Dish reflector
Art Unwin
reflector
The reflector is made from 1/2" mesh steel with an aluminum foil liner
and connected to the braid of the feed coax. No baluns are used, just
direct connections.
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
I thought that a dish reflector prevented such signals getting to the
receiver. So what can be wrong with the reflector or can signals get
reflected back from the frontal area? Antenna is at a 40 foot height
Any ideas as to what the fault could be?
Regards
Art
I have no experience with dishes thus the question Note, the helical
antenna does not protrude beyond the dish envelope.
Art
Richard Clark
<Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>No baluns are used
That alone is at least one thing wrong with the design.
Ignoring the obvious, the design suffers from the basic disregard for
scale and wavelength.
There are probably other issues beyond these violations of first
principles.
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Art Unwin
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
>
> >No baluns are used
>
> That alone is at least one thing wrong with the design.
>
> Ignoring the obvious, the design suffers from the basic disregard for
> scale and wavelength.
>
> There are probably other issues beyond these violations of first
> principles.
>
> 73's
> Richard Clark, KB7QHC
The radiator is totally within the reflector envelope !
It is possible that the transmission line is picking up
some signal but a brief scan of the books show that
dishes do some how obtain some signals from the rear..
"Ignoring the obvious" is a nonsense aproach,
as is scale and wavelength.
I was hoping for somebody who is familiar with dish design
and not from one who is a talking head bent on agitation
and slander
Ian Jackson
<kb7...@comcast.net> writes
>On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
><Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>No baluns are used
>
>That alone is at least one thing wrong with the design.
>
least is right!
>
>
>
>
--
Ian
Brian Howie
<8d58b22d-6580-49e0...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, Art
Unwin <Arthu...@gmail.com> writes
>I made a helical end fed antenna that is inside a cone shaped
>reflector
>The reflector is made from 1/2" mesh steel with an aluminum foil liner
>and connected to the braid of the feed coax. No baluns are used, just
>direct connections.
> I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
> I thought that a dish reflector prevented such signals getting to the
>receiver. So what can be wrong with the reflector or can signals get
>reflected back from the frontal area? Antenna is at a 40 foot height
>Any ideas as to what the fault could be?
Diffraction off the edge of the reflector. It causes backlobes. It's
not a fault.
Brian GM4DIJ
--
Brian Howie
Dale Parfitt
"Art Unwin" <Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8d58b22d-6580-49e0...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
There is a lot of very important information missing here.
What frequency are we talking about and what is the dish diameter?
Do you have any idea as to what your edge taper is or sidelobes?
Dale W4OP
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Ask him the working frequency and dimensions of his "dish reflector".
Don't be drinking anything when you read his answer.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
The last time he talked about it, it was "designed" to operate on the
160 meter band and the "reflector" was 3 meters in diameter.
No, those numbers are not typos.
Art Unwin
> "Art Unwin" <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Dale
I thought that if the radiator was in the reflector envelope, that is
the radiator is below the top of the cone then there should be no
radiation from the rear though possibly a little edge refraction. I
know little regarding dish reflectors thus the question. I am of the
opinion that radio is a matter of particles and not waves so I can
easily visualize impregnation of the shield at the center as per
Rutherford foil and particle experiments, but I am not ready to jump
because of edge taper and other things that I am not aware of
What is very clear from dish radiation patterns in the books that
there is a localised radiation congregation at the dish axis rear
which appears unexplainable.
at the rear at the dishes axis tho it is in the area of direct impact
I appreciate the comments and thoughts applied but not the nonsensicle
writings of Richard who is wired so differently from the rest of us.
These signals appear at all frequencies though I fail to see what the
impact of frequency is because of the reflector envelope or umbrella.
Tom Ring
> These signals appear at all frequencies though I fail to see what the
> impact of frequency is because of the reflector envelope or umbrella.
Dale
You will, of course, have noted that he hasn't given a couple of the
important items that you requested. Based upon some of his earlier
babblings, I suspect that this is a helical antenna of perhaps UHF
dimensions that he is attempting to use on 160 or 80.
tom
K0TAR
Richard Clark
<Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Ignoring the obvious" is a nonsense aproach,
> as is scale and wavelength.
This is a curious defense of poor practice. The results fully follow
the obvious problem of ignoring scale and wavelength. Fundamentals
have been violated - it doesn't take a PhD nor a research grant to
figure that out. No models are necessary, but they would show the
failure too.
Richard Clark
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>No baluns are used
>>
>>That alone is at least one thing wrong with the design.
>>
>Do you use a balun with a helix and a dish reflector? Surely that bit at
>least is right!
Hi Ian,
What has been done right is arguable in the face of failure. The
simple testimony easily reveals very simple problems of a fundamental
nature.
Hoisting the design 40 feet only added to the inefficiency of the
exercise (use common sense before muscles - much in the sense of
"measure twice, cut once").
Richard Clark
<br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Diffraction off the edge of the reflector. It causes backlobes. It's
>not a fault.
Hi Brian,
You have hit the nail on the head. More, you have pushed in the tack
with a 10# sledge. This design we are talking about suffers immensely
from the violation of observing what you comment upon.
It is very much a fault.
Rollie
is required.....Maybe
"Art Unwin" <Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8d58b22d-6580-49e0...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Art Unwin
> Maybe the coax ground is insufficent and a seperate ground from mother earth
> is required.....Maybe
>
>
> news:8d58b22d-6580-49e0...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I made a helical end fed antenna that is inside a cone shaped
> > reflector
> > The reflector is made from 1/2" mesh steel with an aluminum foil liner
> > and connected to the braid of the feed coax. No baluns are used, just
> > direct connections.
> > I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
> > I thought that a dish reflector prevented such signals getting to the
> > receiver. So what can be wrong with the reflector or can signals get
> > reflected back from the frontal area? Antenna is at a 40 foot height
> > Any ideas as to what the fault could be?
> > Regards
> > Art
> > I have no experience with dishes thus the question Note, the helical
> > antenna does not protrude beyond the dish envelope.
> > Art
Rollie
I checked.
The coax ground and the reflector is grounded at the same place at the
top of the tower. All horizontal coax is buried. Seems like the dish
reflector does not get a lot of attention from ham operators !
Art
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Art Unwin
That antenna was when I used an old parabolic satellite dish which was
unsuitable.
Scanning past antenna papers point to the use of a cone shape similar
to a horn of 2 metres diameter
produces better results. The antenna needs a longer mast so at the
moment I can't compare
F/R. Either way, with the radiator within the reflector envelope it is
difficult to understand what creates
a rearward lobe regardles of scale or frequency of use with respect to
receive. At the moment I see nothing that points away from the
Rutherford particle experiments with foil .ie penetration when at
right angles , deflection at other angles.
Art Unwin
<ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <o8ktt4pfsodndi5bm7em0jplfv94l3l...@4ax.com>, Richard Clark
>
> >>No baluns are used
>
> >That alone is at least one thing wrong with the design.
>
> Do you use a balun with a helix and a dish reflector? Surely that bit at
> least is right!
>
>
>
> --
> Ian
Ian;
I specifically mentioned the absence of a balun. I stated that since
it doesn't seem relevent, especially when one reviews published
patterns. In a way I knew that Richard would pile up his postings of
olde english prose in the shape of riddles that provide nothing, But
one has to get used to him and his pals kb9....and others who smear
this group with a foul smell as they are wired very differently from
the rest of us.
Richard Clark
>Hmmm, I guess this guy just talks to himself.
For himself.
Artifice: I have a novel and mysterious design emploiting Rutherford
partical evasion without baluns and using a gauss reflectionater.
Ham: What is its front to back rejection?
Artifice: I gets signals in all directions! Not just front or back.
Ham: Then why do you say it -um- evades something or other (sigh)?
Artifice: Well, this is not part of the design of not getting the
forward proceeding back signals.
Ham: So, it doesn't work.
Artifice: It works perfectly, just not as well as gaussian
reflectionating mechanics would expect unless these particals are
accelerated to high speeds by the weekend force.
Ham: So, why doesn't my antenna get this kind of signal?
Artifice: Because you read books from the libraries of the hooded
priests who refuse to backnowledge my inventions!
Ham: Why would I want to listen to these signals if I read your
books?
Artifice: Then you could enjoy the Fill-harmonic richness of my
single channel stereoid transmissions.
Dale Parfitt
That antenna was when I used an old parabolic satellite dish which was
unsuitable.
Scanning past antenna papers point to the use of a cone shape similar
to a horn of 2 metres diameter
produces better results. The antenna needs a longer mast so at the
moment I can't compare
F/R. Either way, with the radiator within the reflector envelope it is
difficult to understand what creates
a rearward lobe regardles of scale or frequency of use with respect to
receive. At the moment I see nothing that points away from the
Rutherford particle experiments with foil .ie penetration when at
right angles , deflection at other angles.
As usual Art you are avoiding answering the questions and choose to confuse
the issues
with you own preconceived ideas and terminology. The fact that the feed is
totally within the "reflector envelope" tells you or us nothing about
sidelobes and edge taper.
I really don't think you want answers, but I'll try once more:
1. What frequency
2. What is the dish diameter
3. What is the dish focal length to diameter ratio (F/D)
Dale W4OP
Tom Ring
Sorry Richard, but that's definitely Memorex. Nice try though.
tom
K0TAR
Art Unwin
I am not avoiding questions, just those that appear irrelevant, but
here goes Anything to make you happy, this should be interesting how
you use these answers with respect to the posted question
1 160 metres upto 2 metres, tunable
2 2 metres
3 Doesn't have a focal length, it is an end fed ( series connection)
helix antenna.
At least to the best of my knowledge which is why I posed the question
Hopefully we will all stay on subject and not get side tracked. I will
leave it to others to respond to Richard when they determine what he
is talking about.
Richard Clark
<Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1. What frequency
>> 2. What is the dish diameter
>> 3. What is the dish focal length to diameter ratio (F/D)
>
>I am not avoiding questions, just those that appear irrelevant,
20 postings to get to the point (not unanticipated, however) which Art
calls "irrelevant."
As for those answers?
>1 160 metres upto 2 metres, tunable
>2 2 metres
Hence the wholesale disregard for first principles in size vs.
wavelength. Elementary analysis need not go any further when failure
is so obviously designed in.
>3 Doesn't have a focal length, it is an end fed ( series connection)
>helix antenna.
-Well, maybe not obvious to everyone.-
But why don't we chalk this design up to S U C C E S S and call it a
thread? If this bier gets anymore wreaths tossed onto it, it will
kill the pallbearers.
Mike Lucas
"Art Unwin" wrote:
-drivel snip-
In a way I knew that Richard would pile up his postings of
olde english prose in the shape of riddles that provide nothing, But
one has to get used to him and his pals kb9....and others who smear
this group with a foul smell as they are wired very differently from
the rest of us.
Art-let me point out the obvious.... unless your license has
expired, then you ARE a kb9!!!!! Have a nice weekend, glad
to see you back posting on the NG. Things were dull without
you.
Mike W5CHR
Memphis
Art Unwin
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:49:31 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
>
The posting is about dishes not antennas. I have not read about a dish
that does not emit signals to the rear. Now I have built one and find
to my surprize that it does accept signals from the rear ! All very
simple, the radiator is resting at the bottom of a cone and the top of
the radiator does not stick out beyond the reflector. Since you do not
know what you are talking about and intent is to disrupt this thread
why on earth are you muttering about nothing at length? Simple
question has been posed and obviously you do not know the answers that
antenna engineering knowledge would provide as you are not an engineer
but a actor or actress by day and by night. My question remains
unanswered after all these posts.How do signals arrive or depart from
the rear of a dish or horn? We all know that you don't know the answer
but there are qualified engineers in this group who possibly doand
willing to share.
Dale Parfitt
that does not emit signals to the rear. Now I have built one and find
to my surprize that it does accept signals from the rear ! All very
simple, the radiator is resting at the bottom of a cone and the top of
the radiator does not stick out beyond the reflector. Since you do not
know what you are talking about and intent is to disrupt this thread
why on earth are you muttering about nothing at length? Simple
question has been posed and obviously you do not know the answers that
antenna engineering knowledge would provide as you are not an engineer
but a actor or actress by day and by night. My question remains
unanswered after all these posts.How do signals arrive or depart from
the rear of a dish or horn? We all know that you don't know the answer
but there are qualified engineers in this group who possibly doand
willing to share.
Your antenna has nothing to do with dish antennas, bu rather plane
reflectors (of which yours is way too small as Richard pointed out).
I know we cannot change your opinion or teach you anything- so I am out of
here.
Dale W4OP
Tom Ring
>
> The posting is about dishes not antennas. I have not read about a dish
> that does not emit signals to the rear. Now I have built one and find
> to my surprize that it does accept signals from the rear ! All very
> simple, the radiator is resting at the bottom of a cone and the top of
> the radiator does not stick out beyond the reflector. Since you do not
Well, to start with Art, a cone reflector doesn't meet the definition of
a dish antenna.
I'm sorry, but they just aren't the same thing.
I surprizzzed you missed the difference.
tom
K0TAR
Tom Ring
> Art Unwin wrote:
<snip>
>
> tom
> K0TAR
Jimmie
I just couldn't resist, just this once. :)
tom
K0TAR
Art Unwin
Oh, I have just popped in and saw Richard up to to his old tricks with
Cecil. I don't really expect a satisfactory answer. All on this group
denied it was possible to expand Gaussian law of statics to the laws
of Maxwell so there is nobody with a real feel with respect to
radiation, and of course it shows! Same goes for the nature of Richard
no matter how he tries to hide things. The KB9 station and his foul
mouth friends are what I was referring to and is why they are pleading
for a moderator for this newsgroup. Not really the type I wish to
associate with. When the group deviate from the question at hand is
when I leave as they all eventually do.
Within the next few hours they will want to ask questions about you
know what to cover their ignorance and Richard will come prancing in
again with his long leg mesh underware acting out a shakespere scene .
A few years on a ship tends to change
how you look at life so that he walks in the snow with his foot prints
in a straight line
so that the torso wobbles and then there is the way that he acts and
speak.
My question is still there and regardles of the number of postings
made I doubt that it will be answered. This newsgroup becomes dull
when radio goes out the window and personal attacks begin so one
really gets what he wishes for when they hang around.
Art Unwin
Dale, my response above was with respect to Richard not you, but I did
know you would run eventually. Study the math of Maxwell and Gauss
before you decide to take up teaching.
Art Unwin
Tom
I asked the question as I am not personly knowledgable about dish
style reflectors.
I do read a lot and I read a paper once where it was found that a cone
shaped reflector produced increased gain when used with a helix
antenna, so I made one to try it out. Personaly I see it more as a
horn and not as a dish with a radiator at a phase control difference
from the reflector? Either way I do not understand how that I can hear
signals to the rear if the reflector envelope encloses the radiator
thus the question. Note that a helix radiates differently from the
normal dish radiator such that phasing does not enter the design which
is why you see planar dishes or "cups".
Thus questions with respect to reflector diameter are not
pertinentwhen the radiator is enclosed.
Tom Ring
> Tom
> I asked the question as I am not personly knowledgable about dish
> style reflectors.
> I do read a lot and I read a paper once where it was found that a cone
> shaped reflector produced increased gain when used with a helix
> antenna, so I made one to try it out. Personaly I see it more as a
> horn and not as a dish with a radiator at a phase control difference
> from the reflector? Either way I do not understand how that I can hear
> signals to the rear if the reflector envelope encloses the radiator
> thus the question. Note that a helix radiates differently from the
> normal dish radiator such that phasing does not enter the design which
> is why you see planar dishes or "cups".
> Thus questions with respect to reflector diameter are not
> pertinentwhen the radiator is enclosed.
He is _awfully_ funny, isn't he?
tom
K0TAR
Art Unwin
Guys
In the absence of a explanation I will provide a possible alternative.
Maxwell added a specific portion to his mathematical laws that refer
to mass and the speed of light thus verifying the existance of
particles. This addition brought statics laws into the radiation
sphere. Rutherford of the UK ( Manchester)showed that particles could
piece a foil of gold because of the relative size of the particle with
respect to the latice make up of the foil when viewed head on. Thus in
the same way a particle or mass ejected at the speed of light from a
radiator could possibly pierce a reflector when met head on.
If so this would explain the rear signals. In the case of a radiator
that is not enclosed by the envelope of a reflector head on deflection/
interaction is quite possible and well understood and there are
designs to avoid it. With respect to dish edges one can see in the
radio handbook what happens to a signal grazing a sharp edge, but that
seems hard to swallow when hams cling to the idea of radio "waves"
when their actions has not been satisfactorily explained with respect
to radiation by physicists.
I suggest that you all pick up the Gaussian equations and add the
presence of a time varying field such that it is mathematically the
same as one of Maxwell's laws ie
look for mass and light speed signatures. We are past the times when
one could suppress ideas such as the World is not flat. When you
finally arrive at the point of understanding of Maxwell you only then
gain an understanding of radiation. With the denial of this
mathematical evidence by all you have zero understanding of radiation
and therefore redundant.
Bye
Richard Clark
<Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In the absence of a explanation I will provide a possible alternative.
>... such as the World is not flat.
Which would, of course, mean that the dish (cone?) antenna?))
radiator?))) is not listening to signals from the back, but those that
have gone all the way around the World to the front to be heard now
with 3dB gain.
Nothing is broken, it is a S U C C E S S. Modern theory has proven
Alfred E Newton right!
Blimey-what. Me Worry, guv? (non Shakespeare, modern English).
Richard Clark
<Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The posting is about dishes not antennas.
Are you offering recipes now? How to fill a 3 quart mixing bowl with
an imperial gallon of secret-sauce? I can anticipate the amazed
posting of how surprised you would be to find you need a mop there
too.
Roy Lewallen
what I'm seeing here, it looks like he's done a great experiment which
graphically shows that radio waves don't act like particles. More
experiments along this line weren't really necessary, since it's been
known at least since Hertz's experiments in the 19th century. And anyone
who took high school physics and watched the ripples in the ripple tank
should be able to immediately predict what Art is describing. But I
suppose the experiment and its results might prove enlightening for
those readers who didn't take high school physics and who are nearly
completely unacquainted with electromagnetics.
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Ian White GM3SEK
Sorry, Roy, that experiment won't be possible. The bathtub is
permanently occupied by the wannabee Archimedes.
--
73 from Ian GM3SEK
Helmut Wabnig
<Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I made a helical end fed antenna that is inside a cone shaped
>reflector
>The reflector is made from 1/2" mesh steel with an aluminum foil liner
>and connected to the braid of the feed coax. No baluns are used, just
>direct connections.
> I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
> I thought that a dish reflector prevented such signals getting to the
>receiver. So what can be wrong with the reflector or can signals get
>reflected back from the frontal area? Antenna is at a 40 foot height
>Any ideas as to what the fault could be?
>Regards
>Art
>I have no experience with dishes thus the question Note, the helical
>antenna does not protrude beyond the dish envelope.
>Art
How do you know?
The "rear" signals may come from the front side actually, having
been reflected by your neighbours house, or distant mountains,
or anything in between.
w.
328X1
Art Unwin;672460 Wrote:
> On Apr 10, 9:30*pm, Art Unwin ArthurUn...@gmail.com wrote:-
> On Apr 10, 8:45*pm, Tom Ring news0...@taring.org wrote:
>
>
> -
> Art Unwin wrote:-
> --
> The posting is about dishes not antennas. I have not read about a
> dish
> that does not emit signals to the rear. Now I have built one and
> find
> to my surprize that it does accept signals from the rear ! All very
> simple, the radiator is resting at the bottom of a cone and the top
> of
> the radiator does not stick out beyond the reflector. Since you do
> -
> Well, to start with Art, a cone reflector doesn't meet the definition
> of
> -
> I'm sorry, but they just aren't the same thing.-
> -
> I surprizzzed you missed the difference.-
> -
> tom
> K0TAR-
>
> Tom
> I asked the question as I am not personly knowledgable about dish
> style reflectors.
> I do read a lot and I read a paper once where it was found that a
> cone
> shaped reflector produced increased gain when used with a helix
> antenna, so I made one to try it out. Personaly I see it more as a
> horn and not as a dish with a radiator at a phase control difference
> from the reflector? Either way I do not understand how that I can
> hear
> signals to the rear if the reflector envelope encloses the radiator
> thus the question. Note that a helix radiates differently from the
> normal dish radiator such that phasing does not enter the design
> which
> is why you see planar dishes or "cups".
> Thus questions with respect to reflector diameter are not
You can argue till you're blue in the face, but in the 50+ years in the
radio electronics field, both in civilian and military occupations, I
have yet to see a single 'particle' [other than dust, perhaps] on any
of the many oscilloscopes I've ever used. Conversely I seen countless
'waves'. I'll stick with the time tested term of RADIO WAVES.
--
328X1
Dave
"Art Unwin" <Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:53023a50-6cec-485e...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>Seems like the dish
>reflector does not get a lot of attention from ham operators !
certainly not by 160m ham operators! welcome back art, needed something to
brighten up a dreary saturday morning!
Art Unwin
What others have concluded by guessing is not a concern of mine.
Hams with respect to antennas always call for the supporting math as
they decry amateur measurements. The sad thing is that hams are not
familiar with mathematics.
It is quite clear that by adding a time varying field to the law of
statics it becomes proof of the validity of Maxwell'/s lawsand vica
versa. Thus the presence of particles is also verufied.
Maxwell laws are based solely on distributed loads where lumped loads
are completely avoided yet lumped loads generate electromagnetic
fields. What is the explanation of this when Maxwells laws designate
that which is required for maximum efficiency? To look like a wave is
inmaterial since a particle at rest on a wave only changes amplitude,
it does not follow the movement of water.
We then have the knowledge that the sun provides a stream of particles
which arrive on Earth, billions of them and of the smallest size of
particle known by man and most hams look to the Sun for predictions of
dx activity. Why is this so? Maxwells law includes the speed of light
with the inclusio,n of mass in his equations so how is this portion of
mathematics included in planar forms that are formed around inductive
coupling? We know that the weak force is stronger than gravity and is
part of Maxwell's laws the same as we know that gravity does not
overcome communication,
another recognition of particles as is the application of rotation to
particles to maintain straight line projection and where this specific
action is part and parcel of Maxwell's laws. Why do you all close your
eyes to these known facts? Books of the present day are for making
money not the disemination of facts. White papers are accepted if they
have enought references to other publishings so dissemination of the
truth is obviously not profitable, but plagarism is. And it all starts
with the mathematical phenomina where all mathematics of the masters
are used to provide the validity of his laws. Like other law's Gauss's
law of Statics is also a proof of the validity of Maxwell's laws with
respect to radiation and is accepted via mathematics protocol.
What is happening here is the rejection of the mathematical proof by
radio hams, for if the validity is established change obviously occurs
and change is seen as undesirable, thus the burial of heads in the
sand. Yes, this time we will succeed in
our position it determining that the World is flat by denying the
mathematics! All of this group is on record of rejecting the
mathematics shown by Maxwell and Gauss by refusing to address it such
that validity is denied and change does not come about.
Mike Lucas
"Art Unwin" wrote:
Art,Art,Art..... you are blithering again!
Mike W5CHR
Memphis
Art Unwin
Ian
Both you and Roy project to the World that you are both experts with
respect to radiation. You write articles and both have had the
position of magazine advisors so I can assume that you feel you have a
firm grasp in physics or a good collection of books that you can
resort to for answers. The fact that both of you deny the mathematics
given by Gauyss and Maxwell is a constant surprise to me even tho a
mathematics person from MIT showed all the validity Of what I have
stated. Physics books revolve around Maxwell's laws and show many
instances where other laws
contribute to providing validity his and Newton's laws. Now I provide
another instance
where Gauss also provide validity to Maxwell's laws which have been
confirmed by independent sources. Yet Richard with a major in English
decided the mathematics supplied is in error and both of you, with the
masses, followed in lockstep yet both of you have degrees in the
subject at hand! Why is it that nobody with experience in physics has
come forward to prove me wrong ? Why do both of you refuse to provide
supporting evidence? Yes, you can come forward to discuss SWR and
similar things
yet your absence in not proving me in error is some what amasing. Both
of you tell the group why you cannot substantiate the mathematics
supplied with respect to radiation.If your mathematics or physics are
not up to it why not quote independent sources? Your stances are very
similar to when you worked with magazines that fooled the world with
respect to antenna gain on behalf of gain to manufactures.
This newsgroup is for the edification and advancement of antenna
knowledge to hams and yet both of you are instrumental in hiding the
truth and thus have descended to Richard's level in the destruction
of advancement in favour of projecting derision in place of knowledge.
Years ago Roy stated he would go to the ends of the Earth to destroy
old housewives tails to clarify the science of radio communication but
for some reason he cannot, or will not, prove this to be one of the
same.
For the others, consult your teachers or professors or others skilled
in the art and ask them the one simple question. Does the addition of
a time varying field to the arbritary border of Gauss which contain
static particles in equilibrium equal to and verify the laws
established by Maxwell? Simple straight forward question which is
denied by this group without possesion of the required facts that
establishes their position.
Tom Donaly
Art has probably been led astray by reading popular accounts of the
wave-particle duality ideas of quantum mechanics. A little reading can
be a dangerous thing.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
Cecil Moore
> Art has probably been led astray by reading popular accounts of the
> wave-particle duality ideas of quantum mechanics. A little reading can
> be a dangerous thing.
If one expects a wave, one will measure a wave.
If one expects a particle, one will measure a particle.
Do human expectations dictate reality or vice versa?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com
Art Unwin
Tom
If you have read a lot or have physics instruction step forward and
provide the mathematics of Gauss law of static particles with the
addition of a time varying field.
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio
Art Unwin
You are absolutely correct. Time and modern instruments has proved it
so.
Now we have to retrain the thinking of old people that resist change.
But all we have at hand are people that are old and unskilled in the
arts.
Art Unwin
Cecil, I posted this same stuff on the qrz antenna forum which is
followed by the majority of hams around the World. It is now close to
the 4000 hits mark , I find it interesting the difference in thinking
between the different news groups where only a few can manipulate the
whole to attack.
Cecil Moore
> You are absolutely correct.
Art, all you have to do is convince people to change
their expectations and their outcomes will change. :-)
Cecil Moore
> I find it interesting the difference in thinking
> between the different news groups where only a few can manipulate the
> whole to attack.
I cannot beat Will Roger's advice: "Be sure you are
right, and then go on ahead."
For instance, I'm absolutely sure I am right about
the delay through a 75m bugcatcher loading coil
which I have actually measured on the bench.
Richard Clark
<Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
<Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
It is all in connecting the dots.
If what above from one author only is beyond comprehension because of
language, it isn't Shakespeare's fault. If it is not logical, it is
not Gauss' fault. If it doesn't work, it isn't Newton's fault. If it
doesn't make sense, it isn't Einstein's fault.
If there is a problem, note only the author of both statements (who
blames Shakespeare, Gauss, Newton, Einstein - and is Galileo miffed,
standing behind the curtain?).
Art Unwin
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
>
> >Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio
>
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
>
> >I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
>
> It is all in connecting the dots.
>
> If what above from one author only is beyond comprehension because of
> language, it isn't Shakespeare's fault. If it is not logical, it is
> not Gauss' fault. If it doesn't work, it isn't Newton's fault. If it
> doesn't make sense, it isn't Einstein's fault.
>
> If there is a problem, note only the author of both statements (who
> blames Shakespeare, Gauss, Newton, Einstein - and is Galileo miffed,
> standing behind the curtain?).
>
> 73's
> Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Don't send 73s to me!
I am married with children and have no inclination to
have people such as you in my friendship group. I am wired differently
from you tho I do suspect there may be others here who are wired the
same and willing to follow your direction. You are a troubled man with
endless posts that contain nothing about antennas and only reveal
yourself to others like you exactly who you are, as well as your
needs. Majoring in the english language by suplimentation of the years
spent at sea does nothing to enhance your knowledge of physics. You
are what you appear to be, a fraud that is also wired different from
others in search in those of your own kind that are conditioned to
attack the norm. I suggest you go back to live with your shipmates
again where you were happy and desired.
Dave
>If you have read a lot or have physics instruction step forward and
>provide the mathematics of Gauss law of static particles with the
>addition of a time varying field.
the simplest form to put in words is: the divergence of E is proportional
to the charge density. the constant of proportionality depends on the units
chosen of course. This is exactly the form used in Maxwell's equations for
time varying fields.
Richard Clark
<Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I am wired differently
>from you tho I do suspect there may be others here who are wired the
>same and willing to follow your direction.
Yes Arthru,
We know you are gay-baiting with these sly comments. Testosterone
deficiency seems to motivate your hostility when you run out of
technical discussion. It so closely attends failure, confusion, and
wandering thoughts (which never seem to stray from sex, however).
From the generous sub-text of these interests foremost in your mind, I
should certainly hesitate to offer
88's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC ;-)
OR
You could simply observe your own "differently wired" statements:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
<Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
<Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
Which of these "wires" conducts?
joe
>
> I am not avoiding questions, just those that appear irrelevant, but
> here goes Anything to make you happy, this should be interesting how
> you use these answers with respect to the posted question
>
> 1 160 metres upto 2 metres, tunable
>
> 2 2 metres
>
> 3 Doesn't have a focal length, it is an end fed ( series connection)
> helix antenna.
>
> At least to the best of my knowledge which is why I posed the question
> Hopefully we will all stay on subject and not get side tracked. I will
> leave it to others to respond to Richard when they determine what he
> is talking about.
While this provide some details regarding your antenna, it is not sufficient
for me to visualize it.
If one can't visualize what you are talking about, getting help with your
questions will be difficult.
You could try a simple experiment: Remove the active part of your antenna
and replace it with a dummy load. Leave the reflector/dish/whatever in
place. If you still pick up signals, then the antenna itself may not be the
problem.
By 'active part', I mean the helix antenna.
You have a web site, a link to a picture would help me understand what you
are doing.
Art Unwin
> "Art Unwin" <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Just words
Supply the math or printed context that support your reasoning with
facts.
All these years of denial without supporting evidence. You couldn't
provide such to
the guy( A doctorate no less) from MIT to convince him he was wrong
either.
David you over estimate your abilities. Richard Harrison who spent his
life with
Radio America finally went back to the books and then apologised for
backing your position because his books backed my position . You
graduated many many years ago and failed to keep up. Now science has
overtaken you. Remember your comment?
Statics has nothing to do with with radiation.
Proof given, nothing other than you said so. And you chose to
follow the wierdo Richard in the attack. And Roy and others followed
in line like lemons. Perhaps you and I should have a talk on top band
where you can verbally deny that I have a rotatable antenna to your
cohorts and where they in the same tone demand more information or
proof.
Art Unwin
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
>
> >I am wired differently
> >from you tho I do suspect there may be others here who are wired the
> >same and willing to follow your direction.
>
> Yes Arthru,
>
> We know you are gay-baiting with these sly comments. Testosterone
> deficiency seems to motivate your hostility when you run out of
> technical discussion. It so closely attends failure, confusion, and
> wandering thoughts (which never seem to stray from sex, however).
> From the generous sub-text of these interests foremost in your mind, I
> should certainly hesitate to offer
>
> 88's
> Richard Clark, KB7QHC ;-)
>
> OR
>
> You could simply observe your own "differently wired" statements:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
>
> >Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio
>
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
>
> >I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
>
> Which of these "wires" conducts?
You have never debated ! You have only attacked others. If you kept to
antennas
how you are wired would not have mattered as it goes along with the
title of this newsgroup. You could have debated the good Dr from MIT
with respect to mathematics but you chose to insult.He with a
doctorate being denigrated by an english major! No wonder the
technically advantaged don't stay long on this newsgroup
Why not have a debate with Cecil where you can supply facts instead
of attacks in a debate about phase changes with the facts you learned
from Shakesphere, I am sure you learned a lot dressed in those log
legged mesh pants as
you prance around the stage. I thought you were proud of what you are.
Dave
On Apr 11, 1:52 pm, "Dave" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Just words
>Supply the math or printed context that support your reasoning with
>facts.
unfortunately this media restricts us to words, but any phd worth his salt
could reconstruct the equation in symbols from my description. does: "del
dot E = rho" make it any clearer? if not, look up page 33 of the 2nd
edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics. and then compare that with
the statement of maxwell's equations on page 2.
Dave
"joe" <no...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:Ig6El.41479$_R4....@newsfe11.iad...
> Art Unwin wrote:
>
>>
>> I am not avoiding questions, just those that appear irrelevant, but
>> here goes Anything to make you happy, this should be interesting how
>> you use these answers with respect to the posted question
>>
>> 1 160 metres upto 2 metres, tunable
>>
>> 2 2 metres
>>
>> 3 Doesn't have a focal length, it is an end fed ( series connection)
>> helix antenna.
>>
>> At least to the best of my knowledge which is why I posed the question
>> Hopefully we will all stay on subject and not get side tracked. I will
>> leave it to others to respond to Richard when they determine what he
>> is talking about.
>
>
> While this provide some details regarding your antenna, it is not
> sufficient
> for me to visualize it.
take an aluminum foil dunce cap, wide a curly pigs tail helix inside of it
and feed it with coax. most likely he attached the shield to the foil and
the center conductor to the helix, so all he has is an ugly dipole all
folded up on itself at hf. he would be better off putting the dunce cap
over his head to prevent damage from the brain probes.
Art Unwin
Joe
This debate has been going on for years. It is all in the archives. I
am not interested
in hearing the cacophony of sound all over again every time a newcomer
comes along
Believe it or not this thread started with a question and you may have
read the responses. You may not be different from the others and time
would be wasted again.
Read the archives for yourself instead of asking favours of me, it is
all printed in the archives and it goes back half a dozen years or
more. If you are a qualified engineer like me it will take only a
short time to get to the gist of the material and possibly fall in
place with your support. But I will not hold my breath. Note Both
previous advisors
of Radcom amateur radio magazine in the UK and also Roy formerly of
QST have formally debunked my position in public tho neither has
provided proof so you might want to use your time else where
Or maybe hook up with Richard. wink wink !! Either way I am readying
to get out of here again these guys are ruthless.
Nothing personal intended
Art Unwin
> "Art Unwin" <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
David look up Newtons laws and make note of the mathematics that
dictate the presence of a displacement current is used to impact with
mass at the speed of light.
Find out why Maxwell was impelled to insert it into his formue when he
could not identify or verify the legitimacy of such an insertion. He
was a mathematicion who followed the laws of mathematic which also
follows the laws of Newton.
To check his formula legitimacy he had to place his formula to one
side of the equal sign and prove that the equation equated to zero
( from the universal understanding of
cosmos equilibrium) He found that his formula did not equal zero ! So
what could he do for it to make it zero as required? He decided to
cancel out what metrics that he could and then added the extra
required metrics that would cancel out the remaining metrics. Yup the
final equation equaled zero where his insertion predicted the presence
of the weak force acting on a mass or particle.
It was years before Foucault identified what Maxwell had added and
Einstein never identified the weak force metrics that Maxwell placed
right in front of him.
Now we have antenna computer programs that are based on Maxwells laws
that include displacement current where they are programmed to change
what has been inserted to conform with Maxwells laws(optimisation
programs) and not the pre conceived planar design.
And guess what? They do reject pre conceived ideas such as the Yagi
and other planar designs that depend solely of intermagnetic coupling
and place designs that
are in agreement with Maxwell's laws which include the presence of
particlesfor maximum efficiency of radiation.
Now since the laws of Maxwell drops firmly on the side of particles
instead of waves the amateur fraternity feel compelled to discredit
computer programs such that there position is maintained and change is
not required.
And the World continues to waddle in the garbage by ignoring the
accompanying smell. My oh my.
Qudoes to this newsgroup for leading the charge against change
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk)
Richard Clark
<Arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
>> <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
...
>
>You have never debated !
That is for the hooded monks who utter prayers as they beat religion
into those who are not converted.
>You could have debated the good Dr from MIT
>with respect to mathematics but you chose to insult.He with a
>doctorate being denigrated by an english major!
You make him sound like a milk-sop whimpering in the street. (For all
your breast-beating tears for his plight, can't you at least remember
his name?) According to you, your leviathan of intellect whose shadow
you stand in has been trounced by a swish who studied English! I like
how you mince through your charges of brutality to then daintily wedge
the gay-baiting into your invective:
>I am sure you learned a lot dressed in those log
>legged mesh pants as
>you prance around the stage. I thought you were proud of what you are.
You really have an over-active imagination that keeps returning to
these curious fantasies. You spend more effort pruning these little
bouquets than actually staying on topic. What you choose to focus on
is entirely up to you. Let's see how you handle:
>> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
>>
>> <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
Can you respond to the technical content of its conflict with your
next statement:
>> <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio
I don't mind if you abandon your own claims to their poverty, no one
else will hug these destitute urchins either.
Dave
<nm...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:d3f8dabc-6b68-4827...@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 11, 11:57 am, Art Unwin <ArthurUn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But all we have at hand are people that are old and unskilled in the
>> arts.
>Hummmm.... :/ 2009-1934= old fart... Chortle..
and self-confessed unskilled.
Richard Clark
My dear Artifice, knowing your attachment to the practices of time out
of mind as indulged by the hooded monks whipping religion into their
young charges; I took a special effort to prepare you a debate with it
demarked by the classic degrees that you will note in *** stars ***
*** accumulatio ***
>I have no experience with dishes
This is our first clue which you then elaborate with:
>Rutherford of the UK ( Manchester)showed that particles could
>piece a foil of gold
Your dish is of inferior craftmanship in that it is certainly not
gold:
>The reflector is made from 1/2" mesh steel with an aluminum foil liner
*** Narratio ***
One would note that there is a world of antennas made with neither
gold, nor aluminum (isn't it aluminium?) foil, but thinner metal foil
on mylar or plastic. They work fine and do not suffer failure such as
yours. It would seem they are Rutherford partical resistant and do
not conform to your theory of a weekend farce. This is no surprise as
Margaret Rutherford was an English actress who played in the
flamboyant Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest." Your
work, as disappointing as it is does qualify as being earnest.
*** Divisio ***
However, one must observe the cautionary tale that inhabits that more
important (than your) work of Wilde's:
Jack - My dear Algy, you talk exactly as if you were a dentist.
It is very vulgar to talk like a dentist when one isn't a dentist.
It produces a false impression.
One could insert "antenna designer" for "dentist" to the same effect.
As for your fond attachment to Margaret Rutherford, let us take a leaf
from the script where she appears in full character of Miss prism:
Lady Bracknell - Is this Miss prism a female of repellent aspect,
remotely connected with education? It contained the manuscript of
a three-volume novel of more than usually revolting
sentimentality.
Miss prism - [grows pale and quails. She looks anxiously round as if
desirous to escape.]
*** Confirmatio ***
Let's see, Oscar Wilde wrote this at the end of the 19th century,
where much of your reading has been stalled in arrested development.
There is a reference to large written works (three volumes). The
implication being offered is such rambling work can be easily summed
up as the usually revolting sentimentality. And it is all brought
together in the character played by Margaret Rutherford. It shouldn't
take a leap of intelligence to note her character name of prism, and
the work done with prisms by Newton.
*** Peroratio ***
> I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
Lady Bracknell - This noise is extremely unpleasant.
It sounds as if he was having an argument.
I dislike arguments of any kind.
They are always vulgar, and often convincing.
JIMMIE
This thread is hilarious ROTFLAMO . I just cant figure who is the
comic and whio is the straight man.
Welcome back Art, You may know nothing of antennas but you are
certainly the master of tolls.
Jimmie
Jim Kelley
> Art Unwin wrote:
>> I find it interesting the difference in thinking
>> between the different news groups where only a few can manipulate the
>> whole to attack.
>
> I cannot beat Will Roger's advice: "Be sure you are
> right, and then go on ahead."
>
> For instance, I'm absolutely sure I am right about
> the delay through a 75m bugcatcher loading coil
> which I have actually measured on the bench.
A PT Barnum quote would have more apropos. So is your delay measurement
shown on your web page?
ac6xg
Cecil Moore
> Cecil Moore wrote:
>> For instance, I'm absolutely sure I am right about
>> the delay through a 75m bugcatcher loading coil
>> which I have actually measured on the bench.
>
> A PT Barnum quote would have more apropos. So is your delay measurement
> shown on your web page?
I wrote the web page before I made the measurement
but I reported the measurement on this newsgroup
about two years ago.
Jim Kelley
> Jim Kelley wrote:
>> Cecil Moore wrote:
>>> For instance, I'm absolutely sure I am right about
>>> the delay through a 75m bugcatcher loading coil
>>> which I have actually measured on the bench.
>>
>> A PT Barnum quote would have more apropos. So is your delay
>> measurement shown on your web page?
>
> I wrote the web page before I made the measurement
> but I reported the measurement on this newsgroup
> about two years ago.
Ah. So you didn't actually follow Will Rogers advice to:
"Be sure you are right, and then go on ahead."
But we already knew that. :-)
ac6xg
Cecil Moore
> Ah. So you didn't actually follow Will Rogers advice to:
> "Be sure you are right, and then go on ahead."
I was sure I was right and then made the measurements
that proved it. The established laws of physics don't
require additional measurements. Have you proved
Maxwell's equations lately?
When one needs to delay a signal, one can install a
coil to accomplish that need. Why is it so hard to
accept that coils cause delays?
JIMMIE
What would be the difference in the amount of time it takes a pulse to
travel from feedpoint and be reflected back to the feed point
comparing a 1/4 wl 40 meter antenna to a 15ft loaded antenna center
loaded to resonate at 40 meters?
Jimmie
Jim Kelley
Do you want him to tell you what he believes it is, or what he has
actually measured it to be?
73, ac6xg
JIMMIE
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would like to hear anyones opinion on it.
Jimmie
Cecil Moore
> What would be the difference in the amount of time it takes a pulse to
> travel from feedpoint and be reflected back to the feed point
> comparing a 1/4 wl 40 meter antenna to a 15ft loaded antenna center
> loaded to resonate at 40 meters?
Please don't confuse delay (amount of time) with the
total phase shift. There is a point in a loading coil
antenna where the phase shift is instantaneous.
The total phase shift is *exactly* the same assuming
both antennas are resonant on 40m. How could it possibly
be otherwise?
Cecil Moore
> Do you want him to tell you what he believes it is, or what he has
> actually measured it to be?
If you had any idea of what you were talking about,
you would know that the total phase shift is unrelated
to the total delay. Some incremental phase shifts are
related to the velocity factor. Some incremental phase
shifts are instantaneous. If you don't already know
that, you don't know how to use a Smith Chart.
Cecil Moore
> On Apr 14, 3:29 pm, Jim Kelley <jwkel...@uci.edu> wrote:
>> Do you want him to tell you what he believes it is, or what he has
>> actually measured it to be?
> I would like to hear anyones opinion on it. Jimmie
Does anyone besides me suspect that JIMMIE talking
to Jim is the same person?
Jim Kelley
> Jim Kelley wrote:
>> Do you want him to tell you what he believes it is, or what he has
>> actually measured it to be?
>
> If you had any idea of what you were talking about,
> you would know that the total phase shift is unrelated
> to the total delay.
But you're doing all the talking, Cecil - providing profound and
knowledgeable insights as in the above observation that phase shift and
delay are unrelated.
ac6xg
Richard Clark
wrote:
Exceedingly profound. Is there a third, unpublished, cosine parameter
(Suppressed Hypothetical Interval Term) for delay that is not phase
nor position? This must be another one of Cecil's "you are right, but
you are wrong about what you thought you were thinking about."
Jim Kelley
Right. I suspect it was because Cecil was wrong about what he thought I
was thinking about. Again. Either that, or he was referring to
standing waves of current that 'begin undulating linearly & laterally'
at a 'cosinusoidal reduced amplitude phase'.
73, ac6xg
Dave
"JIMMIE" <JIMMIE...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
news:1ed27f89-a077-469f...@z19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 14, 3:29 pm, Jim Kelley <jwkel...@uci.edu> wrote:
>I would like to hear anyones opinion on it.
Everyone can have an opinion... but it takes an engineer with the proper
instruments to have the answer.
Cecil Moore
> But you're doing all the talking, Cecil - providing profound and
> knowledgeable insights as in the above observation that phase shift and
> delay are unrelated.
I guess I should provide a context for the uninitiated.
If the system contains only traveling waves, the delay
is proportional to the phase shift. If the system contains
only standing waves, the delay is completely unrelated to
the phase shift since the phase shift is always zero over
any 1/2WL between the current nodes. EZNEC supports that
fact and w7el has admitted such in a previous posting.
Kraus and Balanis both agree with the above assertion. I
believe that you are aware of that fact so I have no choice
but to assume that you are deliberately trying to hoodwink
the uninitiated as are w7el and w8ji. Your ulterior motives
remain unclear to me since you will not doubt be proven
technically wrong at some point. You guys cannot possibly
plead ignorance after all these years of discussion.
Traveling wave current changes phase relative to the source
current. Every technical person agrees on that fact of physics.
Standing wave current does not change phase relative to
the source current. Everyone technical person agrees on
that fact of physics.
Therefore, standing wave current phase cannot be used to
measure delay through a wire or through a coil. This is
such a simple concept that any disagreement must be
considered to be a conspiracy to hoodwink the uninitiated.
Exactly what do you guys have to gain from hoodwinking
the unwashed masses???
Jim Kelley
The voices say aye.
ac6xg
Jim Kelley
> If the system contains only traveling waves, the delay
> is proportional to the phase shift. If the system contains
> only standing waves, the delay is completely unrelated to
> the phase shift since the phase shift is always zero over
> any 1/2WL between the current nodes. EZNEC supports that
> fact and w7el has admitted such in a previous posting.
>
> Kraus and Balanis both agree with the above assertion.
I'm surprised they ever used EZNEC, or discussed systems that have
standing waves, and nothing else.
> Standing wave current does not change phase relative to
> the source current. Everyone technical person agrees on
> that fact of physics.
Yes, and that's by virtue of the fact that standing waves are entirely
dependent on traveling waves. In fact, standing waves don't do anything
on their own.
What's amazing is that you continue to insist on attributing
interference with supernatural powers - "redistribution"
being one, "delaying" itself apparently being another.
> Therefore, standing wave current phase cannot be used to
> measure delay through a wire or through a coil.
We've seen how you can calculate it. So, given that phase and delay are
completely unrelated as you have explained, please describe if you would
how one would go about actually measuring standing wave current delay -
whatever that is.
> This is
> such a simple concept that any disagreement must be
> considered to be a conspiracy to hoodwink the uninitiated.
> Exactly what do you guys have to gain from hoodwinking
> the unwashed masses???
The suggestion sounds a little nutty to me, to be honest. Is it
possible that you might be mistaken about any of this?
ac6xg
Cecil Moore
> I'm surprised they ever ... discussed systems that have
I'm not surprised because you have obviously never cracked
open their books - tsk, tsk. Reference page 288 of "Optics",
by Hecht, 4th edition, 7.1.4 Standing Waves.
> What's amazing is that you continue to insist on attributing
> interference with supernatural powers - "redistribution"
> being one, ...
Obviously, you have never read the following FSU web page:
micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/interference/waveinteractions/index.html
"... when two waves of equal amplitude and wavelength that are
180-degrees ... out of phase with each other meet, they are not
actually annihilated, ... All of the photon energy present in
these waves must somehow be recovered or *redistributed* in a
new direction, according to the law of energy conservation ...
Instead, upon meeting, the photons are *redistributed* to regions
that permit constructive interference, so the effect should be
considered as a *redistribution* of light waves and photon energy
rather than the spontaneous construction or destruction of light."
Exactly what is it about the *redistribution* of energy that you
don't understand?
> ... please describe if you would
> how one would go about actually measuring standing wave current delay -
> whatever that is.
I cannot improve on Hecht's words in "Optics":
"This is the equation for a STANDING or STATIONARY WAVE, as
opposed to a traveling wave. Its profile does not move through
space; ... It doesn't rotate at all, and the resultant wave
it represents doesn't progress through space - its a standing
wave."
In other words, "standing wave current delay" does not exist.
Only an ignorant fool would think that it could exist given
the equation for a standing wave. Yet this is the current
that w7el and w8ji tried to use to measure the delay through
a 75m mobile loading coil.
> The suggestion sounds a little nutty to me, to be honest. Is it
> possible that you might be mistaken about any of this?
I could be mistaken about your ulterior motive but it is hard
for me to accept the fact that you guys are just dumb as a stump.
I would rather think that you, w7el, and w8ji have a modicum
of intelligence and are merely engaged in a conspiracy to
hoodwink the uninitiated. Your motive for such is unclear.
Richard Clark
>engaged in a conspiracy
Hmm, Trilateral commission?
Freemasonry?
Area 51?
Symbionese Liberation Army?
Hussein's "Oil for Food?"
Illuminati?
Ulster Loyalist Central Coordination Committee?
Bilderberg Group?
the 4th Reich?
AUM Shinrikyo?
Animal Liberation Front?
Leon Czolgosz?
Gulf of Tonkin incident?
Hollow earth theory?
New World Order?
Rosicrucians?
Servants of the Paraclete?
Watergate?
The Nazi-American Money Plot?
There is a point in a loading coil antenna where the phase shift is
instantaneous? [and yet it moves.....]
Cecil Moore
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:35:00 -0500, Cecil Moore <nos...@w5dxp.com>
>> engaged in a conspiracy
>
> Hmm, Trilateral commission?
It was tongue-in-cheek humor, Richard.
JIMMIE
The voices are wrong, it doesnt take a lot of digging to find out who
I am if you really want to know, Ive been here for years. I just dont
like my identity plastered on newsgroups.
Jimmie
Jim Kelley
> I cannot improve on Hecht's words in "Optics":
You could still improve on your understanding of their meaning.
> In other words, "standing wave current delay" does not exist.
> Only an ignorant fool would think that it could exist given
> the equation for a standing wave.
And yet you keep posting your calculations and claiming to have made
measurements. I was trying to be polite, but yes. Evidently we're in
agreement now?
ac6xg
Jim Kelley
Yes, but don't you see? That's the clever deception. You could have
appended three letters to your first name and typed it in all caps,
and then only somebody as smart as Cecil could figure out that you are
actually me. Not even we would know it. :-)
73, ac6xg
Cecil Moore
> And yet you keep posting your calculations and claiming to have made
> measurements.
As have w7el and w8ji. All their measurements proved
is that standing wave current doesn't change phase
relative to the feedpoint current phase. They did
not measure the delay through a coil. They measured
the phase shift through the coil using a current that
doesn't change phase relative to the two measurement
points. The same thing happens with a wire.
To measure the actual delay through a coil, traveling
wave current must be used. I am apparently the only
one who ran that actual experiment. I guarantee if
anyone performs that experiment in a valid manner,
they will see similar results to mine. Here's the
setup that I used to measure a ~25 nS delay through
a 75m bugcatcher coil at 4 MHz.
http://www.w5dxp.com/coiltest.GIF
You should be able to achieve that setup in your
physics lab.
Richard Clark
wrote:
>Richard Clark wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:35:00 -0500, Cecil Moore <nos...@w5dxp.com>
>>> engaged in a conspiracy
>>
>> Hmm, Trilateral commission?
>
>It was tongue-in-cheek humor, Richard.
Ah! That is what you thought I was thinking you were thinking I
thought and you were wrong twice, right once and on the third hand was
a draw.
Richard Clark
wrote:
>setup that I used to measure a ~25 nS delay through
>a 75m bugcatcher coil at 4 MHz.
>
>http://www.w5dxp.com/coiltest.GIF
This is just a cartoon with the caption:
"Magik happens here."
Tom Donaly
Did you figure out the Z0 of your coil using the Tesla coil
math, and then just assume there were no standing waves, or did
you prove the absence of standing waves through experiment?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
Richard Clark
<dtdo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Cecil Moore wrote:
>> they will see similar results to mine.
>Did you figure out the Z0 of your coil using the Tesla coil
>math, and then just assume there were no standing waves, or did
>you prove the absence of standing waves through experiment?
Hi Tom,
There is only the hint of a gejoken experiment. I notice nothing
other than a cartoon, and nothing in the way of instrumentation
described, much less the vaunted "results" (no doubt the final
metaphysical tabulation came from some alchemistry). Certainly no
antenna (nor dish reflector that matter). How it relates to a loaded
short monopole would probably provoke an essay as elaborate as the
coronation oratory for a pope.
Tom Donaly
Hi Richard,
Cecil has never been too effective when it comes to doing
experiments. When asked to do math, he's even more sunk. I'm surprised
he even managed to do a "gejoken" experiment.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
Cecil Moore
> Did you figure out the Z0 of your coil using the Tesla coil
> math, and then just assume there were no standing waves, or did
> you prove the absence of standing waves through experiment?
The standing waves don't have to be eliminated,
just reduced until the traveling wave dominates
the waveform. I added 600 ohm non-inductive
resistors in series until the reflections were
negligible and the traveling wave dominated the
waveform.
Cecil Moore
> I notice nothing other than a cartoon, ...
I'm sorry if this seems like rocket science
to you. I used toroidal pickups at the current
sample points and viewed the current waveforms
on a 100 MHz dual-trace oscilloscope.
Jim Kelley
>
> The standing waves don't have to be eliminated,
> just reduced until the traveling wave dominates
> the waveform. I added 600 ohm non-inductive
> resistors in series until the reflections were
> negligible and the traveling wave dominated the
> waveform.
So why do you have to go to all that trouble when you want to measure
traveling wave current, but not when you want to measure traveling wave
energy?
ac6xg
Cecil Moore
> So why do you have to go to all that trouble when you want to measure
> traveling wave current, but not when you want to measure traveling wave
> energy?
When one measures traveling wave energy, one
is measuring an average calculated scalar value
usually forward power minus reflected power or
RMS V*I in a dummy load resistor.
When one is measuring delay, one is measuring
instantaneous traveling wave phase in real time.
Trigger on the zero crossing of the input signal
and measure the delay until the output signal
crosses zero.
That delay measurement doesn't work for standing-
wave current because the zero-crossing on the
input and output occur virtually simultaneously,
i.e. there is no relative phase shift between
input and output or between any two points on a
1/4WL wire monopole.
Richard Clark
wrote:
>Richard Clark wrote:
>> I notice nothing other than a cartoon, ...
>
>I'm sorry if this seems like rocket science
>to you.
And this from the cartoonist.
It readily explains how poorly the gejoken experiment started. Let's
see how many yuks it will get through conventional issues
>I used toroidal pickups at the current
>sample points and viewed the current waveforms
>on a 100 MHz dual-trace oscilloscope.
No mention of make, no readings, no pretense at discussion of those
things that contribute to error (and, as such, no need for Cecil to
apologize for being wrong until he is painted into his usual corner).
So, from this sloppiness called
>>anyone performs that experiment in a valid manner,
I suppose I have to fill in the blanks and watch Cecil sputter that it
wasn't like that at ALL!!! The cartoonist is most comfortable in
simple things, certainly; but measurement is best left to
professionals.
>>measure a ~25 nS delay
which is the same as a 40 MHz event, but in some "100 MHz" scopes, and
depending upon a myriad of settings (anyone practiced in the art would
realize how many), signal amplitude being one; that same BW can tumble
to 20 MHz to the unsuspecting user's surprise (Cecil can now react in
mock surprised shock). With a roll-off of 3dB per octave (another
concept that is foreign to digital engineers, such is Cecil's legacy),
phase measurement errors begin to run away. We don't even get the
Sunday comics form of math!
OK, so
>>measure a ~25 nS delay
is so much of a hodge-podge, a place marker, a spit into the wind,
something summoned up for the unwashed so the author could bask in
their awe-shucks. If we were to simply accept it (GASP!), what does
it say of the delay introduction of the
>toroidal pickups at the current sample points
More magik happens here no doubt. I won't ask Cecil what his data is
for these items because he doesn't have any (at least until he
rummages up the dutch courage to fake it).
And what about the phase issues of the 4000 Ohm resistor (which
conveniently snubs what might be found in the rest of the antenna now
long discarded such that this becomes an onanistic exercise)? Again,
no point in asking for data that doesn't exist (you can't even fake
it). Magik abounds because Cecil's best work is cartoonistry, not
science, and certainly not rocket science.
So, a very quick enumeration of points any experimenter would have
come into the discussion with, rather than trailing behind like a
dancing bear with blisters.
But I like gejoken experiments, and Cecil's clowning offers the
dovetail to Art's when he isn't here complaining about the nails in
his hands. I would give this, maybe, 3 yuks.