| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Serious radiation questin
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 |
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 |
|
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 ... 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Hal Rosser wrote:
. . . 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. . . . You're too late -- the hyper-light-speed antenna has already been invented -- and patented. See U.S. patent #6,025,810. You'll have to do some splicing if the following link is broken by word wrap. Or it's easy to find at http://www.uspto.gov. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6025810 Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Roy,
the link worked as-is I saw a TV special (I think it was on Nova) talking about 'string theory' - that antenna invention mentions mutliple dimensions - and so does the string theory- But they (nova) hypothesize that we would need 'gravity waves' (not EM waves) to communicate into another dimension. "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message ... You're too late -- the hyper-light-speed antenna has already been invented -- and patented. See U.S. patent #6,025,810. You'll have to do some splicing if the following link is broken by word wrap. Or it's easy to find at http://www.uspto.gov. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6025810 Roy Lewallen, W7EL --- 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 |
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 |
wrote:
I suspect it has to do with relative phase angles but I need it explained in every day language Art, a single RF traveling-wave wire has a natural Z0 in the ballpark of 600 ohms which sets the V/I (E/H field) ratio. The feedpoint current and the current at any point on a standing-wave antenna is the phasor sum of the forward current and the reflected current. Vf/If and Vr/Ir remain in the ballpark of 600 ohms but Vf+Vr and If+Ir vary up and down the wire. The current is high at a 1/2WL dipole feedpoint because If and Ir are in phase at that point. The current is low at a 1WL dipole feedpoint because If and Ir are out of phase at that point. But If is approximately the same for both antennas and Ir is approximately the same for both antennas. That's why the superposed If+Ir at the bottom of a loading coil is not usually equal to the superposed If+Ir at the top of a loading coil. Each of the two currents indeed has close to a constant magnitude through the coil but the phases of If and Ir are changing in opposite directions. Thus their sums are different except for the special case where the relative phase difference is equal at both ends of the coil. But for understanding RF radiation, If is fairly constant and Ir is fairly constant, and each of those currents cause radiation. Thinking about a terminated Rhombic Vs an unterminated Rhombic will separate the two processes out in your mind. -- 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! =----- |
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! =----- |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:13:14 GMT, "
wrote: Soooooo I am reconciled to the fact that there is not enough pertinent knoweledge out there that can allow reasonable discussion. In otherwords you are trolling. |
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 |
No Richard I am not trolling I am very serious. At the same time I am always
wary of any aproach by you as the subject always get shifted and then we are off to the races. Cecil pointed it out correctly with respect to power. If you were to solve a parallel circuit using complex circuit methyods the criteria is energy conservation but where individual parts change their form of energy s we cannot glibly say that it revoves about power or that I am referring to perpetual motion which is how Roy dismisses the thread but with no supporting data. Now you say that accelleration and decellaration of protons are not the true basis for radiation which certainly suggests that the subject is moot as the question starts off with a fallacy. Art "Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:13:14 GMT, " wrote: Soooooo I am reconciled to the fact that there is not enough pertinent knoweledge out there that can allow reasonable discussion. In otherwords you are trolling. |
"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$%_6.33856@attbi_s01... Hi Hal, nice to meet you delete What I have is not really a prposition or a legitimate theory, it is just so |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:49:21 GMT, "
wrote: No Richard I am not trolling I am very serious. No Art, you are trolling. There is no one in this group who could accelerate charge without power BUT YOU? Absurd in the extreme! You have shown absolutely no interest in participating in a rational discussion about the requirments of circular motion, but instead you cavalierly discard all of established physics going back to Newton. Hence your contempt of the topic clearly reveals you are trolling. |
You are welcome to your opinion and it has been duly noted and you can now
move on. I have no intention of accepting your bait for another raucuos R.R.A.A. battle upon which you thrive upon to create division. Art "Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:49:21 GMT, " wrote: No Richard I am not trolling I am very serious. No Art, you are trolling. There is no one in this group who could accelerate charge without power BUT YOU? Absurd in the extreme! You have shown absolutely no interest in participating in a rational discussion about the requirments of circular motion, but instead you cavalierly discard all of established physics going back to Newton. Hence your contempt of the topic clearly reveals you are trolling. |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:15:50 GMT, "
wrote: You are welcome to your opinion and it has been duly noted and you can now move on. I have no intention of accepting your bait for another raucuos R.R.A.A. battle upon which you thrive upon to create division. More troll bait |
" wrote in message news:VH6Uc.324209$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 Not knowing how you came to your conclusion no one can tell you why you are wrong.. My uncle used to have a paint and body shop with a 57 Chevy up on a pole in front of his shop. While the car would make an awful antenna it would be futile to try to explain why. In another way of saying it would be like explaining to a student how he missed a math problem when all he shows is an answer. The best the instructor can do is tell him he is right or wrong. In your case the instructor would not even be sure which problem he had done. |
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:l9nUc.268067$a24.245272@attbi_s03... No Richard I am not trolling I am very serious. At the same time I am always wary of any aproach by you as the subject always get shifted and then we are off to the races. Cecil pointed it out correctly with respect to power. If you were to solve a parallel circuit using complex circuit methyods the criteria is energy conservation but where individual parts change their form of energy s we cannot glibly say that it revoves about power or that I am referring to perpetual motion which is how Roy dismisses the thread but with no supporting data. Now you say that accelleration and decellaration of protons are not the true basis for radiation which certainly suggests that the subject is moot as the question starts off with a fallacy. Art "Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:13:14 GMT, " wrote: Soooooo I am reconciled to the fact that there is not enough pertinent knoweledge out there that can allow reasonable discussion. In otherwords you are trolling. While I do not believe you are trolling I can understand why others would believe you are. I was not certain for a long time. The problem seems to be a lack of common knowledge between you and those whom you are trying to converse. To explain to you why you are wrong you first have to be educated in antenna theory at least to an elementary degree. Unfortunately you tend to reject the knowledge that other have learned over time, You read and try to bend facts to fit your own preconceived ideas instead of taking them at their face value. Frankly trying to explain something to you is so tedious that most people just give up. If you truly want to learn you should try a classroom environment. This is the wrong place to get all the information you want starting at the ground up. |
" wrote in message news:1wnUc.272613$%_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. |
Art is obviously a well educated person having the ability to express
himself in plain English better than most. Unfortunately the technical content of his writings are pure gibberish, giving an intelligent reader the impression he is having his leg pulled - or being trolled. I cannot make any sense out of what he says and his reasoning. I gave up trying a long time ago. As he so frequently admits, he is unable to understand what he himself is talking about. (Incidentally, Richard, you have Art's characteristics reversed. But the end result is the same - too often I can't understand what it is you are waffling about.) Art, may I suggest that before you write you think in QUANTITATIVE terms about what you want to say. Put some numbers and physical shape into it. Draw pictures. Solve your own problems. Go back to Ohm's Law and square 1. Otherwise you will continue to think in emotional terms without being able even to visualise, to picture, the subject matter. Emotions and feelings are not a part of engineering except on pay-day. But the sheer beauty of deriving equations followed by logical calculation, especially when it gives the right answers, is something which no human should be deprived of. As for Richard, old-man, there's no hope for you. ;o) ---- Reg |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:43:58 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote: we are to consider: Emotions and feelings are not a part of engineering except on pay-day. contradicted within one sentence by: As for Richard, old-man, there's no hope for you. ;o) At last reckoning, for you blokes on the dole, this isn't pay-day. You two are ancient enough to have a grudge against Richard III. Well, that was fun as long as no one cares to talk about serious radiation questions. ;-) Or even calibrated mud.... (talk about a lack of QUANTITATIVE terms) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Jimmy I know what the cuurent curve shows on a radiating element and I
suspect that you do also. Now show me an equivalent current curve for a circle so I can see the differences in area under the current curve. Are they different or are they the same?. If you know where such a comparison is shown and they are different you are then positioned to inform me why. By the same token if they are the same which is how most people see it then I will be better able to resolve my conundrum for myself. Art "Jimmie" wrote in message r.com... " 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 snipNot knowing how you came to your conclusion no one can tell you why you are wrong.. My uncle used to have a paint and body shop with a 57 Chevy up on a pole in front of his shop. While the car would make an awful antenna it would be futile to try to explain why. In another way of saying it would be like explaining to a student how he missed a math problem when all he shows is an answer. The best the instructor can do is tell him he is right or wrong. In your case the instructor would not even be sure which problem he had done. |
Ahhh, what the hell...
" wrote in message news:dJeUc.269797$%_6.33856@attbi_s01... [...snip...] 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. ... Art, First, I re-state your basic situation to see if I understand it: You have a constant speed around a circle. This, indeed does suggest the normal radial acceleration (what is that... V/R^2 ? I don't remember). We know that acceleration is defined as a change in velocity, where velocity consists of both speed and direction. Speed being the distance traveled along a path per unit of time. So, if we change the velocity direction (to always be tangent to the circle) , but not the magnitude (or speed), then we have acceleration - what we call radial acceleration. I believe this all to be true. Are you with me this far and do I have your meaning correctly ? Assuming the answers are yes, I continue to go into the part about energy "transpiring" into something. You say: "the energy input should have transpire3d(sic) into acceleration buyt(sic) instead added another vector". This appears to be saying that something (the acceleration) is _not_ produced by said energy ("should have...") , but rather something else _is_ produced ("...another vector"). The words you use in these two parts describe only one thing, yet you imply (by the words: "buyt instead") that they are different things. Radial acceleration is a vector directed toward the center of the circle. It is the 'radial acceleration vector'. Therefore, if your energy _DID_ "transpire" or more correctly, produce this "other vector" then it _DID_ indeed go to produce the acceleration -- because this vector _IS_ the acceleration. They are ways of talking about the same thing. I can't figure out what you mean. Whether or not it takes energy to cause this circular acceleration is another matter I haven't addressed yet since the basic premises must be cleared up first. I also think you are wondering if this radial acceleration does some special radiation that is different from the radiation of the charge simply by virtue of its 'normal' non circular movement. However that's also another issue, after we clarify the basics here. Then you say: "In both cases we have constant speeds but we also have a difference in phases. " You keep mentioning "constant speed" yet we are talking, I thought, about an antenna with RF current in it. If this is the case, there is _NO_ constant speed of the current. It is constantly varying in a sine wave. It has a sinusoidal speed variation and therefore a sinesiodal acceleration (acceleration being the derivative of velocity and cosine being the derivative of sine) So you seem to be applying two concepts (constant speed and . sinusoidal variation in speed) in one situation. I believe this is invalid and may be the source of your confusion. Also, I don't know where this "phases" comes from. Lost me here unless you are talking about the relative phase of two different windings of this circular wire you mentioned a while ago... Please explain what I have wrong, if the case. Enough said. I have typed up the program [...snip...] What language are you programming in and what formulas are you using ? Steve N. -- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. |
" 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. deletia.......... Thanks in advance Art Art There is radiation due to the acceleration of bending a current, it's called synchrotron radiation. Synchrotron radiation and amateur radio have little or nothing to do with one another. Take elementary school science and report back. 73 H. |
"Steve Nosko" wrote in message ... Ahhh, what the hell... " wrote in message news:dJeUc.269797$%_6.33856@attbi_s01... [...snip...] 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. ... Art, First, I re-state your basic situation to see if I understand it: You have a constant speed around a circle. Yes This, indeed does suggest the normal radial acceleration (what is that... V/R^2 ? I don't remember). Yes We know that acceleration is defined as a change in velocity, where velocity consists of both speed and direction. yes Speed being the distance traveled along a path per unit of time yes .. So, if we change the velocity direction (to always be tangent to the circle) , but not the magnitude (or speed), then we have acceleration - what we call radial acceleration. Not sure if I follow that.with respect to terms If what I said is what you are saying AOK In the case of circular course constant speed energy must be inputed to overcome radial force and ofcourse every action has an equal and opposite reaction I believe this all to be true. Are you with me this far and do I have your meaning correctly ? It would appear so subject to my statements above It would apear that it is so Assuming the answers are yes, I continue to go into the part about energy "transpiring" into something. o.k. You say: "the energy input should have transpire3d(sic) into acceleration buyt(sic) instead added another vector". This appears to be saying that something (the acceleration) is _not_ produced by said energy ("should have...") , but rather something else _is_ produced ("...another vector"). I am saying that energy is inputed to maintain constant speed which can be seen as creating a CONSTANT force vector at a tangent The words you use in these two parts describe only one thing, yet you imply (by the words: "buyt instead") that they are different things. Yes because when the radiator is straight it is phase change that creates cyclic current change ala accelleration. In the case of a circular radiator I understand that there is no phase change a nd the radiation vector is a constant. This may well be the nubb of the misunderstanding. Radial acceleration is a vector directed toward the center of the circle. It is the 'radial acceleration vector'. Therefore, if your energy _DID_ "transpire" or more correctly, produce this "other vector" then it _DID_ indeed go to produce the acceleration -- because this vector _IS_ the acceleration. They are ways of talking about the same thing. I can't figure out what you mean. Whether or not it takes energy to cause this circular acceleration is another matter I haven't addressed yet since the basic premises must be cleared up first. I also think you are wondering if this radial acceleration does some special radiation that is different from the radiation of the charge simply by virtue of its 'normal' non circular movement. However that's also another issue, after we clarify the basics here. That is correct in that current variation is constant in one case and cyclic in the other which inferes that over a cycle the area under the cyclic current curve is the same as that seen under a constant curren and it is this comparison that I was looking for in literature. Then you say: "In both cases we have constant speeds but we also have a difference in phases. " Yes I see the phase change as shown by the current curve. and in the case of circular motion I do not see a phase change ( I cos phi ) You keep mentioning "constant speed" yet we are talking, I thought, about an antenna with RF current in it. Yes If this is the case, there is _NO_ constant speed of the current. It is constantly varying in a sine wave. It has a sinusoidal speed variation and therefore a sinesiodal acceleration (acceleration being the derivative of velocity and cosine being the derivative of sine) Yes I agree. That would be of the value I cos phi with cos phi providing the sign wave I believe we are saying the same thing So you seem to be applying two concepts (constant speed and . sinusoidal variation in speed) in one situation. I believe this is invalid and may be the source of your confusion. It may well be a difference of terms applied but I am pleased you follow the main drift of what I was saying so you could be well armed to correct me where I was wrong. Also, I don't know where this "phases" comes from. Lost me here unless you are talking about the relative phase of two different windings of this circular wire you mentioned a while ago... No that was in reference to the new model antenna that I am making Please explain what I have wrong, if the case. Enough said. I have typed up the program [...snip...] What language are you programming in and what formulas are you using ? Steve it is a computor program that chooses or finds the best dimension for an inputed variable. plus can handle a large number of segments''''''' I have many circular radiators in a horizontal position but at different heights. All have a gap in the circle and half are wound in an opposite direction to the other coils. All of these loops are connected to each other by vertical members the length of which depends on the cosequtive height of the loops... These vertical portions become high voltage and low current member when requiring best efficiency. The impotant thing in this arrangement is the correct selection of the up then down positions of the loops for the feed input requirements. You cannot research the best positions of the loops with Roy's program as it is the basic of basics and posibly not enough segments available but most programs of today DO offer many variable dimensions with more than enough segments ( I used 20 segments for each loop) I am very pleased that you connected the dots of my question which shows I am not a troll. My spelling is bad because this new computor has small letters on the screen and with a 3 Gig Hz speed it is difficult to keep up to speed with a braille keyboard Hi, Hi. My very best regards to you and thanks for hanging in there as opposed to a derogatory comment Art. AS Steve N. -- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. |
[... snipping all the agreed to parts so far...Sorry, but all the history is
just too much…not to mention what follows! …. . . . . . . . ] ALSO, ART. PLEASE do something to make your responses obvious in the body of text, like line spaces, or lots of asterisks or something so I can find your responses. ***** maybe like this Also, you can use a word processor to compose these messages and get the benefit of a spel chek. Hi hi , I am right now, then Cut & Paste into your news-reader. On to the topic… Steve said: So, if we change the velocity direction (to always be tangent to the circle) , but not the magnitude (or speed), then we have acceleration - what we call radial acceleration. Art: Not sure if I follow that. Steve: I am only describing what it takes to get motion around a circle. It is basic physics. I'll try saying it several other ways: The "thing" which represents the acceleration that is causing the movement in a circle _IS_ a vector pointing toward the center of the circle. The object is being accelerated toward the center of its orbit. Its acceleration _IS_ directed at the center. Another way to say it is; "In order to get the thing to travel in a circle, you must accelerate it toward the center of said circle and this acceleration is caused by a constant force toward the center and can be represented by a vector pointing toward the center. Good old F = MA is also a vector equation. That is, it can be used to account for the direction of forces and accelerations. If the force is in a given direction, then the acceleration is also in that same direction. (a logical conclusion is that the acceleration is also changing in order to remain pointing at the center as the thing moves around the circle) It appears that you call the acceleration one thing and the vector another, but they are the same thing, not two different things. So it appears to me that you are trying to make the vector something else, or something new to get some new effect. This is where I am confused as to just what you are thinking is the effect. [...skipping ahead, some, but basically repeating in new terms ...] ART: I am saying that energy is inputed to maintain constant speed which can be seen as creating a CONSTANT force vector at a tangent… Steve: Yes, (in _uniform_, or constant circular motion) it takes a constant inward force to get the constant inward acceleration which results in the constant circular motion. HOWEVER, I have a SERIOUS problem with this word "CONSTANT" in this context – I address below. Steve: Moving away from the basics of uniform circular motion and on to RF in a wire. ART: Yes because when the radiator is straight it is phase change that creates cyclic current change ala accelleration. Steve: OK, so we are back to this electron flow in a straight wire following the sinewave in current, or "cyclic current change ", to use your terms. Sure. I don't under your cause and your effect here because I do not understand what it is that you refer to when you use the words "phase change". It is the _generator_ (or transmitter) which is causing the current and all the acceleration(s)...many per second. The generator produces EMF or voltages which alternately drive current first one way, then the other, in this sine wave fashion – along the wire. EMF (Electro Motive Force) is call this because it acts like a force to move electrons (causing current) in the wire. It is this force which causes the accelerations and motions. The generator accelerates the electrons, not what you call "phase change"--I don't know what this means. There is a change in _current_ over time, but NOT phase. Art: In the case of a circular radiator I understand that there is no phase change a nd the radiation vector is a constant. This may well be the nubb of the misunderstanding. Steve: I think there is a definite nubb here! You appear to have jumped to DC away from RF. We should be talking about the SAME type of varying current, therefore there is still the sinewave form of current flow, the same accelerations. We do have an added velocity change around the circle, but we haven't taken away the sinewave of current Steve: I also think you are wondering if this radial acceleration does some special radiation that is different from the radiation of the charge simply… ART: That is correct in that current variation is constant in one case and cyclic in the other Steve: First, I wouldn't use phrases like "current variation is constant". Either there is a variation, or it is constant. This phrase implies that something is varying in a very repeatable or constant manner, like a sine wave or square wave or triangle wave. To answer the content of this comment, most emphatically NO! There is always the cyclic, sinewave variation in current when you bend a current carrying conductor into a circle. The AC sine wave doesn't go away. Steve: I skip the area under the curve comment and continue with comments on your cosine reference. ART: Yes I see the phase change as shown by the current curve. Steve You gotta drop this "phase change" phrase. I think you simply mean the voltage change over time, meaning the sine wave of current that is a given in this situation. ART: and in the case of circular motion I do not see a phase change ( I cos phi ) Ahhhh! OK, perhaps this direction will help. Lets talk about your formula I COS(phi) which is, of course I*COS(phi). This formula gives the current at any _instant in time_ when you plug-in that value of time. However, "phi" is NOT one number. This is actually I*COS(wt) that's omega times "t". This is the formula, or mathematical function of the sinewave of an AC signal of constant frequency…just what we are talking about. This is "I", which is the peak magnitude of the current under discussion, times the cosine of the angle given by multiplying the frequency (omega) by the present value of time – Which is CONSTANTLY INCREASING as time progresses! This means that the current is constantly changing. If you plot these values versus time on a graph, you see our friend the sine wave and the tops and bottoms are exactly "I" high (away from zero). Steve: You keep mentioning "constant speed" yet we are talking, I thought, about an antenna with RF current in it. ART: Yes STEVE: If this is the case, there is _NO_ constant speed of the current. It is constantly varying in a sine wave. It has a sinusoidal speed variation and therefore a sinusoidal acceleration Yes I agree. That would be of the value I cos phi with cos phi providing the sign wave. I believe we are saying the same thing STEVE: Then I am unable to understand where you are going. I see nothing new ( in regards to the basic physics above) created by the antenna being in a circle. We just have AC flowing in a circle. Some of the problem is your un conventional use of the terminology which makes the transfer of the underlying concepts & ideas difficult. It is ok to not be formally schooled in a subject. You can be what we call "self-educated", but you must learn to use the terminology in he correct ways (according to the way the vast majority of us use it) or you won't be able to make yourself understood or understand others. Like I tell my students, you MUST learn the terminology and use it correctly--- while in both cases your head may really hurt, there is a world of difference between a headache and a subdural hematoma! ART: It may well be a difference of terms applied but I am pleased you follow the main drift of what I was saying so you could be well armed to correct me where I was wrong. Steve: You go on to describe what seems to be an antenna composed of several large horizontal, circular, or perhaps better described as helical, elements stacked one above another, where some are wound in right-hand sense and others in left-hand sense. I'll not go there because I believe you are looking for some kind of a new phenomenon which is the result of this arrangement. This may sound elitist, but I believe you are trying to discover new physical principles with limited knowledge of the physical world. It appears to me that your limited knowledge and ability to put concepts to words leads you to believe there is a magic bullet just waiting to be stumbled upon and that you can do it. Antennas, past the simple dipole (although the basics of radiation is a great source of confusion in itself) get complex really fast. A firm understanding of how the currents in all parts of an antenna cause remote fields that superimpose to cause the total, resulting field is critical to being able to devise new and improved antennas, if they exist. Go ahead and have fun modeling antennas. See what comes out of various configurations. I recommend starting out simple to give yourself some understanding of 'what' causes 'what'. Using this, build a model in your brain (one that suits you) which ALWAYS explains all the observer phenomena as you move along. Your model must NEVER violate any laws of physics or fundamental principles which are known to be true. All this must also make sense or "fit" when viewed with all other fundamental concepts, but understand that much will be mysterious to you without this understanding. I applaud your desire to learn and experiment, while I am sad that you have insufficient background preventing you from seeing some of the real beauty of the natural phenomena we call electronics. My very best regards to you and thanks for hanging in there as opposed to a derogatory comment Art. It saddens me when I read some of what is posted. Hams are generally a very friendly lot, but the Internet (UseNet in particular) somehow releases the evil in some. We all have our weaker moments. Some of us are just a lot closer to them than others. All I can do is a Tsk, Tsk and move on. I must lead my life to a higher standard… It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. Some people go to church and then cut you off and swear at you in traffic. I don't do either any more. 73, Steve |
Steve I thank you for your response and I am beginning to see and have
confidence in what I am saying alss I believe I over explained things which really created problems. Energy alonf any member travels at the speed of light wether the member or element is straight or converluted. In a straight member the current under goes a phase change at all times thus from one direction the current varies according to I Cos Phi i.e. accellerating in value and decellerating in value. When the same electric current follows a coiled load there is no phase change and the curreny does diminish slightly due to resistance loss and the effect of inter coil and capacitance w2hich vastly affects the impedance as the current moves around the coil.. because there is no phase change and if we are able to remove the rising inductance and capacitance created by the close proximety of coils we can then attain a resistive value of impedance or at least progress to that end. Thus when you travel around a single coil you are not affected by the inductance and capacitance in a wound coil so the question is how to achieve this without a closed loop. What I did before was to use a small number of open coils made from 1/2 corregated copper transmission line and placed them at various heights as required by my programing where it provided a very large bandwidth. So what you may ask, what were your measurements! So I decided to use upto 20 loops attached to a 40 foot fibreglass tubing tower. This required a program containg over 400 segments plus 20 variable dimensions to cover the various distance between loops and where I predecided on the loop diameter. So you can see that for this many loops in series makes for a very long program and with the extra checking I must do so that prior trends are duplicated. All of this isw intended to produce a vertical for a band below 20 metres where its actual height and signal strength will be proof of the pudding. Thanks again for staying with me and for your advice. I will definitely keep you informed if the results mirror my previous tests. I have the tower and I have made the loops and just need one more overcheck on yhis very long program. Somewhere in between I will work on this laptop so it will provide readable script and also transfer my computor program. Very best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG Bloomington ILL "Steve Nosko" wrote in message ... [... snipping all the agreed to parts so far...Sorry, but all the history is just too much.not to mention what follows! .. . . . . . . . ] ALSO, ART. PLEASE do something to make your responses obvious in the body of text, like line spaces, or lots of asterisks or something so I can find your responses. ***** maybe like this Also, you can use a word processor to compose these messages and get the benefit of a spel chek. Hi hi , I am right now, then Cut & Paste into your news-reader. On to the topic. Steve said: So, if we change the velocity direction (to always be tangent to the circle) , but not the magnitude (or speed), then we have acceleration - what we call radial acceleration. Art: Not sure if I follow that. Steve: I am only describing what it takes to get motion around a circle. It is basic physics. I'll try saying it several other ways: The "thing" which represents the acceleration that is causing the movement in a circle _IS_ a vector pointing toward the center of the circle. The object is being accelerated toward the center of its orbit. Its acceleration _IS_ directed at the center. Another way to say it is; "In order to get the thing to travel in a circle, you must accelerate it toward the center of said circle and this acceleration is caused by a constant force toward the center and can be represented by a vector pointing toward the center. Good old F = MA is also a vector equation. That is, it can be used to account for the direction of forces and accelerations. If the force is in a given direction, then the acceleration is also in that same direction. (a logical conclusion is that the acceleration is also changing in order to remain pointing at the center as the thing moves around the circle) It appears that you call the acceleration one thing and the vector another, but they are the same thing, not two different things. So it appears to me that you are trying to make the vector something else, or something new to get some new effect. This is where I am confused as to just what you are thinking is the effect. [...skipping ahead, some, but basically repeating in new terms ...] ART: I am saying that energy is inputed to maintain constant speed which can be seen as creating a CONSTANT force vector at a tangent. Steve: Yes, (in _uniform_, or constant circular motion) it takes a constant inward force to get the constant inward acceleration which results in the constant circular motion. HOWEVER, I have a SERIOUS problem with this word "CONSTANT" in this context - I address below. Steve: Moving away from the basics of uniform circular motion and on to RF in a wire. ART: Yes because when the radiator is straight it is phase change that creates cyclic current change ala accelleration. Steve: OK, so we are back to this electron flow in a straight wire following the sinewave in current, or "cyclic current change ", to use your terms. Sure. I don't under your cause and your effect here because I do not understand what it is that you refer to when you use the words "phase change". It is the _generator_ (or transmitter) which is causing the current and all the acceleration(s)...many per second. The generator produces EMF or voltages which alternately drive current first one way, then the other, in this sine wave fashion - along the wire. EMF (Electro Motive Force) is call this because it acts like a force to move electrons (causing current) in the wire. It is this force which causes the accelerations and motions. The generator accelerates the electrons, not what you call "phase change"--I don't know what this means. There is a change in _current_ over time, but NOT phase. Art: In the case of a circular radiator I understand that there is no phase change a nd the radiation vector is a constant. This may well be the nubb of the misunderstanding. Steve: I think there is a definite nubb here! You appear to have jumped to DC away from RF. We should be talking about the SAME type of varying current, therefore there is still the sinewave form of current flow, the same accelerations. We do have an added velocity change around the circle, but we haven't taken away the sinewave of current Steve: I also think you are wondering if this radial acceleration does some special radiation that is different from the radiation of the charge simply. ART: That is correct in that current variation is constant in one case and cyclic in the other Steve: First, I wouldn't use phrases like "current variation is constant". Either there is a variation, or it is constant. This phrase implies that something is varying in a very repeatable or constant manner, like a sine wave or square wave or triangle wave. To answer the content of this comment, most emphatically NO! There is always the cyclic, sinewave variation in current when you bend a current carrying conductor into a circle. The AC sine wave doesn't go away. Steve: I skip the area under the curve comment and continue with comments on your cosine reference. ART: Yes I see the phase change as shown by the current curve. Steve You gotta drop this "phase change" phrase. I think you simply mean the voltage change over time, meaning the sine wave of current that is a given in this situation. ART: and in the case of circular motion I do not see a phase change ( I cos phi ) Ahhhh! OK, perhaps this direction will help. Lets talk about your formula I COS(phi) which is, of course I*COS(phi). This formula gives the current at any _instant in time_ when you plug-in that value of time. However, "phi" is NOT one number. This is actually I*COS(wt) that's omega times "t". This is the formula, or mathematical function of the sinewave of an AC signal of constant frequency.just what we are talking about. This is "I", which is the peak magnitude of the current under discussion, times the cosine of the angle given by multiplying the frequency (omega) by the present value of time - Which is CONSTANTLY INCREASING as time progresses! This means that the current is constantly changing. If you plot these values versus time on a graph, you see our friend the sine wave and the tops and bottoms are exactly "I" high (away from zero). Steve: You keep mentioning "constant speed" yet we are talking, I thought, about an antenna with RF current in it. ART: Yes STEVE: If this is the case, there is _NO_ constant speed of the current. It is constantly varying in a sine wave. It has a sinusoidal speed variation and therefore a sinusoidal acceleration Yes I agree. That would be of the value I cos phi with cos phi providing the sign wave. I believe we are saying the same thing STEVE: Then I am unable to understand where you are going. I see nothing new ( in regards to the basic physics above) created by the antenna being in a circle. We just have AC flowing in a circle. Some of the problem is your un conventional use of the terminology which makes the transfer of the underlying concepts & ideas difficult. It is ok to not be formally schooled in a subject. You can be what we call "self-educated", but you must learn to use the terminology in he correct ways (according to the way the vast majority of us use it) or you won't be able to make yourself understood or understand others. Like I tell my students, you MUST learn the terminology and use it correctly--- while in both cases your head may really hurt, there is a world of difference between a headache and a subdural hematoma! ART: It may well be a difference of terms applied but I am pleased you follow the main drift of what I was saying so you could be well armed to correct me where I was wrong. Steve: You go on to describe what seems to be an antenna composed of several large horizontal, circular, or perhaps better described as helical, elements stacked one above another, where some are wound in right-hand sense and others in left-hand sense. I'll not go there because I believe you are looking for some kind of a new phenomenon which is the result of this arrangement. This may sound elitist, but I believe you are trying to discover new physical principles with limited knowledge of the physical world. It appears to me that your limited knowledge and ability to put concepts to words leads you to believe there is a magic bullet just waiting to be stumbled upon and that you can do it. Antennas, past the simple dipole (although the basics of radiation is a great source of confusion in itself) get complex really fast. A firm understanding of how the currents in all parts of an antenna cause remote fields that superimpose to cause the total, resulting field is critical to being able to devise new and improved antennas, if they exist. Go ahead and have fun modeling antennas. See what comes out of various configurations. I recommend starting out simple to give yourself some understanding of 'what' causes 'what'. Using this, build a model in your brain (one that suits you) which ALWAYS explains all the observer phenomena as you move along. Your model must NEVER violate any laws of physics or fundamental principles which are known to be true. All this must also make sense or "fit" when viewed with all other fundamental concepts, but understand that much will be mysterious to you without this understanding. I applaud your desire to learn and experiment, while I am sad that you have insufficient background preventing you from seeing some of the real beauty of the natural phenomena we call electronics. My very best regards to you and thanks for hanging in there as opposed to a derogatory comment Art. It saddens me when I read some of what is posted. Hams are generally a very friendly lot, but the Internet (UseNet in particular) somehow releases the evil in some. We all have our weaker moments. Some of us are just a lot closer to them than others. All I can do is a Tsk, Tsk and move on. I must lead my life to a higher standard. It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. Some people go to church and then cut you off and swear at you in traffic. I don't do either any more. 73, Steve |
Art
Try bourbon, it lets you keep spelling longer. 73 H. |
Hi, I do not smoke ,drink or swear but it boggles my mind that this 3 GIG
laptop has script the size of a pinhead. I must find time to set this thing up as I want it Art "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" wrote in message ... Art Try bourbon, it lets you keep spelling longer. 73 H. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com