This posting sequence has been an enlightening experience though, and
well
worth the trouble. I have learned that most will wage a "religious
war" if
they think anyone is going to challenge the generally accepted ideas
and
methods.
If you insist on going on, you will run the gauntlet of nay sayers and
be
attacked. Guffaws and slurs against your mental stability will
assualt you.
If one is looking to try something new--this is NOT the place to
discuss it.
Perhaps another news group, where those who seek to intimidate and
"out
shout" true expermenters would be banned and refused posting would be
a
workable alternative and more conductive to attempts to break the
mold.
.................................................. .....................
I think I'm going to vomit....Are you related to Art? If not,
you should be....Whine, whine, whine.... You think you are the
first one to try that? I tried that using my helical mobile
antennas years ago...Big deal...BTW...I ended up preferring the
normal 1/4 wave config for a mobile antenna...Just in case thou
art interested...I also agree with one poster...The biggest change
will be with the current distribution...
They were making CB antenna *years* ago, using that "extended winding"
type of design...Many were a 5/8's wl winding. Sheesh....Get a grip.
Quit whining...Religious war? Slurs against your stability? Will be
soon, if you don't quit this retched "poor ole maligned me" whining.
You never saw me say anything about the antenna itself. Why? Cuz
being I have tried it, I know they can work. But like I said,
I ended up not using it as the normal 1/4 wl config worked better
on my car. Trust me...The idea has been tried long ago.
There is nothing wrong with posting something new here. Although
to others, it might not be new at all.
In fact, if you are *actually* interested in if it's viable,
this is probably the best place. You won't get suger coated
bullcrap here...
Now, if you are trying to push some funky device like say the EH
antenna, yep, you probably don't wanna be here...Go to a yahoo
forum where all have to register to join. That way you can control
all the posts, and make the outcome of your "discovery" come out
any way you want. Sheesh...
MK

Oh yeah, I forgot to make mention of the "nuts"...

Regards

wrote in message
oups.com...
This posting sequence has been an enlightening experience though, and
well
worth the trouble. I have learned that most will wage a "religious
war" if
they think anyone is going to challenge the generally accepted ideas
and
methods.
If you insist on going on, you will run the gauntlet of nay sayers and
be
attacked. Guffaws and slurs against your mental stability will
assualt you.
If one is looking to try something new--this is NOT the place to
discuss it.
Perhaps another news group, where those who seek to intimidate and
"out
shout" true expermenters would be banned and refused posting would be
a
workable alternative and more conductive to attempts to break the
mold.
.................................................. ....................
I think I'm going to vomit....Are you related to Art? If not,
you should be....Whine, whine, whine.... You think you are the
first one to try that? I tried that using my helical mobile
antennas years ago...Big deal...BTW...I ended up preferring the
normal 1/4 wave config for a mobile antenna...Just in case thou
art interested...I also agree with one poster...The biggest change
will be with the current distribution...
They were making CB antenna *years* ago, using that "extended winding"
type of design...Many were a 5/8's wl winding. Sheesh....Get a grip.
Quit whining...Religious war? Slurs against your stability? Will be
soon, if you don't quit this retched "poor ole maligned me" whining.
You never saw me say anything about the antenna itself. Why? Cuz
being I have tried it, I know they can work. But like I said,
I ended up not using it as the normal 1/4 wl config worked better
on my car. Trust me...The idea has been tried long ago.
There is nothing wrong with posting something new here. Although
to others, it might not be new at all.
In fact, if you are *actually* interested in if it's viable,
this is probably the best place. You won't get suger coated
bullcrap here...
Now, if you are trying to push some funky device like say the EH
antenna, yep, you probably don't wanna be here...Go to a yahoo
forum where all have to register to join. That way you can control
all the posts, and make the outcome of your "discovery" come out
any way you want. Sheesh...
MK

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:21:27 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:

Perhaps another news group, where those who seek to intimidate and "out
shout" true expermenters would be banned and refused posting would be a
workable alternative and more conductive to attempts to break the mold.

Hi John,

You will have found a very special population of scribblers at that
halcyon news group. That few who were untutored with the design of
millions of rubber duckies would be the only throng capable of hailing
true expermenters of the helical 1/2 wavelength antenna mold.

Drop us a note when you find the select. Stay away from their
kool-aid.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

John Smith wrote:
Oh yeah, I forgot to make mention of the "nuts"...

Regards

wrote in message
oups.com...

This posting sequence has been an enlightening experience though, and
well
worth the trouble. I have learned that most will wage a "religious
war" if
they think anyone is going to challenge the generally accepted ideas
and
methods.
If you insist on going on, you will run the gauntlet of nay sayers and
be
attacked. Guffaws and slurs against your mental stability will
assualt you.
If one is looking to try something new--this is NOT the place to
discuss it.
Perhaps another news group, where those who seek to intimidate and
"out
shout" true expermenters would be banned and refused posting would be
a
workable alternative and more conductive to attempts to break the
mold.
................................................ ......................
I think I'm going to vomit....Are you related to Art? If not,
you should be....Whine, whine, whine.... You think you are the
first one to try that? I tried that using my helical mobile
antennas years ago...Big deal...BTW...I ended up preferring the
normal 1/4 wave config for a mobile antenna...Just in case thou
art interested...I also agree with one poster...The biggest change
will be with the current distribution...
They were making CB antenna *years* ago, using that "extended winding"
type of design...Many were a 5/8's wl winding. Sheesh....Get a grip.
Quit whining...Religious war? Slurs against your stability? Will be
soon, if you don't quit this retched "poor ole maligned me" whining.
You never saw me say anything about the antenna itself. Why? Cuz
being I have tried it, I know they can work. But like I said,
I ended up not using it as the normal 1/4 wl config worked better
on my car. Trust me...The idea has been tried long ago.
There is nothing wrong with posting something new here. Although
to others, it might not be new at all.
In fact, if you are *actually* interested in if it's viable,
this is probably the best place. You won't get suger coated
bullcrap here...
Now, if you are trying to push some funky device like say the EH
antenna, yep, you probably don't wanna be here...Go to a yahoo
forum where all have to register to join. That way you can control
all the posts, and make the outcome of your "discovery" come out
any way you want. Sheesh...
MK





Mark is right. This is an ancient antenna. Anyone interested can
look up the article on normal-mode helical antennas in the
_Antenna Engineering Handbook_ and get some references at the
end of the chapter for further study. Most of references date from the
'60s and '70s.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Mark is right. This is an ancient antenna. Anyone interested can
look up the article on normal-mode helical antennas in the
_Antenna Engineering Handbook_ and get some references at the
end of the chapter for further study. Most of references date from the

'60s and '70s.

Of course it is. It often amuses me how often stuff is
"reinvented". Heck, I've even done it myself by accident...
But I never had any thoughts of filing a patent, or
whatever...I never had any delusions that surely no one
else in the world had thought of it, and it ended up as such.
I think people forget just how much antenna
experimentation has already been done. There was loads
of experimentation done from the 30's thru the 50's,
covering nearly everything imaginable. Ole John calls
me a nut, but if I hear someone say, "they all think
all is known about antennas" one more time, I'm gonna
puke. He and Art sound like the same whiny broke record.
Almost exactly to the word. Of course, no one here thinks
*all* is known about antennas. But I can assure you that
most all the theory has been pretty much etched in stone
for quite a few years. No one is going to come up with some
new gadjit that is going to break all the rules. Just
ain't gonna happen. Sure, minor touch ups of theory will
surely occur, but nothing major is going to be changed,
or it would have by now. It's comparible to the field of
aeronautics/aircraft,etc... People will continue to design
new aircraft, but no one is going to design something that
breaks all the rules. I've got a large walk in closet full of
QST's going back to the middle 30's. Thumbing through a few
of those 30's thru 50's issues might surprise some as to
how much was known even at that time. Nothing major as far
as theory as changed since that time, and that was a half
century ago. These days, if someone tries something that is
truly new, you can bet it will be pretty "out there". But
it won't break any rules of theory. It will just be a new
method of applying it. Unfortunately for John, what he is
doing is old news...But at least it's not something silly..
It is a viable antenna. And thus, not to say it's not worth
messing with...Everything I use is old news...Some of the
old news, will always be the best news...IE: no one is going
to be able to improve much on the efficiency of a simple
coax fed dipole on HF...MK

" bravely wrote to "All" (27 Mar 05 01:31:48)
--- on the heady topic of " physical 1/4, electrical 1/2 wavelength"

nm From:
nm Xref: aeinews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:27324

nm Of course, no one here thinks
nm *all* is known about antennas. But I can assure you that
nm most all the theory has been pretty much etched in stone
nm for quite a few years. No one is going to come up with some
nm new gadjit that is going to break all the rules. Just
nm ain't gonna happen. Sure, minor touch ups of theory will
nm surely occur, but nothing major is going to be changed,
nm or it would have by now. It's comparible to the field of

And then along comes an amateur wannabe physicist like Albert Einstein
and turns theory on its ear... bringing the world kicking and
screaming into the atomic age of satellites and relativity. The Nobel
review folk didn't even know what to make of most his papers and gave
him a kupiedoll for describing the photoelectric effect. This amateur
wannabe generated more change than had been accomplished in the
previous 1,000 years. And new ramifications are still being found for
e=mc^2. Every scientist in 1905 was sure nothing major could be found
too. We are in 2005 now and some geek in a broom closet is just about
to unleash a comparable cataclysmic change to our world and one better
count on it!

A*s*i*m*o*v

.... The manure is sure to impact the rotary ventilator...

wrote:
But I can assure you that
most all the theory has been pretty much etched in stone
for quite a few years. No one is going to come up with some
new gadjit that is going to break all the rules. Just
ain't gonna happen.

Assume a future antenna emitting entangled photons and
explain to us how present antenna theory handles non-locality.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:

But I can assure you that
most all the theory has been pretty much etched in stone
for quite a few years. No one is going to come up with some
new gadjit that is going to break all the rules. Just
ain't gonna happen.


Assume a future antenna emitting entangled photons and
explain to us how present antenna theory handles non-locality.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Go ahead, Cecil, prove the world wrong. Be the first on your block to
design a real-world antenna based on particle physics, but remember the
correspondance principle.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:39:56 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

but remember the correspondance principle.

C'Mon Tom,

You're calling CQ to the photon QTH of monkeyshines and you expect
principles? May as well drop this high-heel boot:
Entangled Electrons use their own return address for correspondence.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Tom Donaly wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Assume a future antenna emitting entangled photons and
explain to us how present antenna theory handles non-locality.

Go ahead, Cecil, prove the world wrong. Be the first on your block to
design a real-world antenna based on particle physics, but remember the
correspondance principle.

Maxwell and Einstein assumed the locality principle which
has now been disproved by quantum physics. Anyone want to
predict the effect of non-locality on Maxwell's equations?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Asimov wrote:
We are in 2005 now and some geek in a broom closet is just about
to unleash a comparable cataclysmic change to our world and one
better
count on it!

I doubt it will have anything to do with antennas though..
And I doubt it will be a geek in a broom closet.
MK

Albert Einstein was merely the first to realise what is obvious to
anybody who thinks about it.

What's all the fuss about for the last 100 years?

" bravely wrote to "All" (27 Mar 05 17:09:16)
--- on the heady topic of " physical 1/4, electrical 1/2 wavelength"

nm From:
nm Xref: aeinews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:27403

nm Asimov wrote:
some geek in a broom closet is just about
to unleash a comparable cataclysmic change to our world and

nm I doubt it will have anything to do with antennas though..
nm And I doubt it will be a geek in a broom closet.

It's numbingly comforting to doubt but science isn't a religion.
Not to be a contrarian but it might have to do with antennas.
We can't tell the future, I can only influence it a bit by action.

A*s*i*m*o*v

.... The World is run by those who show up.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:02:55 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Albert Einstein was merely the first to realise what is obvious to
anybody who thinks about it.

What's all the fuss about for the last 100 years?


Hi Reg,

No one else wrote it down. Sure you can "think about it," but if you
keep dialing the same number to talk to Mum and you get chinese
take-out, then "thinking about it" is not all that it is cracked up to
be.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Reg Edwards wrote:
Albert Einstein was merely the first to realise what is obvious to
anybody who thinks about it.

Some things that Albert Einstein said sound a lot like Art.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he
learned in school."

"All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and
childlike ..."

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and
Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities."

"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the
spinal cord would surely suffice."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Anyone want to
predict the effect of non-locality on Maxwell's equations?

How better to explain interference phenomena at, "Alpha Centauri" for
example? :-)

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Anyone want to
predict the effect of non-locality on Maxwell's equations?

How better to explain interference phenomena at, "Alpha Centauri" for
example? :-)

How better indeed? As I remember, it was Dr. Best's assertion
that the source always provided the extra energy during construc-
tive interference (no matter how far away the source might be).
I, OTOH, tend to believe "Optics", by Hecht where he asserts
that there must always be an energy balance between constructive
interference and destructive interference (as demonstrated by
the radiation pattern of an antenna).
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Anyone want to
predict the effect of non-locality on Maxwell's equations?


How better to explain interference phenomena at, "Alpha Centauri" for
example? :-)


How better indeed? As I remember, it was Dr. Best's assertion
that the source always provided the extra energy during construc-
tive interference (no matter how far away the source might be).
I, OTOH, tend to believe "Optics", by Hecht where he asserts
that there must always be an energy balance between constructive
interference and destructive interference (as demonstrated by
the radiation pattern of an antenna).

It's certainly correct in almost any instance to say that the source of
energy provides the energy. Not necessarily so of other points in
space. And only rarely do we find any "extra" energy in physical
systems. ;-)

ac6xg

"Free Energy" is indeed hard to find...
However, consider an antenna made of a superconducting material--it would at
least be impossible to lose any (at least due to resistance and heating!)

Regards

--
Hay, if'n ya'll cun't konstructivly partecipete in this har disscusion, haw
aboot speel-checkin it fer me?


"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...


Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Anyone want to
predict the effect of non-locality on Maxwell's equations?


How better to explain interference phenomena at, "Alpha Centauri" for
example? :-)


How better indeed? As I remember, it was Dr. Best's assertion
that the source always provided the extra energy during construc-
tive interference (no matter how far away the source might be).
I, OTOH, tend to believe "Optics", by Hecht where he asserts
that there must always be an energy balance between constructive
interference and destructive interference (as demonstrated by
the radiation pattern of an antenna).

It's certainly correct in almost any instance to say that the source of
energy provides the energy. Not necessarily so of other points in space.
And only rarely do we find any "extra" energy in physical systems. ;-)

ac6xg

John Smith wrote:

"Free Energy" is indeed hard to find...
However, consider an antenna made of a superconducting material--it would at
least be impossible to lose any (at least due to resistance and heating!)

Regards

Yea, but it's a real pain having to haul the liquid helium dewar up the
tower in the middle of a dx opening.

ac6xg