Optimised antenna
Alan Peake
fixed overall length of elements? Or, alternately, what's the minimum
amount of wire/tubing to give a specified gain? (Neglecting support
structures)
As an example, for a gain of 15 dBi, an 11 element Yagi appears to have
about the same gain as two stacked 6 element Yagis which collectively
use one more element. But what about collinears, V Beams, arrays of
different sized Yagis etc. etc.?
Just out of curiosity.
Alan
Dave
pipe and a big curved plate. you need to define the parameters a bit more.
for instance with no reflectors or directors, just driven verticals you can
make lots of gain. phased array radars have no wire/tubing elements, just
holes in a plate each with its own transmitter/receiver. and how do you
count dishes, corner reflectors, and the ground? by changing the height of
an antenna you can drastically change the gain at some particular takeoff
angle, so maybe you want to restrict it to free space. an do you want
minimum element count, or total material length? a very long wire can
create high gain lobes, but may not be very useful if you are thinking of
something rotateable.
"Alan Peake" <adp...@nosspam.activ8.net.au> wrote in message
news:486A24C9...@nosspam.activ8.net.au...
Wimpie
Hello Alan,
There is no optimum antenna design that fits everything. Some factors:
Center Frequency
Side lobe level requirements
Gain requirements
Available materials
Required bandwidth.
Design skills / Experience
Ease of production
Number of antennas to be produced,
Available volume
Sentimental
Environmental aspects
Visibility (think of covert antennas).
There are (physical) limitations on antenna gain and antenna size.
Antennas with high gain must have a size far above wavelength.
Reduction of side lobes with given gain also requires a larger
antenna.
Omni directional gain requires large vertical antenna structures.
Every 3 dB gain increase, requires double the (vertical) size.
Best regards,
Wim
PA3DJS
www.tetech.nl
don't forget to remove abc when replying directly.
Art Unwin
May I offer a rebuttal to your use of "size:" with respect to
radiators?
The addition of radiators and a time varying field to a Gaussian field
shows that a radiator can be any size,shape or elevation as long as it
is in equilibrium.
This is because the result of additions to Gauss's static law results
in the same law of Maxwell.
It can also be seen that any deviation from a straight line format
which creats lumped loading must be neutralized since
radiation is related to distributed loads L and C. Thus shape or size
is a determination of the neutralisation of lumped loads
while attaining equilibrium. With the above in hand it can be seen
that Foucault current generates a field that elevates particles that
have attained a weak magnetic field by entering the earths system
which provides for their rejection or ejection. Per Newtons Law the
weak forces
involved (Fermi) create an oscillation of the radiator which is a
mirror image of arriving impulses upon a radiuator with the same
natural resonance.
It is only convention that calls for an radiator to be straight of
which a helix antenna is an excellent example ,where a continuation of
rotation back to the originating point provides for a full circuit in
equilibrium si9nce added lumped loads are cancelled. Examples of the
foucault current was provided earlier on this forum when describing
the separation of scrap metal by Foucault current rejection. As with
Newton, Faraday Gauss etc all laws depend on the theme of equilibrium
within a boundary of a balanced universe and not on minute sections
thereof.
Have a great week end
Art
John Smith
> ...
Art:
This mysterious "equilibrium" (which I seem to have a bit of problem
getting my mind wrapped about), although you, seemingly, sum up a group
of properties with a single word, isn't this just "resonance"--with
respect to conductor length/width, capacitance to surrounding objects
and the shape/form of the magnetic field produced by antenna currents, etc?
However, a thought did come to my mind ... with the new technique of
"taking pictures" of light waves/particles--if a super-strong
electromagnet was pulsed in an enclosure of excitable gas(es), perhaps
we could see some unknown/yet-unseen phenomenon ...
However, you are speaking of resonance, aren't you? <still-scratching-head>
Regards,
JS
Dave
"John Smith" <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g4duob$piq$1...@news.albasani.net...
no, he's not... its the cosmic equilibrium between his fictitious particles
and the attraction of them the diamagnetic materials that makes antennas
work... of course he can't explain why ferromagnetic materials also work as
antennas, but that hasn't stopped him from spewing his garbage all over this
group. if you keep scratching your head while you try to figure out what he
is talking about you will run out of hair before you even get to first base.
Art Unwin
No. Resonance is a quality of equilibrium but equilibrium is not
necessarily a part of resonance.
For instance, a full wavelength corresponding to a period of
oscillation is a form in equilibrium
where as a fractional wavelength can be resonant but certainly in
equilibrium
This really ia at the bottom of Newtons law regarding action and
reaction where all forces around a point
must equal zero. For instance if we have a member that is carrying an
alternating current applying such law states that there is
no moving charge on the inside of the member and where all charges on
the surface are in static form. The same law is used to determine the
likes oif skin depth.Now I have a problem with fractional WL current
carrying members where the surface charges move to one end which
suggests a internally moving charge. This effect can be seen when
comparing a dipole with a quad where the dipole can create corona at
the ends as the charges pile up as they look for a place to go doing
the time space of one period
where as a quad is a full WL anmd in equilibrium.
Maxwells law is based on equilibrium which means it can accoun t for
what is known as the "week force" which Einstein searched for in vain
for his GUT theory., Its inclusion in the laws of the masters was by
mathematical derivitation where they could not devine it even tho it
is one of the basic four forces of the Universe, the CLASSICAL model.
Now with my adaptation of gauss';s law which provides a picture of
radiation the appearance of weak eddy currents give rise to this
unknown weak force. With computers which are based around equilibrium
and Maxwell and now my extension of Gaussian law will provide the
result of that weak force by placing a radiator tipped from right
angles to the earths surface since all inside of a gaussian field MUST
be in equilibrium. If you need more explanation just ask for it or get
hold of a physics professor who is not a ham!
Regards
Art
Art
John Smith
> ...
> no, he's not... its the cosmic equilibrium between his fictitious particles
> and the attraction of them the diamagnetic materials that makes antennas
> work... of course he can't explain why ferromagnetic materials also work as
> antennas, but that hasn't stopped him from spewing his garbage all over this
> group. if you keep scratching your head while you try to figure out what he
> is talking about you will run out of hair before you even get to first base.
>
>
Actually, there is only one alternative--the ether ... something which I
wish they will explore with new techniques ... Something (ether) which
even Einstein acknowledged. However, why Art would "waltz" around
something which is already being explored/argued, and cloak that
"waltzing" in an unfamiliar term(s) is simply beyond me ... unless ones'
point is obsfucation.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
Hmmm ... sounds to me of the magnetic component of the antenna current
reacting with, or acting upon, the ether and creating the rf wave
phenomenon (waves/particles/etc.) ... there are a millions ways,
perhaps, to refer to this, as yet unproven effect/affect, but this
theory has already been on the table for centuries ... discarded and
then reincarnated at least once ...
Regards,
JS
Jim Kelley
Art Unwin wrote:
> With the above in hand it can be seen
> that Foucault current generates a field that elevates particles that
> have attained a weak magnetic field by entering the earths system
> which provides for their rejection or ejection. Per Newtons Law the
> weak forces
> involved (Fermi) create an oscillation of the radiator which is a
> mirror image of arriving impulses upon a radiuator with the same
> natural resonance.
Hi Art -
You have a unique way of making simple notions seem utterly
ridiculous. :-)
ac6xg
Art Unwin
I have no knoweledge of that but I would like to follow up. Can you
give me some pointers on the subject so I may obtain some further
knowledge
For my part everything that I have stated can be proven and known to
exist
It is the hands of most hams who are interest in antenna programs to
follow
the trail that I point to with respect to arrays in equilibrium for
which the programs
are made from, instead of direction to planar arrays which I suspect
that Maxwell
and others new nothing about
Art Unwin
Jim
You are now doing your job as a teacher and a ham not a physicist.
The first two jobs are about repeating what is in the books parrot
fashion
and to prevent change . A physicist, which you are not, accepts
the
possibility that all is not known and is willing to question or debate
a
subject instead of exercising free speech without substance.
Using what education you have on the subject state in clear terms as
to why
what you are refering to is ridiculous so your posts have some meaning
that
others can follow inteligently
Regards
Art
John Smith
>> ...
> I have no knoweledge of that but I would like to follow up. Can you
> give me some pointers on the subject so I may obtain some further
> knowledge
What part the ether being acknowledged by Einstein? Colleges, papers,
physicists exploring the existence/properties of the ether? What? You
can't read? You can't use Google? You missed my posts quoting
Einsteins last mention of the ether? Help me out here ...
> For my part everything that I have stated can be proven and known to
> exist
I would even accept the arrls' material is what "really exists" (this
material will only need to be revised if and when the existence of the
ether can be known for certain and its' properties exploited though new
designs--mostly.) And, is in line with all presently accepted
theory--up to the point where the discussions begin of whether light
(and therefore rf) is composed of waves and/or particles or some
phenomenon which exhibits both of these characteristics but is separate
in existence, in some way. AND, whether rf/light "shoots" across a true
"nothing" or "strikes the chords of the ether" and transverses a media
which we can not see and know its properties, yet?"
What? You are introducing a "third theory" which does not deal with
shooting photons and nothing (well, you can shoot light waves through
gases and glass, obviously!), or waves and a media?
It would seem to me your "equilibrium" must either deal with a "nothing"
or an ether ...
In my mind, all antenna theory revolves around a few simple truths:
1) The antennas ELECTRICAL length relates DIRECTLY to what frequencies
it is efficient at.
2) Antennas are subject to laws of ac resistance.
3) Antennas are subject to knows laws of inductance.
4) Antennas are subject to know laws of capacitance.
5) All of the above, in one form or another, contribute to and define an
antenna impedance.
Some of us just wonder if the ether exists, and whether knowing its'
properties, if so, might give one a break through into antenna designs
not yet even though of ...
> It is the hands of most hams who are interest in antenna programs to
> follow
> the trail that I point to with respect to arrays in equilibrium for
> which the programs
> are made from, instead of direction to planar arrays which I suspect
> that Maxwell
> and others new nothing about
Except for a few hams, most notable Cecil, Richard Clark, Walter
Maxwell, etc., most are the "appliance users" and/or "brass pounders of
yesteryear." What remains is ill suited to find anything other than a
rare contact on contest/field-day, or perhaps a new keying device
capable of creating one more character per minute ...
You will forgive me if I examine your motives, if pure of heart, I am
sure they will stand as fitting ...
No Art, I think you are confused and using an "equilibrium" to keep from
coming to terms with that, or you are "obsfucating us, with intent!"
But then, I could just be confused myself ...
Regards,
JS
Jim Kelley
Art Unwin wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2:58 pm, Jim Kelley <jwkel...@uci.edu> wrote:
>
>>Art Unwin wrote:
>>
>>>With the above in hand it can be seen
>>>that Foucault current generates a field that elevates particles that
>>>have attained a weak magnetic field by entering the earths system
>>>which provides for their rejection or ejection. Per Newtons Law the
>>>weak forces
>>>involved (Fermi) create an oscillation of the radiator which is a
>>>mirror image of arriving impulses upon a radiuator with the same
>>>natural resonance.
>>
>>Hi Art -
>>
>>You have a unique way of making simple notions seem utterly
>>ridiculous. :-)
>>
>>ac6xg
>
>
> Jim
> You are now doing your job as a teacher and a ham not a physicist.
I don't have a job on the internet, Art. I was just speaking plainly
and honestly.
ac6xg
Art Unwin
But you supplied no substanc! You did not share what you were talking
about
or a point of contention just a use of free speech as in graphitty If
you had
knowledge of what I was speaking off then you could have delved in and
explain your comments
but you are deficient. I don't have time to teach a parrot another
line
Art
Alan Peake
Dave wrote:
> a parabolic reflector fed with a feedhorn. no 'elements', just a
> hole in a pipe and a big curved plate. you need to define the
> parameters a bit more.
OK, maximum gain for a single frequency, free space, sidelobes and
back-front ratio not important. Not concerned about number of elements -
only minimum total material length. Doesn't need to be rotatable - this
is a purely theoretical exercise.
Parabolic reflector sounds good but it's a bit hard to quantify for the
purposes of minimising total material length. Perhaps one could use a
wire mesh dish. Would that use more or less material than a Yagi? I
would imagine that a phased array radar could use the wire mesh approach
but the same questions would apply as for the parabolic reflector. Same
for corner reflectors.
Arrays of driven elements may be promising but the few such antennae
that I've simulated so far, use more material than Yagis for the same gain.
Alan
Alan Peake
Wimpie wrote:
> There is no optimum antenna design that fits everything. Some factors:
This a theoretical exercise - see my reply to Dave.
Alan
Art Unwin
John if you have no comprehension of equilibrium you will never be
able to define aether
Equilibrium is the essence of the universe confined to an arbitary
boundary where all forces about a point equals zero.
If they were not equal zero then the boundary breaks and we break from
equilibrium untill all forces equal zero
This is what Newton means when he made the statement Every action has
an equal and opposite reaction.
Before you can even think of the so called aether then the confining
boundary of all boundaries must be determined which is where some say
GOD sits. The sun sits in its own arbitary boundary where heat
byproducts exist with the sun itself. When the position of the sun
shifts within its boundary then equilibrium is lost and equilibrium is
only then retained by removal of excess forces that detract from
equilibrium. It is commonly understood that it is nuclear byproduct
that upset equilibrium until the p-roduct is removed from within the
arbitary boundary. These are known as Neutrinos which are displaced
particles with nuclear content such that they have not fully decayed.
These particles when released from the arbitary border have next to
zero orbital spin such that their exit is of scattered form
but their numbers are in the billions per square metre. But they do
have an affinity to diamagnetic materials which appears to be the most
common mass of our universe. since as a substance it does not absorb
free electons to rotate with said mass i.e. it rests upon the
surfaces.It is these very same particles illustrated in Gaussian law
of statics where the arbitary field is in equilibrium..
See. you cannot escape from the term equilibrium while in our universe
but you can ignore it until equilibrium is broken and where your
future is unknown. Hopefully the earths pole will move back from
Siberia so that all do not have to worry.We have no people skilled in
physics so there will be no debate other than the use of free speech
without content
Regards
Art
Art
Dave
"Art Unwin" <Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c88bd12e-d451-4eb9...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Exactly what art is best at!
Dave
length is not a property of 'material'. mass, volume, their ratio, density,
conductivity, color, hardness, etc, are properties that can be measured.
'theoretically' the best antenna is a conductor from the source to the
receiver. a parabolic reflector can have area and thickness, therefore
volume, but the area is variable depending on how thick or thin you can make
it. any wire can be made into a parabolic reflector by smashing it thin
enough, witness the reflectors used on deep space satellites that are
extremely thin and light. or the metallic coating of a telescope mirror
that may be only a few atoms thick and yet yields tremendous gain. phased
arrays for radar get better as you remove more material from the surface
they are built from, the more holes, the better the pattern can be... so
less is more. arrays of driven elements, like the lpda, while looking
impressive and using lots of material, perform poorly at a single frequency,
but have the advantage of performing equally poorly over a wide range of
frequencies. designing antennas is a game of tradeoffs.... bandwidth for
gain, size for efficiency, gain for size, add in weight or some other
constraint like diameter and length of tubing, or dollars worth of
materials, and you add a whole new dimension. and then you need
'practicality'. as our friend art has found, you can feed parameters into
an optimizer program and let it run wild and get a supergain antenna that
fits in a shoebox, but try to build it and you get an air cooled dummy
load... or something that only induces currents on the support structure or
feedline.
the first step of engineering an antenna is to constrain the design with
practical measures... frequency range, size, weight, wind load area, cost.
then research possible alternative designs. then tweak the possible designs
carefully to see if they can be adjusted for your specific use. but be very
careful, if you suddenly find the tweaked design providing much larger gains
or varying greatly from the starting point, back up and see what has
happened... something is wrong. the most common problem is that someone
takes a standard yagi and puts it into an optimizer and sets it for 'max
gain' at one frequency, with no other constraints. the optimizer chugs
along and the gain goes up, and up, and up, and up!!! but when you look at
the results there are several elements bunched around the driven element and
the feedpoint impedance has gone down to a fraction of an ohm. don't apply
for a patent like art, throw it out and start over with more reasonable
constraints. give it a range of frequencies, constrain the feedpoint
impedance to a useful range, limit the element spacing, the total boom
length, etc, until it gives you something slightly tweaked for your specific
application but not off in left field.
Tom Ring
Art, you are sooooo amusing. You are one of the reasons I read this group.
You make statements that haven't a shred of connection with reality, are
not testable, make statements about what you yourself have said or
"published" that aren't accurate, not even a little, and then you have
the unmitigated gaul to tell people they have said nothing.
You are wonderful!
tom
K0TAR
JIMMIE
John, my grandfather used to have some old radio books. One of them
talked about equilibriun as tunning the antenna feedlines so as to
have equal current in both lines. I can only guess that this is what
Art means.
Jimmie
Art Unwin
> "Art Unwin" <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
David ,you have never won a debate on this newsgroup and you never
will.
You are just another Andy Cap waving hands espousing various
falsehoods.
You have never come up with anything of cosequence that was factual in
the face of disagreement. Never!
And it is too late in life for you to correct it You can still live
happilly ever after if you stop pretending you are what you are not
Your sparcity of knoweledge becomes evident as you exercise the
priviledge of free speech which is why I am a supporter of free
speech ., If you were knowledgable in the art and mathematics you
would have shown the World how a relationship between Gauss and
Maxwell could never be. If you were knowledgable in the arts you would
have explained the eddy current but again you can't. If you were
knoweledgable in antenna programs you would be aware of arrays in
equilibrium but you can't. If you were aware that radiators do not
have to be straight under Maxwellian law you would have but you cant.
If you were aware of magnetic fields that something in air you would
have mentioned it but you didn't. Fact is you do not have the
mathematics knowledge to disprove these things or the get up and go to
make an antenna in equilibrium to prove anything and the measuring of
its oscillations with respect to SWR is certainly beyond your
capability.Carry on with your free speech as I find it so
representitive of what you actually are without further investigation.
Art
Tom Ring
> On Jul 1, 7:16 pm, "Dave" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Art Unwin" <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:c88bd12e-d451-4eb9...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 4:37 pm, John Smith <assemblywiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Art Unwin wrote:
>>> the use of free speech
>>> without content
>>> Regards
>>> Art
>> Exactly what art is best at!
>
> David ,you have never won a debate on this newsgroup and you never
> will.
Hmmm, who else here hasn't?
> happilly ever after if you stop pretending you are what you are not
> Your sparcity of knoweledge becomes evident as you exercise the
Spellchecker needed.
> priviledge of free speech which is why I am a supporter of free
> speech ., If you were knowledgable in the art and mathematics you
The "art". So this is witchcraft? Because that is roughly what you
have been espousing your whole career on this NG.
> Maxwell could never be. If you were knowledgable in the arts you would
Spelling again. YUou must be a fast "typer".
> have explained the eddy current but again you can't. If you were
> knoweledgable in antenna programs you would be aware of arrays in
Oops, it's consistent.
> equilibrium but you can't. If you were aware that radiators do not
> have to be straight under Maxwellian law you would have but you cant.
Gee, not straight. Hmmmm. Maybe you mean like a circular thing, maybe
a wavelength in circumference?. Oh, it's a LOOP! Wow, someone ought
to investigate this possibility! It might work!
And let's see, what would happen if one folded a half wave dipole around
until it became almost a square? I think I'll call it a "Squalo"!!!
You know a guy might make a buck off these ideas, but it's just too
crazy for the ham or professional radio engineering crowd, so it'll
never get made. After all, we conventional types only believe in
"straight" antennas.
Art, yuh gotta luv 'im.
tom
K0TAR
Art Unwin
David I have said many technical things as I see it. Nobody has given
me good reason why it cannot be so
Every day false hoods are given without corroberating facts. Nobody
but nobody has supplied reasonable doubt.
Now many people on this newsgroup make up stories or just lie. David a
little while ago described an antenna that I made of high gain
which was a result of an optimiser. One big lie! I can't model my
antenna since it is made of pre twisted wire.The fact is that I am
beginning to believe that many posters are not educated as they
pretend they are. Computer programs abound but nobody has taken me up
regarding antenna programs that I have made. Is everybody incapable or
just lazy. Another point the denial of the mathematics in the dispute
with respect to Gauss and Maxwell. Why was this a point of contention
when no facts were supplied to deny it. Then we come to eddy
curfrents and a particle rejection field. Levitation is very well
known.Eddy currents are also well known and is the reason for
laminations in transformers,. Why is it that such things are unknown
to educated posters? Every day there is a post that suggest of an old
wives tale but posters accept it without rebuttal. Why? Don,t you care
about the spreading of such things? Why not a rebuttal from anybody.
Why did your post stick a finger in my eye with out needed substance
that pushed you to post?
Fact is that some suggest that they have an educqation without stating
that it is 50 years old and they have forgotten most.
This is why many threads exceed 1000 posts. The posts have no
substance in relation to the discussion at hand or attempts to change
the subject. If I remember correctly Tom you were one of those who
could not accept the mathematics supplied by Davis but without
offering to identify errors of mathematics and still haven't.
Thank goodness for free speech so one can quickly see who they are and
what they are.
Art
lt...@yahoo.com
Yes Art, you have the right to say almost anything you want. You do
not have the 'right' to think people are going to believe/listen to
you, especially after some of your previous 'speeches'. (Lump me in
that 'Al Cap' category. Do we get registration numbers?)
Before I'm reminded not to encourage 'trolls', I'll quit.
- 'Doc
John Smith
>>
>> ...
You will forgive me for forgoing including the full context of your
post, I trust ...
I will continue to listen, brother ...
Regards,
JS
Tom Donaly
I like the term "unmitigated gaul." It reminds me, somehow, of the
present leader of France.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
Dave
> On Jul 1, 7:16 pm, "Dave" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Art Unwin" <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:c88bd12e-d451-4eb9...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 1, 4:37 pm, John Smith <assemblywiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Art Unwin wrote:
>> > the use of free speech
>> > without content
>> > Regards
>> > Art
>>
>> Exactly what art is best at!
>
> David ,you have never won a debate on this newsgroup and you never
> will.
i didn't know it was a competition.
> You are just another Andy Cap waving hands espousing various
> falsehoods.
if i remember right Andy Cap stated truisms in odd situations, but its been
a while since i have read comics... that where you glean your wisdom from
art?
> You have never come up with anything of cosequence that was factual in
> the face of disagreement. Never!
thats because you don't believe the proven facts, only your distorted little
view of it.
> If you were knowledgable in the art and mathematics you
> would have shown the World how a relationship between Gauss and
> Maxwell could never be.
Gauss's law is part of Maxwell's equations, they all work together and are
part of all the modeling programs that you used to like, but now claim can't
model your latest creation. and what happened to your half wave equilibrium
elements, they gone now?
> If you were knowledgable in the arts you would
> have explained the eddy current but again you can't.
as one of my past lives i wrote software for simulating eddy currents in
copper or aluminum sheets for magnetic shielding of transformer vaults in
hospitals. if your antennas utilize or depend on eddy currents then i
understand completely why they should be classed as air cooled dummy loads.
> If you were
> knoweledgable in antenna programs you would be aware of arrays in
> equilibrium but you can't.
my arrays are very well in 'equilibrium'... except right now some of the
elements are a bit bent from the winter ice so i have to go up and replace
them to get the 4/4/4/4 stack on 20m back in equilibrium... right now i can
hear the imbalance and it is very annoying.
> If you were aware that radiators do not
> have to be straight under Maxwellian law you would have but you cant.
right, and i have some folded and bent and circular radiators, but straight
is so much easier to build.
> If you were aware of magnetic fields that something in air you would
> have mentioned it but you didn't.
say what? magnetic fields do something in the air??
> Fact is you do not have the
> mathematics knowledge to disprove these things or the get up and go to
> make an antenna in equilibrium to prove anything and the measuring of
> its oscillations with respect to SWR is certainly beyond your
> capability.
fact is, you have presented nothing to prove what you claim besides
handwaving. you can't even mathematically define equilibrium. and like the
ancients you have to rely on a mysterious aether to make your warped view of
the world work.
> Carry on with your free speech as I find it so
> representitive of what you actually are without further investigation.
> Art
same with you, i need a good laugh now and then.
John Smith
> ...
> John if you have no comprehension of equilibrium you will never be
> able to define aether
> ...
> Art
Hmmm ... before we define "the great equilibrium", I would like to first
demonstrate the properties of that "elusive ether"--but I see, a bit
better now, your stand on "equilibrium."
Thanks Art,
regards,
JS
Art Unwin
Great. Just made an antenna whip for somebody to play with but my
effort to build the variometer was a total flopCoupling was just not
close
enough but at least the guy can have fun over the holidays
Regards
Art