The answer is no. You should be able to figure out the reason why by
reading the previous postings in this thread.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:
Just playing devels advocate here, but, as you state "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.", does that refer to the 377 ohms (or so) free space coupling
impedence, or could that effeciency be improved by having the antenna's
matched radiation resistance approach that 377 ohms? (I.E. max transfer of
power is at Z0 (in) matches Z0(out)! or, is this academic for this?
Perhaps, better for Dr. Shorza Gitchigoumi of CQ fame, or Larson E. Rapp of
ARRL fame (both with bad habit of only presenting articles in the 4th month
of the year in their respective publications) ! But, I'd thought I had
better ask! Jim NN7K


"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.

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

(Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote in message
It is a pity that you do not have a interest in computor programs
or an interest in using one because if you did you could add to
your experience without the need of buying another book.

What good would it do? You would just ignore any results he had using
the program. Richard quotes his sources so you can look them up and
verify. What sources, tests, or otherwise, do you have to back up any
of your claims? Do you have any? This is not a trick question. MK

(Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote in message om...
Roy Lewallen wrote in message ...
One of the most serious and persistent problems you've had in
communicating your antenna ideas is your insistence on creating and
using your own unconventional definition of efficiency. As I've pointed
out before, and to no effect, is that the term has a universally
accepted definition with regard to antennas. As long as you continue to
make up your own definition, you'll increase your difficulty in
communicating your ideas. But it's a choice you've made.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy, the die was cast years ago when anything "new" was trashed
without a hearing.

Without a "hearing" would be an apt description. I keep telling you
you should build one to actually see if it works, but you don't or
won't listen.

I now accept that all is now known about antennas
except the really deep things that Cecil is so bravely pushing on with
where I failed.

When it comes to the definition of "efficiency" yes, it is already
known.

Even if I was to demonstrate succesfully a different antenna I would
have as much success in persuasion as the U.S. Government is having at
home and abroad.

Why? Are you admitting it probably doesn't work?

Just forget about my antenna and go with the common consensus that it
can't possibly be true since I have no credability.

I don't think your antenna will work as you have planned, but your
credibility or lack of it, has nothing to do with it. I modeled the
thing. I know how it will work. Or at least the version I tested. MK

Well Cecil what ever you do do not use the word efficiency,
just use the ratio between X and Y fully stating what X is
and Y is. This way the word efficiency need not be used
for a baseless augument. I am very pleased by the way, that you are
not attempting to explain anything new but just educating the masses
on what is already known, and forgotton by the way, and re presenting
the facts of nature in a way everybody can understand that leaves no
room for argument.
If you do find something new present it in such a way that the Gurus
can respond in such a way that it is their idea or they knew it all
along but have just been to busy to write it up.
Send your paper again with the footnote that their previous response
and leadership is what you built upon and which you need further
assistance from them. It should then get printed in a couple of months
and your name printed as a foot note.
I saw a aeroplane crash data box a short time ago only to find that
is not a black "box" as previously stated. Ever thought of designing a
better black "box" to put it in and then become famous in your own
mind? The previous one made of cardboard just didn't work out when
things became all wet.

Best regards
Art
P.S. I misquoted the price of AO pro, the program actually costs $600





or X andW5DXP wrote in message ...
Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Roy, the die was cast years ago when anything "new" was trashed
without a hearing. I now accept that all is now known about antennas
except the really deep things that Cecil is so bravely pushing on with
where I failed.

One slight correction, Art. Because of the similarity between light and
radiated EM waves, most things about antennas are known, at least to the
limit of the models to handle reality.

However, it appears to me that some things have been overlooked when the
coherent EM waves are confined to a one-dimensional transmission line. Those
things that have been overlooked are what I am pursuing and as far as I can
determine, they happen only inside a transmission line or at a thin-film
non-reflective surface using coherent light waves. That's what makes it
special.

That is not to conclude that you haven't discovered something special,
just that my focus is Z0-match points inside transmission lines and
non-glare thin-film coatings involving orthogonal coherent light.

'corse, should have attached the "smiley face" (my cynisicasm is/was on
:) !! ) Jim

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
The answer is no. You should be able to figure out the reason why by
reading the previous postings in this thread.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:
Just playing devels advocate here, but, as you state "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.", does that refer to the 377 ohms (or so) free space
coupling
impedence, or could that effeciency be improved by having the antenna's
matched radiation resistance approach that 377 ohms? (I.E. max
transfer of
power is at Z0 (in) matches Z0(out)! or, is this academic for this?
Perhaps, better for Dr. Shorza Gitchigoumi of CQ fame, or Larson E. Rapp
of
ARRL fame (both with bad habit of only presenting articles in the 4th
month
of the year in their respective publications) ! But, I'd thought I had
better ask! Jim NN7K


"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.

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

(Mark Keith) wrote in message . com...
(Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote in message om...
Roy Lewallen wrote in message ...
One of the most serious and persistent problems you've had in
communicating your antenna ideas is your insistence on creating and
using your own unconventional definition of efficiency. As I've pointed
out before, and to no effect, is that the term has a universally
accepted definition with regard to antennas. As long as you continue to
make up your own definition, you'll increase your difficulty in
communicating your ideas. But it's a choice you've made.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy, the die was cast years ago when anything "new" was trashed
without a hearing.

Without a "hearing" would be an apt description. I keep telling you
you should build one to actually see if it works, but you don't or
won't listen.

I now accept that all is now known about antennas
except the really deep things that Cecil is so bravely pushing on with
where I failed.

When it comes to the definition of "efficiency" yes, it is already
known.

Even if I was to demonstrate succesfully a different antenna I would
have as much success in persuasion as the U.S. Government is having at
home and abroad.

Why? Are you admitting it probably doesn't work?

Just forget about my antenna and go with the common consensus that it
can't possibly be true since I have no credability.

I don't think your antenna will work as you have planned, but your
credibility or lack of it, has nothing to do with it. I modeled the
thing. I know how it will work. Or at least the version I tested. MK

Mark,
Put the whole antenna idea aside The thing could not possibly work, my
activity is a total illusion. If anything new comes along, which is
highly unlikely since all is known,do you really believe it would be
the likes of me to find it? A guy who never went to college, can't
type or spell and has no credability. No Mike I am just an ordinary
disciple of the gurus on the net
sucking up every thing that they say knowing if I differ with them I
am not in conformance and thus not a part of the team.
Back to the real interesting part of radio, SWR, tuners, how far apart
should my antennas be,can I make a G5RV antenna with wet string and
away from antennas that are just a joke and back to reality and total
conformity.
I expect to obtain more friends now and continue with my happy life.
Your friend
Art

(Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote in message

Mark,
Put the whole antenna idea aside

Ok.

The thing could not possibly work, my
activity is a total illusion.

If you say so.

If anything new comes along, which is
highly unlikely since all is known,do you really believe it would be
the likes of me to find it?

If you really believe all is known about antennas, I doubt you will
find it. You'll never get anywhere with that restrictive mindset.

A guy who never went to college, can't
type or spell and has no credability.

I don't think anyone really cares. I'm sure some would wish you would
use a spell checker though...I didn't go to college either. Why are
they not jumping my ass on a daily basis? It's quite simple really. I
don't randomly grasp at straws trying to explain something that I'm
not really sure how it works. This is what you are doing. If I have
this problem, I don't say anything usually.

Just curious....Why on earth is it so important that you convince us
this antenna works, is the cat's ass, or other assorted descriptions?
If it were me, I would have built the damn thing years ago. I would
KNOW if it worked or not. No guesses, grasping, etc needed. Then all I
would have to do is try to explain how it works, which to the average
ham on the street, isn't probably that important. If it works, it
works. That all many care to know.

No Mike

Who's Mike? Is he that guy that sits by the pay phone at the local
stop and rob?
He's there every day nearly. Usually tries to hit me up for money...

I am just an ordinary
disciple of the gurus on the net
sucking up every thing that they say knowing if I differ with them I
am not in conformance and thus not a part of the team.

I differ with this bunch all the time. I guess I'll never be a part of
the team.
Oh well, another day, another $2.31.

Back to the real interesting part of radio, SWR, tuners, how far apart
should my antennas be,can I make a G5RV antenna with wet string and
away from antennas that are just a joke and back to reality and total
conformity.

Sounds kind of boring....

I expect to obtain more friends now and continue with my happy life.

Good luck in the contest. MK

(Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote in message
Mark,
Put the whole antenna idea aside The thing could not possibly work, my
activity is a total illusion. If anything new comes along, which is
highly unlikely since all is known,do you really believe it would be
the likes of me to find it?

Many useful inventions have come from people that on the surface, you
would think are surely dumbasses in their fields due to lack of
training. I can think of many right off the top of my head. I don't
think Bill Lear had too much school and training, but he seemed to do
ok as one example. I think he invented the 8 track, along with a few
other aviation related patents. "I think anyway"..
Not to mention cobbling together the jet airplane which is quite
common at airports these days. So this "poor dumb ole Art" crap is not
going to fly far with me. If you feel the antenna would work, I think
you should build it. I would ignore everything everyone says. BUT! I
wouldn't presume to flog others for their lack of "vision", just
because something you don't even use or seemd to have built in real
life is not readily accepted as practical. If you think it's a great
idea, use it. The end performance will tell the true story.
As an example, note the "EH" guy. Personally, I think he's on a
misguided turd hunt, but at least he's got the nads to actually build
the crazy looking things. And this eventually lets others compare them
to tell the true story. Unfortunately, his antenna seems to be
primarily a feedline hanging device. It supports the feedline, which
is the "real" antenna and does the bulk of the radiating. I think a
pully or other hanging device would be about as efficient overall. :/
MK

On 28 Jul 2003 17:51:18 -0700, (Mark Keith) wrote:

If you think it's a great
idea, use it. The end performance will tell the true story.
As an example, note the "EH" guy. Personally, I think he's on a
misguided turd hunt, but at least he's got the nads to actually build
the crazy looking things.

Hi Mark,

This kinda sounds like the plot to "Parsival," the world's longest
Opera by Wagner.

I would expand further, but me and my buddies are out the door to
escape the heat at the mall's cineplex to see T³.
"I'll be back...."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 28 Jul 2003 17:51:18 -0700, (Mark Keith) wrote:

If you think it's a great
idea, use it. The end performance will tell the true story.
As an example, note the "EH" guy. Personally, I think he's on a
misguided turd hunt, but at least he's got the nads to actually build
the crazy looking things.

Hi Mark,

This kinda sounds like the plot to "Parsival," the world's longest
Opera by Wagner.

I would expand further, but me and my buddies are out the door to
escape the heat at the mall's cineplex to see T³.
"I'll be back...."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


"Parsival" a misguided turd hunt? That's a good way
to put it, though crude. You're going to get emails from
the music appreciation community, Richard.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH