Art Unwin wrote:

I am sure you also know that only
units used by Mawell represent the path
to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as
the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be
unity.
Art KB9MZ....xg

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

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

Can you give me some real world examples?

joe

On Dec 10, 8:37*am, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
*I am sure you also know that only
units used by Mawell represent the path
to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as
the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be
*unity.
Art KB9MZ....xg

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

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

Can you give me some real world examples?

joe

I will be happy to do so
Root L/C = 1

This means that L/C both of which are loss contributors are removed
from any formulae
Art

On Dec 10, 4:12*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 10, 8:37*am, joe wrote:



Art Unwin wrote:
*I am sure you also know that only
units used by Mawell represent the path
to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as
the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be
*unity.
Art KB9MZ....xg

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

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

Can you give me some real world examples?

joe

I will be happy to do so
Root L/C = 1

This means that L/C both of which are loss contributors are removed
from any formulae
Art

neither L nor C contributes any loss in any kind of circuit analysis i
have ever seen.... its always the R that converts the electrical
energy to heat to remove it from doing something useful besides
heating the room.

On Dec 10, 2:40*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 10, 4:12*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Dec 10, 8:37*am, joe wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:
*I am sure you also know that only
units used by Mawell represent the path
to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as
the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be
*unity.
Art KB9MZ....xg

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

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

Can you give me some real world examples?

joe

I will be happy to do so
Root L/C = 1

This means that L/C both of which are loss contributors are removed
from any formulae
Art

neither L nor C contributes any loss in any kind of circuit analysis i
have ever seen.... its always the R that converts the electrical
energy to heat to remove it from doing something useful besides
heating the room.

Silly
Impedance consists of resistance Ra and reactance jxx. You can remove
resistance Ra from an element while the reactance constituent can
still remain.
Thus the impedance remains real.
Don't give up your job just yet!

On Dec 11, 7:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:40*pm, K1TTT wrote:



On Dec 10, 4:12*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Dec 10, 8:37*am, joe wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:
*I am sure you also know that only
units used by Mawell represent the path
to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as
the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be
*unity.
Art KB9MZ....xg

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

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

Can you give me some real world examples?

joe

I will be happy to do so
Root L/C = 1

This means that L/C both of which are loss contributors are removed
from any formulae
Art

neither L nor C contributes any loss in any kind of circuit analysis i
have ever seen.... its always the R that converts the electrical
energy to heat to remove it from doing something useful besides
heating the room.

Silly
Impedance consists of resistance Ra and reactance *jxx. You can remove
resistance Ra from an element while the reactance constituent can
still remain.
*Thus the impedance remains real.
Don't give up your job just yet!

lets see, you remove the resistance which is the 'real' part of the
impedance, which gives you the imaginary reactance part as noted by
the 'j' above, and you think its real... probably just as real as your
pancake antenna in its faraday cage. you never have explained how my
ferromagnetic antenna works without your magical diamagnetic
levitating neutrinos.

Art Unwin wrote:

On Dec 10, 8:37 am, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
I am sure you also know that only
units used by Mawell represent the path
to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as
the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be
unity.
Art KB9MZ....xg

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

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

Can you give me some real world examples?

joe

I will be happy to do so
Root L/C = 1

This means that L/C both of which are loss contributors are removed
from any formulae
Art


Art,
That does not address the question at all.

How do the Henries in L and the Farads in C cancel to give a dimensionless
number?

A real world example would have numbers and a description the one could
duplicate to better understand what you are syaing.

joe

On Dec 11, 10:14*am, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 10, 8:37 am, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
I am sure you also know that only
units used by Mawell represent the path
to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as
the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be
unity.
Art KB9MZ....xg

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

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

Can you give me some real world examples?

joe

I will be happy to do so
Root L/C = 1

This means that L/C both of which are loss contributors are removed
from any formulae
Art

Art,
That does not address the question at all.

How do the Henries in L and the Farads in C cancel to give a dimensionless
number?

A real world example would have numbers and a description the one could
duplicate to better understand what you are syaing.

joe

Think about it Joe
If you had an equation for efficiency it would be dimensionless.
Typically you would have a portion in that equation that depicts
perfection
and also a portion depicting deviation from perfection.So the second
portion points to what creates losses and the first part points to
perfection. Now look at root L/C which points to the constitution of
that which creates losses.
Now ideally we would like this portion to be 1
which states zero losses, an ideal situation.
Thus we can say the losses involved equals
root L/C which must equal "1" Logic therefore tells you that both L
and C are loss leaders whether they be lumped or distributed and
therefore not part of the vectors that create
acceleration of charge. Remember for legitimacy all formulae must
equal zero for equilibrium and therefore resolves into zero units. Now
if you are unaware where root L/C
appears in the study of radiation this is a good time to hit the books
to fill that gap.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ xg

What has been proved so far with this theory?
Particles and not waves
Magnetic fiels removal removes skin depth
Reprosity
The importance of diamagnetics
Vectors of currents, time varying and displacement are the equal and
opposite of
gravity and rotation
L and C are loss leaders
Particles/ free electrons, are not the constituent
of the radiating element.
The Standard Forces are resolved by just the two vectors only created
by the Big Bang or the
fracture of the original boundary depicted by Newtons law.
And it goes on but hams deny change.

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

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

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