Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
Art Unwin
shields and the different auguments regarding how shielding or the
Faraday shield works. Frankly it is a total mess and should be removed
so that hams are not mislead.
Shielding is very simple.
A particle with a electromagnetic field strikes the outside of the
shield.
The magnetic field of same passes thru the shield some might say it is
coupled to the inside of the shield.
The magnetic vector component is out of phase with the electrical
field so it will be just a static particle at rest on the inside but
no inline with the electrical field vector which is now a staic
particle at rest on the outside
We now have a arbitrary boundary as discused by Gauss
For equilibrium all vectors impinging on the boundary must be aligned
such that they cancel.
To accomplish this the inner vector or charge MUST move sideways
THE CHARGE WHEN ACCELERATED CREATES A TIME VARYING CURRENT ALONE
WHILE THE OTHER FIELD VECTORS CANCEL OUT
( I believe that this was the object intended in the cross field
antenna)
As with a applied varying current leaves a xmitter to create
radiation, so must the receiver obtain a time varying current.
Maxwells equations show equations with the electric field, the
magnetic field and a time varying current. When you have a electrical
field or vector of a static particle at rest outside the boundary
opposing the static vector on the inside of the boundary you have
nothing left EXCEPT a time varying current in the closed circuit.
For informative descriptions of how radiation occurs view the QRZ
forum of ( antenna construction and design ) threads (3) on the
double helix
antenna ( see you there)
Somebody some where should re write the above such that a definition
is left for those who follow and remove the garbage which is now in
place
Dave
hey there groups archivist, if there is such a thing... remove this
post in accordance with his own request that such garbage be removed.
tom
> I have been reading the groups archives on shield antennas and Faraday
> shields and the different auguments regarding how shielding or the
> Faraday shield works. Frankly it is a total mess and should be removed
> so that hams are not mislead.
> Shielding is very simple.
> A particle with a electromagnetic field strikes the outside of the
> shield.
> The magnetic field of same passes thru the shield some might say it is
> coupled to the inside of the shield.
> The magnetic vector component is out of phase with the electrical
> field so it will be just a static particle at rest on the inside but
> no inline with the electrical field vector which is now a staic
> particle at rest on the outside
> We now have a arbitrary boundary as discused by Gauss
> For equilibrium all vectors impinging on the boundary must be aligned
> such that they cancel.
> To accomplish this the inner vector or charge MUST move sideways
>
<snip crap, but left plenty>
WOW!!!
Look everybody he's totally making up physics again!
Art - get back on your meds, you're nuts again.
tom
K0TAR
orfus
tom
Nope. Local loony.
You, however, are a troll until proven otherwise.
tom
K0TAR
Lostgallifreyan
news:4b148b31$0$47482$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net:
Ok, at the risk of stirring muddy water, I'm curious now, I'm new to this
group, and the subject as there clearly seems to be more to it than I knew. I
also don't know of those archives mentioned so I haven't seen the context.
So in simple terms (hopefully) what is the truth of it? As far as I knew, a
photon at RF with energy but no mass will produce a current that changes over
time in a metal that it hits, though I imagine that as metal has resistance
there must also be a voltage too. I've also heard of the 'skin effect' that
means that at high RF frequencies, current flow tends to stay on the surface,
so clearly the picture isn't as simple as DC and Ohm's law. I also know that
when photons in optical fibres meet boundaries between layers they don't
reflect simply on one side, within one region of specific refractive index,
there's apparently some more complex information exchange that amounts to the
photon crossing the border before returning. Which makes me suspect that
equally exotic action happens when RF photons hit metal sheilds. So what IS
correct? And even if there is more to it, does the aggregate of many photons,
and the wave analysis of their behaviour, reduce to a simple model that makes
the OP correct?
I'm asking this because calls of 'troll' and 'loony' aren't working for me.
K7ITM
> tom <news4...@taring.org> wrote innews:4b148b31$0$47482$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net:
It's fairly straightforward, actually, if you believe in Faraday's law
of magnetic induction. That law says that for any closed loop
(through air, through a conductor, through anything), there is an
electromotive force (a voltage source, if you will) whose magnitude is
proportional to the rate of change of magnetic flux enclosed by the
loop. As there is no voltage drop along a perfect conductor, if your
closed loop follows the path of a perfect conductor, there is no
voltage drop around that loop, and therefore the rate of change of the
total magnetic flux enclosed by that loop must be zero. If the
perfect conductor is a closed box, then you can draw loops anywhere
through that conductor and you will never see a changing magnetic
field enclosed by that loop. Thus, the inside of the box and the
outside are magnetically independent; things happening on one side
(magnetically) are not sensed on the other side.
You can understand how this works if you realize that a changing
magnetic field outside the box that would penetrate the box if it
weren't there will induce currents in the conducting box (or even just
in a closed loop of wire). Those currents will (in a perfect
conductor) be exactly the right magnitude to cause a magnetic field
that cancels the external one everywhere inside the closed box (or the
net flux enclosed by a loop of wire). An example: if you short the
secondary of a mains transformer, the primary will draw lots of
current at its rated voltage: it's very difficult for the primary to
change the magnetic flux in the core.
Does the electric field shielding from a perfect conductor need any
explanation?
Of course, an imperfect conductor will be an imperfect magnetic
shield. But a perfect conductor won't let any change of field
through, no matter how slow (no matter how low an EMF it generates),
so a perfect conductor works as a shield all the way down to DC. A
box made with an imperfect conductor is essentially a perfect shield
if the box's wall thickness is at least many skin-depths thick at the
frequency of interest.
That's a quick beginning. You can find lots more about this in E&M
texts. There's even useful stuff about it on the web. ;-)
Cheers,
Tom
Ian White GM3SEK
Here is a link to a generalized proof of the skin effect:
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek/misc/skin.htm
This is exactly equivalent to Tom's explanation above. The detailed
proof is quite mathematical but it is solidly based in classical physics
- Faraday's Law and Ampere's theorem (both of which are embodied in
Maxwell's equations). This derivation produces the well-known equations
for current density as a function of depth, conductivity and
permeability.
The special feature of this particular proof is that it's much more
general than the ones you see in better-known textbooks - and therefore
much more powerful. It shows that if RF current is flowing in/on *any*
conducting surface, for *any* reason, then the skin effect will be
present.
The possible reasons why RF current may be flowing can be divided into
two main groups:
* "Circuit conditions" - the conductor is part of a circuit that makes
RF current flow.
* "Electromagnetic induction" - the conductor is intercepting an
incident electromagnetic wave which induces a current.
In either case, an RF current flows... and wherever that happens, there
you will also find the skin effect.
--
73 from Ian GM3SEK
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
Lostgallifreyan
64940f...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Thanks, that helps, especially the paragraph about creating a magnetic field
in response that tends to cancel the original one, and the thickness of metal
with regard to frequency. The OP (Art Unwin) mentioned cancellation in more
complex terms, so I'm still not clear if this validates what he said or not.
It appears to but he mentions stuff I'm not likely to grasp in just an hour
or two of effort.. What I'm getting at is that I'm not sure if his calling
orthodoxy into question is all that drew the flak, or if there's something
obviously wrong in his post that I'm missing.
Also (though I'll likely find out about this when I look deeper), why is it
often ok for a Faraday cage to have holes in it? :) Braided screens, meshes,
perforated metal sheets, etc, I've seen many shields that are not a complete
'seal'... UHF TV cables especially seem to be very loosely shielded but they
work. Conversely, I found some nice coax in a skip once that had two heavy
braids amounting to almost complete coverage around a single fine stranded
core. (Found outside a telephone exchange, but I don't know what frequency
they were intended for, though I used some for an outdoor VHF receiving
quarter wave dipole with good results, and I suspect it will do for a SW
longwire once I get a matching transformer for it).
Lostgallifreyan
news:xYMHdfMU...@ifwtech.co.uk:
> http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek/misc/skin.htm
>
> This is exactly equivalent to Tom's explanation above. The detailed
> proof is quite mathematical but it is solidly based in classical physics
> - Faraday's Law and Ampere's theorem (both of which are embodied in
> Maxwell's equations). This derivation produces the well-known equations
> for current density as a function of depth, conductivity and
> permeability.
>
Thanks, that linking of laws and theories will help me (and the confirmation
that classical physics will be enough to describe it, as I hoped). The OP
mentioned Maxwell too... so did he make some error I have yet to grasp? Other
than taking pot shots at an establishment, that is... :)
> The special feature of this particular proof is that it's much more
> general than the ones you see in better-known textbooks - and therefore
> much more powerful. It shows that if RF current is flowing in/on *any*
> conducting surface, for *any* reason, then the skin effect will be
> present.
>
That appeals to me. I think the more something can be seen to apply
generally, the more it helps. Proportion can't be gauged with a model that
denies it.
Gaius
Conversely, I found some nice coax in a skip once that had two heavy
> braids amounting to almost complete coverage around a single fine stranded
> core. (Found outside a telephone exchange, but I don't know what frequency
> they were intended for, though I used some for an outdoor VHF receiving
> quarter wave dipole with good results, and I suspect it will do for a SW
> longwire once I get a matching transformer for it).
If it was a UK (BT) telephone exchange, then it probably was "Cable
coaxial 2003".
Used for critical video and general HF use. I don't know what it's
officially spec'd to, but it would work well up to several hundred MHz.
Characteristic impedance of 75ohms, and easily capable of 100W into a
decent match.
Lostgallifreyan
news:4b14f4cc$0$2480$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk:
Sounds like the same stuff, though I have 2002 on mine (which in absence of
other markings was cryptic enough that I was unsure of it, though I think it
might have been earlier than 2002 when I found it. :) I thought it might be
75 ohm but I had no idea it might efficiently carry high power. But I knew it
was well over-spec'd for the uses I put it to. I was lucky to find it. The
staff there were happy enough for me to raid the skip, too... Should try it
again sometime. That stuff seems to last forever even outside in strong daily
temperature changes and direct sunlight.
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9CD47006A9E...@216.196.109.145:
I forgot to mention that I also used some for a pair of DIY scope leads for a
100 MHz scope, and they worked right even without the little capacitative
adjuster usually supplied on properly made probes. A bit clumsy, but a nice
find all the same.
Gaius
> Sounds like the same stuff, though I have 2002 on mine (which in absence of
> other markings was cryptic enough that I was unsure of it, though I think it
> might have been earlier than 2002 when I found it. :) I thought it might be
> 75 ohm but I had no idea it might efficiently carry high power. But I knew it
> was well over-spec'd for the uses I put it to. I was lucky to find it. The
> staff there were happy enough for me to raid the skip, too... Should try it
> again sometime. That stuff seems to last forever even outside in strong daily
> temperature changes and direct sunlight.
If it has 2002 printed on it, that means it's "Cable coaxial 2002",
which is one down the scale in loss terms from 2003. 2002 (nothing to do
with the date!) is as good quality as 2003 (which is thicker), but the
loss is a bit higher. The three usual types were AFAIR -
2001 - single screened, foam dielectric. Quite thin - used for short
runs and jumpers.
2002 - General purpose, high quality. Solid dielectric.
2003 - Top quality (in loss terms). Solid dielectric.
All are 75ohms - like pretty well all telecom coax. (50 ohm is usually
only found in antenna feeders and traditional ethernet). The normal PVC
jacket colour was "Light straw" (yellowish cream), but other colours
were occasionally used for special purposes.
Lostgallifreyan
news:4b150431$0$2474$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk:
Thanks. That matches closely except the dielectric, which I think is foam (is
certainly foamy or foamish). Colour is same too, though closer to white than
yellow. As far as I know the impedance is purely based on the scale and
geometry of the cross-section, and if so, I guess the central conductor of
2003 is also thicker. I think there were seven strands of very thin copper.
If you or anyone reading this really wants to know I'll get a vernier gauge
and find a bare cable end somewhere... External diameter is approx 5mm on the
2002 type.
Do you know if it's only BT internal use? If I can buy it economically, I'd
consider it. I like working with it, when I'm in the mood for picking apart
cable braids.
Art Unwin
> tom <news4...@taring.org> wrote innews:4b148b31$0$47482$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net:
If you go back to the arbitary boundary of the Gaussian law of statics
and view it as a
Faraday shield it all becomes quite simple. If one adds a time varying
field you have the duplicate of Maxwells laws for radiation, where
the outside of the boundary is the radiator.
The Faraday shield supplies the transition from a static to a dynamic
field for xmission and
the reverse action for receiving.
Very basic my dear Watson, and a vindication that particles and not
waves create radiation
which puts it in line with deductions when other methods are applied.
Gaius
> Thanks. That matches closely except the dielectric, which I think is foam (is
> certainly foamy or foamish). Colour is same too, though closer to white than
> yellow. As far as I know the impedance is purely based on the scale and
> geometry of the cross-section, and if so, I guess the central conductor of
> 2003 is also thicker. I think there were seven strands of very thin copper.
> If you or anyone reading this really wants to know I'll get a vernier gauge
> and find a bare cable end somewhere... External diameter is approx 5mm on the
> 2002 type.
>
> Do you know if it's only BT internal use? If I can buy it economically, I'd
> consider it. I like working with it, when I'm in the mood for picking apart
> cable braids.
>
You're right - my memory must be porous. 2002 has a FOAM dielectric.
Also, 2003 has a single strand inner conductor (spec must have changed -
used to be stranded). You can buy 2002 from RS - it's a BT spec, but
available for anyone. Have a look at :
http://uk.rs-online.com/web/search/searchBrowseAction.html?method=getProduct&R=5203068
It's only �58 for 100m, and the loss is reasonable at 3.61dB/100m @
4MHz. (2003 cable is 2.33dB/100m @ 4MHz)
Lostgallifreyan
news:4b152a71$0$2488$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk:
Nice. Given what RS are charging for RG59 with a double braid that appears
similar, it looks very good. I don't know enough to choose between them
though, especially given the huge variety of cables RS show for RG59 with
costs varying more than tenfold per metre. From what I've seen of it I'd go
for that BT cable at their price. (They add VAT though..) I guess BT's
economies of large scale help this stuff to be cheaper than it otherwise
would be.
Lostgallifreyan
bc9774...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> If you go back to the arbitary boundary of the Gaussian law of statics
> and view it as a
> Faraday shield it all becomes quite simple. If one adds a time varying
> field you have the duplicate of Maxwells laws for radiation, where
> the outside of the boundary is the radiator.
> The Faraday shield supplies the transition from a static to a dynamic
> field for xmission and
> the reverse action for receiving.
> Very basic my dear Watson, and a vindication that particles and not
> waves create radiation
> which puts it in line with deductions when other methods are applied.
Doesn't look basic, and I suspect it never will to me. The only thing I
can get from this is the idea that a particle model will do what the wave
one does, which isn't surprising but I've been told that particle based
models are usually best left to situations (usually atomic scale quantum
mechanical) where the wave model won't do, and I've never seen anyone suggest
that wave-based theories of electromagnetics were inadequate (or inefficient)
for scales involving obviously large numbers of particles. The other
explanations seemed to grip, but not this one. I'll leave well alone now, but
if anyone else takes up the discussion, I'll read it and only comment if I
can't stop myself..
Richard Clark
<no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> why is it
>often ok for a Faraday cage to have holes in it? :) Braided screens, meshes,
>perforated metal sheets, etc, I've seen many shields that are not a complete
>'seal'... UHF TV cables especially seem to be very loosely shielded but they
>work.
This can be explained at super high frequency and at DC as easily.
However, before that it should be pointed out that the coverage (the
ratio of what is conductor to what is not - the air space) defines how
"good" the faraday shield will be. Not surprisingly, coverage is
wavelength dependant. To cut to the chase, a wide mesh will allow
increasingly higher frequencies (shorter waves) through.
Now, as to the how. With a separation in the mesh, and for very large
wavelength (in proportion to the opening size), you will have a very,
very small potential difference across any of the mesh openings. Very
little potential voltage across the mesh opening means very little
current flow around the mesh opening that is specifically due to that
potential difference.
This is not to say there isn't a very, very large current flow by
virtue of some very, very long wave. No, there's no denying that, but
to get through the mesh you have to satisfy local conditions that
demand what amounts to leakage (and this is exactly the term that
correlates to coverage when discussing coax weave). If that huge
current cannot induce a significant voltage across the mesh opening,
then the mesh opening loop current cannot induce a field through to
the other side. Now, if you examine the context of "huge current" in
a resistive conductor, then obviously a potential difference can
occur. Point is that reality (and science) allow for poor grade
shields, but as a one knock-off proof you can summon up any failure,
ignore simple contra-examples and create a new theory.
However, returning to what is well known. If you increase the
frequency applied to the mesh, then at some point wavelength will
allow a situation where the general current flowing through the whole
structure will naturally exhibit a potential difference across some
small scale. By this point, abstraction may be wearying.
Let's say you have a 10 meter-on-a-side cage with 1 meter mesh
openings. If your applied field were exciting the cage at 75MHz (4M),
then any spot on the cage could be at a very high potential difference
from any spot adjacent and 1 meter away (a simple quarterwave
relationship). This works for a solid conductor, it works for a mesh
conductor.
The 1 meter mesh openings can thus exhibit a substantial potential
difference across the opening, and a local current loop associated
with that potential difference. The mesh opening becomes a
quarterwave radiator (aka slot antenna) and can couple energy from the
external field into the interior of the cage (now possibly a resonant
chamber, aka RF cavity). In practice and literature, the mesh opening
loop exhibits a radiation resistance of 10s of Ohms. That compared to
its mesh loop Ohmic path loss, makes it a very efficient coupler of
energy.
Take this very poor example of mesh, and lower the frequency to 750
KHz. The mesh opening - if we originally likened it to an antenna, we
should be able to continue to do that - is now 1/400th Wave. A
1/400th wave radiator has extremely small radiation resistance. The
exact value would be 751 nanoOhms. As we are examining a poor mesh,
it becomes clear that it must have some resistance over that 1 meter
distance (this is a real example, after all).
Being generous and constructing that cage out of rebar will give us a
path resistance of, luckily, 1 milliOhm. This figure and that of the
radiation resistance yield the radiation efficiency (that is, how well
the exterior RF will couple into the interior) which reduces to
0.075%. The cage works pretty well, but not perfectly (it was, after
all, a poor example).
Now, repeat this with a poorer conductor, or a tighter mesh and
imagine the shielding effect. The mesh has an opening radius
squared-squared relationship driving down the radiation resistance
compared to the linear relationship of conductance.
*************
Now, expanding the topic to allow for the contribution of ALL openings
in the mesh, we must again return to the physical dimension compared
to the wavelength dimension. If the cage is truly large, larger than
the field exciting it, then you have miniscule radiators along it,
each very inefficient. However, each of those radiators is out of
phase with a distant neighbor (not so with its close mesh neighbors).
Those two wavelength distant mesh radiators will combine somewhere in
the interior space and build a field. This is very commonly found in
inter-cable cross coupling through leakage that is exhibited in very
long cable trays with tightly bound lines. This doesn't improve the
efficiency, but sensitive circuits running parallel to power drives
can prove to be a poor combination. What to do when conditions
condemn the small signal coax to live in proximity to the large signal
supply?
This introduces the foil shield. The foil shield is a very poor
conductor over any significant length, but over the span between mesh
openings (e.g. coax shield weave), the resistance is sufficiently low
to close the conductance gap.
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Art Unwin
> Art Unwin <arthurun...@gmail.com> wrote in news:15904250-69bb-4aba-8a3f-
> bc97744a9...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
Well I didn't tell all in the first place because so much untruths are
buried in people"s mind.
When the charge or particle hits the outside of the shield both the
electric and magnetic fields dissapate leaving just the static
particle adheared to the outside. Ofcourse non bound particles in the
air are immediatly attracted to the inside of the shield and move
along the inside of the shield to align themselves with the outside
static particles for equilibrium.
Now for the important stuff that will upset hams. The internal
particle moves to align itself with the outside particle. By moving it
generates a time varying current such that the electric and magnetic
fields that disapated on the outside are now REGENERATED on the
inside.
Most people see or think that the outside magnetic field can pierce
the shield, which is why the name magnetic loop came about. Fields do
NOT penetrate a Faraday shield. A electromagnetic shield is
regenerated by the newly formed internal current which then closes the
circuit.
To put this with the original explanation would be to much for hams to
digest so it is best to split it into two parts.
christofire
"Ian White GM3SEK" <gm3...@ifwtech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xYMHdfMU...@ifwtech.co.uk...
> K7ITM wrote:
>>> I'm asking this because calls of 'troll' and 'loony' aren't working for
>>> me.
>>
>
> Here is a link to a generalized proof of the skin effect:
>
> http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek/misc/skin.htm
>
> This is exactly equivalent to Tom's explanation above. The detailed proof
> is quite mathematical but it is solidly based in classical physics
- further snip -
> --
>
> 73 from Ian GM3SEK
> http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
Your statement on your web page 'It is temporarily reproduced here, under
provisions of the Berne Copyright Convention, to support technical
discussions on the rec.radio.amateur.antenna newsgroup' looks interesting
because, to the best of my knowledge, the issue of the legality of copying
parts of others' published work onto Web sites hasn't been resolved. I
can't find any specific provision in the Berne Convention that _allows_
re-publishing on the Internet - it looks more likely to inhibit it because
Web sites are automatically worldwide.
On the page 'http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use' it
is stated: 'Under fair use rules, it may be possible to use quotations or
excerpts, where the work has been made available to the public, (i.e.
published). Provided that:
a.. The use is deemed acceptable under the terms of fair dealing.
b.. That the quoted material is justified, and no more than is necessary
is included.
c.. That the source of the quoted material is mentioned, along with the
name of the author.'
But also: 'The actual specifics of what is acceptable will be governed by
national laws, and although broadly similar, actual provision will vary from
country to country.'
Presumably you have researched this matter, and I for one would be
interested to hear what you've found that appears to cover international www
re-publishing.
Chris
K7ITM
> Art Unwin <arthurun...@gmail.com> wrote in news:15904250-69bb-4aba-8a3f-
> bc97744a9...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
Yep, that's about right. In fact, my advice if you do get into that
situation (where quantization of energy is important), is to NOT think
of particles or waves, but realize that quanta of electromagnetic
radiation behave exactly as they behave, which is neither exactly like
waves nor exactly like particles. One of Richard Feynman's physics
lectures covered what I think is a lovely example of this: how you
can NOT explain the results of the experiment he sets up, using EITHER
wave OR particle behaviour. I highly recommend it, to arm yourself
against people who get into the particle-vs-wave battle. I believe
it's the sixth of what has been published as Feynman's "Six Easy
Pieces."
Cheers,
Tom
Art Unwin
> K7ITM <k7...@msn.com> wrote in news:c52a1b1d-ef32-4d69-bf61-
When you feed a time varying current to the mesh it is best to view it
in small parts, say a square in the mesh. The hole is a static field
alongside the applied current flows. This same current generates a
displacement current which encircles the static field as it returns
to the initial current flow. Of course this section is a microcosm of
the flow pattern of the applied varying current which is continually
flowing.
The initial current flow generates a field at right angles to its
axis. This field thus bisects the enclosed static field and
accellerates a particle thru this intersection in the same way a
particle is accelerated in a cathode ray tube. The particle that was
accellerated, by the way, came from the surface of the conducting wire
which is diamagnetic upon which particles or free electrons rest
without being absorbed into the matrix of the material upon which it
rests.The speed that the charge or particle attains is that of the
speed of light. So when Einstein gave up his search regarding the
standard model it seems rather natural that he came up with E=mc sqd
as it was obvious to him that light itself was generated by the same
particle or free electron that occupied his mind for so long and not
of waves that appeared to persist in the minds of physicists to this
very day.
Hope that helps you out
Regards
Art
Registered User
<arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>When you feed a time varying current to the mesh it is best to view it
>in small parts, say a square in the mesh. The hole is a static field
>alongside the applied current flows. This same current generates a
>displacement current which encircles the static field as it returns
>to the initial current flow. Of course this section is a microcosm of
>the flow pattern of the applied varying current which is continually
>flowing.
Is this true of a discone? I'm under the impression the current flow
is identical whether metal rods or wire mesh is used in the antenna's
construction.
Art Unwin
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 13:06:30 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
>
I am under the understanding that for a Faraday shield it doesn't
matter whether it is a mesh or solid. When the displacement current
flows in terms of an eddy current it produces a vortice which holds
the static field
Dinner has arrived
Art
tom
>
> Doesn't look basic, and I suspect it never will to me. The only thing I
> can get from this is the idea that a particle model will do what the wave
> one does, which isn't surprising but I've been told that particle based
> models are usually best left to situations (usually atomic scale quantum
> mechanical) where the wave model won't do, and I've never seen anyone suggest
> that wave-based theories of electromagnetics were inadequate (or inefficient)
> for scales involving obviously large numbers of particles. The other
> explanations seemed to grip, but not this one. I'll leave well alone now, but
> if anyone else takes up the discussion, I'll read it and only comment if I
> can't stop myself..
It's not basic, and it's not real.
Art has made up a whole new wing of physics that has only the slightest
ties to reality. It involves neutrinos leaping from diamagnetic
materials to radiate. And only diamagnetic materials can radiate,
unless he revised his theories, which he does regularly. And there are
NO waves, just particles And antennas don't work properly unless they
are a multiple of a wavelength, but it's OK to roll all that wire up in
a ball so that a 160m antenna fits in a shoebox. And then you can use
that with a teeny Dish network dish for directionality. Despite the
fact that those dishes won't work reasonably at anything less than low
GHz frequencies.
He is, to put it very plainly, nuts.
tom
K0TAR
tom
Nice explanation Richard. And I had never put together the
squared-squared relationship. That's a powerful thing to know.
I suppose this is why it ends up that a 1/10 lambda opening is
considered the rule of thumb cutoff frequency on a dish.
tom
K0TAR
Richard Clark
<n4...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I'm under the impression the current flow
>is identical whether metal rods or wire mesh is used in the antenna's
>construction.
A discone does not exhibit any quality of shielding, so it wanders off
in that regard.
The difference between rods, number of rods, thickness of rods, and
mesh all speak to bandwidth. 2, 3, or 4 rods will not be remarkable.
16 rods will closely approximate a cone of sheet metal (as would a
grid of similar spacing). The same can be said of the
rod/rods/mesh/sheet in the upper section approximating a solid disk.
Again, all these "appearances" are a strict function of wavelength to
physical length and spacing relationships.
Richard Clark
>Nice explanation Richard. And I had never put together the
>squared-squared relationship. That's a powerful thing to know.
>
>I suppose this is why it ends up that a 1/10 lambda opening is
>considered the rule of thumb cutoff frequency on a dish.
>
>tom
>K0TAR
Hi Tom,
Radiation resistance certainly plummets quickly. Look at all the
tunable loops for HF that are 1 M in size AND made on an herculean
scale. I don't think any are rated at 80M (Rr ~ 5 milliOhms), and
even less so for 160M (Rr ~ 29 microOhms). This is the principle
reason why Art's inventions are doomed to abysmal transmit performance
in that band (the shoe-box sized 160M loop).
Art Unwin
I have two Faraday shield antennas at the moment. One of which is a
large one sitting on the ground tho sometimes I raise it a foot or so
off the ground. This is an all band antenna
which the tuner in my solid state radio handles quite well., It is
made of mesh on a aluminum frame and at the moment I have not been
able to discern any noise difference and the like say on top band. I
compare it with a smaller Faraday shield which sits in the roter atop
of my tower. The antenna on the ground is square but the one on the
tower is a hexigon aluminum frame which is approx from memory about
four or five foot long and the hex is approx 3 foot across. This
antenna I use for comparison purposes where both antennas are end fed.
The smallest radiator that I have made for top band was a 1 inch
plastic pipe by about 4 foot tall. The radiator mesh was folded over
several times and then wound in helix form on the plastic tube. This
was also end fed. I could have folded it over upon itself to make it
even smaller but I declined to pursue matters. Now one can accuse me
of making up physics, but it was the understanding of physics which
the books state is not fully understood that I followed in every step
while maintaining equilibrium of the radiator.
At the moment I am not inclined to throw away either of these antennas
as they are easily confirmed for gain using a NEC with optimizer
where, at the same time, the physics that I mention is not in
agreement with this group or apparently the many plagerised books on
the market today. The bottom line with the pursuit of antennas is to
make them small but not electrically small. It is also desirable to
make them rotatable and directive with gain.
Maximum efficiency of a radiator is determined by how its size fits
within a sphere and with the Faraday apparatus the radiator is the
inside of the Faraday shield which makes it very efficient. I am
continuing with my findings and the antennas and will not be
discarding them as a child might say when lacking the knoweledge that
is achieved by growing into an adult
they attain a modicom of logic that they can some meaning to their
outburst
The antenna info is all on my page unwin antennas so that amateurs can
join me in the joys of antenna design. As for the couch potatoes they
can wave their arms as long as they want. I have also discussed it in
full on qrz antennas if one wants to delve more into the physics.
Nobody over the years I have explained my findings has ever applied
existing classical physics to disprove my findings providing only the
crying of a child with no physics
substantiation applied.
Cecil Moore
> I've been told that particle based
> models are usually best left to situations (usually atomic scale quantum
> mechanical) where the wave model won't do, and I've never seen anyone suggest
> that wave-based theories of electromagnetics were inadequate (or inefficient)
> for scales involving obviously large numbers of particles.
Consider that man's most ancient exposure to waves was
sea/ocean waves which, incidentally, consist of H2O
molecule particles.
Seems to me that everything that physically exists must
exist as a particle.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com
Cecil Moore
> I've been told that particle based
> models are usually best left to situations (usually atomic scale quantum
> mechanical) where the wave model won't do, and I've never seen anyone suggest
> that wave-based theories of electromagnetics were inadequate (or inefficient)
> for scales involving obviously large numbers of particles.
Consider that man's most ancient exposure to waves was
Lostgallifreyan
764758...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> In fact, my advice if you do get into that
> situation (where quantization of energy is important), is to NOT think
> of particles or waves, but realize that quanta of electromagnetic
> radiation behave exactly as they behave, which is neither exactly like
> waves nor exactly like particles. One of Richard Feynman's physics
> lectures covered what I think is a lovely example of this: how you
> can NOT explain the results of the experiment he sets up, using EITHER
> wave OR particle behaviour. I highly recommend it, to arm yourself
> against people who get into the particle-vs-wave battle. I believe
> it's the sixth of what has been published as Feynman's "Six Easy
> Pieces."
>
That's what I kept telling myself when I first read about it 20 years ago,
that light was neither wave, nor particle, but something else that can appear
as either, or both. It felt like a kind of fence-sitting tautology at the
time, but it really seemed the only way to have any hope of resolving
(sometimes foolish) paradoxes, so it's gratifying to know that Feynman says
it too. I don't know if he's written anything a layman can easily work
through, that doesn't come with lots of maths without which accompanying text
doesn't help much, but if he has I'll try to read it.
I have various thoughts of my own, too off-topic to go into most likely, but
I'll indulge in one of them. The duality/exclusion, etc is often expressed in
various ways, but the one I find most intersting is based not in massenergy
but information, that of isolation and continuity. People have made computers
of both types now, basically the Turing machine and the operational
amplifier. I suspect we have a third type, the brain, that isn't 'modelled'
on either type but uses the quanta as they actually are. Though whether
attempts to make actual quantum computers will be anything like what the
brain does, I have no idea. But it seems to imply that there might be a
'conservation of information' law as there are such laws for mass and energy
or mass-energy. Maybe information is more fundamental than either. If so,
some very strange science is going to emerge (and I suspect it won't be
quantum theory that gets us anywhere, as such, especially given the
Copenhagen Interpretaion and what that implies about 'knowing', but the tools
it enables us to build are another matter, I think they're going to show
plenty, once we have enough new info to interpret).
As continuity as well as isolation is a fundamental aspect of whatever is
'underneath', it means I have no reason to reject a wave model of
electrodynamics if it works, so I won't.
Lostgallifreyan
news:iciah5pesu7n47fv5...@4ax.com:
Thankyou. That IS a clear picture. I'll have to learn more to understand it
well but what I can grasp fits well with things I have already observed.
Regarding the other postings today, I can see that if you're receiving a long
wave signal a small system will do if the sensivity is good and the noise is
low, but transmission is another matter entirely. But whatever the theories
propounded might be, I guess the observations are what matters. I haven't the
space or equipment to test it, but if anyone manages to transmit a lot of
longwave RF from a small directional system such as Art Unwin appears to be
describing, then the theory will take care of itself, eventually, but I also
get the strong impression that few people, if any, have done it. As far as I
know, all low frequency RF transmitting systems are large, powerful things,
and not very directional.
(I wrote that yesterday but kept clear of the Send button, but it's on topic
enough to go for it now.)
Art Unwin
> Richard Clark <kb7...@comcast.net> wrote innews:iciah5pesu7n47fv5...@4ax.com:
You only have to visualise a large solenoid to see that it is quite
directional.
Modeling shows in the order of 10 dbi when end fed !
If you have a helix antenna in ribbon shape form where all lumped
loads are canceled
then even Eznec should be able to do the job. No need for cross wires
for a single frequency design. A mesh made into a tube and placed on
the ground will also get the job done, no hand waving required. Put
mesh around a plastic garbage can also does the job and Menards have
the mesh for less than $20 and muriatic acis for $4.
It is just that hams cannot accept change or even small non electrical
antennas.
After all, all is known about antennas as they have been studied to
death.
Richard Clark
<no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>Regarding the other postings today, I can see that if you're receiving a long
>wave signal a small system will do if the sensivity is good and the noise is
>low, but transmission is another matter entirely.
Reciprocity dominates, but transmit and receive circuits are not
always reciprocal (that is, symmetric or identical). If you match at
the antenna, you don't lose signal in the loss of the transmission
line where SWR would dominate. That topic is best left to other
discussion.
>But whatever the theories
>propounded might be, I guess the observations are what matters. I haven't the
>space or equipment to test it, but if anyone manages to transmit a lot of
>longwave RF from a small directional system such as Art Unwin appears to be
>describing, then the theory will take care of itself, eventually, but I also
>get the strong impression that few people, if any, have done it. As far as I
>know, all low frequency RF transmitting systems are large, powerful things,
>and not very directional.
In logic there is the argument called Reductio Ad Absurdum. With the
claim of a resonant small antenna being efficient there exists an
obvious example that completely disrupts this. Since the inception of
man-made RF radiation, ALL such attempts have been preceded with a
resonant coil/capacitor combination. Think of the plate load of the
conventional RF transmitter in both amateur and professional
applications for the many decades that followed Hertz' work.
This small, resonant plate load, is quite specifically designed for RF
with low in resistive loss - and yet it is miserable as a propagator
of that same RF. The physical size compared to the wavelength size
dominates that efficiency with a fourth power law. Hertz' original
design was in the VHF where his "plate tank" (so to speak) was
physically large in relation to the wavelength he successfully
transmitted to a nearby physically large receiving tank.
Art Unwin
A perfect example of an old man or woman not willing to accept change.
For the cost of a few dollars they would not have made such fools of
themselves over the years.
I have stated many times that adding a time varying current to a
Gaussian field of statics
represents Maxwells laws for radiation. The group many times over say
this is foolish and stupid. I know it is not stated or confirmed in
the books. When one accept that statement of mine the next deductions
become obvious.
A radiator can be any size, shape or elevation as long as it is in a
state of equilibrium and is in compliance with Maxwells equation for
radiation.
I have opreviously shown how static particles are part and parcel how
a Faraday shield works. I now have shown again how Maxwell and Gauss
also state that particles are part of radiation. In addition, the
particle is also part of a CRT mechanism as is the salvage sorting
system when sorting aluminum cans. I have also shown how the particle
achieves a straight line trajectory with spin unaffected by gravity
which is also essential to radio propagation.
Yet hams still hang on to the yagi and all its atributes as being the
cats whiskers.
Thus size has become everything and the volume it occupies instead of
distributed loads only as long as it is in equilibrium. The particle
responsible for radiation and light is very small and is the perfect
example of point radiation at its best.
All it takes is a few dollars and a few hours work to make such an
antenna, which allows you to stop making idiots of your selves, or a
modicum of physics. Instead, you are all so sure that you find no need
to get up from a couch.
As I have stated many times, all the group has done is the waving of
hands with no physics attached or any explanation why it is in total
conformance with antenna computer programs of the day in addition to
the points I have made. With groups such as this it is no small wonder
that radiation has not been fully understood for more than a century.
Richard Clark
wrote:
>This small, resonant plate load, is quite specifically designed for RF
>with low in resistive loss - and yet it is miserable as a propagator
>of that same RF. The physical size compared to the wavelength size
>dominates that efficiency with a fourth power law.
To extend this to Art's misinterpretation of Faraday Shields:
In the old days, breadboard design was exactly that - your rig was
built on (hammered to) a breadboard. It was open wiring with open
components. It radiated well with an antenna, and poorly without one.
However, as poorly as it radiated without an antenna, if you had a
separate receiver, you would hear yourself. This was sometimes useful
and gave us what is called "side tone."
The monitor was born.
Of course, with antennas connected, the receiver was bound to get more
than enough of that anyway and if the two were closely spaced,
feedback could drive all circuits into saturation. Not a good thing.
The Faraday shield for the transmitter was born.
It, as many can witness from simple observation, was composed of a
fine grid mesh of wire either tied to ground, or to a heavily AC/RF
filtered DC potential. As with all Faraday shields that came before
it (indeed since Faraday invented it), it completely encapsulated the
RF power source. The screen or mesh was simply a contrivance to allow
cool air to move in and hot air to move out. Modern implementations
use finned constructions and heat wicks - but this is topic drift.
With this added to the breadboard, other circuits also came to be
shielded, and generally so with the appearance of sheet metal chassis
with suitably wavelength small openings for access and heat transfer.
As the breadboard went into this RF impenetrable shell for both
receivers and transmitters (and with even more care for transceivers),
there arose a problem: What about the wires that go in and out?
Yes indeed. If those wires were not, in themselves, decoupled; then
they became radiators. The lesson to be learned was that those wires
had to be held at the same potential as the Faraday shield. This
could be accomplished by a simple connection, but with more than one
wire this leads to dead shorts between wires. Not a good thing.
The solution was to use AC/RF shorts (capacitors) to the shield from
the wire and the wire could only penetrate the shield through a very
small (in proportion to wavelength) opening. This was not always a
good thing.
A capacitor could be good, but it exhibits a roll-off of only 6dB per
octave, or 10dB per decade isolation. If your line going in and out
was a DC control line, and your principle frequency was 1MHz (talking
about the old days now); then you had 6 decades of separation between
1Hz and 1MHz - pretty good. If in the intervening years you pushed
the technology envelope and added voice modulation and that came
through the same wire; then your system shrunk to 3 decades of
separation between 10,000Hz and 1MHz. This might work, sometimes it
didn't.
As the years spun on, more wires penetrated that RF barrier, and they
needed to not only be isolated from the RF, but each other; and often
they contained very small signals that needed suitable signal to noise
ratio (noise being that soup of RF that was stewing inside the
shield).
Inline bypass filters were born.
The lines that penetrate a Faraday shield now appear to be more
multi-stage low pass filters with repeating sections of shunt
capacitors and series inductors. Their common (ground to the old
brass pounder) was the shield which was RF free (as it was decoupled
to a sanctioned earth ground). And lest we forget the principle
penetration of that old time Faraday shield:
The coaxial transmission line was born.
By all appearances, this line satisfies the convention of a small
opening through the Faraday shield. It's diameter is easily very
small in relation to the wavelength of the RF power it reaches into
the shield to tap. In a sense, it extends that hole in the shield to
some very remote area that is far from the operating position, and
then allows a wire(s) to emerge without regard for further shielding:
The antenna is born.
Funny thing, however, is that presumption of the shield of the coax
being inert, un-perturbing, quiescent, invisible, benign - for that
presumption is an illusion, a grand delusion. The line is very long
with respect to wavelength, it is in the field of excitation that has
been drawn out of the soup within the cage, and it is as much an
antenna as the wire that emerged from its end. Many familiar problems
rise from the ashes of this illusion. The exterior of the coaxial
cable appears to the field to be a very long, grounded radiator.
However, at any appreciable length (wavelength raises its familiar
visage with an ironic grin), this exterior surface ceases to be the
familiar DC grounding strap material, and becomes a full-fledge
radiator according to its physical length vs. wavelength relationship.
Not a very good thing, untill:
The transmission line choke is born.
To decouple the OUTSIDE of the coaxial line, the convention that has
been observed (to widespread validation) is to either wind some
sections of the line into Inductive chokes, or to add ferrites which
serve the same purpose. These chokes, to be fully useful to their
purpose, should be found at not only one point along the line, but at
several so as to suppress (wavelength based) couplings along the line,
by the line and by the field.
When the combination of all these methods are employed, then the
Faraday shield does what it has done for these several hundred years
while allowing the migration of RF power to a remote drive point, and
without allowing that RF power to re-intrude into the shield, nor
along the coaxial cable. Thus, the only evidence of RF from inside
the Faraday shield is that which arrives over-the-air from the remote
antenna.
Any other claim is a profanation of Faraday.
Registered User
wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:22:08 -0500, Registered User
><n4...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm under the impression the current flow
>>is identical whether metal rods or wire mesh is used in the antenna's
>>construction.
>
>A discone does not exhibit any quality of shielding, so it wanders off
>in that regard.
>
Maybe I'm confused and can't distinguish between Art's all-band mesh
antennas and his mesh Faraday shields.
I was questioning Art's statement
-quote-
When you feed a time varying current to the mesh it is best to view it
in small parts, say a square in the mesh. The hole is a static field
alongside the applied current flows.
- end quote -
The idea of examining the characteristics of a single square of mesh
seems impractical. The impact of adjacent squares should be accounted
for otherwise the single square is a loop.
Either way I've learned as current varies the fields it produces will
vary. If the fields vary they're not static. Too simplistic? What am I
missing?
>The difference between rods, number of rods, thickness of rods, and
>mesh all speak to bandwidth. 2, 3, or 4 rods will not be remarkable.
>16 rods will closely approximate a cone of sheet metal (as would a
>grid of similar spacing). The same can be said of the
>rod/rods/mesh/sheet in the upper section approximating a solid disk.
>
IIUC the current flows around the cone of a discone regardless of
solid, sheet or mesh construction. This appears to be contrary to the
quote above where current flows around each individual hole in the
mesh.
>Again, all these "appearances" are a strict function of wavelength to
>physical length and spacing relationships.
>
I've built several discones over the years and understand these
relationships. How well is subject to conjecture hi.
Richard Clark
wrote:
>Yes indeed. If those wires were not, in themselves, decoupled; then
>they became radiators.
Further discussion about these wires allowing RF to slither through
what would ordinarily be impenetrable holes.
Those holes, whose circulating currents prohibit any coupling of
fields through them, as long as they are very small in relation to the
wavelength, can turn into free-flowing fountains of power with some
rather simple additions.
As mentioned, merely pass an insulated wire through the hole. If that
wire reaches into the interior where an RF field presents a very high
potential difference to the Faraday shield, then you have a capacitive
coupling to the exterior of the shield, through the hole, along that
wire. On the other hand, if you loop that interior wire back onto the
interior surface of the shield, AND that loop resides within the RF
field where it presents a very high magnetic component; then you have
an inductive coupling to the exterior of the shield, through the hole,
along that wire. Simply terminate the outside extension of that wire
to a suitable load, observing the conventions of matching, and remove
as much power as is practicable.
This is nothing more complex than the usual design conventions already
discussed under the coaxial transmission line considerations in the
post this derives from.
The point of this aside is to remark how easily (or difficulty) the
Faraday shield can be corrupted through indifference to first
principles.
Richard Clark
<n4...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:42:00 -0800, Richard Clark <kb7...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:22:08 -0500, Registered User
>><n4...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm under the impression the current flow
>>>is identical whether metal rods or wire mesh is used in the antenna's
>>>construction.
>>
>>A discone does not exhibit any quality of shielding, so it wanders off
>>in that regard.
>>
>
>Maybe I'm confused and can't distinguish between Art's all-band mesh
>antennas and his mesh Faraday shields.
I can understand the confusion. To return to your question above,
there is NOTHING about the discone that falls under the topic of
Faraday shield.
>I was questioning Art's statement
>-quote-
>When you feed a time varying current to the mesh it is best to view it
>in small parts, say a square in the mesh. The hole is a static field
>alongside the applied current flows.
>- end quote -
>
>The idea of examining the characteristics of a single square of mesh
>seems impractical. The impact of adjacent squares should be accounted
>for otherwise the single square is a loop.
I discussed both the single mesh opening, and the total contribution
of all mesh openings. To respond to your last statement, yes, the
single square is a loop. A very, very inefficient coupler of energy.
>Either way I've learned as current varies the fields it produces will
>vary. If the fields vary they're not static. Too simplistic? What am I
>missing?
Static comes in two flavors. One means "not moving." The other means
high potential (which can be "not moving" AND, ironically, "moving").
Such is the legacy of electrostatic potential covering DC to Gamma.
>>The difference between rods, number of rods, thickness of rods, and
>>mesh all speak to bandwidth. 2, 3, or 4 rods will not be remarkable.
>>16 rods will closely approximate a cone of sheet metal (as would a
>>grid of similar spacing). The same can be said of the
>>rod/rods/mesh/sheet in the upper section approximating a solid disk.
>>
>IIUC the current flows around the cone of a discone regardless of
>solid, sheet or mesh construction. This appears to be contrary to the
>quote above where current flows around each individual hole in the
>mesh.
Well, language can be a barrier here when you say "around the cone."
Go to:
http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/aperture/slot.php
I don't endorse this page, but it gives you a beginning for slot
antennas and especially the construction mimicry between them and a
dipole. Note in figure two that a "source" appears across the two. In
the case of the slot antenna, this source would give rise to a
circulating current. If you were to approach this with knowing the
current alone, it would follow that the source is "apparent." In
other words, the two models (or experiences) are equivalent.
Do not confuse this circulating current with a larger, general current
UNLESS that more general one can spawn the circulating one. I wrote
to this already and to put it shortly, it is physical length vs. wave
length dependant.
>>Again, all these "appearances" are a strict function of wavelength to
>>physical length and spacing relationships.
>>
>
>I've built several discones over the years and understand these
>relationships. How well is subject to conjecture hi.
http://www.qsl.net/kb7qhc/antenna/Discone/discone.htm
will illustrate how varying the flare of the skirt shifts the
operating properties of the discone.
Art Unwin
So after a degree in literature you have taken to reading up on
science.
But you have only regurgutated what you have read in a physics book.
When I introduced this group to first principles every body on this
group were apaulled.
When I stated, and it was confirmed by Dr Davis, all started waving
the hands and insulted Davis and I." What" you said "you can mix up
statics with electromechanics"? "What foolishness is being stated
here." In your posting you never mentioned any thing of that!
You and nobody in the group has presented anything that refutes what I
have stated.
All this group have agreed on is that I am promoting a new fangled
science where all is already known. Now Avitar has never stated any
sort of physics that shows that he has studied in college other than
waving his hands. Ofcourse we have the ham who got kicked out of high
school so he couldn't graduate. Not his fault I might add, just some
mis understandings why he would not go to school, and it goes on. And
then we have Richard who says, why do we need new design antennas, we
have the yagi, what more can you want?
So the group is not going to rely on physics to disprove my comments
because they have found that deformation, insults and loud voices is
all they have to crush my claims, and it is just not working. Have
they made one? No. They know the true facts on radiation so they
continue to sit on the couch and wave their hands and yell
nm...@wt.net
> You and nobody in the group has presented anything that refutes what I
> have stated.
I have, and on more than one occasion. But it goes through
your head faster than a blue light special announcement to the
average K-mart shopper.
>They know the true facts on radiation so they
> continue to sit on the couch and wave their hands and yell
I don't sit on a couch. I sit in an office style chair. And it
probably
should be replaced as it tends to molest my differential after a
while.
Needs more particuls between the frame and the top particul retaining
cover. Due to the weak force of my differential constantly being
supported by these particuls, they have achieved equilibrium and
no longer want to do any useful work.
Art Unwin
No you have not!
Every thing comes back to the initial finding that
by adding a time varying current to the arbitrary border of Gauss
which surrounds
a field of static particles provides the same conditions implied by
Maxwell's equations.
The group denies this fact possibly because the word equilibrium was
not of their understanding. Without understanding the connection
between Maxwell and Gauss
with respect to the addition of time makes to a static field ala a
dynamic field, it is impossible to procede with respect to radiation.
If one starts from the middle of the story where coupling of waves is
considered a basic physics understanding the debate leads no where.
Now I am not asking people to follow solely the path of mathematics
but of the concepts involved where the presence of particles is
present., To start from a small portion of the current flow and
thinking in terms of DC or the suggestion that time varying fields
cannot surround a static field is just ludicrous. The subject is
Classical Physics and one should keep on subject if one is to fully
understand radiation. Denial of select parts of classical physics
without supplying reason ans substituting insults instead is not going
to solve anything. And as you did not graduate from high school it is
perfectly understandable that you will find difficulties in parts of
the debate and yet you would like to contribute to the debate. But
insults will not get the job done.
Of course one can go back to the basics of mathematics way back in
Arabic times where
the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance. The
equal sign is part of Maxwells equations so equilibrium is in effect.
This immediatly tells you that any radiator considered must be a
function of a full wavelength or a period with respect to a continuing
variable sign wave. Immediately one should note that a half wave has
no place in our calculations as the two areas under curve for a period
can never be the same because of overshoot phenomina, thus it is the
period that is repeatable and to be used. One can also deduce that a
radiator must be in equilibrium to be part of the same reasoning thus
resonance on its own is not part of the mathematics. There are plenty
of ways to see how current thinking on antennas is certainly not
inline with the equations of Maxwell, thus it is very important to
start from "first "principles and not just accept the books. And that
the importance of adding time to a static field enclosed by an
arbitrary boundary to ensure the correct metrics will be used at the
outset.
Art
K7ITM
(re: Richard Feynman lectures)
> ... I don't know if he's written anything a layman can easily work
> through, that doesn't come with lots of maths without which accompanying text
> doesn't help much, but if he has I'll try to read it.
I think one of the key things that made his physics lectures popular
is that they were delivered without a whole lot of math. You could
get into that if you wanted, but you could also get a lot out of just
listening to the _ideas_.
If you drop me an email, perhaps I can send you a bit more about this
particular lecture...
Cheers,
Tom
Art Unwin
That is oh so true! The masters started with an observation of an
occurence and not from
a rendering of mathematics. With more observations it became natural
to align the Universe via mathematics which, as with a jig saw puzzle,
fits together nicely.,
It would seem today that scientists today are using mathematics via a
computer to churn out bundles of equations leaving the operator to
think of an observation that would fit the math. Of course,
mathematics provide imaginary answers similar to a quadratic equation
that finish up as multiple of false leads and deductions which
eventually requires the multiple use of constants to provide a
semblance of understanding of what has been provided.
tom
>
> No you have not!
Temper, temper little boy.
> Every thing comes back to the initial finding that
> by adding a time varying current to the arbitrary border of Gauss
> which surrounds
> a field of static particles provides the same conditions implied by
> Maxwell's equations.
Made up physics again. Unproven by any math or demonstrable effects.
Try a new line of argument, this one gets you nowhere.
> The group denies this fact possibly because the word equilibrium was
> not of their understanding. Without understanding the connection
> between Maxwell and Gauss
> with respect to the addition of time makes to a static field ala a
> dynamic field, it is impossible to procede with respect to radiation.
> If one starts from the middle of the story where coupling of waves is
> considered a basic physics understanding the debate leads no where.
Denied by the group because it contradicts everything that is proven to
work, as well as all published and mathematically backed theories.
And provide some proof. Even just a little. Rhetoric doesn't count.
You accuse others of sitting on their asses and not building antennas
and measuring them, when you have never once done it yourself.
I have built many antennas and provided many independent performance
measurements right here. And so has almost evreyone you argue with. We
all make things and MEASURE them. You don't.
Uh Art? There are no rational concepts in your presentation, please
provide some.
And there's no "math" at all in your mathematical presentations, just a
bunch of bafflegab. Please provide math.
Oh, I forgot, you can't. All you can do is babble. And accuse people
of foolishness in their disbelief.
I must say, you are entertaining when you don't take your medications.
And you still can't spell or put together a sentence. I would suggest a
spell checker at the very least.
tom
K0TAR
nm...@wt.net
Bla, bla, bla, bla.. We need to get you a new needle that doesn't skip
and play the same broken record over and over again. :/
You whine and moan about my education, which BTW, you have no
idea of knowing what I have learned in the 35 years since then, but
you
stun us with such proof of your all knowing knowledge by referring to
sine waves as "sign waves"..
Chortle..
Give me a break.. Your education in things RF is probably not much
greater than mine is being as you didn't take the relevant courses
in school. It might even be less being as I have a decent library
and I don't distrust everything I read without actually testing it
first.
And I actually build and test the antennas I talk about. On the air.
In front of real people. I've got nothing to hide. When was the last
time you actually compared one of your antennas to a known
benchmark?
At at a testing range. Or on the air.. In front of real people...
I'm afraid using mumbo jumbo pseudoscience theories are not going
to propel your obviously inefficient antenna designs to greatness.
I realize this must distress you greatly, but it's a situation that
can
be dealt with with the proper medications and therapy.
Art Unwin
Tom
Give me a clue whether you are in junior high school or have a track
record of achieving something higher. You have never enunciated or
even given a clue that you have ever taken a physics course or for
that matter any engineering course in any of your postings.
It seems like you are awful young and not yet an adult to put some
scence or logic to any thing that you say! You talk of no "rational"
in my statements, but as yet have not presented
anything to back you up. I have read thru a lot of your postings but
as yet have not come across anything from which I can gauge some of
your knowledge and expertise with respect to antennas and radiation.
I have gathered that you have had some experience in installing
consumer dishes and I recall you stating that dishes can only be used
in the giga hertz range, without mention that it is the size of the
antenna determines whether a dish orreflecter is pertinant or not.
Very strange!
Because of lack of comment from others one can assume that they know
you better than I do and are content with a glance in the air with a
sigh and maybe I should follow like wise. I read your post again and
note that you want the math. If I gave you a starter with respect to
Gauss and Maxwell would you give me a hint with respect to your
present understandings with mathematics. Lets face it, you never
proved the mathematics wrong when it was presented to you by the good
doctor where every body also denied its correctness, so it is awfully
difficult to proceed when you deny the feasability of the initiating
statement. If it makes you feel good then continue with your insults
in leu of not knowing anything else to say.
tom
> Of course one can go back to the basics of mathematics way back in
> Arabic times where
> the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance. The
> equal sign is part of Maxwells equations so equilibrium is in effect.
"the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance"
So sayeth the master of the physical universe - Art Unwin...
Hmmm, so if there is an equal sign, it means it's in equilibrium.
So a half wave antenna = 468/f(Mhz).
It is therefore in equilibrium.
tom
K0TAR
tom
> I have gathered that you have had some experience in installing
> consumer dishes and I recall you stating that dishes can only be used
> in the giga hertz range, without mention that it is the size of the
> antenna determines whether a dish orreflecter is pertinant or not.
> Very strange!
Dishes are usable based upon their size relative to the frequency of
use. You seem not to understand that.
They work by reflecting the EM waves directed at them. The gain is set
by the area of the dish in square wavelengths, and your pretend physics
can't change that.
A DSS dish isn't even a pinpoint to reflect off of at 160m, which is
your favorite example.
A dish that provides only 3dB gain at 160m would be approximately a
kilometer in diameter. How big is your mom's garden?
tom
K0TAR
Art Unwin
So stupid. A half wave does not have a measurement that is repeatable
therefore it is not in equilibrium. The point of repeatability is a
"period". Surely you learned that in Jnr High!
tom
> So stupid. A half wave does not have a measurement that is repeatable
> therefore it is not in equilibrium. The point of repeatability is a
> "period". Surely you learned that in Jnr High!
Your own statement was "the mere presence of an equal sign denotes
equilibrium or balance".
I rest my case.
And stupid is as stupid does. Stupid boy.
tom
K0TAR
Art Unwin
Again how foolish you are. There are many radiators that have
reflectors that are way below the GIGA Hz level. You are basing your
statement on laws applicable to planar forms of radiators.
Heck! There are many helix antennas in use that have reflectors that
are used in the Mega Hz range. There is absolutely no good reason why
a antenna for top band must have a reflector a kilometer in diameter
if the antenna itself replicates a point source.
I think you have shown everybody the extent of your limitations with
respect to antennas!
Lostgallifreyan
6c5c2c...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
Thankyou, I'll go for that. I've also been given two books by Marcus Chown,
who I found has a knack of conveying things clearly at some depth.
Entertaining too. My email is (slightly obfuscated) z dot crow at BTinternet
dot com for as long as I still use their service. (Contract runs out fairly
soon so even though they're ok I'm looking at alternatives.. :)
Art Unwin
That's correct. The equal sign denotes the presence of balance. Making
up an equation that is not in balance is not corrected by the addition
of an equal sign. Starting with fraud in mind never can later be
corrected other than the continuance of fraud. Seems like your efforts
in persuading others of your expertise is not working out as you
thought.Just the opposite.
Registered User
wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:51:05 -0500, Registered User
><n4...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
- good stuff from RC snipped -
>
>>Either way I've learned as current varies the fields it produces will
>>vary. If the fields vary they're not static. Too simplistic? What am I
>>missing?
>
>Static comes in two flavors. One means "not moving." The other means
>high potential (which can be "not moving" AND, ironically, "moving").
>Such is the legacy of electrostatic potential covering DC to Gamma.
>
I was wondering about the latter as a possibility but couldn't find
the proper words. My interpretation is although the individual fields
may vary the total potential of the fields is constant. Is this
correct?
>>>The difference between rods, number of rods, thickness of rods, and
>>>mesh all speak to bandwidth. 2, 3, or 4 rods will not be remarkable.
>>>16 rods will closely approximate a cone of sheet metal (as would a
>>>grid of similar spacing). The same can be said of the
>>>rod/rods/mesh/sheet in the upper section approximating a solid disk.
>>>
>>IIUC the current flows around the cone of a discone regardless of
>>solid, sheet or mesh construction. This appears to be contrary to the
>>quote above where current flows around each individual hole in the
>>mesh.
>
>Well, language can be a barrier here when you say "around the cone."
>
I should have said the current flows around the cone parallel to its
base.
- more snippage -
I appreciate the clarifications and the links. It all helps to better
my knowledge and understanding of these topics. Thank you
tom
>
> Again how foolish you are. There are many radiators that have
> reflectors that are way below the GIGA Hz level. You are basing your
> statement on laws applicable to planar forms of radiators.
> Heck! There are many helix antennas in use that have reflectors that
> are used in the Mega Hz range. There is absolutely no good reason why
> a antenna for top band must have a reflector a kilometer in diameter
> if the antenna itself replicates a point source.
> I think you have shown everybody the extent of your limitations with
> respect to antennas!
A typical helical antenna would be in the "mega" hertz range would be
for 435 MHz. The planar reflector for that antenna is 70cm, or 1
wavelength. Which would lead one to conclude that a planar reflector
for top band would be about 160m.
And now Art will make up more new physics for his response.
tom
K0TAR
tom
>
> Again how foolish you are. There are many radiators that have
> reflectors that are way below the GIGA Hz level. You are basing your
> statement on laws applicable to planar forms of radiators.
> Heck! There are many helix antennas in use that have reflectors that
> are used in the Mega Hz range. There is absolutely no good reason why
> a antenna for top band must have a reflector a kilometer in diameter
> if the antenna itself replicates a point source.
> I think you have shown everybody the extent of your limitations with
> respect to antennas!
And you just might want to look up the definition of "axial mode".
tom
K0TAR
Richard Clark
<n4...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Static comes in two flavors. One means "not moving." The other means
>>high potential (which can be "not moving" AND, ironically, "moving").
>>Such is the legacy of electrostatic potential covering DC to Gamma.
>>
>I was wondering about the latter as a possibility but couldn't find
>the proper words. My interpretation is although the individual fields
>may vary the total potential of the fields is constant. Is this
>correct?
Electrostatic is properly applied to charge that is NOT moving, or
moving very slowly.
The same thing can be said of Magnetostatics as being derived from a
current that is constant, or altering very slowly.
The sense of either of these strict terms residing in the RF denotes
the poverty of idea that takes up residence here as invention. There
is plenty of examples to be found on the Web too. It is unfortunate,
like the camel's nose under the Arab's tent, that taking "very slowly"
and winding out the tach to 100GHz is the pollution of meaning.
What we are concerned here with is electromagnetics infrequently known
as electrodynamics and rarely as magnetodynamics. The sense behind
electromagnetics is inclusive of dynamics of which statics is a
special case.
Dynamics, of course, means time-varying. In EMF, or electromagnetics,
what varies is magnitude and/or polarity of the electric and magnetic
field. What you find "constant" about the fields (properly observed
as plural) is in their orthogonality (one field is building the other
as it decays in amplitude).
>>Well, language can be a barrier here when you say "around the cone."
>>
>I should have said the current flows around the cone parallel to its
>base.
That doesn't happen.
Szczepan Bialek
"Richard Clark" <kb7...@comcast.net> wrote
news:18gih5pu1g1vsf6sk...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:04:28 -0500, Registered User
> <n4...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>Static comes in two flavors. One means "not moving." The other means
>>>high potential (which can be "not moving" AND, ironically, "moving").
>>>Such is the legacy of electrostatic potential covering DC to Gamma.
>>>
>>I was wondering about the latter as a possibility but couldn't find
>>the proper words. My interpretation is although the individual fields
>>may vary the total potential of the fields is constant. Is this
>>correct?
>
> Electrostatic is properly applied to charge that is NOT moving, or
> moving very slowly.
>
> The same thing can be said of Magnetostatics as being derived from a
> current that is constant, or altering very slowly.
>
> The sense of either of these strict terms residing in the RF denotes
> the poverty of idea that takes up residence here as invention. There
> is plenty of examples to be found on the Web too. It is unfortunate,
> like the camel's nose under the Arab's tent, that taking "very slowly"
> and winding out the tach to 100GHz is the pollution of meaning.
>
> What we are concerned here with is electromagnetics infrequently known
> as electrodynamics and rarely as magnetodynamics. The sense behind
> electromagnetics is inclusive of dynamics of which statics is a
> special case.
Between statics and dynamics is kinetics. EM is the kinetics.
S*
Lostgallifreyan
news:hfbk68$q37$1...@node1.news.atman.pl:
> Between statics and dynamics is kinetics. EM is the kinetics.
>
This could either get very confusing, or very revealing, not sure which yet.
I found that no terms I knew fitted that well so I ended up using 'flux' and
'stasis' NOT to be confused with motion and stillness. By which I mean motion
and stillness are the phenomenon, but flux and stasis are what lies beyond,
in a pattern of information for want of better expression. To illustrate, a
tap turned to release a flow of water often shows a stationary pattern while
water is obviously flowing. That pattern is a stasis, but the water is not
still. I don't know how useful this is when resolving a distinction between
kinetics and dynamics, but it does look like we have to be careful about how
we use these terms or we might not know which we're talking about, the
standing pattern, or a manifest stillness. If we can't be clear on it we
might as well be trying to pin down the 'evanescence of soul'. (Richard
Clark, that was a good one, it's right up there with the better phrases from
Douglas Adams.)
Richard Clark
<no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> I don't know how useful this is when resolving a distinction between
>kinetics and dynamics,
There is no distinction.
>but it does look like we have to be careful about how
>we use these terms or we might not know which we're talking about,
The Unwin problem.
>the
>standing pattern, or a manifest stillness. If we can't be clear on it we
>might as well be trying to pin down the 'evanescence of soul'. (Richard
>Clark, that was a good one, it's right up there with the better phrases from
>Douglas Adams.)
Douglas Adams is good, but I have just discovered Arnold Bennett's
"BURIED ALIVE
A Tale of These Days"
...over a narrow doorway, he perceived the image of a green tree, and
the words, 'The Elm Tree.' It was the entrance to the Elm Tree Tea
Rooms, so well spoken of in the Telegraph. In certain ways he was a
man of advanced and humane ideas, and the thought of delicately
nurtured needy gentlewomen bravely battling with the world instead of
starving as they used to starve in the past, appealed to his chivalry.
He determined to assist them by taking tea in the advertised
drawing-room. Gathering together his courage, he penetrated into a
corridor lighted by pink electricity, and then up pink stairs. A pink
door stopped him at last. It might have hid mysterious and
questionable things, but it said laconically 'Push,' and he
courageously pushed... He was in a kind of boudoir thickly populated
with tables and chairs. The swift transmigration from the blatant
street to a drawing-room had a startling effect on him: it caused him
to whip off his hat as though his hat had been red hot. Except for two
tall elegant creatures who stood together at the other end of the
boudoir, the chairs and tables had the place to themselves. He was
about to stammer an excuse and fly, when one of the gentlewomen turned
her eye on him for a moment, and so he sat down. The gentlewomen then
resumed their conversation. He glanced cautiously about him.
Elm-trees, firmly rooted in a border of Indian matting, grew round all
the walls in exotic profusion, and their topmost branches splashed
over on to the ceiling. A card on the trunk of a tree, announcing
curtly, "Dogs not allowed," seemed to enhearten him. After a pause one
of the gentlewomen swam haughtily towards him and looked him between
the eyes. She spoke no word, but her firm, austere glance said:
"Now, out with it, and see you behave yourself!"
He had been ready to smile chivalrously. But the smile was put to
sudden death.
"Some tea, please," he said faintly, and his intimidated tone said,
"If it isn't troubling you too much."
"What do you want with it?" asked the gentlewoman abruptly, and as he
was plainly at a loss she added, "Crumpets or tea-cake?"
"Tea-cake," he replied, though he hated tea-cake. But he was afraid.
"You've escaped this time," said the drapery of her muslins as she
swam from his sight. "But no nonsense while I'm away!"
********************************
I have included this vignette simply to fulfill Art's fulmination
against all things English (the author to this vignette) and literary.
Most readers are already aware that Art would spit on Shakespeare,
drowning him, if there stood any chance of that getting me damp. ;-)
Lostgallifreyan
news:97tih59nu949hn5p8...@4ax.com:
Well I still like my idea of flux and stasis but that aside (it's never
really been practical, just helpful when trying to understand some things),
that writing has topspin, it carries. I might try it. I was disappointed by
Terry Pratchett, but this one looks as new as Adam's stuff did when it was
new.
Btw, I think I worked out how Adams came up with the Long Dark Teatime Of The
Soul, as a name, and some meaning behind it. I like myeteries so all I'll say
is I think it emerges from a bit of French classical music....
Richard Clark
<no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>that writing has topspin, it carries. I might try it.
It was written 101 years ago. Freely available at:
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/b#a859
Other Bennett titles I recommend:
"The Card, a Story of Adventure in the Five Towns"
"The Grand Babylon Hotel"
"How to Live on 24 Hours a Day"
Lostgallifreyan
Strange! So many things make me think of a certain style that goes with the
time, that feels old, the kind of thing that pervades early science fiction
or romance or Victoriana in general. That extract had a drive a clarity that
could easily be taken for something post-William-Gibson but without the
obvious futuristic affectations. My dad was born 100 years ago, so I will
read this stuff, it might give a useful perspective on how people saw their
times, instead of how we have been so often made to see them.
(And if anyone can find anything to do with antennas here now I admire their
skill :)
Richard Clark
<no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>(And if anyone can find anything to do with antennas here now I admire their
>skill :)
Art has made claims for discovering antennas that were commonplace for
Bellini and Tosi who he refuses to acknowledge predating his
"theories" 102 years ago.
http://www.astrosol.ch/thisandthat/5379039a840e79e07/index.html
And, as you are such a willing prospect for situational humour (as
just such as we indulge here anyway without regard for literary nor
scientific merit); I push the envelope by enlarging upon parallels to
Art - both literal and figurative (as evidenced by the last line):
This unique seat was occupied by the principal player, who wore a
humorous wig and a brilliant and expensive scarlet costume. He was a
fairly able judge, but he had mistaken his vocation; his rare talent
for making third-rate jokes would have brought him a fortune in the
world of musical comedy. His salary was a hundred a week; better
comedians have earned less. On the present occasion he was in the
midst of a double row of fashionable hats, and beneath the hats were
the faces of fourteen feminine relatives and acquaintances. These hats
performed the function of 'dressing' the house. The principal player
endeavoured to behave as though under the illusion that he was alone
in his glory, but he failed.
There were four other leading actors: Mr. Pennington, K.C., and Mr.
Vodrey, K.C., engaged by the plaintiff, and Mr. Cass, K.C., and Mr.
Crepitude, K.C., engaged by the defendant. These artistes were the
stars of their profession, nominally less glittering, but really far
more glittering than the player in scarlet. Their wigs were of
inferior quality to his, and their costumes shabby, but they did not
mind, for whereas he got a hundred a week, they each got a hundred a
day. Three junior performers received ten guineas a day apiece: one of
them held a watching brief for the Dean and Chapter of the Abbey, who,
being members of a Christian fraternity, were pained and horrified by
the defendants' implication that they had given interment to a valet,
and who were determined to resist exhumation at all hazards. The
supers in the drama, whose business it was to whisper to each other
and to the players, consisted of solicitors, solicitors' clerks, and
experts; their combined emoluments worked out at the rate of a hundred
and fifty pounds a day. Twelve excellent men in the jury-box received
between them about as much as would have kept a K.C. alive for five
minutes. The total expenses of production thus amounted to something
like six or seven hundred pounds a day. The preliminary expenses had
run into several thousands. The enterprise could have been made
remunerative by hiring for it Convent Garden Theatre and selling
stalls as for Tettrazzini and Caruso, but in the absurd auditorium
chosen, crammed though it was to the perilous doors, the loss was
necessarily terrific. Fortunately the affair was subsidized; not
merely by the State, but also by those two wealthy capitalists,
Whitney C. Witt and Mr. Oxford; and therefore the management were in a
position to ignore paltry financial considerations and to practise art
for art's sake.
Lostgallifreyan
> The principal player
> endeavoured to behave as though under the illusion that he was alone
> in his glory, but he failed.
>
Interesting. A very different Art comes to mind here: Arthur Daley. Fits like
the proverbial.
Szczepan Bia�ek
"Lostgallifreyan" <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote
news:Xns9CD7C758847...@216.196.109.145...
> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in
> news:hfbk68$q37$1...@node1.news.atman.pl:
>
>> Between statics and dynamics is kinetics. EM is the kinetics.
Should be kinematics (not kinetcs): "Branch of physics concerned with the
geometrically possible motion of a body or system of bodies, without
consideration of the forces involved. It describes the spatial position of
bodies or systems, their velocities, and their acceleration".
The kinematics describes motions without consideration what and why.
>
> This could either get very confusing, or very revealing, not sure which
> yet.
EM is the first step. No the next for the incompressible fluid. The electron
were discovered and the dynamics are done for them.
> I found that no terms I knew fitted that well so I ended up using 'flux'
> and
> 'stasis' NOT to be confused with motion and stillness. By which I mean
> motion
> and stillness are the phenomenon, but flux and stasis are what lies
> beyond,
> in a pattern of information for want of better expression. To illustrate,
> a
> tap turned to release a flow of water often shows a stationary pattern
> while
> water is obviously flowing. That pattern is a stasis, but the water is not
> still. I don't know how useful this is when resolving a distinction
> between
> kinetics and dynamics, but it does look like we have to be careful about
> how
> we use these terms or we might not know which we're talking about, the
> standing pattern, or a manifest stillness. If we can't be clear on it we
> might as well be trying to pin down the 'evanescence of soul'. (Richard
> Clark, that was a good one, it's right up there with the better phrases
> from
> Douglas Adams.)
For flows are also the flow kinematics and the flow dynamics.
"An accurate theory of electromagnetism, known as classical
electromagnetism, was developed by various physicists over the course of the
19th century, culminating in the work of James Clerk Maxwell, who unified
the preceding developments into a single theory and discovered the
electromagnetic nature of light. In classical electromagnetism, the
electromagnetic field obeys a set of equations known as Maxwell's equations,
and the electromagnetic force is given by the Lorentz force law. "
It seams that EM is the field kinematics.
S*
Richard Clark
I am not familiar with Arthur Daley, but your close editing has very
much converged on the psychology of this side-topic. We have with us
now a late-coming ankle bighter kinetically trying to compete for that
humorous wig.
However, that aside and in fitting to the context of the group, I
offered a link to an equally old reference of Bellini and Tosi that
should be very interesting to you, as a SWLer. If you revisit that
reference, then take note of the goniometer where its receive
application would allow you to perform your own crude beam steering
using two orthogonal long wire antennas (or crossed dipoles).
Lostgallifreyan
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:44:40 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
> <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>Richard Clark <kb7...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>news:o0rjh5h0jm38edrar...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> The principal player
>>> endeavoured to behave as though under the illusion that he was alone
>>> in his glory, but he failed.
>>>
>>
>>Interesting. A very different Art comes to mind here: Arthur Daley. Fits
>>like the proverbial.
>
> I am not familiar with Arthur Daley, but your close editing has very
> much converged on the psychology of this side-topic. We have with us
> now a late-coming ankle bighter kinetically trying to compete for that
> humorous wig.
>
Daley's great, well worth trying to see. (Minder, TV shows circa 1979 or so).
The books aren't high literature but they are good (written by Anthony
Masters) and do offer something beyond the shows, and they stand some repeat
reading too. I think Wodehouse is better and funnier, but Minder really has
its perks. Cheerful Charlie Chisolm, for example... Best detective since
Clouseau.
> However, that aside and in fitting to the context of the group, I
> offered a link to an equally old reference of Bellini and Tosi that
> should be very interesting to you, as a SWLer. If you revisit that
> reference, then take note of the goniometer where its receive
> application would allow you to perform your own crude beam steering
> using two orthogonal long wire antennas (or crossed dipoles).
>
> 73's
> Richard Clark, KB7QHC
>
Yes, I ought to have said, that IS interesting to me. I've often wondered
about direction finding so I earmarked it on the strength of that for a full
read soon. (Didn't have time today..)
tom
This discussion has significantly diverged from allowable r.r.a.a
specifications. This non-group discussion is almost certainly
disturbing others within this group since many are very sensitive and
can't use the delete key. Please discontinue further discussions using
this mode.
Thank you.
nm...@wt.net
This non-group discussion is almost certainly
> disturbing others within this group since many are very sensitive and
> can't use the delete key. Please discontinue further discussions using
> this mode.
>
> Thank you.
I suspect Art is about to have a litter of kittens.. :/
tom
Art probably doesn't care a rat's rear end for anyone but Art. And I'm
not sure he even cares or know about himself. He is a total nutjob
after all.
tom
K0TAR
Dave
>
> - Show quoted text -
at least it is a civil discourse and the material is at least well
grounded in basic facts as opposed to the way the thread started.
Art Unwin
> > Arabic times where
> > the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance. The
> > equal sign is part of Maxwells equations so equilibrium is in effect.
>
>
>
> Hmmm, so if there is an equal sign, it means it's in equilibrium.
>
> So a half wave antenna = 468/f(Mhz).
>
> It is therefore in equilibrium.
>
> tom
> K0TAR
The book what you read lied to you!
When you look at a sinosoidal curve the area above and below the datum
line is never equal ! If it were you have invented perpetual motion.
Power is continually being injected to make up for frictional
losses incurred. After a full cycle you get to what is a repeatable
point termed as a period where you have adjusted the energy contained
to equal that of the beginning. With the areas not being equal because
of frictional losses the curve crosses the datum line at a point not
at the half way point of a period. This point is resistive, where as.
if you put it next to the true half way point you would see that the
points were not one and the same. This sequence of events is that of a
"tank circuit"
which you would learn about if you went to college!
Resonance is the point where the curve is totally resistive only and
it does not represent a point of equilibrium. A period or a FW point
is also totally resistive and in a state of equilibrium, a point of
repeatablity which the half wave point does not
When dealing with the laws of Maxwell, which includes an equal sign,
metrics used are only those that represent equilibrium which, in the
case of radiation requires multiples of a full wave (FW) where the use
of the half wave would nullify the equal sign and the whole equation
No where does Maxwell's equations suggests a particular shape or
elevation or even straght when describing a radiator, only that it is
at a state of equilibrium. Thus a radiator can conform to Maxwell's
equations when totally compressed to a point source which certanly
would not require a reflector representing a straight length of the
magnitude you have stated.
Note also that Maxwells equations refer to distributed loads only and
not lumped loads which, if present, MUST therefore be canceled.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg (uk)
Hopefully you are now back on track with respect to the science of
radiation.
Dave
>
> - Show quoted text -
rotflmao
Richard Clark
>> No where does Maxwell's equations suggests a particular shape or
>> elevation or even straght when describing a radiator
Hmmmm,
Did Maxwell design antennas? Did he describe them? If he had no
particular shape in mind, did that mean it was a mesh like a fish net
cast over the rocks? Did he try working the international space
station with this limp radiator powered by the feeble force?
WWMD?
Art Unwin
Maxwell dealt only with the mathematics of the time where many people
had arrived at equations with respect to scientific observations.
Many of these equations from different countries were actually
duplicates so he was able to side line some. reduce some and even
combined some such that he has a set of equations. Ofcourse he was
aware that with observations within the Universe one must obey the
requirement of equilibrium. You can do this by placing all metrics on
one side of the equal or equal ibrium side and zero ion the other
side.
One of his final equations did not, in fact, equal zero and in fact
the metric of time was missing among other things. Now he couldn't go
back to Gauss or anybody for an explanation. If he had spoken to Gauss
he may have told him that if he made a static field dynamic he could
correct the initial equations provided as the product was one and the
same! Instead Maxwell concerned himself only with the metrics of the
equations and not the scale. So he cancelled the metrics that were
available and then added some metrics so he could cancel what was
remaining which implied equil ibrium noy knowing what the additions
added signified. At that time he could not have cared less as he
primarily a mathematician.
When Yagi and Uda came along they stumbled on intercoupling of planar
forms with out any regard to Maxwells equations. For them, the use of
half wave length was of no concern as it provided answers that
were within 10% of real life. That aproach lasted to this very day
when I came along and pointed out that by using the Gaussian law of
statics
they could then account for the remaining 10% of radiation by
accounting for other forces which could provide for 100% efficiency.
When this observation was shared on the internet it met with disdain
by those who in the absence of knoweledge followed the trend of the
written books of science known for their plagarisms. After all, those
who followed the books to the letter were resting on the mantle of
perceived experts where all agreed on the same thing. Rather than
learning new things about physics they decided to agree to bestow on
the teacher the myth that he was wearing no clothes and threw away all
the mesh available . To this day nobody can apply a time varying field
and note that it radiated more efficiently than any radiater known and
occupy a smaller volume than previously .possible thus preventing
those with small gardens become such loud mouths as others were that
were preventing the advance of science.
Now the antenna industry realizes that with the gaussian knowledge
being denied to them the only resort they had for advancement was to
invent a new technology so they could carry the battle to those who
cannot accept change. Unfortunately God made only one technology for
radiation leaving the industry to ponder for another 100 years.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg
tom
What Would Unwin Do?
Make up an answer, of course!
tom
K0TAR
Art Unwin
Ofcourse the biggest thing to come from the Gaussian observation was
that his static particles must be in equilibrium and also could only
come to rest without harm was a diamagnetic material which could
encapsulate vie their density. Most other things on earth are
considered diamagnetic including water. Many people have seen beads of
water that can exist in a pherical shape as you see with mercury and
the like. This is because the liquid is bound so tight by the resting
particles that they assume the shape of a sphere where internal
pressure equates to the outside pressure. When the winds pick up
particles are drawn up while clinging to the water where the surface
area of water diminishes with altitude The resting electrons or
particles receive a charge via the assending movement while at the
same time struggle to look for a viable new resting place such as a
close by cloud while all the time gathering increased charge. These
electrons collect in a cloud like form themselves as points of rest
diminish such they are attracted away from the higher elevation back
to earth which is now the easiest place to reach and rest. Thus we
have lightning produced when the cloud of electrons hit the ground
such that the charge removes itself from the charge.
You might also notice that the radiation resistance increases as the
metallic resistance decreases. This is due to the encapsulating
electrons carry more and more of the current available such that the
skin depth starts to disapear such that we have to review what the
lowest impedance that can be handled for radiatiation. The action that
removes the encapsulating particles is both a directive force and one
of spin. These same two forces are responsible for all actions on
earth such as gravity associated with spin all the way back to the big
bang where equilibrium is broken via a emerging particle from the suns
boundary. So what was originall thought of as being a wave is now seen
as a total error as the particle is the initial subject of force
together with spin which thus brings to the fore the formation of
voltage, light magnetism and even gravity byt he adherance to Newtons
law that require s from every action an equal and opposite reaction
which travels thru the Universe by the single ejection of a particle
creating the two basic forces from which everything comes about. Even
the Faraday shield follows the same pattern where the field outside
equals the field inside until the internal or external equilibrium is
broken creating the same two originating forces of the universe. Now
if I made all that up myself wouldn't one think of me as a visionary
that really should write a physics book to steer the world in the
right direction of fictional law?
Had a great long week end in StLouis which has revitalised me back
home in Central Illinois to with stand the new oncomming insults who
feel that they know all about antennas before I was born.
JIMMIE
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lets make sure I follow, You are saying that radio communication
occurs because and antenna emits statically charged particle that then
imparts their charge to the receiving antenna when they strike the
antenna. Is this what you are saying.
Jimmie
Art Unwin
yup
Richard Clark
<JIMMIE...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>Lets make sure I follow, You are saying that radio communication
>occurs because and antenna emits statically charged particle that then
>imparts their charge to the receiving antenna when they strike the
>antenna. Is this what you are saying.
Let's see, dust or soot are particles and can be charged. The VOA,
BBC and Deutsche Welle have big, big tranmitters capable of generating
considerable dust storms that have been tracked by satellite since
Gauss was in knee pants.
Well, maybe not.
Electrons are particles that are charged (just one charge, and only
negative), but awfully difficult to rip out of an atom without a few
KV (doesn't sound like an HT will be up to the job, so despite
evidence to the contrary - all lies - HTs do not work UNLESS their
antenna has a filament, screen grid, and a surrounding plate with an
opposite charge of several hundred volts).
Photons are particles (maybe) that are NOT charged, otherwise if when
you rub a balloon (diamagnetic material) on your hair (diamagnetic
material), it (diamagnetic material) would glow like a night light
instead of attracting, um, dust (diamagnetic material) and soot
(diamagnetic material) with its feeble force.
As antennas are not diamagnetic material - contrary to experience, all
lies - then antennas do not work UNLESS you have photographic proof of
a soot or dust layer coating one (aka skin-depth).
I hope this helps.
Art Unwin
When you apply a time varying current to a radiator you arrive at an
impedance derived by two resistances. Radiation resistance and skin
resistance.
The more efficient the radiator becomes the less skin resistance depth
is used where the loss is added to the radiation resistance. When the
current ceases to flow within the radiator resistance the radiation
resistance becomes a maximum which is what we seek. This suggests
that maximum radiation is created by current that flows outside the
metallic member and underneath the encapsulating particle or unbound
electron. With the current flowing along the joint of the materials 2
forces are applied underneath the encapsulating electrons.
These two forces are the same as gravity and the rotation of the
earth.
In a time varying current these same two forces are represented by
displacement current encircling a static field in eddy current form.
The twistin g action applies a poealing action on the unbound electron
and the displacement current supplies the ejection force the result of
which
is a straight line projection with spin impressed on the electron.
Now we know that radiation is created by an accelerating charge so we
must consider where the acceleration comes from. When the electron is
launched it passes thru the afore mentioned static fieldwhich is being
interfered with by a field at right angles to the main current flow.
When the particle enteres the static field in the area the external
field is impinged upon the electron or particle is placed into an
acceleration mode until it clears the static field where it achieves a
speed which incidently was found to be the same as that measured for
light. Now the electron which is now charged follows a straight line
projection of mass with spin and a generated electrical field. It is
now a particle or electron back into its original mode looking for a
place to rest which means it is looking for a diamagnetic material
that is resonant, the part that an amatuer has directed it at. It
arrives at the receiving antenna with a thump dislodging existing
particles where it disposers its electrical field upon the receiving
radiator for processing
in a mirror actions to that taken on transmission.
This single electron is a exact example of point radiation which can
be seen as an ejection from a point source containing distributed
loads
Note that the particles projection is of a straight line without
effect from gravity as it is exhibiting the reacting forces around
earth(gravity and rotation in line with Newtons equations. This
actually became into being when a particle of the sun impinged on its
barrier thus breaking equilibrium with both a direct force and a
bending or spin force now known as the BIG BANG. These same two forces
generate all the vector forces that exist in the universe such as
gravity, electricity, magnetism etc as well as the well known ribbon
with a helical action that represents the DNA of human life.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk)
JIMMIE
>
> - Show quoted text -
Exactly which particles are you saying are responsible for this?.
Jimmie
Art Unwin
Hard to say. We know what is termed as Leptons which escape from the
sun and get taken along in the solar stream towards earth.Some where
along the line they apparently finish up as neutrinos.
What happens between these events is considered to be Higgs field
which creates change in the particles. Then there is the connection to
light and supposed photons which initially attached to particles and
we know that when the particles from the solar stream provide charge
to the earths magnetic boundary. But these are just dots in the story
that wait to be connected but there are many things unknown between
the points that we theoretically know of which we have no evidence.
At the moment we have the observations of the masters and to this day
there is contraversy about particles, waves and the emmission of light
where the masters observations and equations are still a question of
discussion. What I have done is to use the equations of the masters
and connected them in a different mathematical way such they provide
tracable links between the BIG BANG, the Standard model and radiation
that matches the computer derivitatation of
radiation that is in sync with the teachings of the masters especially
Maxwell, Gauss and of course the Faraday shield, all of which now seem
to fit together nicely. The true bottom line is that the use of
Maxwells equations where accountability is taken of all forces
involved
have in essense via computer programs provide authenticity to the idea
of point radiation which leads to efficient small volume antennas.
And following these edicts I have been able to make radiators of a
smnaller volume that is known in the present state of the art.
Dave
great stuff.
still rotflmao
Art Unwin
If one would just read in succession the posts above one might get the
impression that I sat at a desk while in deep thought until I
connected the dots which provided a exp-lanation of radiation where
the books stated that radiation in itself was not fully understood.
That is so far from the truth. Going to the physics books one can see
examples where the maxwell equations was proven in many ways by the
use of contributingequations. One proof that you don't see is the
gaussian static field as a proof possibly because we had a conflict in
metrics ie cgs and MKS
which possibly authors did not want to use for fear of muddying the
water. From my point of view I saw it as a transition from a static
field to a dynamic field which in itself was swhat Maxwell equations
were showing. Sharing this observation on this group and other places
drew nothing but cat calls because of the sillines of connecting
statics with electricity as presently known. Pursuit via computer
programs and other thoughts regarding equilibrium allowed me to
formulate an array
where equilibrrium was in existance and all elements were resonant in
the form of a full wave. Thus my work on unwinantennas .com began
because I had destroyed some old wives tales. Then the second patent
came where again I focussed on FW antennas to obsolete the idea of
ground planes which I did by folding the FW dipole into an end fed
form but with the question remaining regarding my thoughts on the
standard model. Needless to say it showed that a verticle must be
tipped with respect to ground via the very nature of these two fectors
representing gravity and rotation. Going back to the end fed folded
full wave it can be seen that one could section the FW in calculus
form
in the form of many square circuits. In fact it could be expanded more
into mesh form where a transmitted circuit could be one of many in
parallel and where I was able to measure a resonant point on a small
piece of mesh. Thus the second patent started to grow when I changed a
std helix to where the lumped load was cancelled and introducing the
mesh radiator to a ground mounted form for top band
instead of the requirement for height. Thus multi frequency small
antennas were formed the holy grail of radio.
So that is a rough explanation as to how I got to understand radiation
in a different way from the books where as an engineer I started with
Gauss and Maxwell while placing all written theories to the side lines
and working from first principles as I now saw it. Of course looking
at my home page I made many samples and experiments along the way
where I now have a large Faraday cage radiator on the ground and
making a small loop mesh radiator to insert into the Faraday cage to
emulate velocity increase of a beam as with a fire nozzle and
Bernollis theorems where I can reduce the area of resting for
particles
where the number of particles remains a constant where equilibrium
requires a increase in velocity and a tighter beam.
Regards
Art Unwin...KB89MZ...xg (uk)
tom
Which all means, according to Lord Art, that an antenna won't radiate in
deep space due to lack of the particles (that he isn't sure of the type
of) won't be available to coat your antenna in the correct manner so
that it will be able to make them leap from it.
Of course if a radio signal consisted of charged particles, like he
claims, you could easily bend a radio signal with a static electric
field or magnetic field, which you can't. Heck you could run a radio
signal around right along with the protons in the Large Hadron Collider.
Except for the fact that you can't.
tom
K0TAR
tom
> Which all means, according to Lord Art, that an antenna won't radiate in
> deep space due to lack of the particles (that he isn't sure of the type
> of) won't be available to coat your antenna in the correct manner so
> that it will be able to make them leap from it.
>
> Of course if a radio signal consisted of charged particles, like he
> claims, you could easily bend a radio signal with a static electric
> field or magnetic field, which you can't. Heck you could run a radio
> signal around right along with the protons in the Large Hadron Collider.
> Except for the fact that you can't.
>
> tom
> K0TAR
Holy Cow! I've discovered the Holy Grail!
I beat you at your own game Art!
If these antennas work like you say, I should be able to make a beam
antenna to any specifications I'd like with magnets or charged plates.
I hereby claim that an antenna type made with charged plates surrounding
a dipole shall be called the K0TAR Unmodulated Electric Plate Beam
Antenna, and the type with cow magnets surrounding a dipole shall be
called the K0TAR Mystifying Magnetic Beam Antenna. And the type with
charged plates AND cow magnets be called the Super Whizbang
ElectroMagnetic Antenna.
Hmm. That last one could be a problem. Since Art has disproved that
there are really EM waves involved here.
I'll have to think about this some more.
I'll get back to you all later.
tom
K0TAR
Szczepan Bialek
"JIMMIE" <JIMMIE...@YAHOO.COM> wrote
news:a7690566-0408-4bde...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Yes. But in form of longitudinal waves. Electrons go out and come back from
the end of radiator. For this reason he can wrote: "the idea of point
radiation which leads to efficient small volume antennas.
And following these edicts I have been able to make radiators of a
smnaller volume that is known in the present state of the art."
When electrons oscillate in a transmitter the voltage at the end of a
radiator is doubled and the strong Gauss electric field is produced. Such
waves are longitudinal.
>Exactly which particles are you saying are responsible for this?.
Here are many hypothesis. One of them is the Diracs electron see. So the
electrons in the conductor kick the electrons in the space. But it is not
important. Radio people should know which part of the radiator radiate and
what the waves are: normal pressure waves or artifical TEM waves.
S*
Dave
ah, so now you are going to shoot particles from a fire hose faster
than light... that should be an interesting antenna. send me a
picture of it yesterday so i can comment on it the day before and we
could set up a whole backwards in time thread.
Dave
> "JIMMIE" <JIMMIEDEE...@YAHOO.COM> wrotenews:a7690566-0408-4bde...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
so how do antennas encased in insulators work at all?
Szczepan Bialek
"Dave" <k1...@arrl.net> wrote
news:10d8c82a-9bfa-40ad...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
For this Maxwell invented the displacement current. It is oscillating
current in insulators. In insulators are charges which can not flow bat only
can oscillate. They can oscillate to and fro and/or rotate about some angle.
For the transverse wave they rotate.
For longitudinal to and fro.
But such seperate waves are only in the math. Real waves have always the two
components. Always dominate the longitudinal.
S*
Dave
> "Dave" <k1...@arrl.net> wrotenews:10d8c82a-9bfa-40ad...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
but you said that "conductor kick the electrons in the space", now its
not electrons? So which is it? do you believe in art and his
particles that get kicked off the diamagnetic elements, or in the
maxwell displacement current that requires no particles?
maxwell's math only describes the real waves and they are always
transverse. the only fictional mathematical waves are standing
waves... they aren't real waves, just figments of someone's bad math
meant to confuse poor amateurs.