| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Antennas 101
Following below are some thoughts of mine in response to an email sent to
me. There are some good engineers reading this NG, and I am asking for comments on what I wrote -- corrections where seen necessary, and any other thoughts. Thanks. RF + + + + + ----- Original Message ----- The term "accept power" is interesting. To me, it's just a measure of the input impedance of the antenna. If the resistance (radiation plus loss resistance) is zero, you're not going to get it to absorb power no matter what you do. ____________ Yes. And the input conditions depend on the ability of the radiator to generate EM fields. No current can enter and "flow through" a radiator if it doesn't have some place to go. If a radiator is not electrically long enough to allow differential current to exist along its length, it cannot generate EM fields. It is the di/dt along the radiator length that generates those fields. Adding a matching network at the antenna input doesn't change the instrinsic ability of an antenna to radiate. That is determined by the factors described in the paragraph above. A matching network can permit the tx to increase its rated, safe output power while driving that poor antenna, but any extra power available at the antenna input because of that will be subject to the same poor radiation efficiency as if the matcher wasn't used. And much of any added power from the tx may get dissipated in lossy output system components other than the antenna, rather than being radiated. The antenna itself will still have the same directivity/gain that it had before the matching network was added. Improving the ability of a poor antenna to generate EM fields per unit of source power is possible in a limited way only by increasing its electrical length. "Capacity hats" and inductances incorporated into the radiating structure can be used, as examples. This also raises the antenna radiation resistance and reduces the reactance at the antenna input -- making it easier to match into, and reducing system losses. Someone gave an example of a pager antenna or something that had a rated gain that was below isotropic. It'd be interesting to see where the losses were. This is covered in my comments above, I believe. // |
Richard Fry wrote:
... I am asking for comments on what I wrote -- ... Comment: good stuff, and a couple of additional comments. The term "accept power" is interesting. To me, it's just a measure of the input impedance of the antenna. If the resistance (radiation plus loss resistance) is zero, you're not going to get it to absorb power no matter what you do. Yes. And the input conditions depend on the ability of the radiator to generate EM fields. No current can enter and "flow through" a radiator if it doesn't have some place to go. If a radiator is not electrically long enough to allow differential current to exist along its length, it cannot generate EM fields. It is the di/dt along the radiator length that generates those fields. Adding a matching network at the antenna input doesn't change the instrinsic ability of an antenna to radiate. That is determined by the factors described in the paragraph above. A matching network can permit the tx to increase its rated, safe output power while driving that poor antenna, but any extra power available at the antenna input because of that will be subject to the same poor radiation efficiency as if the matcher wasn't used. And much of any added power from the tx may get dissipated in lossy output system components other than the antenna, rather than being radiated. The feedline has a certain efficiency. A matching network at the antenna has a certain efficiency. If the matching network at the antenna is much more efficient than the feedline, then it may be a reasonable solution. An SGC-230 tuner mounted at the base of a 22 foot vertical makes a reasonable antenna for 40m-10m operation. Feeding that same antenna through coax from an SGC-230 in the shack makes for a pretty poor antenna on most bands except 30m. Same antenna, same tuner, different configuration = wildly different results. The antenna itself will still have the same directivity/gain that it had before the matching network was added. Yes, but the SGC-230 at the base of the antenna may be operating at 50% efficiency while, if you moved the tuner back to the shack, the feedline might be operating at 10% efficiency. The choice is clear (if there are no thieves around. :-) Improving the ability of a poor antenna to generate EM fields per unit of source power is possible in a limited way only by increasing its electrical length. "Capacity hats" and inductances incorporated into the radiating structure can be used, as examples. This also raises the antenna radiation resistance and reduces the reactance at the antenna input -- making it easier to match into, and reducing system losses. Someone gave an example of a pager antenna or something that had a rated gain that was below isotropic. It'd be interesting to see where the losses were. This is covered in my comments above, I believe. -- 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 =---- |
Richard Fry wrote:
Following below are some thoughts of mine in response to an email sent to me. There are some good engineers reading this NG, and I am asking for comments on what I wrote -- corrections where seen necessary, and any other thoughts. Thanks. RF + + + + + ----- Original Message ----- The term "accept power" is interesting. To me, it's just a measure of the input impedance of the antenna. If the resistance (radiation plus loss resistance) is zero, you're not going to get it to absorb power no matter what you do. ____________ Yes. And the input conditions depend on the ability of the radiator to generate EM fields. No current can enter and "flow through" a radiator if it doesn't have some place to go. If a radiator is not electrically long enough to allow differential current to exist along its length, it cannot generate EM fields. It is the di/dt along the radiator length that generates those fields. Actually, you can charge up anything to produce a field. If the field is static, though, it won't radiate. Also, short radiators work just fine if you excite them with frequencies whose wavelengths are on the same order of magnitude. Finally, if you can keep the losses down, radiators that are small compared to a wavelength of the frequency you want to radiate, work well, too, though you may have to be satisfied with narrow bandwidths and make heroic efforts to feed them. Finally, you might be more accurate if you substituted 'dq/dt' with 'di/dt', but even that won't guarantee radiation: transmission lines have plenty of charge acceleration, but are designed specifically to not radiate. You might want to rethink your ideas. Try not to be so reductionist. You don't want to end up like Cecil. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Adding a matching network at the antenna input doesn't change the instrinsic ability of an antenna to radiate. That is determined by the factors described in the paragraph above. A matching network can permit the tx to increase its rated, safe output power while driving that poor antenna, but any extra power available at the antenna input because of that will be subject to the same poor radiation efficiency as if the matcher wasn't used. And much of any added power from the tx may get dissipated in lossy output system components other than the antenna, rather than being radiated. The antenna itself will still have the same directivity/gain that it had before the matching network was added. Improving the ability of a poor antenna to generate EM fields per unit of source power is possible in a limited way only by increasing its electrical length. "Capacity hats" and inductances incorporated into the radiating structure can be used, as examples. This also raises the antenna radiation resistance and reduces the reactance at the antenna input -- making it easier to match into, and reducing system losses. Someone gave an example of a pager antenna or something that had a rated gain that was below isotropic. It'd be interesting to see where the losses were. This is covered in my comments above, I believe. // |
Tom Donaly wrote:
You don't want to end up like Cecil. My end is down, not up, thank you. -- 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 =---- |
Tom Donaly wrote: You don't want to end up like Cecil. My end is down, not up, thank you. They have a pill for that, now, don't they? :^) Ed |
Ed wrote:
w5dxp wrote: My end is down, not up, thank you. They have a pill for that, now, don't they? :^) If you want your end up, be my guest. I personally like mine down in a Lazy Boy, where it belongs. -- 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 =--- |
Richard Fry wrote:
Following below are some thoughts of mine in response to an email sent to me. There are some good engineers reading this NG, and I am asking for comments on what I wrote -- corrections where seen necessary, and any other thoughts. Thanks. RF + + + + + ----- Original Message ----- The term "accept power" is interesting. To me, it's just a measure of the input impedance of the antenna. If the resistance (radiation plus loss resistance) is zero, you're not going to get it to absorb power no matter what you do. ____________ Yes. And the input conditions depend on the ability of the radiator to generate EM fields. "Ability" could be a misleading term. If 100 watts is fed to a very short dipole, it will generate just as big a total field as a half wave dipole fed 100 watts (neglecting conductor loss). So for a given power input, it's just as able to generate an EM field as the longer dipole. It does require a lot more current. You might consider that to mean it's less "able" to generate a field, but if so, I think you should elaborate in order to avoid perpetuating misconceptions. No current can enter and "flow through" a radiator if it doesn't have some place to go. I'm not sure what that means. A radiator is a circuit. Any current which flows in one terminal must flow out the other. That's true for any antenna of any kind. If a radiator is not electrically long enough to allow differential current to exist along its length, it cannot generate EM fields. There is no such radiator. There's no threshold below which current can't exist along its length. It is the di/dt along the radiator length that generates those fields. Yep, and a short antenna has a much higher I and therefore di/dt for a given power input than a long one. The result is the same total field. Adding a matching network at the antenna input doesn't change the instrinsic ability of an antenna to radiate. Correct. That is determined by the factors described in the paragraph above. I don't believe the factors you cited play any role in determining the ability of an antenna to radiate. A matching network can permit the tx to increase its rated, safe output power while driving that poor antenna, but any extra power available at the antenna input because of that will be subject to the same poor radiation efficiency as if the matcher wasn't used. Why "poor" radiation efficiency? An antenna radiates all the power it's supplied, less the amount lost due to conductor and insulation resistance. While it's more difficult to make a short antenna efficient, it's not impossible. There's no loss of radiation efficiency directly due to the length of the antenna. And much of any added power from the tx may get dissipated in lossy output system components other than the antenna, rather than being radiated. That's correct. An antenna system which includes a short antenna is likely to be less efficient because the short antenna's impedance requires greater transformation than a longer antenna's, and this is difficult to do with high efficiency. The loss of system efficiency (as opposed to antenna radiation efficiency) is due to loss in the matching network components. The antenna itself will still have the same directivity/gain that it had before the matching network was added. Correct. Improving the ability of a poor antenna to generate EM fields per unit of source power is possible in a limited way only by increasing its electrical length. Sorry, that's completely wrong. Try modeling a half wave dipole in free space with the EZNEC demo program, then model a very short dipole, say 0.01 wavelength long. For both, set the wire loss to zero. You'll see that the gain is only about a half dB different, due to the slightly fatter shape of the short dipole's lobes. An Average Gain check, which compares the total power in the field with the power fed from the source, can be used as a direct measure of the radiation efficiency. It should be very close to one for both antennas. (Any deviation from one is due to calculation imprecision in the program.) These EZNEC results are correct. If you have trouble believing them, I'll be glad to furnish you with a few references from well known textbooks. Of course, an actual antenna *will* have wire loss, and the wire resistance will cause more loss in the short antenna than in a longer one, due to the higher current for a given power input. It's that, plus the matching system loss, that causes real short antennas to often perform poorly -- not something inherently due to the generation of the field from a short conductor. "Capacity hats" and inductances incorporated into the radiating structure can be used, as examples. This also raises the antenna radiation resistance and reduces the reactance at the antenna input -- making it easier to match into, and reducing system losses. Yes. That word "system" is vital. Someone gave an example of a pager antenna or something that had a rated gain that was below isotropic. It'd be interesting to see where the losses were. This is covered in my comments above, I believe. // I hope you find these comments helpful. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Roy Lewallen wrote:
A radiator is a circuit. Most antennas are NOT a circuit. Most antennas are distributed networks. Circuit theory doesn't work on distributed network problems. That's why distributed network analysis was invented. -- 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 =---- |
Antennas *are* circuits. Circuits can consist of either lumped or
distributed components, or both. However, that's not particularly relevant to my point. In the steady state, there is no test which can be devised that can distinguish an antenna (including feedline, if desired) from a black box containing lumped components -- a lumped component circuit(*). This allows us to simply design such things as matching networks without any consideration of the real properties of an antenna. Only when transient signals are involved is other than simple lumped-network analysis necessary. In a typical antenna and feedline system, steady state is reached much, much faster than even the fastest CW dit or speech component, so transient analysis isn't required for these common modes of operation. There are a few familiar situations where analysis under normal operating conditions requires consideration of the distributed nature of the system, such as when doing time domain reflectometry or in some situations involving television signals, both modulated and baseband. None of these, however, can be considered steady state so the simplified model isn't applicable. Cecil, if you feel a need to expound yet more on your theories, please do so in one of the many threads you've come to dominate already, start a new one, or concentrate your efforts on your forthcoming QEX article. I hope you'll let us try and make an objective and hopefully helpful contribution from time to time on this newsgroup without your constantly attempting to steer the discussion to your theories. (*) Furthermore, if we restrict analysis to a single frequency, the black box needs to contain only two components - a resistor and either a capacitor or inductor. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Cecil Moore wrote: Roy Lewallen wrote: A radiator is a circuit. Most antennas are NOT a circuit. Most antennas are distributed networks. Circuit theory doesn't work on distributed network problems. That's why distributed network analysis was invented. |
"Richard Fry" wrote:
... I am asking for comments on what I wrote -- ________________ Thanks to all who responded. Now to process those responses. RF |
Richard Fry wrote:
... I am asking for comments on what I wrote -- ________________ Thanks to all who responded. Now to process those responses. RF One final comment: this thread shows how difficult it can be to distil a complex subject down to a few paragraphs, without making generalizations that will sometimes be incorrect. It can never be done in a single pass, so all credit for making the effort and for taking the comments on board. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
Roy Lewallen wrote:
In the steady state, there is no test which can be devised that can distinguish an antenna (including feedline, if desired) from a black box containing lumped components -- a lumped component circuit(*). You can't distinguish between a resonant 1/2WL dipole and a dummy load using a field strength meter? :-) You can't distinguish between a dummy load impedor and a resonant dipole impedance? How about just looking to see if a physical impedor exists? Those two impedances even have different definitions in the IEEE Dictionary. Cecil, if you feel a need to expound yet more on your theories, please do so in one of the many threads you've come to dominate already, start a new one, or concentrate your efforts on your forthcoming QEX article. I hope you'll let us try and make an objective and hopefully helpful contribution from time to time on this newsgroup without your constantly attempting to steer the discussion to your theories. Their not my theories, Roy. For instance, the IEEE Dictionary distinguishes between the (virtual) feedpoint impedance of a resonant antenna and the impedance of an impedor, e.g. a dummy load. Those two impedances have *different* definitions. A dummy load impedor is the *cause* of the load V/I ratio. The resistance of a resonant 50 ohm antenna is the *effect* of the feedpoint (superposed-V/superposed-I) ratio. Isn't it past time for completely ignoring cause and effect? -- 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 =---- |
Ian:
AYE!!! And being the uncouth slob I am, and holding the motto, "Whatever works!" I get my butt kicked a lot... frown John "Ian White GM3SEK" wrote in message ... Richard Fry wrote: ... I am asking for comments on what I wrote -- ________________ Thanks to all who responded. Now to process those responses. RF One final comment: this thread shows how difficult it can be to distil a complex subject down to a few paragraphs, without making generalizations that will sometimes be incorrect. It can never be done in a single pass, so all credit for making the effort and for taking the comments on board. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
And he's off again. I gained a lot of peace when I put "John Smith" and
Jesus as the very first two entries in my filter list some time ago. You now have the distinction of being the third -- just below Jesus. It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Cecil Moore wrote: Roy Lewallen wrote: In the steady state, there is no test which can be devised that can distinguish an antenna (including feedline, if desired) from a black box containing lumped components -- a lumped component circuit(*). You can't distinguish between a resonant 1/2WL dipole and a dummy load using a field strength meter? :-) You can't distinguish between a dummy load impedor and a resonant dipole impedance? How about just looking to see if a physical impedor exists? Those two impedances even have different definitions in the IEEE Dictionary. Cecil, if you feel a need to expound yet more on your theories, please do so in one of the many threads you've come to dominate already, start a new one, or concentrate your efforts on your forthcoming QEX article. I hope you'll let us try and make an objective and hopefully helpful contribution from time to time on this newsgroup without your constantly attempting to steer the discussion to your theories. Their not my theories, Roy. For instance, the IEEE Dictionary distinguishes between the (virtual) feedpoint impedance of a resonant antenna and the impedance of an impedor, e.g. a dummy load. Those two impedances have *different* definitions. A dummy load impedor is the *cause* of the load V/I ratio. The resistance of a resonant 50 ohm antenna is the *effect* of the feedpoint (superposed-V/superposed-I) ratio. Isn't it past time for completely ignoring cause and effect? |
Roy Lewallen wrote:
It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye. Well, before you go, Roy, chew on this one. The s11 reflection coefficient at the feedpoint of a 1/2WL dipole is about 0.85 -- 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:
Roy Lewallen wrote: It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye. I apologize for barbecuing those sacred cows. Well, before you go, Roy, chew on this one. The s11 reflection coefficient at the feedpoint of a 1/2WL dipole is about 0.85 when fed with 50 ohm coax. -- 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 =--- |
.... deep within the pits of-- rec.radio.amateur.antenna.hell-- John
Smith moves over on the bench, making room for Cecil... Warmest regards, John "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Cecil Moore wrote: Roy Lewallen wrote: It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye. I apologize for barbecuing those sacred cows. Well, before you go, Roy, chew on this one. The s11 reflection coefficient at the feedpoint of a 1/2WL dipole is about 0.85 when fed with 50 ohm coax. -- 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 =--- |
John Smith wrote:
... deep within the pits of-- rec.radio.amateur.antenna.hell-- John Smith moves over on the bench, making room for Cecil... I guess some religions forbid barbecuing sacred cows. -- 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:
John Smith wrote: ... deep within the pits of-- rec.radio.amateur.antenna.hell-- John Smith moves over on the bench, making room for Cecil... I guess some religions forbid barbecuing sacred cows. Thankfully, nature forbids flying cows - and pigs. :-) Squelch on. ac6xg |
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: I guess some religions forbid barbecuing sacred cows. Thankfully, nature forbids flying cows - and pigs. :-) Hey Jim, welcome back. I have a thread waiting for you. It's titled "Thin Film Example" and asks you to explain where the energy and the momentum in the thin-film internal reflected wave goes. Enjoy. :-) -- 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 =---- |
Roy Lewallen wrote:
It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye. Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale $hit in the deepest part of the ocean. Reminds me of the upper classmen at Texas A&M. :-) -- 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:
Roy Lewallen wrote: It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye. Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale $hit in the deepest part of the ocean. And there's the problem: whatever somebody actually says, you'll translate it into what it suits you to have them say. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
Cecil:
I should have mentioned the 11th Commandment and saved others... 11) Thou shalt not disagree with God. .... hey, did you bring that bottle of wine with ya, it is hot down here? Warmest regards, John "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Roy Lewallen wrote: It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye. Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale $hit in the deepest part of the ocean. Reminds me of the upper classmen at Texas A&M. :-) -- 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 =---- |
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Roy Lewallen wrote: It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye. Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale $hit in the deepest part of the ocean. And there's the problem: whatever somebody actually says, you'll translate it into what it suits you to have them say. Defending your friend even when he is wrong is admirable but why is your translation better than mine? Incidentally, that was *humor* based on my time at Texas A&M during the 1950's. Freshmen had to admit to upper-classmen that they were lower than the lowest ... You (and Roy) absolutely hate anyone who disagrees with you and engage in hazing (ad hominem attacks) to try to chase such a person away from the newsgroup. Why do you fear the facts? You two guys consider yourselves to be such omniscient gurus and never admit a mistake except maybe for an occasional typo. Einstein is rolling over in his grave laughing at Roy's assertion that photonic energy can "slosh around" in the transmission line. Photonic energy always travels at the speed of light obeying the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. (Shades of the court that convicted Galileo to house arrest. If you think you are capable of convicting me to house arrest, come on down to Madison County, TX and meet all my cousins in law-enforcement. :-) -- 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 =--- |
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:17:39 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Shades of the court that convicted Galileo to house arrest. There ya' go again. Having problems dropping your balls off the Tower of Pisa? |
Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Roy Lewallen wrote: It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye. Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale $hit in the deepest part of the ocean. And there's the problem: whatever somebody actually says, you'll translate it into what it suits you to have them say. Defending your friend even when he is wrong is admirable but why is your translation better than mine? Incidentally, that was *humor* based on my time at Texas A&M during the 1950's. Freshmen had to admit to upper-classmen that they were lower than the lowest ... You (and Roy) absolutely hate anyone who disagrees with you and engage in hazing (ad hominem attacks) to try to chase such a person away from the newsgroup. Why do you fear the facts? You two guys consider yourselves to be such omniscient gurus and never admit a mistake except maybe for an occasional typo. Einstein is rolling over in his grave laughing at Roy's assertion that photonic energy can "slosh around" in the transmission line. Photonic energy always travels at the speed of light obeying the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. (Shades of the court that convicted Galileo to house arrest. If you think you are capable of convicting me to house arrest, come on down to Madison County, TX and meet all my cousins in law-enforcement. :-) I guess people are getting sick and tired of your second-rate debating technique, Cecil. I've seen Roy admit to mistakes time and again, while the number of times you've admitted being wrong are essentially zero. If you want to get psychological about it, I think anyone could make a good case that you're projecting your own failings onto other people. Like a few others on this newsgroup, I'm looking forward to your piece in QEX. I have a theory, that people who develop theories of energy - in your case, power - and then defend them as strongly and hysterically, as you do, are closet perpetual motion enthusiasts. It will be interesting to see whether or not my admittedly crackpot (but not as crackpot as your ideas) theory is true in your case. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:17:39 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote: Shades of the court that convicted Galileo to house arrest. There ya' go again. Yep, it keeps coming back to that regarding closed minds incapable thinking an original thought. Having problems dropping your balls off the Tower of Pisa? Yep, apparently I'm trying to drop them off the wrong side. :-) -- 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 =--- |
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:39:47 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Having problems dropping your balls off the Tower of Pisa? Yep, apparently I'm trying to drop them off the wrong side. Explains your outrageous gaffs. Did they deflect, reflect, or diffract? |
Tom Donaly wrote:
I guess people are getting sick and tired of your second-rate debating technique, Cecil. I've seen Roy admit to mistakes time and again, while the number of times you've admitted being wrong are essentially zero. Typically biased, Tom. I have admitted I was wrong at a rate of at least three to one compared to Roy. I feel sorry for you if you agree with Roy that when a 50 ohm SWR meter reads 4:1, the system is Z0-matched to 50 ohms. I feel sorry for you if you insist a lumped circuit analysis is appropriate for a distributed network problem. I feel sorry for you if you insist that EM waves can exist without their associated ExH energy. I feel sorry for you if you deny that interference plays any part in transmission line matching. How about Roy's assertion that photonic energy "sloshes" back and forth in a transmission line? I don't recall Einstein ever saying such was even possible. Do you really believe that photonic energy "sloshes" back and forth? If so, I've got some "Ocean Front Property in Arizona" reserved especially for you. You guys have a good old boys network going here that ignores the laws of physics and reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition. Sorry, once in history was once too many. -- 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 =--- |
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:09:25 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: You guys have a good old boys network going here that ignores the laws of physics C'mon, now, you couldn't even get diffraction working right and you couldn't even compute the math on reflection. If we are good ol' boys, that must make you the hayseed of physics. |
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote: I guess people are getting sick and tired of your second-rate debating technique, Cecil. I've seen Roy admit to mistakes time and again, while the number of times you've admitted being wrong are essentially zero. Typically biased, Tom. I have admitted I was wrong at a rate of at least three to one compared to Roy. I feel sorry for you if you agree with Roy that when a 50 ohm SWR meter reads 4:1, the system is Z0-matched to 50 ohms. I feel sorry for you if you insist a lumped circuit analysis is appropriate for a distributed network problem. I feel sorry for you if you insist that EM waves can exist without their associated ExH energy. I feel sorry for you if you deny that interference plays any part in transmission line matching. How about Roy's assertion that photonic energy "sloshes" back and forth in a transmission line? I don't recall Einstein ever saying such was even possible. Do you really believe that photonic energy "sloshes" back and forth? If so, I've got some "Ocean Front Property in Arizona" reserved especially for you. You guys have a good old boys network going here that ignores the laws of physics and reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition. Sorry, once in history was once too many. Vintage Moore. As I said, Cecil, people are finally getting tired of your silly postings. Now you've been plonked. Next you'll be replonked, again and again until all your posts go unread. Maybe you can convince yourself you're an unrecognized genius. It's always good to have that to fall back on. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Roy Lewallen wrote: It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye. Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale $hit in the deepest part of the ocean. And there's the problem: whatever somebody actually says, you'll translate it into what it suits you to have them say. Defending your friend even when he is wrong is admirable but why is your translation better than mine? I didn't offer a "translation" of anybody else's words into something they didn't say. And I most certainly would NOT defend Roy Lewallen if he were wrong. He would hate that... and in the same situation, so would I. You (and Roy) absolutely hate anyone who disagrees with you and engage in hazing (ad hominem attacks) to try to chase such a person away from the newsgroup. Why do you fear the facts? You two guys consider yourselves to be such omniscient gurus and never admit a mistake except maybe for an occasional typo. I don't hate you in the slightest, Cecil. I just hate sloppy thinking. This is not an ego thing. It's all about defending the bedrock of basic scientific principles and logic. If Roy or I appear rigid and unyielding, that's because neither of us is prepared to give way if it means breaking those basic principles. THE most basic principle of physical science is that every bit of true knowledge is a piece of a huge jigsaw puzzle that fits together with everything else that's true. If it doesn't fit in with every other piece, then it ain't true. The absolute fascination of science - and science-based engineering - is in understanding *how* they fit... and very occasionally, finding a few new small pieces. Antennas and transmission lines are bloody difficult, and complex in every sense, so it's sometimes hard to see how the pieces fit. But that makes it MORE important to hold fast to the underlying knowledge that they do fit... if we could but figure out how. The wrong way is to say: "This big puzzle is too hard, so I'll make up my own little patch over here, and who cares if it doesn't fit?" Well I care! I also care if other people are being led astray by the loudest voice or the most prolific poster. But that principle is a hard taskmaster. It means that every notion has to be tested to see if it fits. It means being prepared to throw away a dozen pet theories before lunchtime, if they fail to fit into that big jigsaw puzzle. It means that getting it right is vastly more important than "winning" an argument, or being the last man still posting when a thread dies out. Roy and I agree on a lot of things - so much so, it must often seem like collusion. But it isn't - it's just another result of those basic underlying principles. They are exactly the same in Oxford as in Oregon, so if each of us gets it right independently, then we're inevitably led to the same conclusions. Anybody can make mistakes; and if that happens, Roy has often said he wants to be corrected. So do I. If he and I don't agree on something, the most important thing to either of us is to understand why. Give either of us a convincing argument - namely an argument that fits in correctly with the rest of scientific knowledge - then we'll gladly agree and be happier for it. In contrast, I have lots of disagreements with Reg! But they are all about judgement calls, such as the best methods to use, or what other people do or don't need to be told. We approach those topics very differently, and may never agree; but I don't recall ever having fundamentally disagreed with Reg on basic principles, and don't ever expect that to happen. And finally: yes, I have met Roy Lewallen. When my vacation flight in 2000 passed through Portland, we naturally made it our business to take a look at each other! What you see here is the same guy when you meet him. I am pleased to count him as a friend; but more important than friendship is his uncompromising intellectual honesty about trying to deal only in true facts. Well, there it is. Cecil, if you still see any of this as an ego thing, or merely "defending a friend"... then you haven't understood a single word. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
Tom Donaly wrote:
Vintage Moore. Yep, focusing on technical errors. Vintage Donaly: Ignoring technical errors and focusing on personalities. -- 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 =--- |
Ian said -
In contrast, I have lots of disagreements with Reg! But they are all about judgement calls, such as the best methods to use, or what other people do or don't need to be told. We approach those topics very differently, and may never agree; but I don't recall ever having fundamentally disagreed with Reg on basic principles, ================================ That's because we are always right. And are both peace-loving Englishmen. Thank you for allowing us to make use of your USA arena/battlefield. ---- Reg, G4FGQ |
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
And I most certainly would NOT defend Roy Lewallen if he were wrong. He would hate that... and in the same situation, so would I. I apologize for exaggerating yesterday's situation through hyperbole, a character flaw in my tongue-in-cheek dark humor. "Shirley, you jest" is a hint. Well, there it is. Cecil, if you still see any of this as an ego thing, or merely "defending a friend"... then you haven't understood a single word. And here's your chance to back up those elegant words. Here's a repeat of Roy's example: 100v source--x----1/2WL 50 ohm feedline----+--200 ohm load 50 ohm A 50 ohm SWR meter measures 4:1 at point 'x'. Roy says: "But there's a Z0 match at the source in my example." What do you say? -- 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:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote: And I most certainly would NOT defend Roy Lewallen if he were wrong. He would hate that... and in the same situation, so would I. I apologize for exaggerating yesterday's situation through hyperbole, a character flaw in my tongue-in-cheek dark humor. "Shirley, you jest" is a hint. Oh sorry, wrong name! Well, there it is. Cecil, if you still see any of this as an ego thing, or merely "defending a friend"... then you haven't understood a single word. And here's your chance to back up those elegant words. Here's a repeat of Roy's example: 100v source--x----1/2WL 50 ohm feedline----+--200 ohm load 50 ohm A 50 ohm SWR meter measures 4:1 at point 'x'. Roy says: "But there's a Z0 match at the source in my example." What do you say? Miz Shirley, I don't believe I'm meant to be your partner for this dance :-) -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote: Well, there it is. Cecil, if you still see any of this as an ego thing, or merely "defending a friend"... then you haven't understood a single word. And here's your chance to back up those elegant words. Here's a repeat of Roy's example: 100v source--x----1/2WL 50 ohm feedline----+--200 ohm load 50 ohm A 50 ohm SWR meter measures 4:1 at point 'x'. Roy says: "But there's a Z0 match at the source in my example." What do you say? Ian, by your lack of a response, it seems that your elegant words were not put into practice. -- 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 =--- |
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:11:14 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Ian, by your lack of a response, it seems that your elegant words were not put into practice. Now let's couch that in terms of your failed Thin Film proposition: do you judge yourself by the same standard of "lack of response?" |
Richard Clark wrote:
Now let's couch that in terms of your failed Thin Film proposition: do you judge yourself by the same standard of "lack of response?" The logical resonse to a demand for including refraction in a purely conceptual lossless laser reflection example is: "Somebody Get The Net!!!" -- 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 =--- |
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:26:49 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: Now let's couch that in terms of your failed Thin Film proposition: do you judge yourself by the same standard of "lack of response?" The logical resonse to a demand for including refraction in a purely conceptual lossless laser reflection example is: "Somebody Get The Net!!!" So, when judging yourself to that same standard, this is your response? Yes, Ian did miss an opportunity to call out the net for you. I don't think that opportunity will be missed again. No one expects you to correct your errors, that would be rational. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:56 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com