(Richard Harrison) wrote in message ...
Art Unwin wrote:
"Way back in this thread you alludedd to antennas as being
transformers."

Art seems ready to bring up #*+@%$! ("the thing" as Phil Harris would
say) yet another time.

I would like to see Art produce some hard numbers indicating improvement
by his "thing" as compared with other antennas. Art has indicated he
wants others to produce his numbers, even refine his design. I`d like
Art to even differentiate his "thing" from a "T" or "Delta" match,
regardless of where the feedline wires go.

Fresh participants might be persuaded to do Art`s work or salute his
design.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard if you have to swipe at me then you need a mean streak
like Yuri who uses it with vigor which you do not have.
I told you that I would not bring up my antenna again but in
taking a swipe at me you have.
As you well know my antenna is a simple small dipole coupled
to a double meshed circuit one of which being an occillator
which is extremely difficult to describe.
But you can help me. Design a tuner with two variable inductors
plus a capacitor of sorts and explain that in simple language
not ignoring the effect of intercoupling between the components.
Then put all of this in a black bos which provides only one knob
to fiddle with to tune up.
I could use such an example from somebody who can walk the walk
so I could one day if ever, communicate in a more informative way
I have a slide rule that I can supply so that you can get cracking
with the project so that you can show me how things should be done
to your satisfaction.
Best regards
Art

(Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote in message om...
Roy Lewallen wrote in message ...
I hope you'll pardon me for amplifying this a little.

If you put X watts into the primary of a transformer and extract Y watts
from the secondary, the efficiency is Y/X by definition.

Yes Roy. The specifics of what is being discussed is all important
when looking at answers as well as what terms are being used to
measure 'efficiency' and to what ends.


Roy is correct. And if both transmit and receive antennas were
directional Yagis pointed at each other instead of regular dipoles,
the efficiency would go up.



As you are surely awawe I too look at antennas as transformers or
coupled circuits and thus the primary contributes very much in its own
way as far as radiation as does the secondary. Thus 'efficiency' as a
criteria of 'value'
is all important when using it as a term since as you point out it is
a ratio of two terms both of which have to be made very clear for the
term efficiency to be made clear
Thus in stagger tuning it is important to define your requirements in
terms of bandwidth (dual frequency radiation) or max gain ( dual
radiators on the same frequency),the above bearing little difference
to old time receiver designwith multiple I.F. cans. It is in this
areana that I view stagger tuning or coupling
as being efficient in charactor. If I am incorrect in the above
assumptions I would welcome any correction from those well versed
inthe field.
Best regards
Art



Broadbandedness by itself is not a measure of efficiency. You
may still be very inefficient, over many octaves!


Slick

If you put X watts into one antenna and extract Y watts from an antenna
coupled to it, and measure the efficiency of the "transformer" the same
way as you did the conventional transformer, you'll find it has lousy
efficiency. Why? Because a goodly fraction of the power you applied to
the "primary" antenna never gets to the "secondary" antenna because it's
radiated instead. As far as the "secondary" is concerned, it might as
well have been converted to heat.

If you look at the impedance of the "primary" antenna, you'll find an
excess of resistance -- just enough, in fact, to account for the "lost"
(radiated) power.

This isn't a statement about how well coupled antennas function as
antennas, whose purpose is to radiate after all. It's a statement about
how well they function as a transformer. Poorly.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Dr. Slick wrote:
(Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote in message m...

1. Two antennas (also called transducers) placed close together
actually can be considered a transformer, albeit a very inefficient
one.

Humm...By antenna I assume it also means a radiator. This would
suggest
that a stagger tuned radiators would fall into the catagory discussed
above.
Now I have a problem with that statement, because I very much see it
as a transformer which is VERY efficient and not as you stated "albiet
a very inefficient one".
Can you explain to me how a stagger tuned antenna migrate into
inefficient radiators?
Seems to me that Thevenin's theorem would show this as being
incorrect !




Well, two identical antennas spaced a few wavelengths apart can
be considered a transformer, but very inefficient compared to a "real"
transformer with identical primary and secondary turns, with an
appropriate toroid core. This would be because the core material will
increase the magnetic flux density, and will increase the coupling
between the two windings/transducers.

Point is, the farther apart the antennas are, the less efficient
of a "transformer" they will be.

I'm not familiar with stagger tuned antennas, although the name
would suggest that it is tuned for multiple resonances, so that the
antenna will be broadband.



Slick

W5DXP wrote in message ...

Roy doesn't seem to appreciate me making hamburger out of ham radio's
sacred cows. :-) I actually enjoy the T-Bones best of all.

I didn't forget the smiley face, an indication of a joke. Remember jokes?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


I read jokes everytime i read your postings, Cecil.




Slick

Jim Kelley wrote:

W5DXP wrote:
They say that reflected traveling waves disappear when steady-state is
reached. I say such a disappearing act would have to be magic.

Just hours earlier you were flinging insults at me for disputing your
claim that reflected traveling waves disappear in the steady state.

Such a bold-faced lie. I have argued loud and long with Peter (and
others) that reflected traveling waves are alive and well during the
steady-state. Peter will (hopefully) jump in and verify that fact.

Why do you give in to your compulsion to lie about what I have said?
Anyone following this discussion can observe what you are tring to
do. Why can't you just stick to the technical discussion without having
to lie? Because you want to win the argument at any ethical cost?

For the record: I think that the forward and reflected waves detected
by a Bird wattmeter are really there, transporting the energy and
momentum that all EM waves possess. You are the one who claims that
those reflected waves from a mismatched load transfer no energy and
possess no momentum. That is, unless they are going to encounter a
resistor in the future in which case, they are required to predict
the future better than you can. Do you realize that your waves are
smarter than you are?

OTOH, I believe Hecht when he says: "One of the most significant
properties of the electromagnetic wave is that is transports energy
and momentum."

You seem to have chosen to dispute and attempt to discredit Hecht,
Ramo & Whinnery, the Melles-Griot web page, and HP Application Notes.
Don, good luck on dueling with windmills.
--
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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Art figured out that:

Richard if you have to swipe at me then you need a mean streak
like Yuri who uses it with vigor which you do not have.

Yuri likes propagation of radio waves and well performing antennas, he hates
propagation of crap and misinformation if he stumbles on it. He doesn't care if
it is Art, Freak or Tom. So far he has been more (always) right than wrong and
he can spell despite of not learning English (his 7th language) at schools.
Sometimes he is trying to be funny, but that is judged by the audience.

If Art tries one program (AO) and makes recommendation and "evaluation" of
modeling software based on that, then he uses his "mean vigor streak" to debunk
another crap. He looked at few other programs and knows that AO is still good
but a bit archaic and limited. He also has seen different dimensions coming
from AO optimizer and others. Who to trust? Need to get the hardware models out
and correlate.

Art please use spell checker (or slide rule) because you are putting
Englishpersons (xG) in bad light.

Bada Vigor BUm

Dr. Slick wrote:
I read jokes everytime i read your postings, Cecil.

I have requested that you list just one point of technical disagreement
between you and me, but so far you have refused and only responded with
ad hominem attacks. What can we deduce from that fact?
--
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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

W5DXP wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

W5DXP wrote:
They say that reflected traveling waves disappear when steady-state is
reached. I say such a disappearing act would have to be magic.

Just hours earlier you were flinging insults at me for disputing your
claim that reflected traveling waves disappear in the steady state.

Such a bold-faced lie. I have argued loud and long with Peter (and
others) that reflected traveling waves are alive and well during the
steady-state. Peter will (hopefully) jump in and verify that fact.

You're arguing with me about it right now in another thread! :-)

Don, good luck on dueling with windmills.

I'm not trying to sell something, Bill, you are. You're trying to get
publications to buy into your energy reversal theory. You'll need lots
of luck with that.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
These waves never propagate.

Of course not and I NEVER said they did. That's just another strawman
of yours. The wavefronts originate in and are canceled in a 'dt' of
time. What is it about calculus that you do not understand?

Cancellation can occur between zero waves?

No. Zero waves occur because of cancellation.

Bafflegab!!! The energy in the waves CANNOT be destroyed. Zero waves
occur in one direction. The energy in the canceled waves flows in the
opposite direction. So says every physics book that I own. Sorry about
that.

You have said:
Waves cannot just "cease to exist" for
the very same reason that energy cannot cease to exist.

This is the biggest bunch of BS that you have ever uttered! On what
planet do you live that photons must be conserved?

The waves which impinge upon the boundary certainly exist. But V3 and
V4 do not exist because their existance is prevented.

Without their existence, wave cancellation is impossible. Yet you have
agreed that wave cancellation exists. Which is it? Does wave cancellation
exist? If yes, then V3 and V4 exist. If no, then come up with an explanation
that doesn't involve wave cancellation. (Your spelling of "existance" sic, is
driving me crazy. Please correct it.)

To you that is a truth. But it certainly is not a fact. And you
certainly can't dispute that for any set of finite values of those
variables for two superposed functions of equal amplitude an opposite
phase, the solution is zero.

What you are missing is that your solution is only for one direction.
The other direction contains the reflected energy as proven by a Bird
directional wattmeter. Aren't you capable of conceptual thoughts involving
the two directions in a one-dimensional environment? My dog is almost
capable of that.

Are you claiming that a wave
in a transmission line can move in more than one direction at a time?

No, I am claiming that the energy in waves can reverse direction in
a 'dt' of time. Do you disagree?

:-) Actually, it's not quite that specific. The conservation of energy
principle says that energy in equals energy out minus losses.

Bafflegab! The conservation of energy principle says the energy in an
electron can be tracked to an electron plus photon and back. Good Grief!
Are you really teaching physics students? If so, I feel sorry for them.
Does your boss know that your are teaching bafflegab?

There is no intrinsic energy in waves that never propagate.

_Optics_, by Hecht says that all EM waves propagate and contain
energy and momentum. Sorry about that.

Once you get an idear in ur head, there's no shiftin' it.

I really admire your technical assertions, I really do. When
are you going to make one?

Your inability to conceptualize is your problem, not mine.

So you're claiming that the functions don't cancel during time dt?

Of course, they cancel during time dt. Why do you feel the compulsion
to erect those more-than-obvious strawmen? That's usually the diversion
of someone who is desperate after painting himself into a corner. Why
do you feel the need for diversions? Why can't you just discuss the
technical aspects?

Do you really expect anyone to believe that waves can both exist and not
exist at the same time?

No, that's just one of your strawmen. I expect some people to accept the fact
of physics that a wave can be destroyed by wave cancellation as described in
_Optics_, by Hecht and on the Melles-Griot web page.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured
against reality, is primitive and childlike ..." Albert Einstein



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

W5DXP wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
These waves never propagate.

Of course not and I NEVER said they did. That's just another strawman
of yours. The wavefronts originate in and are canceled in a 'dt' of
time.

The same 'dt' of time. The waves would cancel for any t and any x.
What a ridiculous argument to be having.

Cancellation can occur between zero waves?

No. Zero waves occur because of cancellation.

The energy in the waves CANNOT be destroyed.

Zero waves=zero energy.

Zero waves
occur in one direction.

That's what I just got done saying and you called it "bafflegab" or some
such thing.

The energy in the canceled waves flows in the
opposite direction.

The energy definitely flows in the opposite direction - from source to
load. You keep claiming it's flowing toward the source. That's what the
argument is about. Remember?


The waves which impinge upon the boundary certainly exist. But V3 and
V4 do not exist because their existance is prevented.

Without their existence, wave cancellation is impossible.

They don't exist, and there's nothing besides cancellation to explain
their absence.

Yet you have
agreed that wave cancellation exists. Which is it? Does wave cancellation
exist? If yes, then V3 and V4 exist.

Wave cancellation exists, and as a result V3 and V4 do not. Very
simple.

(Your spelling of "existance" sic, is
driving me crazy. Please correct it.)

Short drive, methinks.

What you are missing is that your solution is only for one direction.

There is only one solution to that equation - and it is for one
direction only. The forward moving energy is expressed by a different
equation, obviously with a different solution.

The other direction contains the reflected energy as proven by a Bird
directional wattmeter.

Yes, the wattmeter says 133.33 in one direction and 33.33 in the other
direction.


Are you claiming that a wave
in a transmission line can move in more than one direction at a time?

No, I am claiming that the energy in waves can reverse direction in
a 'dt' of time. Do you disagree?

A wave going in a different direction is kind of a different wave, to my
way of thinking. Maybe you could ask your dog what he thinks about
that, and let us know.

The conservation of energy
principle says that energy in equals energy out minus losses.

Bafflegab!

So are you saying that energy is not conserved when energy in equals
energy out, minus losses? Or are you saying that energy is conserved
when energy in does not equal energy out, minus losses?

Does your boss know that your are teaching bafflegab?

Actually, he says that I'm conversing with a nutcase.

Cec sed -
What is it about calculus that you do not understand?

=============================
Cec, and to whom it may concern,

Probably most of it.

Here in Euro-side an amateur radio ticket can be obtained without ever
having heard of it. And what with present educational standards that's
nearly all of us.

The trouble with Guru's displaying their knowledge on this newsgroup is
failure to appreciate the technical standing of their 'pupils'. Yet as often
as not the manner in which questions are asked are a dead giveaway. For a
reply to be of value it is necessary for the Guru to 'tune in' to the
recipient, ie., become resonant in same sort of language.

Too seldom is any thought given to it. As a result I would guess many
questioners become so confused or overloaded with haggling between the
'experts' they don't bother reading to the end of the thread, possibly to
consider packing up the hobby. It is impossible for a novice in a particular
subject to distinguish wheat from chaff, or to choose between one old-wive's
tale and another. Confusion reigns!

So KISS ! In plain unabbreviated English.

To refer to Terman et al to somebody who has probably never heard of any of
'em is no better than uninvited spam and indicates a lack of self
confidence.

But who am I to lay down the Law? Tonight's plonk is Claret. Vive La
France! Hic!
----
Reg, G4FGQ