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 |
|
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 =--- |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com