| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:05:41 GMT, "
wrote: verification of my assumption that extra radiation becomes available. Hi Art, Extra? From where? What is the source? If it is the same source, then it is not Extra, but simply managed to fit a need. In this sense you still have to balance the budget of what you got, and what you radiate and what you lose (to heat). The budget does not allow Extras. The budget does however allow you to transfer balances as long as you maintain the same total. In this sense, it is like stacking elements with the correct phase relationships to move radiation that would have gone to the clouds, towards the horizon. You are still radiating the same power, but the relationship change has netted more of it going in a direction more suitable to your needs. Now, as to the matter of bends in the antenna doing this; then the literature is rich in examples to this matter. The Franklin antenna comes to mind. It has lots of bends specifically tailored to create this budget shift. It has been around for 70 or 80 years? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes Richard the literature does abound with bent antennas, even yagis to
obtain a particular performance. I know that there are "curls" in fields and waves analysis but I view travering a circle at a constantspeed as generation of a force vector as in centrifugal force which I probably falsly have placed in the radiation category. If I am incorrect I need to understand why so that I can rebuild my thought processes. Modelling the antenna shows insights that i had not realised before causing me to make an actual antenna for follow up. Regards Art "Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:05:41 GMT, " wrote: verification of my assumption that extra radiation becomes available. Hi Art, Extra? From where? What is the source? If it is the same source, then it is not Extra, but simply managed to fit a need. In this sense you still have to balance the budget of what you got, and what you radiate and what you lose (to heat). The budget does not allow Extras. The budget does however allow you to transfer balances as long as you maintain the same total. In this sense, it is like stacking elements with the correct phase relationships to move radiation that would have gone to the clouds, towards the horizon. You are still radiating the same power, but the relationship change has netted more of it going in a direction more suitable to your needs. Now, as to the matter of bends in the antenna doing this; then the literature is rich in examples to this matter. The Franklin antenna comes to mind. It has lots of bends specifically tailored to create this budget shift. It has been around for 70 or 80 years? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:31:03 GMT, "
wrote: If I am incorrect I need to understand why Hi Art, Because "Extra" in the budget does not balance. If you get more power OUT because it is going in a circle, then you FIRST have to put more power IN to get into that same circle. There is no extra left. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Richard I need more explanation than that because power is somewhat
irrelevant. Radiation in my mind (and I must be now worst off than I really thougt) is accelleration and decelleration of current which is certainly not power which in my mind is Isquared R. Thus if voltage is increased current decreases and therefore radiation decreases.( see effects of very close coupling of a parallel circuit) I really do not know where you are coming from, it seems so glib! This is not meant in a demeaning way, I just don't want to mix apples with oranges at this point in time. . Current through a member travels at a constant speed but with cyclic variations in radiation. Travel in a circle is also at constant speed but with a CONSTANT radiation per unit length. Where exactly is the error in my logic? I suspect it has to do with relative phase angles but I need it explained in every day language regards Art "Richard Clark" wrote in message news ![]() On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:31:03 GMT, " wrote: If I am incorrect I need to understand why Hi Art, Because "Extra" in the budget does not balance. If you get more power OUT because it is going in a circle, then you FIRST have to put more power IN to get into that same circle. There is no extra left. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:40:12 GMT, "
wrote: Richard I need more explanation than that because power is somewhat irrelevant. You then broach the remainder of your post in terms of acceleration - which requires power, and deceleration which begats power. There is no room for "extra" in the power budget. Radiation in my mind (and I must be now worst off than I really thougt) is accelleration and decelleration of current I recognize this as a commonplace expression in this group (not unique to you by any means). It is one of the most ill-conceived statements ever to come down the pike and your conundrum (as for others) in trying to retrofit it into a theory is part and parcel to its poor analogy. I need it explained in every day language Hi Art, The plain, every day language of budgets is there. If you cannot balance that simple ledger, then you have scant chance of understanding the larger enigma. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Transmission line radiation | Antenna | |||
| Cardiod radiation pattern - 70 cm phased vertical dipoles | Antenna | |||
| Radiation Resistance & Efficiency | Antenna | |||
| Incoming radiation angles | Antenna | |||
| Measuring radiation resistance | Antenna | |||