case the milk, then pour the contents of the measuring cup into..". -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
antenna physics question
Registered User wrote:
Precisely why metadata is so important to describe data.The generic term 'antenna efficiency' does not provide enough metadata to describe the true meaning of the measure. Only if you are an ignorant twit that doesn't understand the definition of "antenna efficiency" and has to have the definition spelled out to him each and every time. snip babble There are many different expressions that calculate efficiency, so wouldn't the adornment be the context aka metadata which describes the expression used to calculate the result? If I write "80% efficiency"on a piece of paper and hand it to an engineer, how can the engineer know what is 80% efficient without any metadata being provided? The engineer would use the context under which the number was provided. If there were no context the engineer would be justified in concluding that you were a babbling mental case. snip long winded, grandiose babble -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
antenna physics question
|
antenna physics question
On Dec 14, 5:02*am, Registered User wrote:
When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning. Antenna efficiency can be measured in different ways so the phrase "antenna efficiency is 20%" can mean different things to different people. All it takes is one person to ask how antenna efficiency is calculated and it will become evident that context of "antenna efficiency is 20%" does not provide all the information required. Sure it does. Antenna efficiency is only calculated one way, so there is no need to add extra "metadata". Like one said, it's redundant. In the real world, most will calculate the efficiency of the antenna system as a whole. Not just the radiating element/s. Even a very small dipole vs wavelength will radiate nearly all power that is applied to it. The trick is actually getting the power to it without it turning to heat. So most will calculate the whole system, otherwise it's fairly pointless. But the efficiency of even a whole system is still calculated the same way, and no extra "metadata" is required to calculate. It's still the ratio between the output of the transmitter, vs the RF actually radiated. It's been that way since they invented dirt, so who needs metadata? I sure don't. I'm starting to think it must be a full moon... It's been getting pretty silly around here lately.. :/ |
antenna physics question
Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote: Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means? Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is? Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to the discussion. Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context. Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context. Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more detailed and specific information. Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has to be defined each and every time it is used. "Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information required. When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning. The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics. snip long winded babble -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 14, 4:54*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote: Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means? Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is? Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to the discussion. Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context. Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context. Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more detailed and specific information. Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has to be defined each and every time it is used. "Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information required. When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning. The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics. really? i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete or something. |
antenna physics question
|
antenna physics question
On Dec 14, 10:54*am, wrote:
Registered User wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote: Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means? Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is? Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to the discussion. Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context. Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context. Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more detailed and specific information. Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has to be defined each and every time it is used. "Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information required. When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning. The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics. snip long winded babble -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Gentlemen This metadata project is only about substituting a machine for a human being. Human beings have a brain and it is not necessary to overload a brain with information that the brain does not require to function. |
antenna physics question
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54Â*pm, wrote: Registered User wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote: Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means? Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is? Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to the discussion. Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context. Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context. Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more detailed and specific information. Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has to be defined each and every time it is used. "Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information required. When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning. The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics. really? i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete or something. So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks". -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
antenna physics question
Registered User wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 05:37:25 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Dec 14, 5:02Â*am, Registered User wrote: When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning. Antenna efficiency can be measured in different ways so the phrase "antenna efficiency is 20%" can mean different things to different people. All it takes is one person to ask how antenna efficiency is calculated and it will become evident that context of "antenna efficiency is 20%" does not provide all the information required. Sure it does. Antenna efficiency is only calculated one way, so there is no need to add extra "metadata". Funny thing, when working parabolic antennas antenna efficiency and aperture efficiency are used interchangeably. Regisered User and some other guy arrive at a gas station at the same time. Other guy: "Fill'er up." Regisered User: "Remove the gas cap, that is the covering device on the gas tank, that is the tank, which is an enclosure, which holds the gasoline for this car, that is a private passenger vehicle, and dispense gasoline from your pump, that is the mechanism that dispenses gasoline, into the tank, that is the tank intended to hold gasoline, until the fluid, in this case gasoline, level, which is the fluid air, which is 78.1% nitorgen, 20.9% oxygen, 0.9% argon and less than .1% other trace gases, interface, which forms because we are on a planet with positive gravity, reaches the top, that is the uppper most part, of the gasoline tank which holds the gasoline." This is followed by a 20 minute dissertation on which way to turn the gas cap to get it on and off, an explanation of how the percentages of the various gasses than make up air are measured, the origin and history of the gallon, and the value of the dollar relative to a loaf of bread in 1937. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 14, 4:54*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote: Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means? Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is? Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to the discussion. Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context. Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context. Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more detailed and specific information. Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has to be defined each and every time it is used. "Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information required. When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning. The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics. really? i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete or something. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 14, 6:41*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote: On Dec 14, 4:54*pm, wrote: Registered User wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote: Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means? Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is? Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to the discussion. Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context. Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context.. Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more detailed and specific information. Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has to be defined each and every time it is used. "Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information required. When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning. The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics. really? *i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete or something. So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks". -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. well, i kept looking.. arrl antenna book doesn't have it, but mine is rather old maybe more recent ones have it. aha! found efficiency in the ieee handbook of antenna design... but it has subtopics: aperture beam cassegrain cross-polar depolarisation in offset reflectors illumination offset antennas polarisation radiation now exactly which definition do you consider the 'unique and unambiguous' one?? |
antenna physics question
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54Â*pm, wrote: Registered User wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote: Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means? Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is? Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to the discussion. Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context. Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context. Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more detailed and specific information. Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has to be defined each and every time it is used. "Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information required. When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning. The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics. really? i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete or something. First book I pick up, Electromagnetics by Kraus and Carver. So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks". -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
antenna physics question
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:38:19 -0500, Registered User
wrote: The phrase "80% antenna efficiency" contains both a unitless number and dimensional metadata. Actually, it doesn't - you are filling in the blanks with presumption. Given that "efficiency" has been hijacked, the phrase above could as easily relate to wind load. Precisely why metadata is so important to describe data. So, by this you agree that your original metadata was not useful. As for it being "dimensional" there was nothing dimensional expressed nor offered by you afterward in further elaboration. The whole purpose of data analysis is to aid in effective decision making. Metadata is useful in Figure of Merit and such is the entirety of your argument. Unfortunately, the only thing revealed here is that your metadata is a portmanteau word covering an infinite regression of refining statements. We would be better served in consideration of the Figure of Merit side of the discussion where many could easily discard a lot of metadata deadwood. That is the practice of engineering. Compounding unfortune, Art is incapable of providing weighted values to make progress in any discussion. There is no Figure of Merit consideration, there is only the combinatorial explosion of possibilities. That has lead us through the dimensions of 180 meter wavelengths to the sub nanometer relativistic effects of nuclear physics - all treated with equal importance such that practicality has been debased. This is the Art of science fiction, metaphysics, or religion. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
antenna physics question
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 6:41Â*pm, wrote: K1TTT wrote: On Dec 14, 4:54Â*pm, wrote: Registered User wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote: Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means? Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is? Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to the discussion. Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context. Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context. Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more detailed and specific information. Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has to be defined each and every time it is used. "Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information required. When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning. The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics. really? Â*i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete or something. So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks". -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. well, i kept looking.. arrl antenna book doesn't have it, but mine is rather old maybe more recent ones have it. aha! found efficiency in the ieee handbook of antenna design... but it has subtopics: aperture beam cassegrain cross-polar depolarisation in offset reflectors illumination offset antennas polarisation radiation now exactly which definition do you consider the 'unique and unambiguous' one?? The one that one normally means when not using a qualifier, radiation. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 14, 8:10*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote: On Dec 14, 4:54*pm, wrote: Registered User wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote: Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means? Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is? Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to the discussion. Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context. Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context.. Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more detailed and specific information. Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has to be defined each and every time it is used. "Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information required. When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning. The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics. really? *i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete or something. First book I pick up, Electromagnetics by Kraus and Carver. So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks". -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. but your basic point still fails... the definition of efficiency is not universal, unique, nor unambiguous since it is not in ALL textbooks, nor is it a simple single definition, as my list of qualifiers in the ieee handbook illustrates.... oh, and those many definitions are not just restating the same thing, they are VERY different definitions depending on the aspect of the antenna you are studying. |
antenna physics question
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:10Â*pm, wrote: K1TTT wrote: On Dec 14, 4:54Â*pm, wrote: Registered User wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote: Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means? Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is? Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to the discussion. Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context. Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context. Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more detailed and specific information. Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has to be defined each and every time it is used. "Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information required. When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning. The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics. really? Â*i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete or something. First book I pick up, Electromagnetics by Kraus and Carver. So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks". -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. but your basic point still fails... the definition of efficiency is not universal, unique, nor unambiguous since it is not in ALL textbooks, nor is it a simple single definition, as my list of qualifiers in the ieee handbook illustrates.... oh, and those many definitions are not just restating the same thing, they are VERY different definitions depending on the aspect of the antenna you are studying. The fact that it is not in all textbooks is irrelvant. Not everything is in all textbooks of any kind. There are many scientific and engineering terms that can have qualifiers to denote specificity. And in most every case there is a qualified term that is in most common use and is commonly used without the qualifier. Every engineer I know when discusssing antennas in general that say "antenna efficieny" mean "antenna radiation efficiency". The ARRL Antenna Handbook, when talking about "antenna efficieny", refers to "antenna radiation efficiency". For most of the links of the 7,000,000 or so when you search for "antenna efficieny" you come to a link that refers to "antenna radiation efficiency". -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com