Radiation and dummy loads
Art Unwin
frequencies is considered by hams to be a dummy load.! This
consistently shows up in statements by the itelligensia of this
newsgroup. Following up on the logic of that idea it would suggest
that if swr was totally constant ( not sure how that could be) then
all radiation must be zero or self cancelling.?
This thus suggests that if a log periodic antenna was unlimitted in
the number of elements used would in the limit drop down to zero
radiation!. So following the thinking of this group the oscillations
that I show on my page
as a progression towards zero radiation since Q eventually is going to
equal zero.
Is this why the decreasing oscillation is defined as a dummy load on
this newsgroup?
The term comes up so often that I am compelled to look for what I am
missing, especially since carbon
is conductive and thus in the minds of many must therefore be
radiative!
Ofcourse the statement bandied around that if a material is
condunctive then it must radiatiate
could become fact instead of an old wives tales if stated enough
times.
Art
nm...@wt.net
> I am trying to understand why a low swr repetitive over a band of
> frequencies is considered by hams to be a dummy load.!
Has nothing to do with it. SWR and antenna efficiency are
not related. Also SWR and common mode currents, or
the lack of are not related.
>This
> consistently shows up in statements by the itelligensia of this
> newsgroup.
Not by me. But I can't hardly spell itelligensia without help,
much less be one..
A man has to know his limitations.
>Following up on the logic of that idea it would suggest
> that if swr was totally constant ( not sure how that could be) then
> all radiation must be zero or self cancelling.?
That is Art logic...
> This thus suggests that if a log periodic antenna was unlimitted in
> the number of elements used would in the limit drop down to zero
> radiation!. So following the thinking of this group the oscillations
> that I show on my page
>
> unwinantennas.com/
>
> as a progression towards zero radiation since Q eventually is going to
> equal zero.
Could I interest your cat in a pair of fuzzy mittens?
> Is this why the decreasing oscillation is defined as a dummy load on
> this newsgroup?
No.
> The term comes up so often that I am compelled to look for what I am
> missing, especially since carbon
> is conductive and thus in the minds of many must therefore be
> radiative!
If Star Trek is to be believed, you are a carbon unit.
Tie a shielded feed line to your big toe and get back to
us on the amount of DX worked.
I'll even grant you the benefit of a doubt, and let you ground
your other toe to a suitable ground rod, radials, etc if needed
for proper operation of the carbon unit miracle whip.
> Ofcourse the statement bandied around that if a material is
> condunctive then it must radiatiate
> could become fact instead of an old wives tales if stated enough
> times.
I think it would hurt to see that statement repeated too many
times regardless if true or not.
The problem with your antenna will not be explained using fairy
tales and perceptions of what you think other hams might think.
All you need is regular old proven textbook theory which is available
to most anyone. If you have burned all your books in a past
fit of intellectual rage, maybe you should consider stocking up on
a few new ones. You can buy them online and have them delivered
via UPS, USPS, and other freight carriers. So you don't even have
to step outside the front door to gain this new perspective on the
"Unwin" antenna.
Art Unwin
You did not present any logical thiknking on the subjet
Following the logic of my posting it shows a clear conflict between
normal thinking and mine. On on side we have the standard statement
that if it is conductive then it is radiative a pretty common
statement on this news group
Yet a dummy load is conductive ie carbon but is not considered
radiative, a clear conflict
My point of view which is objected to is that radiation is a measure
of the resistivity of the
current carrying material because that alone creates eddy current
depth sometimes refer to skin depth
dependent on the depth of current flow. Now eddy currents varies in
all current carrying members
where as carbon eddy production properties are minimal to zero even
tho it curries current, which is why it
it is chosen for a dummy load ie carbon does not produce a skin depth
of eddy current.
Thus the common thinking of a dummy load does not radiate or a current
carrying member always radiates
presents a problem In my thinking as neutrinos particle which is a
type of carbon because it is a side product of fusion
Thus by my definition a carbon byproduct will never rest on a carbon
product as a "free" electron
thus radiation cannot occur! The conclusion of the above logic is that
a superconducting member
cannot radiate because resistivity is zero. On the other side of the
coin copper has resistivity thus must be able to radiate
regardless of its resistivity contentand the swr figure represents the
deviating frequency of the oscillating radiation which is in a direct
opposition to the general thinking of today.Now your logic is a direct
representation of the level of education you have attained
i.e.did not complete hight school. Since there are members who have
exceeded this level on the group I assume there will be a
stepped ascention in the level of logic where both you and I will
benefit.
Art
John Smith
>> ...
> Yet a dummy load is conductive ie carbon but is not considered
> radiative, a clear conflict
> Art
Naaa ... NOT even close!
Dummy Load = A man carrying a BIG round rock downhill. <grin>
Regards,
JS
Art Unwin
John
I wanted a succession of logic starting from the bottom with respect
to education
and finishing on some hight lights and intuition with respect to
antennas and radiation
which is what this forum is for. You are entering much to early since
we all know that
the level of education and achievements with subsequent promotions
come with a rush
ONLY after a ham person retires from a mundane working life. You have
been to college and are still working
so there are many posters awaiting their rightfull positioin to post
and should not be pushed aside
at this early point.. Shame for shame hi hi Go back to the prior
posting to check and see whether the logic presented if any
is a close match to yours and then retreat until later. Note with
respect to logic I placed myself at the bottom to see if my logic will
survive by the time we get to the self perceived experts and who
amoungst them spoke out of turn!
Regards
Art
Dave
"Art Unwin" <Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:adbfcfda-f1d7-4cc0...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
just following your lead i guess.
> Following the logic of my posting it shows a clear conflict between
> normal thinking and mine.
ah, so that is it. your logic is not normal thinking.
> In my thinking as neutrinos particle which is a
> type of carbon because it is a side product of fusion
is this an example of your abnormal thinking? seems pretty strange that a
small uncharged particle that passes through most matter as if it weren't
there could be a type of carbon which is an atom.
> Thus by my definition a carbon byproduct will never rest on a carbon
> product as a "free" electron
> thus radiation cannot occur!
i just loaded up some graphite from a pencil (another form of carbon) and it
did indeed radiate.
> The conclusion of the above logic is that
> a superconducting member
> cannot radiate because resistivity is zero.
Whoa! then what about the guy that has patented a superconductive
antenna??? you aren't going to tell me now that they issue patents for
things that don't work????
John Smith
>> ...
> Regards
> Art
Sorry Art. Just couldn't resist. That was one of my great Elmers'
favorite jokes ... as a younger man, I failed to find as much humor in
it as I do today--strange, huh? Maybe Alzheimer Disease is that way ...
<grin>
Regards,
JS
Art Unwin
thats o.k. john. we quickly got back on track in terms of succession
Dale Parfitt
"Art Unwin" <Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:adbfcfda-f1d7-4cc0...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 3, 11:08 am, Art Unwin <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Following the logic of my posting it shows a clear conflict between
> normal thinking and mine.
The operative words being "normal thinking and mine (Art's)"
That about sums it up.
John Smith
Well, yes and no ...
When you consider that the "normal IQ" is between 100-110 for the USA,
as a whole, and depending on the area in question (a survey onboard a
quality campus would blow that out of the water--and an IQ of 120+ used
to automatically qualify you for OTS (other qualifications
pending/applying) ... one could come up with a scenario(s) where
"normal" is not, necessarily, all that desirable ...
Regards,
JS
Art Unwin
Correct........ Normal in America is to strive to be a lemming
I can't be normal as it takes me more than one try to discern the
characters in the picture
which is needed before one can post
Art Unwin
You know John, since America gives the 'right to bear arms' you would
think that the population would understand
that a projectile must have rotation to follow a straight line
trajectory.
Straight line trajectory is also a property of radiation, so we not
only have to eject particles at rest
from a radiator surface but we also have to apply 'twist' to the
ejected particle otherwise the particles will scatter!
Again the foucault or eddy currents come to the fore where their
circulatory action apply torgue to the ejected particle
Why is it so hard for Americans to understand that radiation is a
result of radial ejection of particles via a rejective rotary magnetic
field ?. Especially when particles in equilibrium is part and parcel
of Gaussian law which when extended to the same environment as the
Maxwellian law? Today we have total resistance to this evidence and
instead prefer to act like lemmings rather than face change.
Regards
Art
I haven't purchased a ARRL publication for years but I suspect they
are still talking of radiation as being wave form.
lt...@yahoo.com
I think you had better stick to antennas, leave firearms alone,
don't go there. One of your earlier
statements covers all this very well. There's nothing wrong with
being normal, you know.
- 'Doc
(Also, don't run with scissors!)
John Smith
> '
> You know John, since America gives the 'right to bear arms' you would
> think that the population would understand
>> ...
Hmmm, got rid of my .357 ... just have an old, but in excellent shape,
.45 ... I am not sure, but I suspect this would stop a "home
invader"--even if you missed and hit him in the hand ...
> ...
> Why is it so hard for Americans to understand that radiation is a
> result of radial ejection of particles via a rejective rotary magnetic
> field ?. Especially when particles in equilibrium is part and parcel
> of Gaussian law which when extended to the same environment as the
> Maxwellian law? Today we have total resistance to this evidence and
> instead prefer to act like lemmings rather than face change.
> Regards
> Art
> I haven't purchased a ARRL publication for years but I suspect they
> are still talking of radiation as being wave form.
Hmmm ... I am still holding out a bit longer before calling the jury in
... the new developments of being able to take "pictures" of light
waves/particles needs completely explored and given time for the
technology to improve/mature.
But, it certainly looks the absolute proof of what light "is", is a LOT
closer at hand. :-)
Regards,
JS
Art Unwin
Great, more free speech which provides more understanding as who and
what you are.
I encourage all to exercise free speech so all can see and understand
what motivates you
and why you spend so much time on the couch! By the way you don't have
a doctorate so you have no
such education for which we should acknowledge or respect!
Speak up, love to hear from you.
Art]
John Smith
> ...
> But, it certainly looks the absolute proof of what light "is", is a LOT
> closer at hand. :-)
>
> Regards,
> JS
Yanno, they have NOT even taken a "picture" of a HIGH POWER RF wave
though an excitable gas (MASER), yet. Let's see that first ...
Regards,
JS
Art Unwin
John , nothing wrong in having a weapon to protect your home and
rights.
It is when those same weapons are used to threaten and scare the
populace
that things go wrong especially when they suggests such threats to
repell free speech
and for all to read before hand! So a projectile must have rotation to
travel in a straight line
but you must not mention that as it is tyrinical. But he did come in
on time as I anticipated
and applied logic to antennas as he sees it. Soon others will take
their turn since logic
applied is getting closer to the norm
When the President was on a train aproaching my town a porter cried
out "ten minuits to Normal"
with respect to the upcoming rail road station
That is how the book by the presidents adviser from Texas was named
i.e. Ten minuits from Normal
so I am very familiar with Normal people
Regards
Art
Tom Ring
> I am trying to understand why a low swr repetitive over a band of
> frequencies is considered by hams to be a dummy load.! This
That is NOT what was stated. As usual you aren't paying attention.
tom
K0TAR
John Smith
>> ...
> so I am very familiar with Normal people
> Regards
> Art
OK, enough said; and this final comment of mine ends this "normal"
thread ... at least for myself.
You know as well as I, normal is much over-rated. Normal people are
just not that interesting. While violent nuts are a drag; and, nuts
which live in true "La La Land" cannot be tolerated for long periods of
time--the most interesting people lie in between these and "normal" ...
Regards,
JS
Tom Ring
> presents a problem In my thinking as neutrinos particle which is a
> type of carbon because it is a side product of fusion
Well, that will sure cause heartburn for a lot of physicists, who
believe it is a lepton, while carbon is an atom. Also the neutrino is
massless as far as we know, and carbon very definitely has mass.
Now why do I think you will now tell me I, and the whole world of
physics, is wrong?
tom
K0TAR
Tom Ring
> On Jul 3, 1:13 pm, John Smith <assemblywiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Art Unwin wrote:
> John
> I wanted a succession of logic starting from the bottom with respect
> to education
> and finishing on some hight lights and intuition with respect to
> antennas and radiation
> which is what this forum is for. You are entering much to early since
> we all know that
> the level of education and achievements with subsequent promotions
> come with a rush
> ONLY after a ham person retires from a mundane working life. You have
Which is why professionals like (names that came to mind first that I
could also spell, nothing else intended) Uda, Reisert, and Cebik have
had no effect whatsoever on the antennas that surround you.
tom
K0TAR
Art Unwin
Exactly. When they retired curiosity stayed with them and we learned
from their findings
There is little curiousity here which only gives people the past to
sieze upon with antenna bashing.
So they promote themselves as something they are not to prevent
learning from what I am sharing.
Nobody, but nobody has found fault with my findings because curiousity
left when they retired such
that they have nothing left to debate. Ofcourse that is not all bad,
no strain occures in bashing the messenger !.
I would be happy if somebody could find a fault in my findings to put
my mind at rest and I can move on
but trying to put fear in my mind by the bashing just plants my feet
more firmly in the ground
I find it so wiered that men of education denied the education
provided by the extension of Gauss when the mathematics are placed
before them to which they could find no fault. Probably because of
lack of knowledge in books behind which they could find safety.
We have a book writer here whose work was taken to task by another. If
he manages to get that same book published will you take shelter
behind what is written regardless of its quality? I find no shame in
what I am sharing and I will never be silenced so my feet turn to lead
in the face of wrong doing applied to others who have done no
wrong.That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art
Tom Ring
> what I am sharing and I will never be silenced so my feet turn to lead
> in the face of wrong doing applied to others who have done no
> wrong.That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
> nothing got their just deserts.
> Art
You are a very sick person. Get help.
tom
K0TAR
Art Unwin
Make your point by proving it. Many will stand behind you
with that comment but first prove the mathematics presented are in
error.
That would certainly separate you from others who are not educated to
determine same
other than sharing with others what and who you are.
When those mathematics are proved to be in error my whole findings
fall apart .
. Where I would lose credence where you would gain without the need
for
insult which gains nothing. Is there not anybody in this world can
prove that the extended law of Gauss
when subject to the addition of radiators and a time varying field is
not the equal of Maxwells law?
Anybody from any country of any color or religeon willing to present
to Americans that indeed the
laws become the same? Or do you find the possibility of insults from
americans to daunting to speak up?
Be strong
Regards
Art
Tom Ring
This was not an insult Art, this was in reference to the last sentence
in your statement which follows -
>>> That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
>>> nothing got their just deserts.
>>> Art
Sounds like a lightly veiled threat to me.
tom
K0TAR
John Smith
>
> >>> That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
> >>> nothing got their just deserts.
> >>> Art
>
> Sounds like a lightly veiled threat to me.
>
> tom
> K0TAR
You need to study your history.
Sounds like this to me:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
Sick is attempting to "point" everything at ones' self. Sick is
thinking everyone in the world is "out to get you" ... be careful ... it
WAS about Hitler, and what those who do nothing deserve.
Regards,
JS
Art Unwin
Gee, I have no idea why you say that.
I want somebody, probably from outside America who knows something
about mathematics, communist, muslim or otherwise
who can inform the american ham where the similarity lies between
Gauss and Maxwell . This is mainly an american forum
and they are determined to deny any mathematics that supplies a
similarity between these two gentlemen from Europe. Mathematics shown
up to now showed that Gaussian law of statics when extended to include
a radiator and a time varying field cannot, and does not,equal
Maxwell's law despite the mathematic manouvaring that show that they
are the same. They also bring in to question antenna programs with
optimizer that produce arrays where all is in equilibrium, or programs
that show radiators tipped with respect to ground
as a response to Foucault current ala the weak field, required by the
masters prior to Maxwell. We all know the statement regarding garbage
in means garbage out and that is the label they are determined to
foist upon all. The equality of these laws leads to the fact that a
radiator may be of 'any shape, size or elevation as long as it is in
equilibrium and is capable of producing eddy currents'.
This suggests to me that some members are full bent on preventing this
knowledge being shared with all, for why I do not know
Even tho it was an american with a doctorate working for the space
department who supplied confirming mathematics.
There is a need for efficient electrically full wave antennas
contained within a smaller volume hitherto known and nobody can stop
the advance of science where curiousity abounds. Somebody some where
will produce one and then the race will be on but it disappoints me
that it will not be America where the fall of the dollar will continue
world wide.
Why american antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna I do not know when the above presents the means of
point radiation which leads to more efficient radiators of a smaller
volume. I need a mathematician to come forward to blow this scheming
apart for the benefit of all including those on the other side of the
pond.
Happy fourth of July to all Americans and hopefully change is near.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......Personal page...."unwinantennas.com/"
Dave
art never has understood that one of maxwell's 4 laws is really gauss' law
in disguise... sometimes written with a D instead of E to confuse the
clueless, its an important part of electrostatics.
lt...@yahoo.com
off.
- 'Doc
Art Unwin
> "Art Unwin" <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
But David you made a career of saying that you cannot add radiators
and a time varying field to
Gaussian law of statics.!
You are repeating the same method that Richard took by quietly
submitting to the fact that you were wrong during the last year and
now finally can see the light. Better late than never! Now you are
in position of that fact, get yourself an optimizer antenna program
and with one line where all dimensions are different i.e not planar.
Then come back and explain to the rest of America why the radiator is
tipped with respect to earth
(Tip review the combination of Foucault currents on diamagnetic
materials)
David I am so pleased that you have finally moved back into physics
Even learning to change the units of onbe law (SI ) to the units of
another. Maybe other americans on the newsgroup will now follow you
without bashing other believers that it cannot be so.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg
Richard Harrison
"Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin Antenna)
presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
facts".
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
nm...@wt.net
>
> > This was not an insult Art, this was in reference to the last sentence
> > in your statement which follows -
>
> > >>> That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
> > >>> nothing got their just deserts.
> > >>> Art
>
> > Sounds like a lightly veiled threat to me.
>
> > tom
> > K0TAR
>
> Gee, I have no idea why you say that.
> I want somebody, probably from outside America who knows something
> about mathematics, communist, muslim or otherwise
> who can inform the american ham where the similarity lies between
> Gauss and Maxwell .
What? Are you telling us that you don't know math, and
request help to "inform" the American ham about Gauss
and Maxwell?
Let me get this right.. We all want to be clear on this.
You don't know or understand math very well, but you
want someone who does know math to "prove" a theory
cooked up by a person who doesn't use or know math
very well.
So, obviously if you don't know math very well, you must
not have used any to come to your conclusions.
What makes you so sure that the arrival of such a person
with credible math skills will verify and prove your
claims?
That doktor from MIT sure didn't do you any good.
I assume he at least knows a little math...
Sure seems like a stretch to me. We all know how you
came to your conclusions. And math didn't have anything
to do with it. Your antenna was spawned by twiddling
with an antenna modeling and optimization program.
I am sure that there are plenty here who do have the
math skills to calculate most any problem you were to
pose to them.
People can't check the math if no math is given for
them to check.
So what is your excuse for this gross omission?
And don't mention that doktor from MIT.
He didn't provide any math to check either.
What was his excuse for this gross omission?
Oh yea, I remember.. He ducked out and ran off
before giving his excuse.
Of course, you could greatly speed up your quest for
validation if you installed the antenna and ran tests
against known reference antennas.
You would know very quickly if your antenna lives
up to your hype or not.
You would not need any mathematicians to see
if your theory holds water. You would *KNOW*
without all the whiny histrionics.
Your pissing and moaning about peoples levels of
education strikes me as hilarious when you write
and spell on the level of the average 4th grader.
I don't know who your teachers were, but I feel
certain they must have been incompetent.
Either that, or in your advancing old fartism, you
have gradually lost most everything you were once
taught.
Either that or you just want to be different.
Which is it?
When are you going to get off your ass and actually
try one of these antennas in the real world?
If you won't do it, how can you expect anyone else
to want to mess with it?
The "normal" person will pretty much know it doesn't
work even before trying it. So there is not much
incentive to break a sweat is there?
If you want to prove that your air cooled dummy load
can be an effective radiator, it's all up to you.
Not us.
If you want me to break a sweat to disprove your
antenna, I expect to be well paid for my trouble.
You will also pay for expenses. IE: the hundreds of
feet of 22 gauge wire, two shoe boxes, etc..
If you wish, I will do your work for you for $6,150.00
$6k going to me, the $150 to cover parts and other
expenses.
You can send the check to my listed QRZ address.
After receiving said funds, I will provide detailed
test results within a week.
Note that I require payment before doing the test
just to ensure I actually get paid.
I'm fairly sure that the results of the test will be
unfavorable to your cause, which will likely lead
you to decide not to pay your bill.
Art Unwin
wrote:
Richard after all your denials regarding tipped antennas which you say
is a myth we are now getting close
to showing same via a computor program with optimizer which will show
it is not a myth. You will soon have to decide whether computor
programs with respect to antennas are complete garbage i.e. garbage in
garbage out or....... that antennas must be tipped for max vertical
gain. My guess that this will be shown first by a European since they
have a need for smaller antennas and still are willing to experiment
with antennas rather than declaring "all is known" Slowly the
correllation between static particles and Maxwell is being understood.
I never thought David would finally acknowledge the mathematics even
tho there are many who reject the fact. Now we have Richard ,not you,
David and myself on one side banded together against the antenna
bashers. The next move showing a tipped vertical generated by an
optimizer will bring another one over to my side. We then will see
that the static particles that is part of Gauss is ejected from a
radiator like an elevated frog, used for novelty reasons, show that
radiatiation is by particles and not a wave will bring another antenna
basher over to the Gaussian side. Then people will see how an eddy
current applies spin to a departing
particle such that it will attain a straight line trajectory for
communication and the change over will become a flood and you will be
left alone as an old man who cannot accept change While others are
making small antennas now that it can be seen that a radiator can be
any size shape or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium
This being the start of this journey connecting a gaussian field in
equilibrium to the mechanics of communication
Art
KB9MZ
unwinantennas.com/
Dave
Gauss' law is a statics law... always was and always will be. And i have
pointed out to you repeatedly that it was already sufficiently integrated
into maxwell's laws without you trying to muck around with them.
> Then come back and explain to the rest of America why the radiator is
> tipped with respect to earth
its tipped because you are a bit off of vertical, and have been for a long
time from the sounds of it.
> Maybe other americans on the newsgroup will now follow you
> without bashing other believers that it cannot be so.
i hope not, this is our independence day from the idiocy that you have been
spewing.
Art Unwin
Very well put. It why I am so proud of the UK as a Londoner for that
descision when all alone
on SEPTEMBER THREE 1939
We got hit pretty hard after that but it was the right thing to do
Art an XG
Dave
> On Jul 4, 11:04 am, richardharri...@webtv.net (Richard Harrison)
> wrote:
>> Art wrote:
>>
>> "Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
>> fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin Antenna)
>> presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
>> radiators of smaller volume."
>>
>> Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
>> facts".
>>
>> Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
>
> Richard after all your denials regarding tipped antennas which you say
> is a myth we are now getting close
> to showing same via a computor program with optimizer which will show
> it is not a myth.
what is the myth? they will do something different than a true vertical
antenna, but probably nothing really useful.
> that antennas must be tipped for max vertical
> gain.
if you want gain straight up then yes, you must tip the radiator, preferably
by 90 degrees off vertical.
> I never thought David would finally acknowledge the mathematics even
You haven't shown any mathematics to acknowledge... only bafflegab and hand
waving.
> We then will see
> that the static particles that is part of Gauss is ejected from a
> radiator like an elevated frog, used for novelty reasons, show that
> radiatiation is by particles and not a wave will bring another antenna
> basher over to the Gaussian side. Then people will see how an eddy
> current applies spin to a departing
> particle such that it will attain a straight line trajectory for
> communication and the change over will become a flood and you will be
> left alone as an old man who cannot accept change While others are
> making small antennas now that it can be seen that a radiator can be
> any size shape or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium
> This being the start of this journey connecting a gaussian field in
> equilibrium to the mechanics of communication
> Art
a perfect example of bafflegab, doubletalk, and downright nonsense... art
can't really believe this and still be functional enough to type, so he must
be still trying to pull our collective legs.
Art Unwin
> "Art Unwin" <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
David check it out to show the World why it is bafflegab,
The same thing was stated when the Gaussian/Maxwell
mathematics was given on this newsgroup. Be a hero and show the World
why America is correct and I am in error
Your chance to make the July 4 a day to remember for American hams
Ofcourse you can make an antenna where all lumped loads are cancelled
to form an antenna in equilibrium but that would mean getting up from
your
couch and putting your six pack down. Not very likely
Art
Dave
From "Fields And Waves In Communication Electronics" Ramo, Whinnery, and Van
Duzer, 2nd printing 1967... ppg 237 they have just stated the 4 classical
Maxwell's equations in integral form and are explaining them in words.
equation (1) is the surface integral of the vector displacement = the
volume integral of the charge density.... which they explain as "Equation
(1) is seen to be the familiar form of Gauss's law utilized so much in
Chapter 2. Now that we are concerned with fields which are a function of
time, the interpretation is that the electric flux flowing out of any closed
surface _at a given instant_ is equal to the charge enclosed by the surface
_at that instant_" (emphasis shown by _ x_ is THEIRS not mine). Now note
art, that this shows that the classical Gauss's law that you are trying to
add into the Maxwell equations is indeed already there. Also, as they point
out it implicitly accounts for time variation without the need to add a
specific time term to the equations.
> Your chance to make the July 4 a day to remember for American hams
> Ofcourse you can make an antenna where all lumped loads are cancelled
> to form an antenna in equilibrium but that would mean getting up from
> your
> couch and putting your six pack down. Not very likely
> Art
six pack! ugh, i haven't touched a six pack in years, i much prefer real
beer. is that your problem art, too many cheap six packs??
Art Unwin
Wrong.
The chapter gives NO mention of the role of static particles in
radiation. Gauss never did apply an extension to his law of statics to
reveal that a radiator can be any size , shape or elevation as long as
the laws of equilibrium is in effect to make a dynamic field. This is
clear indication that a radiator must be of a wavelength or more that
is radiating which does not include the addition of a ground plane as
part of the radiator.
In addition, all laws only refer to distributed loads as a function
of radiation and equilibrium and where lumped loads have no part in
the equations. Equilibrium is also the datum proof where the charge
within a conductor must be zero so that the law of Newton can be
preserved ( action and reaction)
By using the law of statics you find the importance of ":equilibrium"
that
Maxwell purloined as well as a new aproach to the sequences involved
in radiation
There is no question that the laws of Maxwell are not correct because
each law he purloined
included this stipulation as well as the extension to the gaussian law
of statics which
supplies the picture that Maxwell's laws are lacking. It is these same
particles alluded in Gaussian law
that are the true carriers of communication in radio where they are
ejected from the radiator surface with spin provided by the opresence
of eddy currents. Without the applied spin you cannot have a straight
line trajectory.
Ofcourse you can supply another reason why nature included particles
in communication which would really thrill me to bits.
But I am very pleased you are returning to written laws for proof even
tho you misinterprete them. On the other hand you can verify that the
requirement of equilibrium is preserved within Maxwells laws and thus
antenna computer programs such that the tilted vertical
is not removed from the subject of antennas. It was me that
speculated that these same particles were neutrinos that are radio
active and thus subject to decay that obtain a weak magnetic field
from entry to the earth's magnetic field which are present in the
billions per square metre on our native earth. It is also the
wavelength data that supplies the information regarding the parallel
tank circuit which is a pertinent part of all radiation. All these
items I have found to intersect like a jigsaw puzzle that adequately
describes the mechanics of radiation which hither to was unknown.
Unless ofcourse you have studies that are contrary to the above. If
you have, take them to the International conference on small antennas
organised in San Diego U.S.next week by the American IEEE where you
can drink in the applause of the World's experts
Regards
unwinantennas.com/
Dave
of course not, the aether was firmly debunked before they wrote that.
> Gauss never did apply an extension to his law of statics to
> reveal that a radiator can be any size , shape or elevation as long as
> the laws of equilibrium is in effect to make a dynamic field.
of course not, his law is a static law, it was maxwell that brought together
the 6 equations necessary to describe waves and dynamics.
> This is
> clear indication that a radiator must be of a wavelength or more that
> is radiating which does not include the addition of a ground plane as
> part of the radiator.
bull. half wave radiators are just fine, and you can get any size conductor
to radiate.
rest of bull snipped... enough for today, i'm going to enjoy some nice old
scotch and enjoy the rest of the holiday.
Art Unwin
Woww, you have slipped back into the abyss again. Statics and
radiation do not mix!
Have a happy Guy Faukes day with the fireworks
Art
John Smith
>> ...
>> rest of bull snipped... enough for today, i'm going to enjoy some nice old
>> scotch and enjoy the rest of the holiday.
>
> Woww, you have slipped back into the abyss again. Statics and
> radiation do not mix!
> Have a happy Guy Faukes day with the fireworks
> Art
Methinks that may have already been the scotch ... ;-)
Anyway, my "1/2 wave" omini-vertical is a "full wave antenna!"
180 degrees of the rf wave, proper, is in the radiator--180 degrees is
in the counterpoise (mirrored, of course--or, 180 degrees out of phase
with the radiator (and, of course, is a radiator itself.) This is
mostly due to the current unun/choke at the base of the radiator, on the
coax. Else it does have a tendency to attempt to use the coax as a
counterpoise ...
Anyway ... yawn ... a full wave is being supported in the antenna
hardware proper.
Regards,
JS
Art Unwin
A good way of looking at it for the layman since dividing a full wave
radiation by two you get close to the correct answer except for a
couple of ohms. But even that falls down with respect to a horizontal
dipole which is not in equilibrium and thus corrona can form at the
ends. With a quad antenna it then be comes in equilibrium where
Maxwells laws apply without chinanigans. Remember ground plains are
nothing but resisters carrying current and do not radiate because of
zero skin depth. The FCC covers this with broadcasters b y limiting
the level of ground plain resistance to I think about 2 ohms to cut
down non radiative losses.
All very fascinating stuff because the total circuit is then of a
parallel circuit nature with the inclusion of a dampening resister.
Cheers
Art
Richard Harrison
"On the other hand you can verify that the requirements of equilibrium
is preserved within Maxwell`s laws and thus antenna computer programs
such that the tilted vertical is not removed from the subject of
antennas."
The preceding confusion not withstanding, surely you must have aligned
antenna elements to vertical or horizontal positions to maximize signal.
I`ve done so countless times while optimizing microwave paths.
Terman quantifies (look it up for the math, Art) signal degradation
caused by misalignment on page 923 of his 1955 opus. I`ll extract one
sentence:
"It will be observed that the quantity
(E cos psi cos theta) is the component of the field strength which has a
wavefront parallel to the antenna and is polarized in the same plane as
the antenna."
The programs Art refers to don`t contradict either Maxwell or Terman.
rick frazier
stuff, (perhaps I don't read enough of the group messages) but to reply
relative to dummy loads in general....
Yep, Dummy Loads do radiate, they just don't radiate very well. In
fact, most of them are encased in a metal enclosure of some sort to
provide two major functions, reducing the radiation, and to provide oil
or other medium for cooling.
On the other hand, your statement/question concerning whether anything
that conducts also radiates, the answer is "yes" so long as it isn't
shielded by something else, the skin effect helps provide that shielding
(coax, with fields on the center conductor and the inside of the shield)
or in a configuration that cancels the radiation with an equal and
opposite radiation (twisted pairs, ladder line). Relative to carbon
life forms, I've successfully loaded a tree and made (local) contacts,
but the efficiency was probably near zero. Though many items may
conduct and therefore radiate, their efficiency and effectivity as an
antenna can be so low as to be readily compared to transmitting on a
dummy load. Thus it is not unusual to hear ham conversations describing
a given antenna/configuration as a dummy load...
--Rick
Art Unwin wrote:
> I am trying to understand why a low swr repetitive over a band of
> frequencies is considered by hams to be a dummy load.! This
> consistently shows up in statements by the itelligensia of this
> newsgroup. Following up on the logic of that idea it would suggest
> that if swr was totally constant ( not sure how that could be) then
> all radiation must be zero or self cancelling.?
> This thus suggests that if a log periodic antenna was unlimitted in
> the number of elements used would in the limit drop down to zero
> radiation!. So following the thinking of this group the oscillations
> that I show on my page
>
> unwinantennas.com/
>
> as a progression towards zero radiation since Q eventually is going to
> equal zero.
> Is this why the decreasing oscillation is defined as a dummy load on
> this newsgroup?
> The term comes up so often that I am compelled to look for what I am
> missing, especially since carbon
> is conductive and thus in the minds of many must therefore be
> radiative!
> Ofcourse the statement bandied around that if a material is
> condunctive then it must radiatiate
> could become fact instead of an old wives tales if stated enough
> times.
> Art
Art Unwin
> Art wrote:
>
> "On the other hand you can verify that the requirements of equilibrium
> is preserved within Maxwell`s laws and thus antenna computer programs
> such that the tilted vertical is not removed from the subject of
> antennas."
>
> The preceding confusion not withstanding, surely you must have aligned
> antenna elements to vertical or horizontal positions to maximize signal.
> I`ve done so countless times while optimizing microwave paths.
but there is still
one winner
>
> Terman quantifies (look it up for the math, Art) signal degradation
> caused by misalignment on page 923 of his 1955 opus. I`ll extract one
> sentence:
> "It will be observed that the quantity
> (E cos psi cos theta) is the component of the field strength which has a
> wavefront parallel to the antenna and is polarized in the same plane as
> the antenna."
Yes they do!
Terman does not include the eddy currents vector where computer
programs based on Gauss and Maxwell and other masters do.
The angle of difference is similar to that seen as the pitch angle of
a helix antenna.
With your love of Terman you can now state that computor programs are
garbage
since they promote what you call a "myth"
>
> The programs Art refers to don`t contradict either Maxwell or Terman.
As I said earlier, yes they do with respect to Terman.
I challenge you to find in Terman the implications of Foucault current
with respect to antennas
and diamagnetic materials such as aluminum gold and copper which are
prime examples of material with suitable resistivity values
that provide ejection or levitation effects when moved thru a magnetic
field
It is nothing new, The vector has been there all the time it is just
that many don;'t mess with it because it is small and a devil to
calculate.
Richard why not give it up? You will never make the antenna, you can't
operate computor programs and I suspect you cannot perform a google
search, so progress beyond Terman is an impossibility for you. If
eddy currents are omitted any structure thus made cannot be in
equilibrium since this is the mystery "weak" force that Einstein
struggled for in vain and thus drove him towards forming quantum
mechanics., The masters made room for this force even tho they did not
know what caused it but that vector was required to conform with
equilibrium closed vector field
Art Unwin
> Not sure where you get the swr repetitive over a band of frequencies
> stuff, (perhaps I don't read enough of the group messages) but to reply
> relative to dummy loads in general....
This comes from the radiator listed on my page
unwinantennas.com/
>
> Yep, Dummy Loads do radiate, they just don't radiate very well. In
very true
> fact, most of them are encased in a metal enclosure of some sort to
> provide two major functions, reducing the radiation, and to provide oil
> or other medium for cooling.
>
> On the other hand, your statement/question concerning whether anything
> that conducts also radiates, the answer is "yes" so long as it isn't
In a very general sense this is true because most if not all materials
at room temperature
have resistivity which is a measure of radiation. But there are some
materials that lose their resistivity
at extremely low temperatures of which the best known is a super
conductor
> shielded by something else, the skin effect helps provide that shielding
> (coax, with fields on the center conductor and the inside of the shield)
> or in a configuration that cancels the radiation with an equal and
> opposite radiation (twisted pairs, ladder line).
I have doubts about twisted pairs which is what I use for my
antennas.
The reason for crossed wires for me is to cancel lumped capacitances
and where the reversal of turns cancels imposed loaded inductances
Thus the length of wire used consists of only distributed loads as
required by Maxwells law
with length being N times wavelength. I have seen reference to
canceled radiation in some
antenna books but if I remember correctly the cancelling effect
occurs on near field radiation only.
Relative to carbon
> life forms, I've successfully loaded a tree and made (local) contacts,
> but the efficiency was probably near zero. Though many items may
> conduct and therefore radiate, their efficiency and effectivity as an
> antenna can be so low as to be readily compared to transmitting on a
> dummy load. Thus it is not unusual to hear ham conversations describing
> a given antenna/configuration as a dummy load...
Interesting that you refer to life forms where carbon undergoes
various changes and classifications
as it decays, (c13) in the extreme. Tho I have seen some strata of
earth listed
as a carbon but then elsewhere as a mineral which I find confusing!
Ofcourse a tree consist of molecules
of water which is a diamagnetic material. Thus will have particals
drawn to rest upon it to radiate as well as particles
released by updrafts in a rainstorm allowing the particles to return
back to a suitable place in
quantum form as with lightning
Good posting
Regards
Art KB9MZ
lt...@yahoo.com
Well, I'm afraid it's time to reveal the truth to Art. Now that he's
hit upon the tree thing, he honestly doesn't have far to go before
discovering all of our secrets. While I admit that he hasn't yet
touched on the mysteries of citric acid, he will shortly, I mean, it's
only a very short jump, right?
Art,
You have been the focus of a conspiracy. Yes, your suspicions have
been correct, it was a conspiracy by those of us 'in the know'. We
have been doing all that we can to deter you from your venture into
these mysteries. I'm sure you can see where the world is just not
ready for them as yet. That was the reason, the world is just not
ready for the revelation yet.
But it's time for this to end, the conspiracy thingy I mean.
Congratulations, I really didn't think you would make it, but you
have.
I also believe you can understand that it takes time to turn this
action of ours around and give you the deserved recognition you have
earned. Be patient, it will happen shortly. In the mean time, you
might give further thought on that citric acid (limes, lemons, etc.)
thing and particle release. I knew you were 'close' when you
mentioned trees!
Hang on, it's coming...
- 'Doc
Richard Fry
> On Jul 4, 5:29 pm, rick frazier wrote:
>> Not sure where you get the swr repetitive over a band of frequencies
>> stuff, (perhaps I don't read enough of the group messages) but to reply
>> relative to dummy loads in general....
>
> This comes from the radiator listed on my page
> unwinantennas.com/
Art -
The most important measure of an antenna is the amount of field intensity it
can produce at a given distance in a given direction, per watt of applied
r-f power. So far you have written nothing specific about this for the
"Unwin" antenna.
Note that a transmission line feeding a 20 dB series attenuator attached to
the input of a 100% efficient antenna will show very high return loss to the
r-f source (> 40 dB plus the twice the cable loss). But that antenna system
will radiate little of the available EM energy, nonetheless.
Could you please comment on the measured or at least the calculated
RADIATION CHARACTERISTICS of your antenna, compared to a matched 1/2-wave
dipole at that frequency (or an isotropic radiator), and tell us how you
arrived at them?
If you can do that, and your results can be scientifically duplicated by
others, you will have removed the source of a lot of the skepticism you read
here and in your similar threads on eHam.net.
Otherwise it will be "more of the same," which (let us hope) is or should
not be your goal.
RF
Art Unwin
No.More of the same is not my goal nor is it to respond to every
request.
The mathematision or doctorrate type can do it solely by mathematics.
The computor program is built on those mathematics. and a antenna
program
will ALWAYs produce radiators in equilibrium which means at an angle.
Even without
a optimiser you can do it on Eznec but it would be laborious but it
can be done.
People are enamoured with the Yagi so thay always insert planar type
figures thus the
program which is designed around equilibrium. If the goal is small
efficient radiators then
equilibrium must be present starting with a full wavelength that can
then be placed in a small volume.
It is the smaller efficient radiators and arrays that I have pursued
since radiation per unit length is solely a measure
that correlates with resistivity and it is that where my conclusions
lie. Gain itself is a whole different matter
cannot show it's worth
John Smith
>> ...
> Art
> KB9MZ
> unwinantennas.com/
Art:
1) I am not including your text.
2) You have struck upon an area I sift for clues.
3) Einstein did, indeed, realize that in those "weak forces",
undoubtedly, lies some important clues/finds.
4) Einstein even noted that the properties of the ether where/are
"unknowable", at least at the time he made such statement(s) and to this
present day.
Take an aluminum disk with a hole in the center to match an old wax
record and the hole the size of an old records. Tape a magnet to the
phonograph arm. Place the magnet/phonograph-arm on the aluminum disk and
spin it up to 78 rpm. The magnet floats ...
Magnetic fields/fluxes--electric-currents generated in the aluminum disk
are using "work energy" to float the magnet and maintain it at a
respectable height above the disk. This is not a "negligible"
phenomenon, it is used to levitate magnetic trains in Japan.
In our antennas, a certain amount of power IS doing a "like"
affect/effect. It IS wasting some amount of power in doing this ... it
is DOING "something" we are NOT taking into account.
Is this all related to the "weak forces" mentioned by Einstein? Probably.
Are these forces ignored in most if not all antenna calculations (or,
hidden in "magic numbers?") Yes.
Will new breakthroughs in antenna design result from the exploration of
these forces. I would guess that answer to be anywhere from maybe to
probably ...
And, there are even more of our "calculations" which ignore, or cloak in
magic numbers, such "abnormalities" ... like the old maps of ancient
mariners--these are areas, on these maps (antenna books, antenna
software, formulas, charts, etc.) with areas which are marked with a
peculiar notation, "In these areas lie monsters!" And they are shunned
and made "fun" of by most the members of this newsgroup; strange, if you
ask me ...
The future holds the truths (much like the X-Files! <grin>)
Regards,
JS
Art Unwin
Well you are spot on in general terms but the numbers are there.
Farady, newton and others recognised that the Universe is within a
bounday
and from this vectors form. Each of the masters used this theorem ie
thrust and counter thrust
in ALL oif l their work So they would calculate all forces around a
point until a polygon of vectors were formed and where it was a closed
circuit which signified equilibrium.Now all the masters aproached the
laws of electromagnetism in the same way and each with the final check
with respect to equilibrium as the final check. All of the masters
aproached electromagnetics from different perspectives and there were
a lot of them. But every one of them came up with a polygon of vectors
that did not complete the circle tho all had the same missing vector
space. So they included this space us a vector the creation of which
was unknown but certainly present otherwise equilibrium would not
prevail. Foucault showed the rotative force, Corriolis, in his work
with the long pendulum which is why on my page I used a ploy from the
pendulum to dampen the response of the antenna vibrations. IN YOUR
CASE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THE AETHER. But the eather can never be found
since boundaries within the universe exist with each other like a
bubble bath since our universe is just one bubble of many just like a
mass of frogs spawn.
Getting back to the weak force which is a vector of small length and
angle in the big picture of things such as with eddy current brakes as
you pointed out, but in the bigger scheme of things the same forces
act on earth as with a tornado where magnetic fields are huge
where elevation easily occurres within the vortex. In England after a
heavy storm it is not unusual to find vlumps of frogs that had fallen
from the sky because they consist of water a diamagnetic material,
that is drawn up into the sky and fall when their temperature falls to
a certain point. So with electromagnetism it can now be shown that the
weak force searched for by physicist is a direct result from a
magnetic fieldor force always makes a reactionary magnetic field or
force but the originating magnetic field quickly overwelms the
reactionary field (eddy current) which mask their presence.
However ,when the fields are time varying as with high frequency
within the tank circuit the time constant of the circuit makes them
more apparent and thus must be included in any laws revolving around
equilibrium.
The importance of this finding to me is that where the yagi is formed
around collective coupling and recoupling to infinity,
radiators or arrays based on a border based on equilibrium achieves
maximum radiation as a system where the coupling system
can never get to infinity. A small difference ofcource but one has
finality where the other does not.
You may not follow my writing as it is always poor but hopefully you
will see a small smigeon of scientific discovery in what I am
presenting and how this weak force search by all finally comes into
play because of the inter phase changes that occur in a tank
circuit..Now I know it is impossible for some on this forum that
cannot possibly follow the above b ut I do take delight when they do
make a "authorative" posting as part of free speech which highlights
the degree of expertise they reallyhave despite the self perceived
qualities that they seek for to impress.By the way John I do have
problems with the validation aspect of posting possibly because of
spot eye problems. Does this affect you in any way?I can never get
thru ia just one try
Best regards
Art
Dave
in other words, he hasn't, he won't, and he doesn't care... therefore, more
of the same handwaving and meaningless bafflegab. he doesn't have the math
background to present his theory in any kind of a coherent form, nor of
course could he ever measure his neutrino/carbon vortex crud because it
doesn't exist, so he keeps going back to the same old crap... its not even
funny any more, just sad.
John Smith
> ...
>> IN YOUR
>> CASE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THE AETHER. But the eather can never be
>> found since boundaries within the universe exist with each other
like >> a bubble bath since our universe is just one bubble of many just
like >> a mass of frogs spawn.
> Best regards
> Art
If we are not equally open to all areas mentioned in your last post, I
would at least grant you the right, interest, etc. in your
explorations--there is "something" there alright ...
Your quoted text, above, I see different. The "universe" is like a
hollow sphere. This spheres structure is penetrated by a LOT of holes.
Just inside the spheres structure is a rubber bladder (balloon if you
will.) This rubber bladder is under pressure, until it has expanded out
though the holes in the spheres structure and formed spheres made from
the material of the rubber bladder. In one of those lies our universe ...
Sorry I could not think of a better way to suggest this idea in time for
this post ... previously I have only held it as a mental picture to
myself ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ... IN YOUR
> CASE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THE AETHER. But the eather can never be found
> Best regards
> Art
And, you are correct:
Aether = Eather = Ether
The first two I just consider "old world", and/or English spellings.
Since we Americans have "murdered" the Queens English, why not this word
also? <grin>
Regards,
JS
Art Unwin
> "Art Unwin" <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
David,
at this stage in life it would very difficult for me to go thru the
math from the start
in the exercise of adding a a radiator and a time varying field to a
Gaussian field
to show it is the same asMaxwell equation, very few of us are. But
when you come across a theorem
that makes sense to you it is gravy added when a mathematician comes
along to supply the mathematics
which you can follow in part. Then when antenna computor programs
supply the ingredients of such an analysis
which proves the same you have to get excited. When you then apply
what is revealed in such a trail and succeed in making a smaller
antenna that anybody has made you stop questioning what you have
found. As an aside, where do you view the atributes of an antenna with
near constant SWR reponse would find most use. I know most will jump
to dummy load but this I ask in serious form.
Richard Harrison
"The computer program is built on those mathematics, and an antenna
program will ALLWAYS produce radiators in equalibrium which means at an
angle."
Arnold B. Bailey disagrees in "TV and Other Receiving Antennas". On page
367 he writes:
"The directional action of a rod antenna best can be analyzed by
considering the rod as consisting of many tiny sections, connected
together to form a metallic circuit. A typical small segment X - X is
shown in Fig. 7-28 B; its position in a half-wave center-fed antenna is
indicated in part (A) of the figure. Each tiny section may be taken
sufficiently short compared to a wavelength so that the electromagnetic
wave acts practically instantaneously throughout one section, and hence
induces a substantially uniform current in that section. Such a short
antenna segment has a simple directional response pattern, indicated in
Fig. 7-28B, which is basic for all directivity calculations, since all
antenns may be considered to be made up of these tiny segments. This
fundamental response pattern varies as the cosine of the angle (which we
shall call theta) between the direction of the incoming wave and the
perpendicular through the center of the segment X - X, as indicated in
part (B) of the figure. If E stands for the value of the field intensity
(strength of the electric vector), then we can characterize the
directional response by the relation Ecos theta, which gives us the
relative magnitude of E for any wave direction relative to the antenna."
You probably have seen the figure-eight pattern of a dipole antenna and
are already aware that maximum response is broadside to the antenna at
its center. If the antenna is tilted away from the perpendicular its
response is diminished. Other antennas have a similar response as all
are made up of elemental segments.
Dave
I already gave you the quote that shows that Gauss's Law is part of
Maxwell's equations already, you need no math for that. and since all the
antenna design programs are based on Maxwell's equations they of course
comply with Gauss's law... nothing exciting there.
the only use for a constant swr is to keep modern transceivers, that don't
have a tuner, happy. swr has no correlation to performance of an antenna as
far as gain or f/b or takeoff angle, things that are important to antenna
design. i can take any antenna and give it a flat swr, there used to be a
tuner on the market that did just that, until the league lab x-rayed it and
found it was nothing but a dummy load potted in epoxy. the funny thing is,
people liked it because it did exactly as it claimed, gave a perfect match
across a wide frequency range... they didn't care that it turned a good
percentage of their power into heat. so air cooled dummy loads as antennas
can work, as long as you don't have anything better to compare it to... but
I do, so I don't want one.
Art Unwin
> Art wrote:
>
> "The computer program is built on those mathematics, and an antenna
> program will ALLWAYS produce radiators in equalibrium which means at an
> angle."
>
Richard, I understand where you are coming from since all these books
say the same thing. This says that the majority wins and thus is all
known. Well I disagree with that philosophy but I reckonise it. So I
am pushing my findings until I Art Unwin comes to rest with a
majoritory. Since I have an antenna that duplicates those facts I can
only hope that Industry sees something that they want since money in
this world is the driving force.
I am thinking of placing a sample of a tipped antenna on m y page b ut
I fear that all will then blaime the computor program and or Maxwells
laws. You just can't make horses drink!
Art
Art Unwin
David ,Gauss did a lot of work in his life time for which he is
recognised.
Are you saying that the "Gaussian law of static" was a prime mover of
Maxwells laws.
If this is so why does not Maxwells laws provide the role of particles
in radiation?
From my view point Gauss's contribution was supplied in other ways
that did not include the statics law but then I look forward to you
showing me where I am wrong
Dave
well, your point of view is wrong.
Art Unwin
O.K. you sound like you have the facts in front of you so I have no
alternative to do some research on the matter.
You could have saved me a lot of work if you pointed to a book or
something but I will dig anyway.
I will be gone for a while to see if I can find what you are looking
at. But then you have a reputation for lying
so you may have nothing but bluster!
Dave
i quoted you chapter and verse, there's nothing else i can do.
Art Unwin
The two laws of Gauss used in Maxwell are not laws with respect to
particles.
I am now researching Heaviside to see if there is some derivitation
there
But now I see you are playing games.It is just not true! I see that
Feynman got the Nobel prize for describing the
particals as Bosuns and "w:"which is a very long way from the gauusian
trail of static particles!
So I will stop there as you are just playing games with the truth The
bottom line is that the magnetic field created by Foucault current
is the weak force in the Classic model and it was me that found it
where Einstein and others failed. You just can't take that fact away
from me. Really that is how it should have been with Maxwell and
Heaviside and now me being born in the UK it is just a natural
progression
Eat your heart out
Art Unwin KB9MZ
unwinantennas.com/
lt...@yahoo.com
" But now I see you are playing games.It is just not true! I see that
Feynman got the Nobel prize for describing the particals as Bosuns and
"w:"which is a very long way from the gauusian trail of static
particles! So I will stop there as you are just playing games with the
truth The bottom line is that the magnetic field created by Foucault
current is the weak force in the Classic model and it was me that
found it where Einstein and others failed. You just can't take that
fact away from me. Really that is how it should have been with Maxwell
and Heaviside and now me being born in the UK it is just a natural
progression
Eat your heart out
Art Unwin KB9MZ
unwinantennas.com/"
Art,
You may be fond of the idea that you are being persecuted because of
your being English, or from the UK, how ever you want to put it. If
so, then I'm sorry to disappoint you, but your birth place has very
little to do with how, I would suspect, most people think of you.
(I'm also sure that part of the 'problem' has to do with translating
between "King's/Queen's" English and what is spoken in the USA. Sorry
'bout that, but that's normal for any two languages. It works in the
other direction too, so you are not alone.)
You are your own worst enemy as far as being taken seriously. You
probably have no difficulty in 'following' your train of reasoning,
but us 'lesser' people do have that problem. How about helping us
with that problem? I have a suspicion that it will take a lot of time
and work on your part (as in book sized volume?). But, unless you
want it to take 'for ever' for you to be understood, it's going to
take that effort. If we can't follow your train of logic, you're just
not gonna sell many tickets to ride that train.
So, it's up to you.
- 'Doc
(I came to the realization that I wasn't ever going to be in the same
'class' as Einstein, Maxwell, and Heaviside a long time ago. And
quite frankly, it doesn't bother me. Sort of like winning the
lottery, first I have to buy a ticket, and I'm too cheap. What
abilities I have just don't 'lean' in that direction.)
derek
Doc
most posters who disagree with Art on this thread at least put
up an alternative to Art's claim's, you on the other hand have nothing
to offer as usual, so instead you attack the man as you did in times
past to no effect. The fellow tossers who used to follow are no longer
around, you are on your own!.
In my neck of the woods Doc's who are not on top of their subjects
are known as quack's, so I suggest before you post again you bone up
on the subject in question, or are you so far out of your depth that
you are only able to attack the man?.
Richard Harrison
"If this is so, why do not Maxwell`s laws provide the role of particles
in radiation?"
Maxwell`s equarions adequately describe electrical behavior without
resort to particles.
Art should read "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B.
Whitfield Griffith, Jr. Its first chapter is: "A Brief History of
Electrical Knowledge". Maxwell`s equations are covered in Chapter 38,
"The Mechanism of Radiation".
On page 9, Griffirh wrote:
"Maxwell studied deeply the equations he had written and noted that they
were similar in form to equations which were used to express the motion
of waves in water. This made it clear to him that electromagnetic waves
could exist, and he was able to calculate the speed at which they would
travel.
Art Unwin
wrote:
And did he mention the role of stati
cs or particles in radiation?
I keep on reading that radiation is not fully understood
in present day books!
Give me a book that does understand and provide
the role of particles and then make us all happy
Richard Harrison
"I keep reading that radiatiation is not fully understood in present day
books!"
Maybe so, but it is good enough for near perfect design of practical
antennas.
Dean Craft
It could be said also that it is good enough for practical design of
near perfect antennas. All of Art's voo-doo theory cannot hold even a
candle to either concept!
Dean -- W4IHK
Dave
> On Jul 6, 11:30 am, richardharri...@webtv.net (Richard Harrison)
> wrote:
>> Art wrote:
>>
>> "If this is so, why do not Maxwell`s laws provide the role of particles
>> in radiation?"
>>
>> Maxwell`s equarions adequately describe electrical behavior without
>> resort to particles.
>>
>> Art should read "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B.
>> Whitfield Griffith, Jr. Its first chapter is: "A Brief History of
>> Electrical Knowledge". Maxwell`s equations are covered in Chapter 38,
>> "The Mechanism of Radiation".
>>
>> On page 9, Griffirh wrote:
>> "Maxwell studied deeply the equations he had written and noted that they
>> were similar in form to equations which were used to express the motion
>> of waves in water. This made it clear to him that electromagnetic waves
>> could exist, and he was able to calculate the speed at which they would
>> travel.
>>
>> Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
>
> And did he mention the role of stati
> cs or particles in radiation?
particles are not necessary, so of course not.
> I keep on reading that radiation is not fully understood
> in present day books!
which books? quotes please, not hand waving. i have given you quotes, now
you provide the ones that your theory is based on.
> Give me a book that does understand and provide
> the role of particles and then make us all happy
go back to one of the aetherist's and you can have all the particles
propagating waves that you want... but they still won't work like your
neutrino/carbon things hopping off diamagnetic materials.
Dave Heil
> On Jul 5, 11:47 am, "Dave" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> David,
> at this stage in life it would very difficult for me to go thru the
> math from the start
> in the exercise of adding a a radiator and a time varying field to a
> Gaussian field
> to show it is the same asMaxwell equation, very few of us are.
At this stage of my life, Arthur, it has become very difficult for me to
take you seriously.
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
Arthur doesn't provide specifics. He doesn't provide the math. He is
short on fact and long on misspelled pontification. Excuse me if I
don't accept his wild claims at face value. If he can't explain them
(and the burden of proof is on him), why should any of us be bothered?
Dave K8MN
Art Unwin
wrote:
But it does not lead to a path of small antennas!
I think it is really odd that hams defy or disbelieve what a antenna
optimizer supplies
Why are they not attacking computor programs? Or describe where they
are wrong
Yup, they believe sll is known and THEY are the masters
Art Unwin
Everything that I have done has been shared on this newsgroup.
The mathematics have been shown. A array in equilibrium has been shown
and over
checked independently on this newsgroup An antenna was sent
to a member of this newsgroup for verification A page has been
supplied with how to make it.
David ,you are just another lemming that has arrived apon the scene
lt...@yahoo.com
derek,
I would suggest that my post was not a personal attack (unlike yours),
instead, it was an attempt to try to show Art an aspect of his
behavior that he probably doesn't realize is showing up. And as has
already been pointed out, how can anyone prove or disprove 'proof'
that has not been presented? To this point, all I have seen is
opinions, and in some cases, some fairly imaginative opinions.
About the "Doc", it's a user name, and nickname. Doesn't mean that
I'm a doctor of anything. And I have never claimed to be. I didn't
pick it, it was given to me. If I can learn to 'live' with it, you
can too. And if you can't, then that's too bad.
'Nuff of that.
- 'Doc
nm...@wt.net
>
> Everything that I have done has been shared on this newsgroup.
=0.0543
Not enough content to be usable.
> The mathematics have been shown.
=0
>A array in equilibrium has been shown
> and over
You won't even define how you apply the term equilibrium, much
less show an example of it.
> checked independently on this newsgroup
I assume you refer to the skewed element antenna.
IE: the one I called the cluster@#$%... :(
You know, the one with six skewed elements that
gave less gain than a well tuned 3 el yagi?
>An antenna was sent
> to a member of this newsgroup for verification
And the report on it's performance has not been received.
Where's the beef?
You are not even supplying a textured vegetable patty
as a substitute.. :/
>A page has been
> supplied with how to make it.
I sure don't see one shown at:
http://unwinantennas.com/
> David ,you are just another lemming that has arrived apon the scene
Kinda like Doktor MIT? I guess he drowned in the last migration..
He seems to have disappeared from the scene.
Chortle... :/ But can't say I blame him really.
Jim Kelley
Art Unwin wrote:
> On Jul 3, 5:16 pm, Art Unwin <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You know John, since America gives the 'right to bear arms' you would
> think that the population would understand
> that a projectile must have rotation to follow a straight line
> trajectory.
Hi Art,
The American Constitution does not "give" rights. It simply attempts
to prevent government from eliminating them.
Under the influence of gravity, sub-orbital ballistic projectiles
generally follow a parabolic trajectory. Isssac Newton's laws of
motion apply without caveat.
ac6xg
John Smith
>> ...
> Hi Art,
>
> The American Constitution does not "give" rights. It simply attempts to
> prevent government from eliminating them.
>
> Under the influence of gravity, sub-orbital ballistic projectiles
> generally follow a parabolic trajectory. Isssac Newton's laws of motion
> apply without caveat.
>
> ac6xg
>
No constitution or law can EVER give rights ...
You are born with all the rights possible. Unless you are under a
constitution or law(s) which remove some (or all) of your rights--you
have every damn one of them! And unless there is a clear majority of a
govt's citizens which support that constitution/laws, you are witness to
an unjust constitution/law(s) ...
As our constitution notes, these are God given rights--no man may ever
take them away--you CAN agree to a contract NOT to exercise some of your
rights to the betterment of all.
Men get together and form govt's and agree to create laws which limit
their rights--FOR THE GOOD OF ALL. When that no longer is happening, it
is time to reform, re-elect or even go as far as a revolution to restore
just rights ... our constitution makes that a duty for Americans, and
requires us to remain ever vigilant in the protection of our rights.
If you believe laws give or protect your rights--you already have lost
them to a guy on the street playing craps ...
Regards,
JS
Art Unwin
It followsa straight line trajectory in two dimensions out of three
The weak force othewise known as the magnetic field of the eddy
current
overcpmes or neutralises gravity while applying spin such gravitation
has little or no
effect on the trajectory as it is projected with spin. This can be
seen with
elevation experiments
jimkel...@gmail.com
> On Jul 7, 3:22 pm, Jim Kelley <jwkel...@uci.edu> wrote:
>
> > Art Unwin wrote:
> > > On Jul 3, 5:16 pm, Art Unwin <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You know John, since America gives the 'right to bear arms' you would
> > > think that the population would understand
> > > that a projectile must have rotation to follow a straight line
> > > trajectory.
>
> > Hi Art,
>
> > The American Constitution does not "give" rights. It simply attempts
> > to prevent government from eliminating them.
>
> > Under the influence of gravity, sub-orbital ballistic projectiles
> > generally follow a parabolic trajectory. Isssac Newton's laws of
> > motion apply without caveat.
>
> > ac6xg
>
> It followsa straight line trajectory in two dimensions out of three
And it's completely motionless in one dimension out of the three. So
what?
> The weak force othewise known as the magnetic field of the eddy
> current
> overcpmes or neutralises gravity while applying spin such gravitation
> has little or no
> effect on the trajectory as it is projected with spin.
The weak force is NOT otherwise known as a magnetic field. It relates
to radioactive decay and is only relevant at distances less than 10
e-8 nanometers and has nothing to do with electromagnetism.
ac6xg
Art Unwin
Wrong again!
You are following the errors of the past again. Yes, the particle that
is
projected away from the radiator is radio active in terms of a
fraction of its life.
And yes the distance that the madnetic field resulting from the eddy
current is limited
as seen with the common elevation style experiments. The distanbce
required for the
velocity of the partical is NOT a determination of distance travelled
according to
Newtons laws of motion. I hope you are not teaching this stuff so
people can get a degree.!
Jim Kelley
> > > It followsa straight line trajectory in two dimensions out of three
> >
> > And it's completely motionless in one dimension out of the three. So
> > what?
> >
> > > The weak force othewise known as the magnetic field of the eddy
> > > current
> > > overcpmes or neutralises gravity while applying spin such gravitation
> > > has little or no
> > > effect on the trajectory as it is projected with spin.
> >
> > The weak force is NOT otherwise known as a magnetic field. It relates
> > to radioactive decay and is only relevant at distances less than 10
> > e-8 nanometers and has nothing to do with electromagnetism.
> >
> > ac6xg
>
> Wrong again!
> You are following the errors of the past again.
Evidently nobody's gotten around to correcting the physics texts to
better reflect your point of view yet.
> Yes, the particle that
> is
> projected away from the radiator is radio active in terms of a
> fraction of its life.
What particle?
> And yes the distance that the madnetic field resulting from the eddy
> current is limited
> as seen with the common elevation style experiments. The distanbce
> required for the
> velocity of the partical is NOT a determination of distance travelled
> according to
> Newtons laws of motion. I hope you are not teaching this stuff so
> people can get a degree.!
Of course not. No one is teaching this stuff, Art. If someone
mentioned B.S. they weren't referring to a degree.
ac6xg
Art Unwin
Believe me they will. To follow theories as being correct without
your own personal study is to become a lemming
I suspect you are still holding on to the Quark and "W" theory
of Feynman but as yet I don't believe one iota of evidence has been
found
that declares their presence or the actions that he predicted.
Theories really
depend on your academic stature and the power of perswation. Remember
people such as Green had little education but achieved fame without
being a lemming.
Same goes for others in the radio field whose work was purloined by
others.
When the corrected books are published will you leave college in anger
or do what all
instructures do and tell the students to buy new books every year at
high cost
and pretend you knew all along? Not once have you successfully evoked
the laws of the masters
to bring my logic to a halt. Everything you have stated has been
incorrect or faulty us of known laws
Jim Kelley
Art Unwin wrote:
> Everything you have stated has been
> incorrect or faulty us of known laws
So basically it's your contention is that everything I say is wrong.
Ok, you're right, Art. :-)
ac6xg
John Smith
>> ...
Art:
Geesh ...
I'd hoped I'd not have to mention this ...
You know that earlier joke I made? The one about the dummy carrying the
round HEAVY rock downhill? (They guy my old Elmer made fun of?)
Well, dude, that WAS Jim Kelly ... need I say more? Give it up man--if
you argue with complete idiots, "IT" destroys what tattered argument you
have ... but them, you could have guessed that ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>> ...
> have ... but them, you could have guessed that ...
>
> Regards,
> JS
them = then ... but then, you already knew that too! :-)
Regards,
JS
John Smith
Come to think of it, Jim Kelley = "Dummy Load."
But then, you knew that, already, too ... a jerk like him is a rare
find--please, by all means, toy him along like a cat with a mouse! <grin>
Regards,
JS
Art Unwin
So far I have been right!. You are excercising free speech without
scientific underpinnings.
You like others did not come forward and prove scientifically that
Gauss law CANNOT be extended.
You dont accept the idea of a partical with nuclear life. In fact you
don't even accept eddy currents.
If you are teaching kindegarten then such free speech is in order as
they will not challenge you.
But you must expect challenges from grown ups unless you supply
underlying data for claims made
or refuted. I will now give you a chance to show what expertise you
have.
Professionals in antenna design work mainly in the higher frequencies
where they show circular
eddy currents on the internal wave guide walls. So why on the lower
frequences do amateurs deny
the existance of surface carried eddy currents? This same scientific
fact is used in detecting material flaws without destruction
as fissures in metal alters the eddy current. So where in the hell are
you comming from and where does your main expertise dwell?
Art Unwin
John, thank you for that. Over the years he has hinted that he was a
assistant professor at a local college
but as of late I have found it hard to fathom things out as he is so
lacking in the field of physics and electrical
engineering but I gave him the benefit of doubt. So it is quite
possible that like Richard he has his moments.
Like going to the bedroom for a clean shirt. forgetting why he came to
the bedroom so puts on his pyjamas and gets into bed
lesving his wife already to go out while he goes to sleep. I think
they call that senior moments. Well the info given clears a lot of
things up
for me and I shall not continue to guess where his expertize is any
more.
Regards
Art
John Smith
> ...
> John, thank you for that. Over the years he has hinted that he was a
> assistant professor at a local college
> but as of late I have found it hard to fathom things out as he is so
> lacking in the field of physics and electrical
> engineering but I gave him the benefit of doubt. So it is quite
> possible that like Richard he has his moments.
> Like going to the bedroom for a clean shirt. forgetting why he came to
> the bedroom so puts on his pyjamas and gets into bed
> lesving his wife already to go out while he goes to sleep. I think
> they call that senior moments. Well the info given clears a lot of
> things up
> for me and I shall not continue to guess where his expertize is any
> more.
> Regards
> Art
If that "man" (and, I use that term VERY loosely here) has anything to
do with education, whatsoever, one is better off uneducated and ignorant!
Nuff' said ...
Regards,
JS
Jim Kelley
> So where in the hell are
> you comming from and where does your main expertise dwell?
Hi Art -
Where am I coming from...well, a cab driver in London sent me a note a
year or two ago after I came to your defense in this newsgroup. He
confided to me about something that I had already suspected regarding
your condition. Since then, I have advised some of your antagonists
in the group by email that it might be the better part of valor to
take it easy on you and just let you have your say. Mostly, I just
wished for you pursue your interest and to avoid embarassing yourself.
Not that it matters, but my main expertise as it pertains to this
discussion is in the design and construction of electronic equipment
and scientific apparatus used for the measurement of various physical
phenomena. e.g. US Pats 5,018,382 and 7,119,588. In the '70's and
80's I was in the business manufacturing guitar amplifiers. Among
other things, I am an amateur radio operator and a musician.
For the record, although I have disagreed with you, I have never been
personally disrespectful to you. I believe gentleman should be able
to disagree without being disagreeable (or insulting).
ac6xg
John Smith
> ...
> Hi Art -
>
> Where am I coming from...well, a cab driver in London sent me a note a
> year or two ago after I came to your defense in this newsgroup. He
> confided to me about something that I had already suspected regarding
> your condition. Since then, I have advised some of your antagonists
> in the group by email that it might be the better part of valor to
> take it easy on you and just let you have your say. Mostly, I just
> wished for you pursue your interest and to avoid embarassing yourself.
>
> Not that it matters, but my main expertise as it pertains to this
> discussion is in the design and construction of electronic equipment
> and scientific apparatus used for the measurement of various physical
> phenomena. e.g. US Pats 5,018,382 and 7,119,588. In the '70's and
> 80's I was in the business manufacturing guitar amplifiers. Among
> other things, I am an amateur radio operator and a musician.
>
> For the record, although I have disagreed with you, I have never been
> personally disrespectful to you. I believe gentleman should be able
> to disagree without being disagreeable (or insulting).
>
> ac6xg
You are disgusting.
Your manner(s) and depths you would stoop to are below a minimum level
to engage in human dialog/relations.
I find it a shame you would even be granted a license to engage in
communications with decent human beings--it certainly is to the
detriment of amateurs worldwide ... you sir are a NUT of the most
despicable kind--and, clear proof the bar should be raised!
However, I can only wish that you remain within the ignorant confines of
the prison of your mind; to awake to the reality of what you really are
could prove fatal and the undoing of your insane ego ...
PLONK!
JS
Art Unwin
No John. you are misreading the situation.
His response was very tactful and for which I thank him
Art
John Smith
> ...
> No John. you are misreading the situation.
> His response was very tactful and for which I thank him
> Art
Hmmm ... if that is the case, I hope my apology(s) will be accepted ...
it shall not be the first time I have misunderstood words/intents ...
regretfully.
Regards,
JS
Art Unwin
Please accept my apologies because I have disrespected you
Regarding my findings they have been partially checked over by
qualified people
and it has taken a long while to get to this point.
If you will accept it I would like to send you an antenna as a gift
but I do not want personal favors of any kind.
Frankly it is the responders that need thought as they do not present
any scientific underpinnings for their statements
that I can respond to in kind Unfortunately I do sometime get caught
up in the hate and respond in kind which I should not do
Believe me Jim all those that poo hoo what I am sharing will rethink
their motives when it is recognised by academia which is really the
only road for acceptance available to any lay person with respect to
ham radio. As the numbers of silent keys mount the majority in ham
radio will not be comprised of people with open minds and curiousity
and changes will reflect the change in demeanor as has already
happened on this newsgroup. I don't think the days will ever come back
where antenna science can be discussed civilly and logically anymore
per the intentions of the formation of this newsgroup founders since
lack of civility is truly a virus that can over take us all
Regards
Art
Jim Kelley
There's a profound old saying that I'm occasionally reminded of:
There, but by the grace of god, go I.
It has a sobering effect. And I hope there will be a kinder and more
patient soul than I to help me stay on track someday when I need it.
I would be honored to have one of your antennas, Art. I promise I'll
try to figure it out.
ac6xg
derek
> On Jul 9, 7:27 pm, Art Unwin <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So where in the hell are
> > you comming from and where does your main expertise dwell?
>
> Hi Art -
>
> Where am I coming from...well, a cab driver in London sent me a note a
> year or two ago after I came to your defense in this newsgroup. He
> confided to me about something that I had already suspected regarding
> your condition.
Hi Jim
Sir
You are a gentleman toff and a scholar.
This was a compliment paid by east enders of london in years past to
a person who stooped to give a helping hand to some one of a lower
class.
Thank you.
That is as I remember the above is verbatim the email that was sent
to you, I think it is despicable of you to use something sent in
confidence and twist what was written and use to attack.
An enquiry was made as to the meaning of a post you had made and the
above was the reply in totality.
Art Unwin
Bluey and John Put a stop to this and put the whole thing behind you
Tomorrow is a new day where I am going to make a new antenna the
receipient
of which will be free to discuss at his leasure when listerners can
determine for
them selves whether I should be put away for suggesting that I had a
real antenna.
Going out of town with my wife for a couple of days so don't
misinterprete my absence.
I am in good shape hiccup,hiccup burp so there are no problems of any
sort at this QTH
Have a great weak end or weak force
Art
nm...@wt.net
> Believe me Jim all those that poo hoo what I am sharing will rethink
> their motives when it is recognised by academia which is really the
> only road for acceptance available to any lay person with respect to
> ham radio.
Negative contact on that Artmobile... Breaker 19
for a radio check!
Academia means little to me in the case of "new science".
Real world tests with real word results of the tests are the
only thing I care to see when concerning "new science" antenna
schemes.
You can't brown the food if you refuse to stick it in the oven.