W8JK Gain - a result of Zo ?
J. Harvey
> Consider a W8JK antenna...
> ...this antenna has a gain of about 4 dB
> relative to a single isolated element...
> ...the trick is mutual coupling...
> ...feedpoint resistance of a close-spaced
> W8JK is very low...
> Element currents are extremely high for a
> given power input, which results in the gain...
Hmmm...
"Element currents are extremely high...
which results in the gain..."
I'm concerned by this apparent logic:
1) Low feedpoint resistance
2) Thus high current [okay]
3) Results in (more) gain [?]
Rhetorical question #1:
Does the typical '73-ohm' dipole provide higher gain than a '300-ohm' folded
dipole because it has a lower feedpoint resistance?
Rhetorical question #2:
Given an antenna with an average gain (in all directions) of 0dBi, if the
feedpoint resistance is somehow lowered, will the average gain (in all
directions) now exceed 0dBi?
I always assumed that gain could be derived from phase and geometry (Moiré
patterns to put it simply).
I didn't think that Zo had anything to do with gain.
Roy Lewallen
> "Roy Lewallen"
>
>>Consider a W8JK antenna...
>>...this antenna has a gain of about 4 dB
>>relative to a single isolated element...
>>...the trick is mutual coupling...
>>...feedpoint resistance of a close-spaced
>>W8JK is very low...
>>Element currents are extremely high for a
>>given power input, which results in the gain...
>
>
> Hmmm...
> "Element currents are extremely high...
> which results in the gain..."
>
> I'm concerned by this apparent logic:
> 1) Low feedpoint resistance
> 2) Thus high current [okay]
> 3) Results in (more) gain [?]
>
> Rhetorical question #1:
> Does the typical '73-ohm' dipole provide higher gain than a '300-ohm' folded
> dipole because it has a lower feedpoint resistance?
No. Nor do you increase the gain of antenna by connecting the input to a
transformer. What counts is the element current for a given power input.
The common-mode current (the "component" that does the radiating) of a
folded dipole is the same as for an unfolded dipole. So its gain is the
same. Folding simply transforms the input impedance, like a transformer
would.
> Rhetorical question #2:
> Given an antenna with an average gain (in all directions) of 0dBi, if the
> feedpoint resistance is somehow lowered, will the average gain (in all
> directions) now exceed 0dBi?
Only if the feedpoint resistance is lowered by increasing the antenna's
current. (Or, if you wish, if lowering the resistance results in
increased current. You choose.) And, sorry, J, try as you might, you
won't be able to do that. At least without a creative marketing department.
> I always assumed that gain could be derived from phase and geometry (Moiré
> patterns to put it simply).
>
> I didn't think that Zo had anything to do with gain.
I'm not sure what you mean by Z0, but "coupled resistance" -- the
feedpoint resistance change due to mutual coupling -- most certainly
does. If your understanding of antenna gain doesn't account for mutual
coupling, you have a great opportunity to further your education.
Chapter 8 of the ARRL Antenna Book is one place you could start. If that
doesn't suit you, there are some very clear explanations and
illustrations in the broadcast antenna chapter of Jasik or Johnson's
_Antenna Engineering Handbook_. In that book you'll also find an
explanation and examples of the use of the term "coupled resistance" and
"coupled impedance".
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
J. Harvey
>> Rhetorical question #1:
>> Does the typical '73-ohm' dipole provide higher
>> gain than a '300-ohm' folded dipole because it
>> has a lower feedpoint resistance?
"Roy Lewallen"
> The common-mode current (the "component" that
> does the radiating) of a folded dipole is the same
> as for an unfolded dipole. So its gain is the same.
Excellent response (for a *bad* rhetorical question).
I'm glad I always carry a spare...
>> Rhetorical question #2:
>> Given an antenna with an average gain (in all directions)
>> of 0dBi, if the feedpoint resistance is somehow lowered,
>> will the average gain (in all directions) now exceed 0dBi?
> Only if the feedpoint resistance is lowered by increasing the
> antenna's current. (Or, if you wish, if lowering the resistance
> results in increased current. You choose.) And, sorry, J[eff],
> try as you might, you won't be able to do that. At least
> without a creative marketing department.
Hmmm... I'd like to explore this one a bit further to see I can find the
missing bit of my understanding. The W8JK antenna provides an excellent
example that can be used to make the points clear.
Let's assume for a minute that the two dipoles in the W8JK antenna are
mounted farther apart (somehow maintaining the same feed relationships) so
that it is really just a plain old "phased array" of two dipoles, with no
significent mutual coupling between them, with a peak forward gain of about
3dBd (note dBd - relative to a single plain old dipole). Let's assume 100%
efficiency (of course), no ground effects, everything simple. All pretty
straight forward. Obviously the average gain (in all directions) is still
exactly 0dBi (right?).
Now, bring the two dipoles closer until they become a perfectly-optimised
W8JK antenna with about 4dBd (note - relative to a single, plain old
dipole).
**Here's the question**: Is the average gain (in all directions) still
exactly 0dBi?
The catch is that (according to the theory that current => gain) the
increased current would logically increase the field strength (= gain?) in
*ALL* directions. Yikes! Therefore, EZNEC should report an average gain
(in all directions) of about +1dBi. Doesn't that constitute an error
warning ?
Doesn't that violate the laws of physics? Isn't it a basic tenant of
antenna design that the average gain (in all directions, averaged over the
entire sphere) *shall be* exactly 0 dBi (or less with losses)? Did I miss a
footnote on that rule?
Note that I've used the W8JK antenna to provide the perfect example for my
rhetorical question #2.
> ...mutual coupling...
> ...Chapter 8....ARRL Antenna Book
Usually my antenna books are at the office, but today they happen to be at
home and within arm's reach. I've just reviewed page 8-4 and the concept of
mutual coupling is (dare I say) old hat and almost trivial. That part I
understand fully. If it was lab I would promptly set the elements 180
degrees out of phase and drive them together. ;-)
The bit that I don't get is described above.
I trust that you find this topic worth discussing further.
Regards,
Jeff Harvey
Roy Lewallen
>
>>>Rhetorical question #2:
>>>Given an antenna with an average gain (in all directions)
>>>of 0dBi, if the feedpoint resistance is somehow lowered,
>>>will the average gain (in all directions) now exceed 0dBi?
>
>
>>Only if the feedpoint resistance is lowered by increasing the
>>antenna's current. (Or, if you wish, if lowering the resistance
>>results in increased current. You choose.) And, sorry, J[eff],
>>try as you might, you won't be able to do that. At least
>>without a creative marketing department.
>
>
> Hmmm... I'd like to explore this one a bit further to see I can find the
> missing bit of my understanding. The W8JK antenna provides an excellent
> example that can be used to make the points clear.
>
> Let's assume for a minute that the two dipoles in the W8JK antenna are
> mounted farther apart (somehow maintaining the same feed relationships) so
> that it is really just a plain old "phased array" of two dipoles, with no
> significent mutual coupling between them, with a peak forward gain of about
> 3dBd (note dBd - relative to a single plain old dipole). Let's assume 100%
> efficiency (of course), no ground effects, everything simple. All pretty
> straight forward. Obviously the average gain (in all directions) is still
> exactly 0dBi (right?).
There's very significant mutual coupling between the elements of just
about any "plain old" phased array. Given graphs of mutual impedance you
can find in the ARRL Antenna Book and many other sources, and the
assumed currents in the elements, calculation of the coupled impedance
is pretty simple. But there are some magic spacings and current ratios
that result in either a zero coupled resistance or in coupled element
resistances with effects that cancel. (An example of the latter is a 2
element 90 degree spaced and fed array, which has a gain of exactly 3 dB
relative to a single element. Jasik/Johnson calculates a "total
resistance" which relates to the array gain and for that array equals
zero. But I won't diverge here.) In the special case of two elements fed
out of phase with equal currents, the coupled resistance (the amount the
feedpoint resistance changes as a result of mutual coupling) is simply
-Rm, where Rm is the mutual resistance. (See Eq. 19 in Chapter 8 of the
ARRL Antenna Book.) From the graph in the ARRL Antenna Book (Fig. 19 in
Chapter 8), Rm = 0 for half wave parallel antennas at spacings of about
0.43, 0.96, 1.46, and 1.98 wavelength (and of course others which are
off the graph). So let's say the elements are spaced 0.43 wavelength,
where Rm = 0. Then the coupled resistance would be zero, and your gain
would be 3 dBd, where 0 dBd is the gain of a single isolated element.
Yes, the average gain in all directions would be 0 dBi, as it is for all
lossless antennas in free space.
> Now, bring the two dipoles closer until they become a perfectly-optimised
> W8JK antenna with about 4dBd (note - relative to a single, plain old
> dipole).
>
> **Here's the question**: Is the average gain (in all directions) still
> exactly 0dBi?
Yes. The average gain of all lossless antennas in free space is 0 dBi.
> The catch is that (according to the theory that current => gain) the
> increased current would logically increase the field strength (= gain?) in
> *ALL* directions.
Nope. As soon as you bring the elements closer together than a half
wavelength, the fields either fully or partially cancel in all
directions. And it turns out that the increase in field strength from
the increased currents just makes up for the field cancellation, so that
the average gain ends up at 0 dBi.
But to be fair, you can have gain in excess of 3 dB for two out of phase
elements spaced a half wavelength or farther. This will occur at any
spacing where Rm is positive -- for example between about 0.96 and 1.46
wavelengths. Yet no laws of physics are violated. If you look at the
patterns, you'll see that the lobes are narrower than they would be if
there were no mutual coupling. In fact, they're just the right width to
keep that average gain at 0 dBi. You see, you can't have two elements
spaced at 1.2 wavelength, say, without mutual coupling. Or look at it
another way. If you were to add the fields from two dipoles spaced 1.2
wavelength apart, and you assumed no mutual coupling, you'd end up with
an average gain of less than 0 dBi. How 'bout them apples. It might be
easier to see what would happen if you added up the fields from two
elements spaced much closer than a half wavelength and assumed no mutual
coupling. Then you'd come up with an average field strength considerably
less than 0 dBi because of the field cancellation.
Yikes! Therefore, EZNEC should report an average gain
> (in all directions) of about +1dBi. Doesn't that constitute an error
> warning ?
I'm sorry, you've lost me there. Assuming no loss in the model and no
calculation problems, EZNEC should report 0 dB "average gain". Remember,
EZNEC's reported "average gain" is really the total power divided by the
power from the sources -- so it's not in dBi.
> Doesn't that violate the laws of physics? Isn't it a basic tenant of
> antenna design that the average gain (in all directions, averaged over the
> entire sphere) *shall be* exactly 0 dBi (or less with losses)? Did I miss a
> footnote on that rule?
Nope. You've got the rule right. What's mistaken is your reasoning that
leads to the antenna having an average gain greater than 0 dBi.
> Note that I've used the W8JK antenna to provide the perfect example for my
> rhetorical question #2.
>
>
>
>
>>...mutual coupling...
>>...Chapter 8....ARRL Antenna Book
>
>
> Usually my antenna books are at the office, but today they happen to be at
> home and within arm's reach. I've just reviewed page 8-4 and the concept of
> mutual coupling is (dare I say) old hat and almost trivial. That part I
> understand fully. If it was lab I would promptly set the elements 180
> degrees out of phase and drive them together. ;-)
>
> The bit that I don't get is described above.
>
> I trust that you find this topic worth discussing further.
Sure. I've been trying to communicate these principles to the amateur
community for a good 20 years. It began with an 80 page typed manuscript
that I'd send to anyone who asked for the price of copying and mailing.
About 50 people around the world heard about it and asked for it. It was
too long to get published in the amateur literature, until Jerry Hall
offered to include it in the Antenna Book when he overhauled it, what, a
dozen or so years ago. And so it became most of Chapter 8, where it's
been since. This newsgroup provides a way to reach a lot more people.
There are a whole lot of "lurkers" out there who I hope will benefit
from this exchange. That makes it worthwhile.
While you're thumbing through Chapter 8, take a look at the family of
graphs of antenna patterns of 2 element arrays, Figure 10 unless it's
changed since my copy was printed. Note that the gains (all without
loss, and all relative to a single element) vary from 0.3 to 4.8 dB. If
it weren't for mutual coupling, they'd all be 3 dB. (Incidentally, I
didn't produce those -- I think Jerry did them with ELNEC.)
Oh, one more thing I should mention. Even this analysis is
oversimplified. It turns out that mutual coupling also changes the
current *distribution* on the elements. In some cases the effect is
minor, in some cases major. An example of a minor effect is the little
-25 dB rear lobe you'll see in a computer simulation of a 90 degree
spaced and phased array. More profound effects happen when the elements
are near anti-resonance (half wavelength monopole or full wavelength
dipole). It's not an original observation, but it seems pretty unknown
in the amateur community. I commented on it in QST's "Technical
Correspondence" in July 1990. But guess what -- the average gain ends up
being 0 dBi after you've accounted for the changed distribution. And
_only_ if you've accounted for it. Kinda cool how things all work out,
isn't it?
Don't worry, the laws of physics can withstand this.
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
J. Harvey
or at least contributed to Chapter 8 :
> <snipped for brevity - see his posting>
>> **Here's the question**: Is the average gain...
>> still exactly 0dBi?
> Yes. The average gain of all lossless antennas in free
> space is 0 dBi. ... As soon as you bring the elements
> closer together than a half wavelength, the fields either
> fully or partially cancel in all directions. And it turns
> out that the increase in field strength from the increased
> currents just makes up for the field cancellation, so that
> the average gain ends up at 0 dBi.
Well, thank goodness for that. Perfect.
> EZNEC should report 0 dB "average gain". Remember,
> EZNEC's reported "average gain" is really the total power
> divided by the power from the sources -- so it's not in dBi.
It's okay - "dBi" is also a unitless ratio so it's really almost the same
thing in a harmless sort of way.
> What's mistaken is your reasoning that leads to the
> antenna having an average gain greater than 0 dBi.
I'm very glad to learn that the lobes narrow up to explain the extra gain.
What concerned me was the simplified version of the W8JK explanation. The
more complete version of the explanation (as you've provided here) all makes
perfect sense.
> Oh, one more thing I should mention. Even this analysis is
> oversimplified. It turns out that mutual coupling also changes
> the current *distribution* on the elements.
Yikes ! ...
Excellent explanation - many thanks.
Richard Harrison
Bailey. It`s "Half-Wave Antenna and Connected Reflector".
It`s driven directly at one of its identical dipoles. So, its cardioid
pattern is reversible and depends upon which element has the feedline.
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
Richard Harrison
"In the special case of the two elements fed out of phase with equal
currents, the coupled resistance (the amount the feedpoint resistance
Thanks to Roy, I`ve looked at Chapter 8 of the ARRL Antenna Book. It is
interesting to note that mutual impedance may affect directivity of an
array.
Indeed, 180-degrees leading or lagging is the same thing. Z of the
feedpoints of the two elements shifts the same in both, due to the
mutual coupling, I suppose. To me, it is immediately apparent that the
elements must behave exactly the same due to simple symmetry. There is
no way a stupid element in the simple W8JK array has of knowing it is
not the other element. Symmetry obviously also makes the W8JK array
bidirectional.
A bidirectional pattern can be obtained from a simple dipole. Why use a
W8JK array? 4 dbd gain may be a reason. The price of this gain may be a
drivepoint resistance of only about 7-ohms versus about 10X that
resistance for the dipole. Also, the bandwidth of the simple dipole is
about twice that of the W8JK array.
In this thread, loss has been mentioned. Prospective loss due to the
W8JK`s drivepoint resistance, may make the power gain of the array hard
to realize. Terman refers to this problem under the topic of super-gain
antennas which rely on very close spacing.
Terman also notes the difference between directive gain and power gain
of antennas on page 870 of his 1955 edition:
"Directive gain depends entirely on the distribution in space of
radiated power. The power input to the antenna, the antenna losses, or
the power consumed in a terminating resistance have nothing to do with
directive gain. Such factors are taken in terms of the power gain of the
antenna---."
If you don`t cross the element feed wires of the W8JK beam, you get a
cardioid pattern, 4 dbd gain, 50-ohm drivepoint resistance, about 4X the
bandwidth of the W8JK beam, with only 25% more space between the two
dipole elements, according to Arnold B. Bailey in "TV and Other
Receiving Antennas"
Roy Lewallen
> Roy, W7EL wrote:
> "In the special case of the two elements fed out of phase with equal
> currents, the coupled resistance (the amount the feedpoint resistance
> changes as a result of mutual coupling) is simply -Rm."
>
> Thanks to Roy, I`ve looked at Chapter 8 of the ARRL Antenna Book. It is
> interesting to note that mutual impedance may affect directivity of an
> array.
>
> Indeed, 180-degrees leading or lagging is the same thing. Z of the
> feedpoints of the two elements shifts the same in both, due to the
> mutual coupling, I suppose. To me, it is immediately apparent that the
> elements must behave exactly the same due to simple symmetry. There is
> no way a stupid element in the simple W8JK array has of knowing it is
> not the other element. Symmetry obviously also makes the W8JK array
> bidirectional.
Yes, that's correct. There's something else special about the particular
cases of two elements fed 180 degrees out of phase or fed in phase, as a
result of what you've observed. Because each element looks the same to
each other, the feedpoint impedances end up equal, even though they can
be quite different than the impedance of an isolated element. If you
feed the elements of an in-phase array with any lengths of transmission
line, as long as they're equal, the phase shifts and impedance
transformations of the lines are equal, even though they're not what
they'd be with a matched line. Similarly, an out-of-phase array can be
fed with lengths that differ by a half wavelength, resulting in equal,
out of phase currents to the two elements. This simple feed method
doesn't work in general, even for two in-phase or out-of-phase elements
in a larger array. These particular arrays are the easiest of all to
feed properly.
>
> A bidirectional pattern can be obtained from a simple dipole. Why use a
> W8JK array? 4 dbd gain may be a reason. The price of this gain may be a
> drivepoint resistance of only about 7-ohms versus about 10X that
> resistance for the dipole. Also, the bandwidth of the simple dipole is
> about twice that of the W8JK array.
There are a couple of interesting things about the W8JK array. One is
that you can feed the two elements with equal lengths of line, giving
one a half twist to effect the phase reversal. Then you've got an
antenna that maintains its pattern over an extremely wide bandwidth --
from an arbritrarily low frequency up to the frequency at which the
elements are a half wavelength apart. The feedpoint impedance obviously
varies a great deal over this range, but the pattern stays the same.
This array is also unusual in that its elevation pattern is noticeably
different from a dipole or Yagi. The latter have essentially the same
elevation pattern -- except at very high angles -- when mounted over
ground, since both have broad free-space elevation patterns. The
free-space elevation pattern of a W8JK is quite different, with an
overhead null. This often results in concentration of power at
noticeably lower elevation angles for a given mounting height. The
downsides to this array are the bidirectional pattern you've mentioned,
and low feedpoint resistance. Care has to be taken to avoid excessive
loss because of the low resistance, and tuning is quite narrowbanded.
> In this thread, loss has been mentioned. Prospective loss due to the
> W8JK`s drivepoint resistance, may make the power gain of the array hard
> to realize. Terman refers to this problem under the topic of super-gain
> antennas which rely on very close spacing.
Yes, absolutely true.
> Terman also notes the difference between directive gain and power gain
> of antennas on page 870 of his 1955 edition:
> "Directive gain depends entirely on the distribution in space of
> radiated power. The power input to the antenna, the antenna losses, or
> the power consumed in a terminating resistance have nothing to do with
> directive gain. Such factors are taken in terms of the power gain of the
> antenna---."
>
> If you don`t cross the element feed wires of the W8JK beam, you get a
> cardioid pattern, 4 dbd gain, 50-ohm drivepoint resistance, about 4X the
> bandwidth of the W8JK beam, with only 25% more space between the two
> dipole elements, according to Arnold B. Bailey in "TV and Other
> Receiving Antennas"
Yep, there's more than one way to skin a cat.
You don't automatically get a fully cardiod pattern by that method,
though. To get a cardioid, the phase delay between elements has to equal
the element spacing, and the current transformation of the "phasing"
line has to be unity. Connecting a transmission line between the
elements doesn't achieve this, for reasons explained in Chapter 8 of the
ARRL Antenna Book, since the transmission line is invariably mismatched.
But with the proper choice of "phasing line" and element lengths (which
impact the strong mutual coupling in these arrays), you can get a nearly
cardioid pattern and very good f/b ratio. I do exactly this in my "Field
Day Special" antenna. It's one of the example files that comes with
EZNEC, and notes and a program to help design them can be downloaded
from ftp://eznec.com/pub/ as FDSP~.EXE.
The Bailey method can be easily evaluated with EZNEC, even the demo
version, for any particular cases of interest.
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Art Unwin KB9MZ
> I trust that you find this topic worth discussing further.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff Harvey
Jef it is understandable your difficulty with respect to gain on the
W8JK and Kraus did not help matters when he expanded on a previous
thesis.
The problem is that amateur antennas are fixed on dipole lengths and
thus are prevented from thinking otherwise except in the case of the
magnetic loop antenna which is directly connected to the W8JK.Most
amateurs have heard the radio blast louder when it comes near to power
lines and even knowing that reprocity reins refuse to use the same
principles for transmitting antennas.
Everybody knows that all conductive parts radiate regardles of length
and if you couple two radiators in such a way that one driven element
will pass on to
radiator( and here we come to the important point)a given frequency
response
by INDUCTIVE coupling which thus realises gain lost in arrays
because of phasing problems.
The loop does the same thing. We drive a small length of radiator
(note the important thing is it is a RANDOM length and COUPLE it the a
RESONANT
radiator which also impresses its frequency back to the original
member.This coupling is such that phase differences are removed and
the whole element radiates. For fear of upsetting experienced hams who
are locked on to wavelengths we can vary the coupled radiator to the
loop to a much
longer radiating length and better still, change the feeding method
from an
"end" feed to a different type which makes for better impedance
matching.
It can now be seen that the extra length provides more gain than a
dipole alone
and to which I show as an equivalent loop/dipole. It is to be noted
that some magnetic loop diagrams show the feed like a matching system
which doesn,t radiate, this is because it is usual in complex coupling
systems into one equivalent circuit to aid in solving various
parameters.
When the amateaur community recognises the above facts and and not
solely concentrate on wave length style of arrays we will make huge
advances. If you are a guru maybe you can convince your fellows and
thus allow the enginneering professionals to see that amateurs can
still make advances where it was thought everything was known. The
trick is ofcourse, is to seduce experts to remove themselves from the
box that they have enclosed themselves and to think in a more open
'out of the box' fashion which is in direct conflict to prior
explanations given both in books and on this forum.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG
Richard Clark
wrote:
>When the amateaur community recognises the above facts and and not
>solely concentrate on wave length style of arrays we will make
>huge advances.
Hi Art,
More than 1dB?
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
kenf...@attbi.com
I've had enough.....
P L O N K !
Richard Harrison
"---Kraus did not help matters when he expounded on a previous thesis."
Kraus is a famed professor and author. I doubt he muddied the water for
most people.
Another thing, antenna resonances are merely a means to get current into
standing-wave antennas. Dipole lengths predict resonances.
A magnetic loop directly connected to the W8JK? Sounds Unwinesque and a
shove on the thread toward a pet of Art`s. Pity, Art has contributed
little evidence for his pet ideas beyond the claims.
"---INDUCTIVE coupling which thus realises gain lost in arrays because
of phasing problems."
Oh my! Phasing is adjusted by changing element lengths, phasing stub
lengths, or adjusting lumped capacitance and inductance. Though the
space between elements be fixed, there are many other ways to vary the
phasing between array elements, especially in a W8JK as both elements
are driven.
"This coupling is such (inductive) that the phase differences are
removed and the whole element radiates."
Surely, an antenna element which is significant in terms of wavelength
can`t be said to have a uniphase throughout, even as an approximation.
So, Art may mean to claim that the phase between elements in an array is
somehow optimized. As usual, Art gives no details of how inductive
coupling improves over other means. As for more of the radiator
radiating?
"It can now be seen that the extra length provides more gain than a
dipole alone and to which I (Art) show as an equivalent loop/dipole."
All the modeler`s reports I`ve seen so-far dispute Art`s claim.
Configuration of the wire added to a dipole affects dipole gain.
Last week Art slammed me for verbosity. Please note that in my response
I used less words than Art used in his posting.
J. McLaughlin
--
J. Mc Laughlin - Michigan USA
Home: J...@Power-Net.Net
"Richard Harrison" <richard...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5537-3EF...@storefull-2315.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Art, KB9MZ wrote:
> "---Kraus did not help matters when he expounded on a previous
thesis."
>
> Kraus is a famed professor and author. I doubt he muddied the water
for
> most people.
>
---No literate person could read his books and be anything but satisfied
with his clarity of expression. ...but, one needs to read Antennas in
order to understand...
<snip>
>
> Last week Art slammed me for verbosity. Please note that in my
response
> I used less words than Art used in his posting.
>
> Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
>
---Since words, in this context, are able to be counted (with integers),
I submit that you used fewer words. ...sorry, but I am editing a
wonderful book (written by an extra class colleague) that will run to
about 2600 pages and I am in "nit-pick" mode... Everyone on this news
group will want to have, or have their library have, a copy of this
book.
73 Mac N8TT
J. McLaughlin
--
J. Mc Laughlin - Michigan USA
Home: J...@Power-Net.Net
"Richard Harrison" <richard...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5537-3EF...@storefull-2315.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Art, KB9MZ wrote:
> "---Kraus did not help matters when he expounded on a previous
thesis."
>
> Kraus is a famed professor and author. I doubt he muddied the water
for
> most people.
>
---No literate person could read his books and be anything but satisfied
with his clarity of expression. ...but, one needs to read Antennas in
order to understand...
<snip>
>
> Last week Art slammed me for verbosity. Please note that in my
response
> I used less words than Art used in his posting.
>
> Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
>
J. McLaughlin
--
J. Mc Laughlin - Michigan USA
Home: J...@Power-Net.Net
"Richard Harrison" <richard...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5537-3EF...@storefull-2315.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Art, KB9MZ wrote:
> "---Kraus did not help matters when he expounded on a previous
thesis."
>
> Kraus is a famed professor and author. I doubt he muddied the water
for
> most people.
>
---No literate person could read his books and be anything but satisfied
with his clarity of expression. ...but, one needs to read Antennas in
order to understand...
<snip>
>
> Last week Art slammed me for verbosity. Please note that in my
response
> I used less words than Art used in his posting.
>
> Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
>
J. McLaughlin
--
J. Mc Laughlin - Michigan USA
Home: J...@Power-Net.Net
"Richard Harrison" <richard...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5537-3EF...@storefull-2315.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Art, KB9MZ wrote:
> "---Kraus did not help matters when he expounded on a previous
thesis."
>
> Kraus is a famed professor and author. I doubt he muddied the water
for
> most people.
>
---No literate person could read his books and be anything but satisfied
with his clarity of expression. ...but, one needs to read Antennas in
order to understand...
<snip>
>
> Last week Art slammed me for verbosity. Please note that in my
response
> I used less words than Art used in his posting.
>
> Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
>
Richard Harrison
"---I subscribe that you used fewer words."
I used less and shorter words. Less has four letters. Fewer has five.
Art Unwin KB9MZ
> Art, KB9MZ wrote:
> "---Kraus did not help matters when he expounded on a previous thesis."
>
> Kraus is a famed professor and author. I doubt he muddied the water for
> most people.
>
> Another thing, antenna resonances are merely a means to get current into
> standing-wave antennas. Dipole lengths predict resonances.
>
> A magnetic loop directly connected to the W8JK? Sounds Unwinesque and a
> shove on the thread toward a pet of Art`s. Pity, Art has contributed
> little evidence for his pet ideas beyond the claims.
>
> I used less words than Art used in his posting.
>
> Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
that as well I understand peoples reliance on books instead of
thinking things out for themselves. If you were back in a working
environment you would be challenged regarding your responses because
they do not reflect the positive and concentrate on the negative. A
case in point(sample) is the Henke article
printed by the ARRL in a compendium some ten years ago where he
ostensibly
reviews the myths around the magnetic loop. His article was so sound
in its aproach that I felt sure he was going to migrate to what I was
working on.
That was not to be when he pointed at "Q" being the devil when
coupling two circuits. He concentrated so much on proving the loops
poor features that he totally ignored its good features even tho he
named 'Q' where it was inadequate
and then waffled on.If he had decided to build on the good he was in
an excellent position when pointing to "Q" to solve the bad points
while retaining the good i.e by altering the "Q" via changing the feed
circuit such that it provided a positive addition to the coupling
since the loop impresses its frequency back via EMF( i.e.a formidable
radiator).It is easy to sneer but now you see a sample of coupling in
a book. Now I leave you to contribute to explain reprocity with regard
to the momentary radio gain as a vehicle nears a power line in not
only with your own thoughts but will also allow you to quote
from one of your books .
I would remind you that no one, even the most prolific of posters
have offered not one piece of reliable technical basis that
two radiators coupled together via inductive means does not provide
superior gains to any other combination in an array, NOT ONE. Could
you be the first, after all I gave you the Henke book reference which
should give you a shoulder to lean on?
You tell me what happens when the feed portion of a loop is extended
to a longer length which changes the "Q" and because of the longer
length impressed with the loops frequency provides more gain. But then
you would probably be advised to deflect the debate and restrict
yourself from the danger of the magnifying glass. Actually you would
make friends as many now desire
the more less technical subjects to debate as in a bar room discussion
where loudness reinforces what is correct. Seems like this is a repeat
of my previous posting so I suspect I will get the same ofbeat
response
that does not add up as a centerally focussed technical discussion
Regards
Art
Richard Clark
wrote:
>I would remind you that no one, even the most prolific of posters
>have offered not one piece of reliable technical basis that
>two radiators coupled together via inductive means does not provide
> superior gains to any other combination in an array, NOT ONE.
Hi Art,
Presumably this includes yourself as well.
If not, does it amount to more than 1dB?
Yuri Blanarovich
>The
>trick is ofcourse, is to seduce experts to remove themselves from the
>box that they have enclosed themselves and to think in a more open
>'out of the box' fashion which is in direct conflict to prior
>explanations given both in books and on this forum.
>
>Best regards
>Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG
>
>
It is getting more and more annoying to read musings of F. Art ex G man.
Must be reincarnation of ancient freaktalental.
Some smart man said, that more you learn, the more you find how little you know
(or something like that).
Now he is dumping on Kraus, hams who can only use dipole, while he is
reflecting with directors.
For your edification, hams (VE3BMV) used small shielded loop antenna coupled to
beverage antenna and the result was beverage directivity and suppression of
local QRN. This was described in Radiosporting Magazine in late 80s. Lot of
things were tried, described and used by hams and/or professionals that you
might be ignorant of.
Looks like limited horizons are affecting the reasoning and spelling faculties
of this unrecognized shining star on ham radio antenna sky.
Bada Boxed BUm
Richard Harrison
"---posters have offered not one piece of reliable technical basis that
two radiators coupled together via inductive means does not provide
I am tempted to borrow Richard Clark`s question here: "More than 1 db?"
Why would inductive coupling provide superior gains to any other
combination in an array?
Proof of such a claim is an onus on Art, the proponent, in this case.
Prove it and naysayers will fade away. I won`t lecture anyone on how
antenna gain works. Art`s made it clear that he doesn`t want to hear it.
It is up to Art to prove a coupling loop works best.
Peter Brackett
[snip]
> If not, does it amount to more than 1dB?
>
> 73's
> Richard Clark, KB7QHC
[snip]
Or... for that matter "a hill of beans"!
--
Peter K1PO
Richard Harrison
"It is easy to sneer but now you see a sample of coupling in a book."
Pages 26-8 and 26-9 of the 19th edition of the "ARRL Antenna Book"
contain samples of "delta" and "T" matches for a dipole. These matches
are configured as "loops", joining a dipole.
Why can`t radiation from these "loops" add to dipole gain? Simple. The
small loop has a null perpendicular to its plane. That`s the dipole`s
best direction. So, the loop radiates at cross-purpose with the dipole
for directional gain.
This is a repeat from me, and Art doesn`t want to hear it, but some
readers may be unaware of the prologue.
Art Unwin KB9MZ
questioned
Count the number of postings made before phase removal was accepted,
at least as far as that particular subject went.
What should have been accepted pretty much without comment went on an
on
in a similar way that the experts deal with conjugate matches.( The
most prominant subject discussed on radio and in print by newbies and
experts alike
where the hope is it will be picked up by CNN.)
Since nobody on this newsgroup apparently is conversant with complex
style
circuits it would take a thread of several hundred postings to get
thru just one page of a text book while you would keep quoting from
this obscure book about T.V.antennas which very few people have.For
you I would even resort to
computor modelling discussion but I know computors is not a path that
you are interested in. If you want to join the Clerk group be my
guest. I give the opportunity to all to follow the principles of
coupled antennas but if it is needed that I must provide exact proof
with every exact detail together with the mathematical formulae used
together with all the actual figures so that all can build it without
thought the moment that the likes of Lewellen and Clark
give the world hobby their stamp of approval then you must be crazy.
Both of these people have shown that they have no knoweledge of
complex circuitry and how such circuits are replaced by one equivalent
circuit to solve various parameters. Added to this both are prone to
emphasising the bad and ignoring the good plus be as nasty as I. Clark
who is a veteran of note ,the very modern model of a modern major
general,the inventor of the
worlds aviation ' black box', the final arbiter of Worlds time
measurement, the most sort after 'engineering consultant' from
entrepreneurs for advice as to where to invest their money, famed
patent developer whose submission to the PTO was so large and volumous
that the patent office had no space available in draws so it got
subsequently lost e.t.c, e.t.c..He has never stated what is many
docturates or degress are.!!!... Tho I am sure he is a regular guest
at the White House. Richard, if you really want to get some of your
jollies back maybe you should climb that famous tower again at Terra
del Feugo and take with you a good book on electrical mathematics with
respect to complex circuitry so that you can converse on a personal
technical basis. Where you would not have the need to lean on
shoulders or paste comments from books.
Note that Yuri infers that he has the knoweledge to converse
technically on the subject so he may well be the soul mate you are
looking for.
On the other hand, we could have a specific technical discussion for
point and counterpoint as Cecil is having with many posters where
personal animosity can be placed aside. For the record I KNOW IM RIGHT
WITH RESPECT TO MY ANTENNA and when it is accepted by the Patent
office( and proof read by Uri) I expect all will join the bandwaggon
and hope that the archives of this newsgroup will somehow disapear
instead of being constantly resurrected .
I repeat again, respectfull discussion breeds respectfull
discussion,snide or
nasty comments also breeds distastfull discussions. I like the first
method
but have to deal with the hand presented. No hard feelings retained
Regards
Art KB9MZ.....XG
richard...@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) wrote in message news:<8678-3EF...@storefull-2312.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
Art Unwin KB9MZ
Get yourself a antenna optimiser program such as AO
which is still available.
Put in a design that couples a square loop to a random
dipole length and let the program choose the desired
figures for maximum gain. ( I have shown the diagram many times)
Then you come forward as having proof that I am wrong
and you or your computor is correct.
It is that simple!
I know that all have some loyalty to Roys EZNEC program
because that is how he earns his living and he would not
touch a competitors product, a theme that seems to be
followed by others in the group ( One self styled expert
refused to look at AO because he said it was old!!!!)
The above is that simple Richard. You could gloat for ever
and place me personally under the black spot light for ever
or I must slink away in shame.
Why do you think that as yet NOT ONE PERSON has shown
he can 'walk the walk' choosing instead to doing just the talk?
Regards
Art
richard...@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) wrote in message news:<19573-3EF...@storefull-2317.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
Richard Clark
wrote:
>He has never stated what is many
>docturates or degress are
No Doctorates at all, Bloke. My degrees are in English (the language
you cannot spell, the words you cannot understand, the sentences you
cannot write, the authors you hate) and Cinema (I've probably seen
more English film than you and Reg). I have never read two more rabid
anglo-phobes in my life - you guys act like you personally lost the
Boer War.
>.!!!... Tho I am sure he is a regular guest
>at the White House.
How bourgeois.
* * * * * * * * *
Art, you can tempt providence.
OR
You could simply answer a technical question:
Does it amount to more than 1dB?
88's,
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Richard Harrison
"Count the number of postings made before phase removal was
Reading between the lines, I infer Art means removal of reactance to
increase antenna current. I agree this deserves acceptance as it is easy
and it works.
Conjugate matching is, the experts agree, the way to get maximum power
transfer. Maybe the argument is over who needs it.
Complex circuits more accurately represent the world around us, but a
qualitative understanding of antennas can be had without the math (enter
Reg on cue).
It is too bad Arnold B. Bailey`s book is not readily available, I think.
Richard Clark had a copy and may have a different opinion. Bailey`s book
is about antenna theory. The title, "TV and Other Receiving Antennas"
was, I think, meant to sell it during a period when the growth of TV was
exploding. The name was sexy then.
Equivalent circuits facilitate grasp of circuit action. Clark and
Lewallen are surely familiar with all manner of circuits.
Coupling of circuits is described in many texts. What`s wrong with
direct coupling antennas? Other means are convenient but unlikely to
couple any tighter.
If you can get as much antenna gain using one feedpoint as using many,
why use more? Parasitic antennas are popular.
Coupled circuits are one way to extend bandwidth. Obviously they can be
tuned off-resonance slightly (stagger-tuned). Stubs can parallel an
antenna feedpoint and these can have a reactive shift which compliments
the reactive shift in the antenna, and this widens the antenna bandpass.
I pointed to King, Mimno, and Wing in an earlier posting. They are more
prominent than Bailey, but they`re no more useful to me than is Bailey.
Art would like to send me back to Tierra del Fuego. Winter just kicked
off there now. It`s cold and it`s dark. I don`t want to go. Surely I`m
offensive to Art. I did it without really trying.
Art writes: "I know I am right with respect to my antenna."
Start by telling us how it beats the antennas and matching systems
pictured on pages 26-8 and 26-9 of the ARRL Antenna Book.
Richard Clark
(Richard Harrison) wrote:
>
>It is too bad Arnold B. Bailey`s book is not readily available, I think.
>Richard Clark had a copy and may have a different opinion. Bailey`s book
>is about antenna theory. The title, "TV and Other Receiving Antennas"
>was, I think, meant to sell it during a period when the growth of TV was
>exploding. The name was sexy then.
Hi Richard,
The title is actually not too hard to obtain. Consulted one vendor:
http://www.bookfinder.com
to find prices varying around $20-$30
There are many other book vendors that fill the gaps that Amazon
simply can't match. Write or Post me here for more links.
I suggested it to Roy a couple weeks back for its 60 page treatment of
propagation and local characteristics (how trees affect RF).
Even with the TV slant, it has considerable material down into the AM
bands and between. Bailey is easily one of the most readable authors
covering the tough stuff of design and the nuances of theory. For
this alone it deserves Classic status in the field of technical
writing (If you've waded through Cecileo's drek, why not step up to
the fresh breeze of real explanations for real techs?)
Russ
Of course, fewer is syntactically correct. If the items in question
csn be counted, use "fewer". If the item is a single thing in bulk,
use "less". I'll give an example. I have fewer radios that most
hams. There is less sand in that pile than in the one over there.
Russ, whose XYL is the grammar Nazi
Art Unwin KB9MZ
Now thats more like it, a reasonable contact without slurs
and I will repeat in kind.
>
> Art writes: "I know I am right with respect to my antenna."
>
> Start by telling us how it beats the antennas and matching systems
> pictured on pages 26-8 and 26-9 of the ARRL Antenna Book.
But Richard we went thru this before when you inferred I was breaking
the laws of nature. So at that point I started to go thru it point by
point
which you withdrew from because you didn't want to answer questions as
to your understandings as we went along! This discussion has gone on
for years when I disclosed what the patent office had accepted.Wasn't
it about a year ago that I offered a detractor not only access to an
existing antenna but also access to the latest (newer) patent I was
preparing and who then declined.
It was less than a year ago that I offered to BUY a program for one to
which I would supply input figures......he also declined. Clark who is
a genius in so many areas , in his own mind at least, even refused to
accept any information provided from my particular purchased program
as it was "old". Since he studied under the "new math" procedures
which do not require learning multiplication tables I can only assume
that the newer programs can give the multiple of 2X4 to more than six
decimal places ! Another person also states that I have no
credability and why not,it is so easy to say on the net. Most people
know that it is not necessary to use computors if the answers are
already known.
And most computor experts know all there is to know anyway.
I'll tell you what Richard, at the end of this summer I will share
all with you privately, both past and present designs with copies of
any references, calculations, pretty computor pictures of results and
personal photo's of actual antennas.( remember those pictures of the
20M 13 element on a 80 foot boom I shared with you) If you wish to
pursue it for yourself using an optimizer program I will also provide
any assistance. ( EZNEC systems are not capable to duplicate in so
many areas) All of this based ofcourse on reasonable conversations
which from past experience I know you can satisfy easily and is your
norm.
Speaking your mind ofcourse but without personal slander
Regards
Art
Richard Harrison
"If the items in question can be counted, use fewer."
Thank you for the advice.
Russ, and Mac, N8TT, both advise fewer for a word count. Both Russ and
Mac are right on target.
Mac gave an example of fewer ice cubes and less water. Seens to me Mac
doesn`t want his scotch over watered.
I`ll try to mend my ways and splurge on the 5-letter word fewer instead
of incorrectly skimping with the 4-letter word less.
Thank you all for your advice.
Richard Clark
wrote:
>Clark who is
>a genius in so many areas , in his own mind at least, even refused to
>accept any information provided from my particular purchased program
>as it was "old". Since he studied under the "new math" procedures
>which do not require learning multiplication tables I can only assume
>that the newer programs can give the multiple of 2X4 to more than six
>decimal places !
Hi Art,
To one place, six, or sixteen; does it make more than 1dB difference?
Richard Clark
wrote:
Hi Art,
If you are incapable of doing the new/old math yourself, you can
simply say:
Yes
or
No
Which of course, Old Man, has always been your option.
Mark Keith
> Richard, you are really being silly now.
> Get yourself a antenna optimiser program such as AO
> which is still available.
My faith in "optimiser" programs for such a scenario is fairly weak.
Never forget what all good airline pilots remember when programming
their autopilots.
GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT.
> Put in a design that couples a square loop to a random
> dipole length and let the program choose the desired
> figures for maximum gain. ( I have shown the diagram many times)
> Then you come forward as having proof that I am wrong
> and you or your computor is correct.
> It is that simple!
Letting a puter program "optimise" such a thing and expecting accurate
answers is not really simple.
> I know that all have some loyalty to Roys EZNEC program
> because that is how he earns his living and he would not
> touch a competitors product, a theme that seems to be
> followed by others in the group ( One self styled expert
> refused to look at AO because he said it was old!!!!)
Huh??? I've never bought ANY antenna programs. I doubt Roy considers
my non buying status as any great show of loyalty. Not that I don't
like EZNEC, I'm just cheap, and can do much of what I want to do with
the demo's. For your info, I used MMANA when I modeled your antenna
about 9 or so months ago. Thats a freeware antenna program made by a
guy in Japan. He also does SSTV, RRTY, DSP, and lord knows what else.
But that program uses the older mininec engine. Being EZNEC uses the
newer NEC2 engine, it should be superior in many respects. BTW, MMANA
has an "optimiser" section. I've tried it, and overall found it to be
about as useful as tits on a boar hog. In other "normal" aspects, it
works about the same as ELNEC. They both use the same engine.
I've found over and over again, I can manually optimise an antenna
much better than most of these so called "optimiser" programs. You
want max gain from a yagi? No problem. Max f/b? No problem. Mix of
both ? No problem. 50 ohm feedpoint? No problem. I've got scads of
yagi files where I've manaully tweaked beams. I can make them do
anything I want them to. Don't need no stinkin optimiser program to
spit out goofball and unrealistic results. I'm not saying your program
is doing that, but I'd dang sure be wary.
>
> The above is that simple Richard. You could gloat for ever
> and place me personally under the black spot light for ever
> or I must slink away in shame.
Get a grip Art. I doubt he is gloating, and I doubt he owns any black
spot lights.
This whiny ass "poor ole Art" crap is making me sick to my stomach.
Stick to antenna talk please, so I don't upchuck my pizza and other
assorted foods recently consumed. Have you ever seen a pukish mix of
one hour old cherry/chocolate chunk ice cream mixed with two hour old
partly digested pizza, and then topped off with fizzling acidic froth
of about four Dr. Peppers all splattered across my puter and radios? I
don't want to go there, if you please. But if you continue to where I
reach that ugly point, I'm going to mail you a "doggy bag" of it, just
so I won't feel like the lone ranger. By the time it gets up there to
Yankee land via the sluggish postal service, it should be good and
ripe. :(
> Why do you think that as yet NOT ONE PERSON has shown
> he can 'walk the walk' choosing instead to doing just the talk?
Well Art, I did as you suggested about 9 months ago, "excluding the
optimiser deal", but being my results evidentally didn't fit the
"program", I'm not sure if I'm walking or talking. Maybe both. Maybe
neither.
Gee Davie...Why is the sky blue?
I'll be walking and talking tommorrow at "Yard Day" as W5DPA. We won't
have much in the way of fields at our location at a fireman training
facility. We will have three separate towers and tri-banders just for
20-10, so we should be browning the food on those bands at least. We
don't use any small or gimmick antennas. Nothing but the biggest,
baddest, and most pain in the rear to haul and install for us...:/
I'm loaded and ready to go. I've got my tower and beam strapped down
on a motorcycle trailer I'm taking this year, since I have a camper
shell on the back of the truck now, and didn't want it all in there
this time. MK
Russ
Richard,
It was offered in the spirit of clear and concise communication.
Thanks for taking it that way and you're welcome. I like the "fewer
ice cubes and less water" analogy. It works perfectly and is more
clear than my efforts.
Russ
Wes Stewart
wrote:
[snip]
|I know that all have some loyalty to Roys EZNEC program
|because that is how he earns his living and he would not
|touch a competitors product, a theme that seems to be
| followed by others in the group ( One self styled expert
|refused to look at AO because he said it was old!!!!)
It would be an unwise man who *did not* "touch" his competitor's
products. I'm sure Roy understands all of the competition very well.
That he remains available to the ham community to support his product
despite some of the crap spewed in this forum baffles me. I believe
that Brian (AO) long since gave up selling and supporting his product.
Perhaps the reason EZNEC continues to be popular is the fact that it
is still available and the customer support is superb.
Art Unwin KB9MZ
> aun...@insightbb.com (Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote in message news:<85ed38d.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> > Richard, you are really being silly now.
> > Get yourself a antenna optimiser program such as AO
> > which is still available.
>
> My faith in "optimiser" programs for such a scenario is fairly weak.
> Never forget what all good airline pilots remember when programming
> their autopilots.
> GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT.
>
Thats O.K. Mark. You are in very good company. Over about 10 years I
have noted that there are a lot of "names" in this group None have
agreed with my assertions and none will use the AO program as I
suggest even tho I offered to
pick up the cost of one for you. Ham radio has been hit with what
appears to be false claims about antennas even to the point of
mathematical analysis to disprove those claims so now it is natural
for reflex actions with out study
to debumk anything new, and people are comfortable about that.
As far as my efforts go there has been no mathematical analysis to
debunk what I state ,albiet I am a poor communicator. Apparently none
have used the particular program either to debunk me yet the most
successfull new antenna on the block 'SteppIR antenna' used the same
program to validate its findings.
Mark, this is the Internet and this group is a part of it. If you
agree with the many antenna experts of this group that I have no
credability then block me out by not reading my comments.
It is your right, as is mine to share my efforts with those who are
interested in antennas and experimentation.I see now there are
complaints that some of the postings are getting too technical, they
to can ignore and provide postings of the level that they are happy
with. So lighten up, you are in the company of many well known
'antenna' names or experts with respect to AO and also my
observations.
I will be silly and continue to swim upstream for inexplicable reasons
just like a salmon where, when I reach the end I will write it up
purely for my sole contentment. If you are the type that shoot salmon
when they rise up on the impossible challenge then such action will
not stop me in what I do other than just block the random firing in
the same way I suggest to you and others.
Have a great weekend with field day and enjoy the mutual conversations
of others
with a smile on your face. I see no reason to respond on the rest of
your posting
As always, no ill will is kept for ever.
Best regards to my fellow hams
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG
Richard Clark
wrote:
> Ham radio has been hit with what
>appears to be false claims about antennas
Hi Art,
Do your claims exceed the significance of 1dB?
Mark Keith
> nm...@wt.net (Mark Keith) wrote in message news:<25eb70d7.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> > aun...@insightbb.com (Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote in message news:<85ed38d.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Richard, you are really being silly now.
> > > Get yourself a antenna optimiser program such as AO
> > > which is still available.
> >
> > My faith in "optimiser" programs for such a scenario is fairly weak.
> > Never forget what all good airline pilots remember when programming
> > their autopilots.
> > GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT.
>
>
> >
> Thats O.K. Mark. You are in very good company. Over about 10 years I
> have noted that there are a lot of "names" in this group None have
> agreed with my assertions and none will use the AO program as I
> suggest even tho I offered to
> pick up the cost of one for you.
I didn't need it for what I was doing. What are your assertions? This
is not a trick question. I really don't have any idea what your
assertions are being as you don't stick with any one antenna for too
long, or use just a general example of a method of feeding, etc.
Ham radio has been hit with what
> appears to be false claims about antennas even to the point of
> mathematical analysis to disprove those claims so now it is natural
> for reflex actions with out study
> to debumk anything new, and people are comfortable about that.
What false claims? I see many, but I have no idea which you refer to
in particular. And so far, nothing I've seen you doing is really new.
Maybe not commonly used, but not new by any means.
> As far as my efforts go there has been no mathematical analysis to
> debunk what I state ,albiet I am a poor communicator.
What do you state? What is being debunked? You need to be specific. I
have no idea what you refer to.
Apparently none
> have used the particular program either to debunk me yet the most
> successfull new antenna on the block 'SteppIR antenna' used the same
> program to validate its findings.
So? I could use any number of programs to do the same thing.
> Mark, this is the Internet and this group is a part of it. If you
> agree with the many antenna experts of this group that I have no
> credability then block me out by not reading my comments.
Have I ever said you have no credibility? I don't recall ever making
any such remark. I just comment on your antenna schemes. Whether or
not you have any credibility is not really a concern of mine.
> It is your right, as is mine to share my efforts with those who are
> interested in antennas and experimentation.
I don't see how I can share your efforts. I can only comment on them.
I see now there are
> complaints that some of the postings are getting too technical, they
> to can ignore and provide postings of the level that they are happy
> with.
I've seen none of these postings myself, but I agree with your
assessment of the situation.
So lighten up, you are in the company of many well known
> 'antenna' names or experts with respect to AO and also my
> observations.
Whith respect to AO??? I've never used the program. How can I be in
company with respect to it? Also, I don't need to lighten up any more
than I am now. If anything, I probably need to gain a few pounds.
> I will be silly and continue to swim upstream for inexplicable reasons
> just like a salmon where, when I reach the end I will write it up
> purely for my sole contentment. If you are the type that shoot salmon
> when they rise up on the impossible challenge then such action will
> not stop me in what I do other than just block the random firing in
> the same way I suggest to you and others.
Why would I shoot a salmon? I'm not even that crazy about the fish. If
I'm going to shoot something , it will probably be a halibut.
> Have a great weekend with field day and enjoy the mutual conversations
> of others
> with a smile on your face.
So far no rain. I'm back home farting off for a while. All the beams
and other antennas have been set up, and others are pounding away. I'm
not really that crazy about operating, so I don't do much in the day.
Too dang hot too. I'll go back this evening and work some low band CW
after it chills down a bit.
I see no reason to respond on the rest of
> your posting
Why not? Cat got your tongue?
>
> As always, no ill will is kept for ever.
My will is not ill.
MK
Art Unwin KB9MZ
One could have bet that you would show up at this time after all you
are
the one that states that I and my work are not credible. An expert in
the
field analysis that should not be ignored since it is known that he
has experience in walking the walk( past printed works e.t.c.)
Well regarding Roy's program versus AO, I believe he has already
stated to all
that his programs cannot compete in some areas with AO. Who knows what
he states now.
Regarding his use of AO I believe Roy stated only a short time ago he
had no personal familiarity with the AO program but did kindly display
the address where follow up could be made.
Who knows what he states now.
Regarding Roy still being on the scene where you had personal
inferences about Beezley. Roy full well knows what happened to Beezely
years ago perhaps he will bring you up to date on the side.Who knows
what he states now but he certainly
will not come forth about the values of a competitors product or
defend against improper remarks made about it because it could affect
the money he gets.
But as I said who know what he will state now or more important, how
indirectly he will state it.
There is no question in my mind that Roy is a good business man but I
am a bit bemused why you still complain when all are fully aware of
your prior judgement of me,( absolutely no credability) when so many
taking their cue from you,are taking it in turns to complain and doing
it very well.
When I mention Roy in the future you can emerge on cue as always and
we can continue with this chat......that is until Clark arrives and
we both sneak away..
Have a great weekend talking to the hams this weekend.
Regards
Art KB9MZ....XG
Wes Stewart <n7ws@_arrl.net> wrote in message news:<1marfv0m2fsu4vsl5...@4ax.com>...
Richard Clark
wrote:
>that is until Clark arrives and
>we both sneak away..
Hi Art,
Will it amount to more than 1dB?
jaroslav lipka
>
>
> Do your claims exceed the significance of 1dB?
>
> 73's
> Richard Clark, KB7QHC
ok, can you hear me now?
ok, can you hear me now?
ok, can you hear me now?
ok, can you hear me now?
Wes Stewart
wrote:
|Wes
|One could have bet that you would show up at this time after all you
|are
|the one that states that I and my work are not credible. An expert in
|the
|field analysis that should not be ignored since it is known that he
|has experience in walking the walk( past printed works e.t.c.)
I have tried in a civilized manner to understand your claims. Alas, I
do not. Perhaps that is my failing, perhaps not.
|
|Well regarding Roy's program versus AO, I believe he has already
|stated to all
|that his programs cannot compete in some areas with AO. Who knows what
|he states now.
One thing I'm sure of; he will be consistent.
|
|Regarding his use of AO I believe Roy stated only a short time ago he
|had no personal familiarity with the AO program but did kindly display
|the address where follow up could be made.
|Who knows what he states now.
One thing I'm sure of; he will be consistent.
|
|Regarding Roy still being on the scene where you had personal
|inferences about Beezley. Roy full well knows what happened to Beezely
|years ago perhaps he will bring you up to date on the side.Who knows
|what he states now but he certainly
|will not come forth about the values of a competitors product or
|defend against improper remarks made about it because it could affect
|the money he gets.
You read something I didn't write. The only "inference about Beezley"
that I make is that he probably got tired of dealing with foolish hams
and went on to better things. However, I don't know him, never used
his products, except for a crippled version furnished with some ARRL
book or another, and I could be all wet. Which means I'll be in good
company.
|
|But as I said who know what he will state now or more important, how
|indirectly he will state it.
One thing I'm sure of; he will be consistent.
|
|There is no question in my mind that Roy is a good business man but I
|am a bit bemused why you still complain when all are fully aware of
|your prior judgement of me,( absolutely no credability) when so many
|taking their cue from you,are taking it in turns to complain and doing
|it very well.
I didn't know that I had such a following.
|
|When I mention Roy in the future you can emerge on cue as always and
|we can continue with this chat......that is until Clark arrives and
|we both sneak away..
I wish I knew what you mean by this but alas....
|
|Have a great weekend talking to the hams this weekend.
Actually, I just took a break to refuel the generator and have a cold
one to soothe my sore throat. Our usual FD site has burned to a
crisp, so I'm running a home station on emergency power. So far, I've
held a frequency on 20 meters for four and 1/2 hours and made 539 Q's,
with callers about 6 deep while running 100W. BTW, the antenna is my
3el Yagi, designed using EZNEC.
See you in the pileup.
Art Unwin KB9MZ
> J. Harvey wrote:
> > "Roy Lewallen"
> >
> >>Consider a W8JK antenna...
> >>...this antenna has a gain of about 4 dB
> >>relative to a single isolated element...
snip
>
> Only if the feedpoint resistance is lowered by increasing the antenna's
> current. (Or, if you wish, if lowering the resistance results in
> increased current. You choose.) And, sorry, J, try as you might, you
> won't be able to do that. At least without a creative marketing department.
>
> > I always assumed that gain could be derived from phase and geometry (Moiré
> > patterns to put it simply).
> >
> > I didn't think that Zo had anything to do with gain.
Harvey
I have no idea either why Roy would make such a statement unless he is
playing with words again.
If anybody reviewed how a reciever works all must have seen how the
bandpass
changes in the I.F. section due to variation in transitory inductive
coupling. It is also seen that the current can INCREASE with coupling.
This is not a marketing myth.
Roy is correct to concentrate on radiation via current but that is
where the validity of his statement ends. Since I am a total newby
surrounded by experts
I cannot comment on the Moire part, but there is no doubt that
coupling can produce higher current but not create extra energy. It
can be easily seen that the area under such a current curve is not
increased because of consequent
decrease in bandwidth. Stated another way, current and consequently
gain can be increased, energy dissipation cannot be increased. I
believe that Cecil has been quite eloquent with respect to the law
that 'energy cannot be created or destroyed' no matter Roy plays with
words. It should also be seen that in "coupled" radiators ( the term
coupling seems to vary on this newsgroup
coupled resistance!!!!) it is not unusual for figure 8 patterns to be
maintained when changing frequency purely by varying a REACTIVE
component together with INCREASED current gain.
Please don't take my word for it since the experts state that I have
no credability to 'question' their response.
Regards
Art KB9MZ...XG
snip.
>
> Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Richard Harrison
"(the term coupling seems to vary on this newsgroup coupled
resistance!!!!)"
Coupling is defined the same as mutual impedance. Please see Terman`s
1955 edition, page 894:
"An antenna carrying current will induce a voltage in another antenna in
the vicinity; i.e., two nearby antennas act as though they were coupled.
-------
Z12 = E2 / I1 "
Mutual impedance = 2nd ant.V over 1st ant. I
Dick Carroll;
Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
>Ham radio has been hit with what
> appears to be false claims about antennas even to the point of
> mathematical analysis to disprove those claims
Art are you sure which end of the horse you have attached the cart?
Most operatives would seem to prefer to use the math to *prive* claims. Some correspondents here even assert that one
can not prove a negative.
> so now it is natural
> for reflex actions with out study
> to debumk anything new, and people are comfortable about that.
> As far as my efforts go there has been no mathematical analysis to
> debunk what I state ,albiet I am a poor communicator. Apparently none
> have used the particular program either to debunk me
Again, I'd suggest you check the direction of your effort. Perhaps you can get Ol' Bessie to run in reverse?
Jimmy
the greatest thing since sliced bread, why not just build and market the
antenna, get rich and make everyone eat their words. I for one would be glad
to buy it if you can demonstrate that works anywhere nearly as great as you
claim. As a matter of fact I would gladly put up funding to market this
antenna if you can demonstrate it.You have built and tested a proto-type by
now havent you???
"Art Unwin KB9MZ" <aun...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:85ed38d.03062...@posting.google.com...
Art Unwin KB9MZ
Richard, you do not have to go to antenna books for such things
Complex circuitry or mesh circuits are mathmematical contributions
to science in the same way as quadratics. If one understands the
primary form then its derivatives can be used in many secondary
areas such as antennas, The use of inductive and capacitive
coupling is a part of mesh circuitry mathematics where as in
quadratics many mathematical 'answers' can be obtained.
To be honest I have not heard of resistive coupling and frankly
have mixed up capacitive coupling with inductive coupling in
my early days with antennas when applying known mathematical
aproaches. I might add that I also agree with you regarding
stagger tuning as being another derivative of mesh circuitry
since all know that any radiator can be redrawn as a CLOSED
circuit containing pure but not distributed inputs.
Antenna programs shine because they can take account of
positional coupling where in the past it would be a mathematical
nightmare to arrive at the final solution. But to be sure
all the above is derived from mathematics in the same way that
negative resistance shows up or multiple answers with respect to
quadratic formulae.
Best regards
Art
Yuri Blanarovich
> Our usual FD site has burned to a
>crisp, so I'm running a home station on emergency power.
Hi Wes,
are you talking about Coronado National Forest fires?
So sorry to hear about the fires. Our son lived in Oro Valley, we went up the
mountain, admired towers there and beauty of the area in the middle of the
desert. Our friend just phoned and said that it just about burned out and
unfortunately not a single animal came out, looks like they all burned there.
All the environmental idiots should have been herded up in that forest and left
to fight the fire and "preserve" the nature. What a shame, due to few idiots
huge tracts of forests are being destroyed, rather than properly managed,
cleared and some roads built to segment the forest and provide access in case
of emergency and need for counter fires.
What a loss! Now if monsoons come, it will even get uglier.
73 Yuri
J. McLaughlin
a job in forestry. Some of that is due to a desire by the non thinkers
to leave forests unmanaged. How stupid. A properly managed forest
produces income, lots of standing trees, and a much reduced chance of
fires.
Stupid! ...rant mode off
73 Mac N8TT
--
J. Mc Laughlin - Michigan USA
Home: J...@Power-Net.Net
Office: J...@McLMcL.Com
"Yuri Blanarovich" <k3...@aol.comnoSaddam> wrote in message
news:20030629134447...@mb-m10.aol.com...
Wes Stewart
wrote:
Yes, that is the fire. It was usual for the Catalina Radio club (the
club of Hughes Aircraft employees (now uck, Raytheon) to operate from
Mt. Bigalow in the Santa Catalina Mountains (commonly called Mt.
Lemmon). Most of our local TV stations are on that ridge along with
an observatory belonging to the U of A.
Last summer there was a 30,000+ acre fire that nearly got those
facilities and burned much of the north slope of the range.
This fire, now at 35,000 acres and expected to go to 60,000 before
it's dead, destroyed most (>350) of the buildings in the mountain
village of Summerhaven. The fire also caused a lot of damage to
public service and ham radio repeaters on the top of Mt. Lemmon
proper. Barely spared was the ski area and lifts. Yes, there is
skiing in S. AZ... this is the southern most area in the country.
It is now stated that this one was man-caused, probably some careless
hiker on the Aspen Trail, from which the fire was named.
I have mixed emotions about logging in National Forests. (I'd much
rather lumber came from Plum Creek Timber's forests, since I own stock
in them <G>) There actually is (was) a small sawmill on the mountain.
In fact, I have some Ponderosa Pine timbers in my house that came from
there. But this was a small operation and did not do any major road
building or clear cutting. Certainly the fire suppression that has
been practiced for the last 100 years has been bad policy. BTW, for
those that think AZ is nothing but desert, the largest continous stand
of Pondersoa Pine in the country is in AZ.
It's too bad many people lost their homes and some will not be able to
rebuild since they were on leased Forest Service land. But, they
chose to build wooden houses nestled in dense pine and fir trees and
then plant several hundred gallons of propane in tanks outside. A lot
of fire fighting didn't happen because of the danger of exploding
propane tanks. Some houses did survive right in the middle of the
destruction, because the owners took precautions, and I suspect some
blind luck.
In the meantime, it gets hotter and drier. 107 degrees yesterday in
the Tucson valley.
Regards,
Wes
Richard Harrison
"---you don`t have to go to antenna books for such things
(coupling)---."
Someone might believe Art who implies inductive coupling is superior to
any other without an authoritative definition.
Best rergards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
'Doc
Richard,
Very little risk of that happening. It takes approximately
4 posts from Art to show how much he can be believed...
'Doc
Art Unwin KB9MZ
> bla, bla, bla......
>
> >The
> >trick is ofcourse, is to seduce experts to remove themselves from the
> >box that they have enclosed themselves and to think in a more open
> >'out of the box' fashion which is in direct conflict to prior
> >explanations given both in books and on this forum.
> >
> >Best regards
> >Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG
> >
> >
I don't know why am responding to you but here goes
I am not dumping on Kraus period
The basic priciples on complex circuits with respect to antennas
was casually mentioned by Brown in a paper to an American radio
society.
I am not sure whether the whole paper or just complex part was
rejected
because the experts at that time just couldn't accept the idea.
Kraus mentor I understand was Brown himself and when Kraus wrote a
thesis possibly for a doctorate he slipped this in without to much ado
and this time in went thru thus the W8JK was born. Kraus did not fully
expand on the background of the antenna and rightfully so as his main
requirement was to have his thesis go thru without a hitch. If Kraus
had fully
enlarged on the principles involved and I assume he
understood them where the prior experts could not,
then I am sure that antennas would have undergone many changes.
Kraus ofcourse has gone on to big and better thing and
the underpinnings that Brown referred to did not make
it to the books.
On the 'reflector' business you have blurbed on for more
than a year.
I made that error when writing up the patent, attorneys
are expensive. One a patent is seen by the examiner there
are rules as to what can be changed. In any patent the most
important things are the actual claims and the drawing that
outline thosem claims, my drawings do not reflect the typo
that you keep harping on. The patent offering would have
been 500% better and the claimes more formalised if I had
a patent attorney but my antenna work was a means to
an end to get thru a bad medical patch where I needed
something to get me thru the days and not to impress
people like yourself. Patents were just part of getting
better, I've had patents during my working career so there
was no reason to impress anybody only to satisfy myself.
As I said I don't know why I am explaining myself to you
since you have placed yourself on a roll now that it is
said I have no credability but I am learning to live with
it and to accept it as my health gets better
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG
> It is getting more and more annoying to read musings of F. Art ex G man.
> Must be reincarnation of ancient freaktalental.
>
> Some smart man said, that more you learn, the more you find how little you know
> (or something like that).
>
> Now he is dumping on Kraus, hams who can only use dipole, while he is
> reflecting with directors.
>
> For your edification, hams (VE3BMV) used small shielded loop antenna coupled to
> beverage antenna and the result was beverage directivity and suppression of
> local QRN. This was described in Radiosporting Magazine in late 80s. Lot of
> things were tried, described and used by hams and/or professionals that you
> might be ignorant of.
>
> Looks like limited horizons are affecting the reasoning and spelling faculties
> of this unrecognized shining star on ham radio antenna sky.
>
> Bada Boxed BUm
jaroslav lipka
and it takes just "one" to show you for the clown you are.
Sure sign the thread is coming to an end when you pop up. There
is no chance of you ever getting involved in any thing technical is
there?.
Jaro.
Art Unwin KB9MZ
You are correct the buzzards close in at the end so I'm done
Art
'Doc
After checking back over the past few weeks, I see that
you have only posted in response to two people on this NG.
In neither case was the post 'technical' in nature. In both
cases, your posts was to show dissatisfaction with the poster.
Have you ever heard the old saw about the pot calling the
kettle black?
'Doc
Art Unwin KB9MZ
Doc, you can give but not take
He is correct..When Richard made a snide remark you took the
oportunity to jump in behind him with one too. Nothing technical
you just jumped on the bandwaggon.
And now you complain because somebody jumps on you.
He is correct you NEVER provide any technical insight
only "me to " comments. Well now you have the thread all to
yourself until Richard comes up with something like a new
thread but with the same title again....and again...and again.
Bye Bye
Art KB9MZ..XG
Dick Carroll;
Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Art did you stop to consider that if it's time for the buzards what must be left of the original?