Ok, so the acceleration is in the phase-shifting between the adjacent coils
?
If I interpret that correctly, then its not a 'real' acceleration, but a
simulated acceleration - much like using pulsating DC to generate simulated
AC.
If you could describe it in terms a normal dummy like myself could
understand or at least draw a better picture, your theory may be taken more
seriously.
You say Roy's word is not good enough - But Roy has demonstrated his
expertise in this area time and time again.
I come here to learn from folks like Roy - and to inject some of my own
thoughts from time to time.
You come to the group asking for comments - and you got them.
You did not speak in terms of technical details - so a reply using technical
details may not be deserved.
There is no disgrace in asking questions (like you said) - but rejecting
expert opinions can be seen as a disgrace in some instances.


" wrote in message
news:dJeUc.269797$%_6.33856@attbi_s01...
Hi Hal, nice to meet you
What I have is not really a prposition or a legitimate theory, it is just
something that apears to be in error but I do not understand why so I
wanted
something we had to e4xplain in exams which came from first principles. It
was basic pricipals that I was looking for wether it be a comparison of
area
under a current curve per unit length compared to area when applied to a
circle or even possibly a mathematical analusis. Roys says I am in error
and
should accept it because he said so. He is knoweledgable but just his word
is not good enough.
Richard came in with his bag of tricks with the introduction of "power"
which if nothing is stated he is off and running with an augument on the
net. Ofcourse I did not fall for it, Soooooo I am reconciled to the
fact
that
there is not enough pertinent knoweledge out there that can allow
reasonable discussion.
Still I find no discrace in asking the question even tho it may advertise
my
own lack of knoweledge.
Note you referenced speed per unit length in terms of frequency where as
I
was refering to a constant speed
where the energy input should have transpire3d into acceleration buyt
instead added another vector that like a race care going round a circular
circuit. This is going at constant speed all the time with the foot hard
nown on the accelorator to counteract centrifugal forces evidenced by a
spray of dirt that continues at a consistent rate and not in cyclic form
if
one accelerates on a straight runway.
In both cases we have constant speeds but we also have a difference in
phases. Enough said. I have typed up the program to check things out again
which has amounted to 400 wire segments plus the use of 20 variables to
gauge the distances between each succesive coils so I can build the darn
thing again from scratch and thus satisfy myself
on the why's and where fores rather than partaking in what will become a
slanging thread that occurs in a somewhat regular fashion. If I am remiss
on
missing an actual true posting that discusses in detaILwhat I was
asking for then please draw my attention to it as I seemed somehow to have
missed it
Very best regards
Art
,
"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
...
Art,
An interesting proposition. Acceleration of a radio wave.
If this succeeds, then does this mean that the wave travels 'faster'
than
other waves?
If that's true - and the wave does travels faster - then it follows that
the
*length* of the propogated wave would be shorter.
If the length is shorter - then we would perceive it as a shift in
frequency - because we assume all RF travels at the same speed.
For instance - if the wave 'started off' 2 meters long - and was
accelerated
to double the speed, then the wavelength would be only one meter long.
Our assumptions may be invalid.
We can only base our responses on what we have learned, but if this is
new,
then it folllows that we have not learned it yet.
Let's hear more about your theory.

" wrote in
message
news:VH6Uc.324209$XM6.205186@attbi_s53...
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.
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.
Thanks in advance
Art




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/30/2004

"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
...
Ok, so the acceleration is in the phase-shifting between the adjacent
coils
?
If I interpret that correctly, then its not a 'real' acceleration, but a
simulated acceleration - much like using pulsating DC to generate
simulated
AC.
Well radiation is certainly a series of "pulses" as the radiation consists
of enclosed
waves and yet the speed of generation is constant and only the constituents
of total energy
undergo change. This is how I visualise creation of radiation on a straight
element.
Now we come to a element that is circular. I still see the generation
of radiation as generated on a strraight radiator but I now see that the
radiation has a component
as shown by a added vector as in centrifugal force which because the
radiator is circular
is constant. Now I am not proposing a new theory I am asking for a an
explanation why this is fallacious
Art

If you could describe it in terms a normal dummy like myself could
understand or at least draw a better picture, your theory may be taken
more
seriously.
You say Roy's word is not good enough - But Roy has demonstrated his
expertise in this area time and time again.
I come here to learn from folks like Roy - and to inject some of my own
thoughts from time to time.


Don't we all ? But sometimes Roy's words of wisdom does not satisfy the
questioner
asks for the underpinnings of the statement. Roy feels an answer from him is
all that is required
as in the word of God and he is not interested in trivialities and may even
leave the group for a while

You come to the group asking for comments - and you got them.
You did not speak in terms of technical details - so a reply using
technical
details may not be deserved.

There is no disgrace in asking questions (like you said) - but rejecting
expert opinions can be seen as a disgrace in some instances.


I agree but a answer that states it does not obey natures laws if one cannot
supply the illustration on how it occurs
so any request for backup can easily be seen as rejection by some since the
words of God have been given

" wrote in
message
news:dJeUc.269797$%_6.33856@attbi_s01...
Hi Hal, nice to meet you
delete What I have is not really a prposition or a legitimate theory, it
is just
so

Egad. Please go back and read my postings. All I've said is that you
can't violate the law of conservation of energy. You shouldn't believe
this fundamental principle because Roy says you should -- you should
believe it because you've got a grasp of high school level physics, and
if you don't have a grasp of high school level physics, perhaps you
should get one before getting too carried away with theories about the
nature of radiation.

Of course, ignorance is bliss. If you disbelieve or simply choose to
ignore conservation of energy, you're then able to make perpetual motion
machines and other wonders, including any number of miracle antennas.

And Art, quit whining that "Roy feels an answer from him is
all that is required as in the word of God". What's required is that you
take the effort to learn a little fundamental physics. I'm sure you can
find an adequate explanation of the law of conservation of energy on the
web if you have an aversion to books -- written by someone other than
Roy. I'm not going to spoon-feed it to a reluctant learner.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:
. . . Roys says I am in error and
should accept it because he said so. He is knoweledgable but just his
word
is not good enough. . .

Hal Rosser wrote:
. . . You say Roy's word is not good enough - But Roy has
demonstrated his expertise in this area time and time again. . .

wrote:
. . .But sometimes Roy's words of wisdom does not satisfy the
questioner
asks for the underpinnings of the statement. Roy feels an answer from him is
all that is required
as in the word of God and he is not interested in trivialities and may even
leave the group for a while . . .

" wrote in message
news:1wnUc.272613$%_6.270403@attbi_s01...

"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
...
Ok, so the acceleration is in the phase-shifting between the adjacent
coils
?
If I interpret that correctly, then its not a 'real' acceleration, but a
simulated acceleration - much like using pulsating DC to generate
simulated
AC.
Well radiation is certainly a series of "pulses" as the radiation consists
of enclosed
waves and yet the speed of generation is constant and only the
constituents
of total energy
undergo change. This is how I visualise creation of radiation on a
straight
element.
Now we come to a element that is circular. I still see the generation
of radiation as generated on a strraight radiator but I now see that the
radiation has a component
as shown by a added vector as in centrifugal force which because the
radiator is circular
is constant. Now I am not proposing a new theory I am asking for a an
explanation why this is fallacious
Art

If you could describe it in terms a normal dummy like myself could
understand or at least draw a better picture, your theory may be taken
more
seriously.
You say Roy's word is not good enough - But Roy has demonstrated his
expertise in this area time and time again.
I come here to learn from folks like Roy - and to inject some of my own
thoughts from time to time.


Don't we all ? But sometimes Roy's words of wisdom does not satisfy the
questioner
asks for the underpinnings of the statement. Roy feels an answer from him
is
all that is required
as in the word of God and he is not interested in trivialities and may
even
leave the group for a while

You come to the group asking for comments - and you got them.
You did not speak in terms of technical details - so a reply using
technical
details may not be deserved.

There is no disgrace in asking questions (like you said) - but rejecting
expert opinions can be seen as a disgrace in some instances.


I agree but a answer that states it does not obey natures laws if one
cannot
supply the illustration on how it occurs
so any request for backup can easily be seen as rejection by some since
the
words of God have been given

" wrote in
message
news:dJeUc.269797$%_6.33856@attbi_s01...
Hi Hal, nice to meet you
delete What I have is not really a prposition or a legitimate theory,
it
is just
so


You will not get a meaningful answer to this because it is not a meanigful
question. It is just techno-babble.
OK if your are trolling have a good laugh on me, You have rattled this
monkey's cage. If not, I feel for you. You have serious problems.

Hi Hal
I'LL be happy to explain where I am coming from but this time I will try to
explain my thoughts
in a non technical way which may be seen as folksy which may well bring some
caustic comments
but I do owe it to all since I asked for help.
First
My aiim is to negate the onslaught of inductance and capacitance to ward
off rapid changes in
impedances
Secondly
I want to see what changes occur by using corregated material as radiators
compared to smooth surfaces..
Now I will rerlate how my thought processes work even tho they may be
totally out of whack
but it will help to explain the terms I use.

If one looks at an A.C. generator it can be seen that the shaft rotates at a
constant speed and
it helps to see this by attaching a ball on a string and tieing it to the
shaft. The circular motion when looking at the shaft endwise
makes the circular pattern very obvios. If however, you look at the shaft
side ways on what you will see is a ball going up and down
either siode of the shaft. If one moves the generator a short distance as
the ball takes one revolution
a sinosoidal; trace will be apparent arount the shaft axis which can be
interprete by some as showing acceleration and deceleration of current
even tho that hwich generates this trace or graph is rotating at a constant
spoeed
( This being important because it may be synonamous to some as compared to
the speed of light)
Now let us look at another version of movement in that the generator instead
of moving in a linear motion takes on a circular motion
and where the rotary speed of the shaft still revolves at a constant speed.
From this. we can say that the speed of energy along the radiator is still
the same as in the first example ,but what is different?
If the generator was moved forward in the fiirst instance there was an equal
and opposite reaction force which can be seen
as a cloud of dust as a car accelerates forward. In the second instance the
car traveling around a circular course showers dust in a continual
fashon away from the track even though it is proceding at a constant speed.
If we try to generate a graph of current versus time the dust generated on
a circular track is a constant i.e. then also the current
level on the graph must also be a constant value.
Now let us look at a current flow on a load on a antenna such as a coil
which is hellicaly wound.
We know that the phase will be constant around the first loop but in this
case we have added inductance and capacitance by virtue
of the close proximity of the next coil and the next coil e.t.c which varies
the impedance along the wire and thus rapidly effects
a movement away from a purely resistive impedance. This lead me into
separating the coils from each other by juxtaposition
so that inductances were not additive ( I reversed the coil direction as
well as positioning them apart.)
Since all these coils are connected in series one must hope for a
intercoupling effect will bring the current down on these
vertical portions in the event that radiation from them are of the correct
choice, either additive or detractive.
Thus the project is repeated from what I have done in the past only this
time I am using numourus loops in the event that
resulting antenna height will be eye opening as well as very broad banded.
As a follow up the corregations on the loops will be
removed by laying on the surfaces a flat adhesived back aluminum tape(Ihave
no copper tape) To try and ascertain what changes
occur by having a smooth surface radiator
Well Hal there you have it, possibly to long, possibly everything is wrong
and again possibly hopeless to understand
but it the best I can do
Regards
Art






"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
...
Ok, so the acceleration is in the phase-shifting between the adjacent
coils
?
If I interpret that correctly, then its not a 'real' acceleration, but a
simulated acceleration - much like using pulsating DC to generate
simulated
AC.
If you could describe it in terms a normal dummy like myself could
understand or at least draw a better picture, your theory may be taken
more
seriously.
You say Roy's word is not good enough - But Roy has demonstrated his
expertise in this area time and time again.
I come here to learn from folks like Roy - and to inject some of my own
thoughts from time to time.
You come to the group asking for comments - and you got them.
You did not speak in terms of technical details - so a reply using
technical
details may not be deserved.
There is no disgrace in asking questions (like you said) - but rejecting
expert opinions can be seen as a disgrace in some instances.


" wrote in
message
news:dJeUc.269797$%_6.33856@attbi_s01...
Hi Hal, nice to meet you
What I have is not really a prposition or a legitimate theory, it is
just