|
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 01:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com