wrote:

Gentlemen
I have in the past alluded not only radiation from a straight element but
also the ADDITION of radiation
occuring from a bent element. Nobody has commented on the authentisity of
this statement and I have not come acros anything in my own collection of
books.
Now my present antenna consists of various loops connected in both a
clockwise and clockwise radiation form such that the circular polarisation
cancells leaving pure vertical polarisation.. The loops are separatred in a
way that intercapacity of the spiral loops is reduced as well as circular
cancellation All of this is based on my gut feeling that R.F.current flowing
around a circular radiating element. What I ask for for those who have a
deeper background of R.F. is verification of my assumption
that extra radiation becomes available.

It does not. If you apply 100 watts to an antenna, 100 watts is
available to radiate, less any amount dissipated as heat. This applies
to EVERY antenna, from a rubber duckie to a zillion-element Yagi with a
boom you can walk on. No bending, adding of elements, supergain, loops,
or magic will give you any "extra radiation" above that. All you can do
with all the possible tricks there are is to concentrate some of that
100 watts in some directions at the expense of others.

Appreciate any comments on this irregular aproach as I cxannot find guidance
in the books.
A serious question regarding added radiation from an element in the hope
that insight is provided even tho it may expose the fallacy of my aproach.

My statement above is based on the law of conservation of energy, which
it sounds like you're trying to violate. If you think it's possible,
you'd make a lot more money by putting your effort into developing a
perpetual motion machine.

Thanks in advance
Art

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Points raised noticed and placed in my thoughts bag to digest.
With respect to radiation I revolve solidly about accedleratio during a
point in time, accelleration required to negotiat a turn which even at
constant speed create acceleration and lastly arangements that create more
current without the loss of energy of which I see as coupling. Since I am
pretty much self taught because of a loss of memory onslaught it is easy to
build on sand without a true geoligists report which is not available when
one works alone. Thus I am curious as to where exactly I have gone astray by
not having a thorough education in R.F. workings. So if there is cycliic
increases of radiation per unit length then I see the same unit length in
spiral form introduces an addition vector of forces that I translate into
radiation, I have a history of not being able to adequately explaining my
thought so hopefully the above will assist in explaining my thought
processes even tho they may seem totally rediculus to those edu8cated in the
field of whom I ask for correction.
From how I see it I have not viotated any laws with this thinking but now is
the time for me to put things in there proper place.and accepted without
rancour.
Regards
Art

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Gentlemen
I have in the past alluded not only radiation from a straight element
but
also the ADDITION of radiation
occuring from a bent element. Nobody has commented on the authentisity
of
this statement and I have not come acros anything in my own collection
of
books.
Now my present antenna consists of various loops connected in both a
clockwise and clockwise radiation form such that the circular
polarisation
cancells leaving pure vertical polarisation.. The loops are separatred
in a
way that intercapacity of the spiral loops is reduced as well as
circular
cancellation All of this is based on my gut feeling that R.F.current
flowing
around a circular radiating element. What I ask for for those who have a
deeper background of R.F. is verification of my assumption
that extra radiation becomes available.

It does not. If you apply 100 watts to an antenna, 100 watts is
available to radiate, less any amount dissipated as heat. This applies
to EVERY antenna, from a rubber duckie to a zillion-element Yagi with a
boom you can walk on. No bending, adding of elements, supergain, loops,
or magic will give you any "extra radiation" above that. All you can do
with all the possible tricks there are is to concentrate some of that
100 watts in some directions at the expense of others.

Appreciate any comments on this irregular aproach as I cxannot find
guidance
in the books.
A serious question regarding added radiation from an element in the hope
that insight is provided even tho it may expose the fallacy of my
aproach.

My statement above is based on the law of conservation of energy, which
it sounds like you're trying to violate. If you think it's possible,
you'd make a lot more money by putting your effort into developing a
perpetual motion machine.

Thanks in advance
Art

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

The law of conservation of energy is a touchstone you should always use
as a reality check for whatever theory you have. If your theory leads to
a conclusion that contradicts that law, then either your theory is wrong
or there was an error in some step along the way from the theory to the
conclusion.

Or you belong to the perpetual motion machine crowd.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:

Points raised noticed and placed in my thoughts bag to digest.
With respect to radiation I revolve solidly about accedleratio during a
point in time, accelleration required to negotiat a turn which even at
constant speed create acceleration and lastly arangements that create more
current without the loss of energy of which I see as coupling. Since I am
pretty much self taught because of a loss of memory onslaught it is easy to
build on sand without a true geoligists report which is not available when
one works alone. Thus I am curious as to where exactly I have gone astray by
not having a thorough education in R.F. workings. So if there is cycliic
increases of radiation per unit length then I see the same unit length in
spiral form introduces an addition vector of forces that I translate into
radiation, I have a history of not being able to adequately explaining my
thought so hopefully the above will assist in explaining my thought
processes even tho they may seem totally rediculus to those edu8cated in the
field of whom I ask for correction.
From how I see it I have not viotated any laws with this thinking but now is
the time for me to put things in there proper place.and accepted without
rancour.
Regards
Art

Roy if I have violated Newtons laws please inform me were I did that . I
admit you did not say that I did , but
surely you would not made a comment that was unrelated..............would
you ? I am only presenting a point of view, not to assure to all that I am
correct but to ascertain the error of that logic and certainly not to
advance the theory of perpetual motion even tho you may view me as an idiot
to ask such a silly question on this forum. If one is unsure even on the
most simple of things
then he is doomed to remain simple because he exposed his underbelly for
target practice.by asking for assistance

Art

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
The law of conservation of energy is a touchstone you should always use
as a reality check for whatever theory you have. If your theory leads to
a conclusion that contradicts that law, then either your theory is wrong
or there was an error in some step along the way from the theory to the
conclusion.

Or you belong to the perpetual motion machine crowd.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:

Points raised noticed and placed in my thoughts bag to digest.
With respect to radiation I revolve solidly about accedleratio during a
point in time, accelleration required to negotiat a turn which even at
constant speed create acceleration and lastly arangements that create
more
current without the loss of energy of which I see as coupling. Since I
am
pretty much self taught because of a loss of memory onslaught it is easy
to
build on sand without a true geoligists report which is not available
when
one works alone. Thus I am curious as to where exactly I have gone
astray by
not having a thorough education in R.F. workings. So if there is cycliic
increases of radiation per unit length then I see the same unit length
in
spiral form introduces an addition vector of forces that I translate
into
radiation, I have a history of not being able to adequately explaining
my
thought so hopefully the above will assist in explaining my thought
processes even tho they may seem totally rediculus to those edu8cated in
the
field of whom I ask for correction.
From how I see it I have not viotated any laws with this thinking but
now is
the time for me to put things in there proper place.and accepted without
rancour.
Regards
Art

You can rest assured that you haven't violated the law of conservation
of energy. Newton's laws aren't quite so absolute, so who knows, maybe
you did bend one or another. You wouldn't be the first -- do a web
search on "ultraviolet catastrophe".

Anyone should feel free to present a point of view. But if it
contradicts the law of conservation of energy, it's wrong.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:
Roy if I have violated Newtons laws please inform me were I did that . I
admit you did not say that I did , but
surely you would not made a comment that was unrelated..............would
you ? I am only presenting a point of view, not to assure to all that I am
correct but to ascertain the error of that logic and certainly not to
advance the theory of perpetual motion even tho you may view me as an idiot
to ask such a silly question on this forum. If one is unsure even on the
most simple of things
then he is doomed to remain simple because he exposed his underbelly for
target practice.by asking for assistance

Art

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Anyone should feel free to present a point of view. But if it
contradicts the law of conservation of energy, it's wrong.

What about the assertion that net energy obeys the conservation
of energy principle but individual energy components do not
have to?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

wrote:
With respect to radiation I revolve solidly about accedleratio during
a point in time, accelleration required to negotiat a turn which even
at constant speed create acceleration

You really *are* related to Stanley Unwin, aren't you?


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

You mean in the way I cripple the english language?
I guess I could be
Regards
Art
"Ian White, G3SEK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
With respect to radiation I revolve solidly about accedleratio during
a point in time, accelleration required to negotiat a turn which even
at constant speed create acceleration

You really *are* related to Stanley Unwin, aren't you?


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek