Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On 09/10/2014 02:02, rickman wrote:


Because there is *nothing* you can do to "eliminate" his behavior. By
responding you are just encouraging him. Your type of responses are
exactly why he posts in the first place.

But whatever. At this point we all covered in mod from wrestling with
this pig.


Moreover, by not ignoring him, you have indicated to him that you are
'game' to be 'played'. He will be back, again and again. He has posted
several nonsense antenna idea on uk.r.a in the past, expect to see then
on here. No doubt he is cooking up others right now. Plus, he will
'recycle' the ones he uses from time to time, in the hope of stimulating
another pointless thread. I lost track of how many times how many times
his Big K nonsense was recycled, before he claim to have realised that
his K was a constant in the accepted maths. (It didn't 'tie up' with his
nonsense, needless to say, but that simply led to more nonsense.)

He frequents several groups and does the same thing in them.

The best thing is just to totally ignore him.

He will still post, still rant and rave, but you won't waste your time.

He has nothing better to do, the rest of us have.

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Moreover, by not ignoring him, you have indicated to him that you are
'game' to be 'played'. He will be back, again and again. He has posted
several nonsense antenna idea on uk.r.a in the past, expect to see then
on here. No doubt he is cooking up others right now. Plus, he will
'recycle' the ones he uses from time to time, in the hope of stimulating
another pointless thread. I lost track of how many times how many times
his Big K nonsense was recycled, before he claim to have realised that his
K was a constant in the accepted maths. (It didn't 'tie up' with his
nonsense, needless to say, but that simply led to more nonsense.)
He frequents several groups and does the same thing in them.
The best thing is just to totally ignore him.
He will still post, still rant and rave, but you won't waste your time.
He has nothing better to do, the rest of us have.

Well, Brian, you have complained that a moderated NG is needed to
deal with the cesspit of ura, but do you not think that perhaps your
habit of laying into people with gratuitous offensive personal remarks
is somehow responsible?

Wht not join the discussion with technical ideas, if you understand the
discussion, rather than just attacking the person?

On the other hand, if you are angry because you do not understand
the issues being discussed, I commend to you the old adage, "The fool
keepeth his mouth shut"

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:38:36 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

On 09/10/2014 02:02, rickman wrote:


Because there is *nothing* you can do to "eliminate" his behavior. By
responding you are just encouraging him. Your type of responses are
exactly why he posts in the first place.

But whatever. At this point we all covered in mod from wrestling with
this pig.


Moreover, by not ignoring him, you have indicated to him that you are
'game' to be 'played'. He will be back, again and again. He has posted
several nonsense antenna idea on uk.r.a in the past, expect to see then
on here. No doubt he is cooking up others right now. Plus, he will
'recycle' the ones he uses from time to time, in the hope of stimulating
another pointless thread. I lost track of how many times how many times
his Big K nonsense was recycled, before he claim to have realised that
his K was a constant in the accepted maths. (It didn't 'tie up' with his
nonsense, needless to say, but that simply led to more nonsense.)

I don't understand why you label this thread as pointless as it has
stirred technical discussion that has evolved into an interesting thread
that I, for one, have learnt from and enjoyed reading. It would seem to
have been something that everybody had an opinion of but nobody dared to
mention. Seems that certain beliefs from various people were wrong, so
what? We all gain.

He frequents several groups and does the same thing in them.

The best thing is just to totally ignore him.

He will still post, still rant and rave, but you won't waste your time.

He has nothing better to do, the rest of us have.

It seems to me that he is between a rock and a hard place. You say that
your desire is for more technical postings on usenet but when one is
presented, you immediately try to shoot the messenger rather than
offering any useful input yourself!

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On 10/9/2014 4:05 PM, gareth wrote:

I commend to you the old adage, "The fool
keepeth his mouth shut"

But it was you that started this thread... oh, I thought you were
talking about yourself.

--

Rick

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On 10/9/2014 5:03 PM, Steve wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:38:36 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

He has nothing better to do, the rest of us have.

It seems to me that he is between a rock and a hard place. You say that
your desire is for more technical postings on usenet but when one is
presented, you immediately try to shoot the messenger rather than
offering any useful input yourself!

I think the problem is that instead of participating in a rational
discussion, regardless of who started it, the one in question just spews
nonsense.

Brian is right when he says some here have nothing better to do.

--

Rick

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 18:36:12 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 10/9/2014 5:03 PM, Steve wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:38:36 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

He has nothing better to do, the rest of us have.

It seems to me that he is between a rock and a hard place. You say that
your desire is for more technical postings on usenet but when one is
presented, you immediately try to shoot the messenger rather than
offering any useful input yourself!

I think the problem is that instead of participating in a rational
discussion, regardless of who started it, the one in question just spews
nonsense.

I think you have said that to Gareth, but have continued to debate the
subject with others and it does not seem that you were doing this under
duress. It would seem that you have enjoyed participating in the
discussion. I have enjoyed your considerable input along with that from
the other contributors. Should Gareth be criticised for starting
interesting threads in a quiet newsgroup? I think not.

Brian is right when he says some here have nothing better to do.

That is saying that you and the other contributors had nothing better to
do ;-)

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 5:03 PM, Steve wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:38:36 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

He has nothing better to do, the rest of us have.

It seems to me that he is between a rock and a hard place. You say that
your desire is for more technical postings on usenet but when one is
presented, you immediately try to shoot the messenger rather than
offering any useful input yourself!

I think the problem is that instead of participating in a rational
discussion, regardless of who started it, the one in question just spews nonsense.

Brian is right when he says some here have nothing better to do.


Steve supports Evans no matter what, he is another troll.

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 02:34:06 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 5:03 PM, Steve wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:38:36 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

He has nothing better to do, the rest of us have.

It seems to me that he is between a rock and a hard place. You say
that your desire is for more technical postings on usenet but when one
is presented, you immediately try to shoot the messenger rather than
offering any useful input yourself!

I think the problem is that instead of participating in a rational
discussion, regardless of who started it, the one in question just
spews nonsense.

Brian is right when he says some here have nothing better to do.


Steve supports Evans no matter what, he is another troll.

In fact I would support anybody who asked a technical question and then
got roasted, even you.

I am happy to let the readership decide who is the troll here, Brian!

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Steve supports Evans no matter what, he is another troll.

Once again, it is you who creates the cesspits about which you complain.

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
I lost track of how many times how many times his Big K nonsense was
recycled, before he claim to have realised that his K was a constant in
the accepted maths.

Sophistry, for you well know that my point that such a constant must exist
was ABSENT from the many texts to which I had access, a constant
that I had dubbed Big K.

It was not until 2006 / 2007 when I was subcontracting at a DSP chip
manufacturer that I found the vindication for my proposal, a proposal which
had
come about after extensive revision of all the Fourier, Laplace and analogue
filter design that I was taught at Uni.

You claimed on several occasions to have put me right on the matter, but
when I sought the URL or message ID from you, you shut up like a clam.

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On 2014-10-17 17:50:55 +0000, gareth said:

something unrelated to the OP


Can I go back to your original question, and perhaps recast it in a way
that is more useful for discussion?

I think we have to accept that once you can get energy *into* a small
antenna it radiates just as well as a large one, apart from resistive
losses which can be made fairly small with suitable materials.

A different but equally interesting question: is there any intuitive,
or simple mathematical, way of explaining why an electrically short
antenna couples into free space in such a way that its radiation
resistance is very low compared with a resonant antenna, and highly
reactive? Because this property is what makes short antennas hard to
use in practice. And must result from some property of its radiation
behaviour, conceivably related to your original postulate which I am
afraid I do not have the maths to understand.

--

Percy Picacity

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On 18/10/14 11:17, Percy Picacity wrote:
On 2014-10-17 17:50:55 +0000, gareth said:

something unrelated to the OP


Can I go back to your original question, and perhaps recast it in a way
that is more useful for discussion?

I think we have to accept that once you can get energy *into* a small
antenna it radiates just as well as a large one, apart from resistive
losses which can be made fairly small with suitable materials.

A different but equally interesting question: is there any intuitive,
or simple mathematical, way of explaining why an electrically short
antenna couples into free space in such a way that its radiation
resistance is very low compared with a resonant antenna, and highly
reactive? Because this property is what makes short antennas hard to
use in practice. And must result from some property of its radiation
behaviour, conceivably related to your original postulate which I am
afraid I do not have the maths to understand.


You seem to be 'cross threaded' Roger, not to mentioned confusing your
IDs. Why not leave your socks off, now you've been outed.

Anyway, to the technical stuff.

I covered this earlier, in another thread.

Consider the Radiation Resistance, Loss Resistance, and reactive element
which determine the eff., and Zo.
(The reactive element represents the energy 'stored' in the field around
the antenna- just like the energy stored in an inductor or capacitor,
both reactive components.)

A short dipole, for example, will be a poor match but RRLR. Provided
the feeder loss is low, either by good matching or the use of low loss
feeder (assuming the PA is 'happy') then the overall losses are low and
the RF only has one place to go, to be radiated.

A short dipole has other issues, in particular if matching is used to
overcome the issue of the Zo, then the matching network plus antenna
will have a very narrow bandwidth (compared to a full sized dipole) and
adjustment will be essential to maintain efficiency if the frequency of
operation is changed.

Remember, the use of 'standard' Zo of 50 or 75 ohm is not essential, nor
is maintaining a feeder SWR of 1.5, provided the PA can cope and feeder
loss can be tolerated/reduced (eg by using open wire feeder).

Those who don't really understand what is going on get all 'hung up' re
SWR. In fact it really causes two real issues. If the PA is forced to
operate outside of its safe area of operation, damage may result. (RF
does not 'go back into' the PA, as some think, the impedances are all
wrong for that) and feed loss. If the PA can 'cope' with what is being
asked of it and the feed is low loss (eg open wire), a high SWR on the
feeder is not really problem. In fact, adding a matching unit may
degrade overall performance.

As to the 'postulate', pure nonsense. Some terms he has read, thrown
together so as to try and give the impression he understands things.

When it this was pointed out, he got riled and start his tirade. As
normal. You know as well as I do the pattern, even if you refuse to
admit it due to you leftie bias against anyone who dares not to be a leftie.

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On 2014-10-18 13:17:13 +0000, Brian Reay said:

On 18/10/14 11:17, Percy Picacity wrote:
On 2014-10-17 17:50:55 +0000, gareth said:

something unrelated to the OP


Can I go back to your original question, and perhaps recast it in a way
that is more useful for discussion?

I think we have to accept that once you can get energy *into* a small
antenna it radiates just as well as a large one, apart from resistive
losses which can be made fairly small with suitable materials.

A different but equally interesting question: is there any intuitive,
or simple mathematical, way of explaining why an electrically short
antenna couples into free space in such a way that its radiation
resistance is very low compared with a resonant antenna, and highly
reactive? Because this property is what makes short antennas hard to
use in practice. And must result from some property of its radiation
behaviour, conceivably related to your original postulate which I am
afraid I do not have the maths to understand.


You seem to be 'cross threaded' Roger, not to mentioned confusing your
IDs. Why not leave your socks off, now you've been outed.

Anyway, to the technical stuff.

I covered this earlier, in another thread.

Consider the Radiation Resistance, Loss Resistance, and reactive
element which determine the eff., and Zo.
(The reactive element represents the energy 'stored' in the field
around the antenna- just like the energy stored in an inductor or
capacitor, both reactive components.)

A short dipole, for example, will be a poor match but RRLR. Provided
the feeder loss is low, either by good matching or the use of low loss
feeder (assuming the PA is 'happy') then the overall losses are low and
the RF only has one place to go, to be radiated.

A short dipole has other issues, in particular if matching is used to
overcome the issue of the Zo, then the matching network plus antenna
will have a very narrow bandwidth (compared to a full sized dipole) and
adjustment will be essential to maintain efficiency if the frequency of
operation is changed.

Remember, the use of 'standard' Zo of 50 or 75 ohm is not essential,
nor is maintaining a feeder SWR of 1.5, provided the PA can cope and
feeder loss can be tolerated/reduced (eg by using open wire feeder).

Those who don't really understand what is going on get all 'hung up' re
SWR. In fact it really causes two real issues. If the PA is forced to
operate outside of its safe area of operation, damage may result. (RF
does not 'go back into' the PA, as some think, the impedances are all
wrong for that) and feed loss. If the PA can 'cope' with what is being
asked of it and the feed is low loss (eg open wire), a high SWR on the
feeder is not really problem. In fact, adding a matching unit may
degrade overall performance.

As to the 'postulate', pure nonsense. Some terms he has read, thrown
together so as to try and give the impression he understands things.

When it this was pointed out, he got riled and start his tirade. As
normal. You know as well as I do the pattern, even if you refuse to
admit it due to you leftie bias against anyone who dares not to be a
leftie.

All very true, and commonplace to most of us, but doesn't address the
question as to *why* the short antenna has such inconvenient properties.

--

Percy Picacity

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On 18/10/14 14:34, Percy Picacity wrote:
On 2014-10-18 13:17:13 +0000, Brian Reay said:

On 18/10/14 11:17, Percy Picacity wrote:
On 2014-10-17 17:50:55 +0000, gareth said:

something unrelated to the OP


Can I go back to your original question, and perhaps recast it in a way
that is more useful for discussion?

I think we have to accept that once you can get energy *into* a small
antenna it radiates just as well as a large one, apart from resistive
losses which can be made fairly small with suitable materials.

A different but equally interesting question: is there any intuitive,
or simple mathematical, way of explaining why an electrically short
antenna couples into free space in such a way that its radiation
resistance is very low compared with a resonant antenna, and highly
reactive? Because this property is what makes short antennas hard to
use in practice. And must result from some property of its radiation
behaviour, conceivably related to your original postulate which I am
afraid I do not have the maths to understand.


You seem to be 'cross threaded' Roger, not to mentioned confusing your
IDs. Why not leave your socks off, now you've been outed.

Anyway, to the technical stuff.

I covered this earlier, in another thread.

Consider the Radiation Resistance, Loss Resistance, and reactive
element which determine the eff., and Zo.
(The reactive element represents the energy 'stored' in the field
around the antenna- just like the energy stored in an inductor or
capacitor, both reactive components.)

A short dipole, for example, will be a poor match but RRLR. Provided
the feeder loss is low, either by good matching or the use of low loss
feeder (assuming the PA is 'happy') then the overall losses are low
and the RF only has one place to go, to be radiated.

A short dipole has other issues, in particular if matching is used to
overcome the issue of the Zo, then the matching network plus antenna
will have a very narrow bandwidth (compared to a full sized dipole) and
adjustment will be essential to maintain efficiency if the frequency
of operation is changed.

Remember, the use of 'standard' Zo of 50 or 75 ohm is not essential,
nor is maintaining a feeder SWR of 1.5, provided the PA can cope and
feeder loss can be tolerated/reduced (eg by using open wire feeder).

Those who don't really understand what is going on get all 'hung up'
re SWR. In fact it really causes two real issues. If the PA is forced
to operate outside of its safe area of operation, damage may result.
(RF does not 'go back into' the PA, as some think, the impedances are
all wrong for that) and feed loss. If the PA can 'cope' with what is
being asked of it and the feed is low loss (eg open wire), a high SWR
on the feeder is not really problem. In fact, adding a matching unit
may degrade overall performance.

As to the 'postulate', pure nonsense. Some terms he has read, thrown
together so as to try and give the impression he understands things.

When it this was pointed out, he got riled and start his tirade. As
normal. You know as well as I do the pattern, even if you refuse to
admit it due to you leftie bias against anyone who dares not to be a
leftie.

All very true, and commonplace to most of us, but doesn't address the
question as to *why* the short antenna has such inconvenient properties.


Really?

Why not think about what you need to change in the above to change things.

Then, in the physical world, what you would need to change to realise
those changes.

All quite logical then.

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

On 2014-10-18 14:19:53 +0000, Brian Reay said:

On 18/10/14 14:34, Percy Picacity wrote:



All very true, and commonplace to most of us, but doesn't address the
question as to *why* the short antenna has such inconvenient properties.


Really?

Why not think about what you need to change in the above to change things.

Then, in the physical world, what you would need to change to realise
those changes.

All quite logical then.

I don't think you have said a great deal there; anyone got any
suggestions? I am prepared to accept that there may not be any useful
analogy for what is going on in the maths governing the behaviour of
radiators, but does anyone think there is a simple way to explain it?
I suspect this is really what Gareth was trying to describe in his
original post but I don't think that explains it to me.

--

Percy Picacity

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

Setting aside your deep-seated need to resort to gratuitous abuse at the
bottom of your post, you seem to be confused, for the discrepancy in
radiation
has got nothing whatsoever to do with the feeder or with Z0.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Consider the Radiation Resistance, Loss Resistance, and reactive element
which determine the eff., and Zo.
(The reactive element represents the energy 'stored' in the field around
the antenna- just like the energy stored in an inductor or capacitor, both
reactive components.)

No, it does not, for a 1/2 wave dipole has such energy stored in the near
field,
but it is not reactive.

The apparent reactivity is because the wave reflected from the end of a
shprt antenna
is well out of phase with the feed.


A short dipole, for example, will be a poor match but RRLR.

That is not true, especially in the case of those down at 137 kHz, where the
loss resistance is higher than the apparent radiation resistance by an order
of magnitude, which is why the published designs feed 1kW from the TX to
get 1W erp.

Provided the feeder loss is low, either by good matching or the use of low
loss feeder (assuming the PA is 'happy')

The feeder has now to do with the performance of a short antenna.


the RF only has one place to go, to be radiated.

Or reflectd back from the open end, just as happens with the standing
wave that is the 1/2 wave dipole. A short antenna does not have a standing
wave.

A short dipole has other issues, in particular if matching is used to
overcome the issue of the Zo, then the matching network plus antenna will
have a very narrow bandwidth (compared to a full sized dipole) and
adjustment will be essential to maintain efficiency if the frequency of
operation is changed.

not relevant.

Remember, the use of 'standard' Zo of 50 or 75 ohm is not essential, nor
is maintaining a feeder SWR of 1.5, provided the PA can cope and feeder
loss can be tolerated/reduced (eg by using open wire feeder).

not relevant


Those who don't really understand what is going on get all 'hung up' re
SWR. In fact it really causes two real issues. If the PA is forced to
operate outside of its safe area of operation, damage may result. (RF does
not 'go back into' the PA, as some think, the impedances are all wrong for
that)

Nonsense. the reflected energy can cause the maximum operating
characteristics
of the PA to be exceeded. How else could damage be caused?


As to the 'postulate', pure nonsense. Some terms he has read, thrown
together so as to try and give the impression he understands things.

Once again, it is you who originates the gratuitous abuse. You really cannot
help yourself, can you, Sonny?


When it this was pointed out, he got riled and start his tirade.

Untrue.

As normal. You know as well as I do the pattern, even if you refuse to
admit it due to you leftie bias against anyone who dares not to be a
leftie.

Oh, for god's sake, sonny, that is completely random and out of place.

Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

As to the 'postulate', pure nonsense. Some terms he has read, thrown
together so as to try and give the impression he understands things.

Listen, Sonny, I graduated in electronics, specialising in computer and
communication engineering when you were still sobbing and screaming
in your soiled nappies.

Despite what you have said at length, largely a wall-of-text of diversionary
irrelevancies,
you have not ventured anything apposite to the discussion.