EVERY THING IS NOW KNOWN ON ANTENNAS.
Art Unwin KB9MZ
dear friend
N3CBW and another quite famous ham who gives propagation forcasts for
a magazine, talked about antennas and my close friend related that I
had just
demonstrated a new multiband antenna in his basement and a tired
comment was made that such an antenna was badly needed in ham radio
and then left the subject as if such a thing was impossible.( probably
heard it to many times before)
In a later conversation with Mr Hately of E/H antenna fame he told me
that he was not allowed to present a paper at a professional
convention.
So he aproached a professor of a major university to review his work
and got the retort that 'Antennas are the most widely discussed and
investigated subject in the world and there is nothing 'new' to be
found'.
Later I had a conversation with a professor in Illinois who is widely
known for devising the log periodic antenna and he was my age and his
discovery ws not that old.
So this begs the question. Can we safely rely on the present day books
as being totally inclusive of the science such that if we memorise
them we have every thing covered? Not knocking the excellent
publications provided by the ARRL which I use all the time, I am
looking at the prevailing attitudes on the subject.!
Years ago the U.S. government proposed closing the Patent office as
every thing
that could be invented has now been noted!!
Can we really say that about antennas and thus clamp a heavy hand on
experimentation and the future of the hobby?
Can we safely poo hoo any new future antenna break thru
with a possible impact of the Yagi on the hobby because it is not in
the final book on antennas? Is this why there is hostility to those
who continue to experiment with the 'new' such as Hately,Fractenna and
commercial manufacturers
who try to push further the envelope of knowledge?
Po hooing makes an excellent discussion for a group on 80 metres as
all can join in on the laughter, but does it help the hobby that has
given all of us so much joy, that we hope we can pass on to future
generations?
Think about the aproach we are taking by boo hoo ing new ideas and the
lofty aproach that one must present it to experts for aproval before
any discussion becomes worthwhile. We are just falling over each other
to persuade possible new hams and the old to pursue the hobby of
computors to the exclusion of amateur radio and stodgy thoughts as my
son did after getting his general license.
Think about it, comments are very welcome as I consider antennas to
be part of the glue that holds us to this hobby. Even as important as
SWR meters.
'Doc
The 'po hoo'ers perform as much service to the hobby
as the people who experiment with 'new' antenna designs.
How can you possibly 'prove' a new antenna idea by only
having positive, or supportive comments? You also need
the people who try to disprove it.
'Doc
William F. Hagen
is new technology, an improvement of science, then it will survive the peer
review process and can be published in respected journals.
CAM
> Think about it, comments are very welcome as I consider antennas to
> be part of the glue that holds us to this hobby. Even as important as
> SWR meters.
Art, for something revolutionary to happen, the existing laws of physics
would have to be found wanting. The existing laws of physics are found
wanting quite often, e.g. Einstein improved over Newton and apparently
quantum physics is improving over Einstein. What is needed for a
revolution in antennas is someone improving the existing accepted
EM physics theories and implementing those improvements in reality.
Until someone can demonstrate that the accepted physics governing EM
antennas is inadequate, most of us will continue to be skeptical of
claims that lie outside that body of physics. Any new antenna that lies
inside the present body of physics is not revolutionary and is merely
evolutionary, by definition. There are, no doubt, some evolutionary
antennas yet to be developed but they probably won't be a big deal.
--
cheers, CAM http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
W.G Ewald
>In a later conversation with Mr Hately of E/H antenna fame he told me
>that he was not allowed to present a paper at a professional
>convention.
>So he aproached a professor of a major university to review his work
>and got the retort that 'Antennas are the most widely discussed and
>investigated subject in the world and there is nothing 'new' to be
>found'.
What department was this professor in?
Richard Harrison
"---a tired comment was made that such an antenna (a new multiband
antenna) was badly needed in ham radio and then left the subject as if
such a thing was impossible---."
If antenna development had kept pace with electronics during the past 50
years, a near d-c to daylight radiator would fit in the palm of your
hand, have continuously selectable directivity from a 2-degree spot to
isotropic, have 95% efficiency, accept a kilowatt continuous power
without degradation, and present a flat 50-ohm resistance to the source
over the entire spectrum. It would readily radiate, of course.
Antenna performance is far short of ideal, so don`t close the patent
office just yet.
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
Ian White, G3SEK
>The existing laws of physics are found wanting quite often, e.g.
>Einstein improved over Newton and apparently quantum physics is
>improving over Einstein. What is needed for a revolution in antennas is
>someone improving the existing accepted EM physics theories and
>implementing those improvements in reality.
>
For a huge range of everyday situations, Einstein's equations simplify
down to good old Newtonian mechanics, because the relativistic terms for
those situations are negligible. The "improvements" that Einstein made
were to identify the limits where Newtonian mechanics start to become
inaccurate, and explain those using his new theory. But inside those
limits, Einstein actually *confirmed* Newton's laws of motion.
Much the same relationship holds between Maxwell's equations, which are
deeply rooted in classical physics, and more modern approaches such as
quantum electrodynamics. The modern approaches actually *confirm* where
Maxwell's equations still hold good - and that certainly includes radio
antennas.
That's probably what Art's professors meant by "Everything is now known
about antennas." That's a fair viewpoint, because Maxwell had the basic
science all nailed down before radio and antennas were even invented!
Antenna engineering is all about finding new ways of using the existing
basic science.
>Until someone can demonstrate that the accepted physics governing EM
>antennas is inadequate, most of us will continue to be skeptical of
>claims that lie outside that body of physics.
That skepticism is very well justified, given the millions of antennas
that do work according to accepted physics.
It's worth noting that even the CFA is not claiming to be totally new
science - it's only claiming to be a new way of interpreting Maxwell's
equations, and building a device to use this new interpretation. The
counter-argument is that it isn't a valid interpretation, and therefore
the CFA can't work; and the more reliable measurements confirm that
indeed it doesn't.
>Any new antenna that lies inside the present body of physics is not
>revolutionary and is merely evolutionary, by definition. There are, no
>doubt, some evolutionary antennas yet to be developed but they probably
>won't be a big deal.
Well, no big deal if you're determined not to be impressed. Fortunately
there are still plenty of clever things to be done. Come on, surprise
us... just don't pretend it's new physics.
--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
J. Harvey
> "...there is nothing 'new' to be found."
Yeah right...
*Switch mode antennas*
A radiator interspersed with numerous optically-controlled switches. The
switches are something like (?) especially-designed ultrahigh speed FET
switches where the gate is fed by a thin strand of 'fiber optic' fiber
carrying pulses of light that control the on/off state of each switch. The
antenna element would have many such switches and many fibers running down
to the control system. The control system would have to be predictive
(obviously). Trivial.
The basic idea is that the electrical length of the antenna element could be
dynamically controlled.
By using "switch mode power supply" and "power factor correction"
techniques, even the input impedance could be controlled. That's a neat
trick !
When using a long element and a very short burst of very high frequency RF
(so that the wavelength is much shorter than the element), the pulse of RF
could even be trapped and its reflections controlled until it had finished
radiating. Not much good for most applications, but who knows ? Maybe
Ultra Wideband (UWB) radar ?
Yes, I know that the processing and control would have to be very fast -
much faster than the RF itself. What are the chances that technology in
that realm would advance ? ;-)
A good name for this technology might be the "Joint Tactical Antenna
Project".
:-)
Art Unwin KB9MZ
> Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
> > Think about it, comments are very welcome as I consider antennas to
> > be part of the glue that holds us to this hobby. Even as important as
> > SWR meters.
>
> Art, for something revolutionary to happen, the existing laws of physics
> would have to be found wanting. The existing laws of physics are found
> wanting quite often, e.g. Einstein improved over Newton and apparently
> quantum physics is improving over Einstein. What is needed for a
> revolution in antennas is someone improving the existing accepted
> EM physics theories and implementing those improvements in reality.
>
> Until someone can demonstrate that the accepted physics governing EM
> antennas is inadequate, most of us will continue to be skeptical of
> claims that lie outside that body of physics. Any new antenna that lies
> inside the present body of physics is not revolutionary and is merely
> evolutionary, by definition. There are, no doubt, some evolutionary
> antennas yet to be developed but they probably won't be a big deal.
Cecil, I understand where you are coming from but to have a reflex
action
that any idea will not work is not good for the hobby. 73 magazine was
tremendously succesful when it printed different antenna designs some
of which may had dubious claims but it would appear that many hams are
still interested in those who try to find the perfect antenna. In my
case I and my family in the U.K. and aussie land helped me to the tune
of several thousand dollars in my endeaver.
After I obtained a patent I went to my peers which was this thread to
discuss it.
As you know I was poo hoo'd a few years ago same as I am being now.
Some say building a good product and every one will come running.
If you have the money to go all the way over a length of time you will
surely be attacked by those on this group who I consider experts.
Fractenna was blasted
because his was a 'new' idea yet all forgot what possible advantages
it presented.But this thread did attempt to supply reasons based on
known theory
to debunk statements made by some. Same with Hately and others, an
endless stream of reasons backed by solid physics why it couln't work.
In my case no one has debunked the basic theory. None have shown that
in the physics world it cannot meet claims. Even in the poll none of
the known experts
has entered an opinion. Is it because they don't know and cannot
refute my claims or frightened to give what eventualy may be proved
incorrect.
Nobody has denounced me as a fraud or guilty of ignoring the laws of
physics.
Who among you can clearly describe what happens when two resonant
members
are placed close to each other with clarity and based on the laws of
physics?
Ofcourse I am possesive of the antenna despite the statement of one
person
that I must prove all to him. This is an antenna discussion group
populated
by many clever people who give much of them selves to the hobby and to
which I came to discuss that what I had worked on for several years.
All I asked for was for an explanation of why the antenna could give
me so many advantages over the norm but all minds are closed. Even
yourself stated that 'anything new will not amount to much'.
Fortunately two experts have come forward with no pre-ordained ideas
to examine the basics of the antenna which I will share with all
regardless whether they are positive or negative. I also know that no
one MUST supply an answer, but if they chose to do so I would expect
an answer that matches known physics. If an expert voted negatively or
positively I would have a link as to why.Is it good for me, no.
Is it good for ham radio, No. Is expementation to be squashed because
all is known..No. Should we strike at the messenger because of what he
holds in his hands?Apparently yes.Who is the first person who will
come forward to refute that two resonant circuits when placed close to
each other cannot produce
a quarsi collinear radiation pattern based on solid physics? Am I as a
member of the ham fraternity not worthy to present such a question. Am
I as a ham allowed to refute statements in the handbook that bases
collinear gain on the clearance
between dipoles instead of the distance between current maxima or must
I be a name to make such challenges? Am I going to be trashed based on
opinion that has no basis in physics. So again I say why are we all so
antagonistic and opinionated before the fact when seeing results of
experiments, I challenged all
to examine what I offered with the hope that I would be corrected in
my
thoughts based on physics, so why are all, experts or otherwise,
refraining to supply facts that refute what I claim? Most have done so
in the past on other
innovators yet somehow all are timid on the subject of two resonant
circuits
co joined.
Why don't you Cecil, who is knowledgable in the antenna arts, start
the ball rolling as to what happens or can happen when the two
circuits are co-joined with respect to radiation ?
Please, Pretty please.... If you do, then maybe other knowlegable
people will comment if only to refute what you have said which they
often do.
Let's face it, I obtained a patent,I and others have reproduced what I
claimed.
The University of Illinois confirmed my results. I placed an
explanation on the web via a page, I have stated links in antenna
books that seemingly confirm the
physics aspect.So I have done as much as I can do prior to presenting
it here. What else can I do to offer for debate on this thread
populated by many antenna experts. How many hoops do I have to jump
thru or how many thousands of dollars more do I have to spend to get
the attention of my peers?
Warmest regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ
I suspect sporadic fighting will now occur.
Yes the sporatics are at it again, beware Punchinello
CAM
> Why don't you Cecil, who is knowledgable in the antenna arts, start
> the ball rolling as to what happens or can happen when the two
> circuits are co-joined with respect to radiation ?
I've already done that, Art, years ago. When I was in Arizona, I
designed a quad that had only one driven element, thus solving the
multiple loop or multiple feedline problems with multi-band quads.
The driven element was a full-wave loop on 17m. I had three resonant
reflectors and the two-element quad worked well on 20m, 17m, and 15m.
It was fed with ladder-line. There's nothing new about mutual
coupling. I haven't been closely following your particular configuration
but it sounded like you had a non-resonant length driven element and
a resonant parasitic element just as I did above. Is that right?
Art Unwin KB9MZ
You are so right doc,Ibut is it unreasonable to ask for structured
answers?
Many will suggest that I write it up even tho i have given talks at
hamfests
including one sponsered by the arrl Looking over my recent e mail on
this discussion I came across one from a known ,kind and polite
gentleman with tremendous credentials in the field. He suggested that
the next hoop I should jump thru was to attend a community college and
take classes in effective communication and then consider writing it
up.....seems reasonable.
In my working career with G.E. a senior vice president suggested to
the manager
of the plant that I worked ,that I would be more effective to GE if my
talents
was used as a technical writer instead of a senior engineer. At that
time a 100 engineers were laid off and I was one of the remaining five
so I can assume his statement was not based on lack of engineering
talent ( just a statement, I am not blowing my horn)
The ravages of time and illnesses together with a wonky keyboard
changes all as we get older, as all can see. But even if I take the
given advice the odds are the ARRL will refuse it according to the
many complaints I've heard. Heck I can't even get it past this group
and since I am getting out of my sixties I will probably be dead
before I could even see the light at the end of the tunnel! So give me
a break guys,s some invested good money based on my thought
and I need to explain to them why I was wrong. Also why I refused a
entreprenuers offer to totally finance it because I wanted to be sure
that my claims were solid and ethical where many manufacturers were
otherwise.
This is not about money now, it is about reaching finality in what I
still believe is a very viable antenna of which I have made many. So
cut me some slack guys, look at what I have shown you, the patents,
the clear descriptions in the Arrl book for associated resonant
antennas that I alluded to e.t.c.Plus
a good look at the associated physics on which you base your
conclusions so that we all can debate the plusses and negs or where
the experts say that I have wandered from theories accepted in
academia. Yes, I am being personal with this antenna but I want to
share it with all because I firmly believe in it. Please don't give me
another hoop to jump thru.
Best regards
Art Un win KB9MZ
Richard Harrison
"Who among you can clearly describe what happens when two resonant
members are placed close to each other with clarity and based on the
laws of physics?"
That is the proponent`s job, Art.
The dipole and loop are coupled, Art has implied. The loop is the feed
mechanism we have been told. If so, the dipole and loop have a mutual
impedance. This can be determined as a voltage to current ratio (Ohm`s
law) by measuring the current in one member caused by voltage across the
other member, or vice versa.
This is textbook stuff. you can determine a coefficient of coupling,
etc. but if you have an antenna, measurement takes the place of
prediction. See if you have a double humped response and whether it
comes from stagger tuning, overcoupling, or both.
It is, unfortunately perhaps, up to the proponent of a novelty to make
the case for it, unless the world knows it is desperate for the novelty
and makes a grab for it as a drowning man might grasp for a straw.
Leland Cox
Hams and others have developed a bunch of ideas to shorten or make
antennas multiband. But there hasn't been a breakthrough in antennas in
years. This has not kept up with radios and computer technology at all.
Maybe we already know everything or just do not have enough people
working on the problem!
Les, AA4F
>
George, W5YR
*amateur* radio operators as the prevailing body that must pass judgement
on your antenna for it to have any merit or value?
You claim a new invention, have a patent (I think you said) but evidently
you are now just sitting around and writing complaints to the newsgroup
because no one is jumping up and down with enthusiasm.
I guess I am most disturbed by your continued pleas for someone (an
"authority") to explain to you and the world what you have and how it
works. I may be wrong but it seems to me that you should be teaching *us*
about your ideas and explaining to us how your antenna works and what is
can do, etc.
I think it is more than unfair to the list for you to expect us to justify
your concepts and authenticate your methods. That is *your* responsibility,
not ours.
Why are you not disclosing this in the professional journals under
peer-review? Why are you not pursuing the manufacture and sale of this
antenna? Why is the approval of this particular group so important that its
absence or at least deferral stands in your way of progressing in your own
business?
I mean no disrespect but I just cannot equate your enthusiasm for your
invention with your reluctance to do anything about it except complain to
the members of this newsgroup about their attitudes and lack of support.
A major stumbling block, to be very frank, is that after having read all
your postings, I still cannot begin to imagine what you are talking about,
and I do have some background and education in the business. So, I am
unable to comment one way or the other on what you are presenting as I
simply cannot understand what you are trying to describe. I suspect many
others share that position.
Finally, gaining the support of this group may work wonders for your
self-confidence and morale, but as far as helping to further your
professional image or serving as a lever for venture capital to manufacture
these antennas, I am afraid that you are looking in the wrong direction.
Get some professional help to write a definitive analysis and description
of your antenna. Get it informally peer-reviewed to catch the easy stuff.
Then submit it to the appropriate professional journal(s) and let the
scientific community do its thing. If validation is forthcoming, you are
there. If not, at least you will have solid critiques to guide you in the
sequel.
Then, come tell us what a wonderful antenna you have, how it works, and how
much one will cost! <:}
All the best, Art. No one means you any ill will - we just can't follow
what you are saying or why you are so dependent upon us.
73/72/oo, George W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas
Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13qe
Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 56th year and it just keeps getting better!
QRP-L 1373 NETXQRP 6 SOC 262 COG 8 FPQRP 404 TEN-X 11771 I-LINK 11735
Icom IC-756PRO #02121 Kachina 505 DSP #91900556 Icom IC-765 #02437
W.G Ewald
>Fractenna was blasted
>because his was a 'new' idea yet all forgot what possible advantages
>it presented.
Have you forgotten the bizarre behavior that Fracky displayed?
Who could forget the claimed advantages when he went on about them
endlessly?
Have you looked at Richard Clark's page, or the article in March 2002
QEX.
Art Unwin KB9MZ
> On 10 Aug 2002 17:59:28 -0700, aun...@fgi.net (Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote:
>
> >Fractenna was blasted
> >because his was a 'new' idea yet all forgot what possible advantages
> >it presented.
>
> Have you forgotten the bizarre behavior that Fracky displayed?
did get discussion of his ideas and tho I did not agree with some of
his statements,
The basic idea of a fractal antenna impressed me because it worked.
Because it was not economic or failed in some areas was not primary
for me,the basic idea worked and it gave new avenues for hams to
search.
>
> Who could forget the claimed advantages when he went on about them
> endlessly?
I was looking for that that 'did' workand was interested in those
facets that explained why some didn't work. I had no interest in
taking up the opportunity to join the lemmings whose main aim was to
crusify him.
>
> Have you looked at Richard Clark's page, or the article in March 2002
No. but I know he looked at my page years ago as I did his. The work
he showed was beyond my understanding, seemingly so far more advanced
in educative value.
But I am angry at his continual lack of respect to me over the years
of which I have been unable to escape from, so I reply with the same
kind of respect.
There is no doubt that he is superior to me in interlect but I refuse
to accept
that I am a fool that does not deserve request. If he treats me ina
professional way I will do so the same way with him and put the past
behind.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG.
> QEX.
Rick Littlefield
>Fractenna was blasted because his was a 'new' idea yet all forgot what
possible advantages it presented.<
In my view, fractenna was blasted not for "his new idea", but for his bombastic
misuse of the antenna newsgroup. The fractal debate continues, albeit less
dramatically these days, through the IEEE were a small community of interested
researchers explore both the "possible advantages" and the inherent
disadvantages of fractal radiators. Fortunately, when you play at their house,
you are expected to behave yourself and keep your fingers out of your nose.
Rick K1BQT
Art Unwin KB9MZ
> Art, KB9MZ wrote:
> "Who among you can clearly describe what happens when two resonant
> members are placed close to each other with clarity and based on the
> laws of physics?"
>
> That is the proponent`s job, Art.
>
>
> This is textbook stuff. you can determine a coefficient of coupling,
> etc. but if you have an antenna, measurement takes the place of
> prediction. See if you have a double humped response and whether it
> comes from stagger tuning, overcoupling, or both.
>
>
> Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
Thank you, thank you, thank you, for getting back to basics.
I will say again, I have no money motivation in all this. I do not
believe I have broken any law of physics and I have not "invented"
anything new. It was there all the time but people have ignored it
presumably because it has been presented poorly in a too technical
way, or nobody has connected the two articles that I presented as
links with their accompanying explanations in the relevant antenna
books.
So let me cut it down to as few lines as possible
to make it easier for all to refute.
# 1. Accepted law. F1 +/- F2 =F3
# 2. Accepted fact.
A resonant loop ca be made resonate at other
frequencies by the addition of a capacitor
# 3. When two resonant circuits are placed close
together which is called coupling it can
change the frequency at the point of coupling.
#4. If you drive a portion of one of these two
resonant circuits with a particular frequency
it will radiate a signeal of the same frequency.
# 5 If the other resonant structure which is coupled
receives energy it will either null radiation
from that portion or radiate at a frequency
in accordance to law #1 shown above.
.
# 6. The resulting current pattern will comprise
first of a pattern expected for the injected
signal but ONLY upto the point of actual oupling.
# 7 The coupled portion will will have zero to little
current flowe at a different frequency and thus
will not radiate in a similar way as the uncoupled
co-joined elements
# 8 The final current curve for the whole structure
will comprise of TWO POINTS OF CURRENT MAXIMA
which provides for COLLINEAR GAINS collinear
gains over a dipole of it same over all
electrical length.
What laws of physics have I broken ?
Best regards to you Richard.
The question that I have raised is pointed at the
whole group and I thank you personaly for keeping
an open mind ispite of the agravations that I may
have unintentially imposed . If there is something
even tho small is proved in the above then ham radio
will benefit.
Art Unwin...... XG
The 'Un Win' antenna as opposed to 'Un Cola' or
to the 'WIN' logo that seems to be all over the place.
Art Unwin KB9MZ
> Art, with all respect, why must you depend upon and regard this group of
> *amateur* radio operators as the prevailing body that must pass judgement
> on your antenna for it to have any merit or value?
>
> You claim a new invention, have a patent (I think you said) but evidently
> you are now just sitting around and writing complaints to the newsgroup
> because no one is jumping up and down with enthusiasm.
>
> I guess I am most disturbed by your continued pleas for someone (an
> "authority") to explain to you and the world what you have and how it
> works. I may be wrong but it seems to me that you should be teaching *us*
> about your ideas and explaining to us how your antenna works and what is
> can do, etc.
>
thought was
a normal E mail.
Could I bother you with a request to send the response as a posting
tyo share with others on the thread?
I am becomming more and more computor illiterate and have yet to learn
how to paste. I am also quite busy trying to determine if I can afford
to move to
Menopause Hotel, a diapidated building in Billoxi, Mississippi which
concentrates on supplying personal care to those who believe they are
losing
their sanity.
Regards
Art
Richard Harrison
"#1. Accepted law. F1 +/- F2 = F3.
"5. If the other resonant structure which is coupled receives energy it
will either null radiation from that portion or radiate in accordance to
law #1 shown above."
Art`s #1 seems to be the heterodyne story of sum and difference mixing
products. This requires a non-linear circuit (a loop doesn`t qualify),
maybe a mixer such as a diode.
Art`s #5 seems to correctly indicate a coupled radiation structure
producing destructive interference (in some direction, which means it
also produces constructive interference in another direction), or it can
produce sum and difference frequencies.
Coupled radiators produce a directional pattern. They usually are linear
and so they do not produce mixing. Combined radiation from coupled
radiators is limited to the exciting frequency(s).
The frequencies mentioned in bandwidth specifications are limits at
which the antenna signal level is reduced to an arbitrary level, often 3
db below the best level, or half the maximum power in the best
direction.
This means that when the antenna is excited at the limit frequency
instead of it`s maximum gain frequency, its response will be down by the
arbitrary amount. This has nothing to do with the antenna generating
extra frequencies when excited.
Peter O. Brackett
I second everything that you said here below...
[snip]
[snip]
No one that I recall ever blasted Chip et al for "new ideas". What was
"blasted" and what deserved to be
blasted was the blatant abuse of USENET NG's to promulgate half-truths about
the supposed advances in Science!
About the only thing that was "new" that Dr. Cohen a.k.a. "Chip" et all have
introduced is nothing more nor less than
the application of the already known methods of mathematical optimization,
known as Genetic Algorithms "GA" coupled
the already known techniques of Simulated Anealing "SA", wherein fractal
geometries are used to generate the
"pattern searches" for the search patterns in the design optimization of
antennas.
Certainly no new "Electromagnetic Science" was developed by those
protagonists [Fractal Electromagnetics, heh, heh??],
rather they have, dare I say "merely", applied an already well known method
of mathematical optimization, to the design of
antennas which are completely characterized by the nearly 200 year old
science first fully elucidated by James Clerk Maxwell.
In the application of GA and SA to antenna design, they "might" be the
"first" to do so, but that is a breakthrough only in the
application of already well known methods of mathematical optimization, to a
new application domain [antennas]. And still
ther was never any attempt to prove or show that the resultant designs were
globally optimum or even better than other
nearby local optimum designs.
The "bombatic misuse" is found in their attempt to convince those not
familiar with methods of mathematical optimization that there
was something "new" in the antennas themselves. Whereas it was only the
design method that was new. It is easy to "blind em with
Science" when the readers are simple ham radio USENET NG participants, or
others without prior experience, training or knowledge
of the well known methods of mathematical optimization. Such methods have
been widely used in many other fields, such as the
design of VLSI circuit layouts, the design of entropy compression codes for
images, etc... What the "fractal electromagnetics"
protagonists have done is to apply these already well known methods to
antenna design.
What they have done is nothing more nor less than the application of well
known mathematical optimization techniques, already developed
for applications in other fields, to the design of antennas. And... they
have *never* shown or proved that their chosen methods of
optimization are guaranteed to produce a global optimum, or even to be
better than the results produced by other methods of mathematical
optimization.
There was never any attempt by the protagonists, but lots of false claims to
the contrary, to prove that their design methods, or final designs
were better [more optimum?] than any other approach to the mathematical
optimization of antennas. This was certainly made clear by Steve
Best when he accepted the $1000 Challenge and quite easily generated antenna
designs using "random" pattern search methods, with
performance, on already agreed figures of merit, that exceeded those
obtained by the fractal search methods of mathematical optimization.
Steve Best has shown that the "optimum" designs obtained by the fractal
methods of searching are at *best* merely "local" optima, which are
not as good as other nearby "local optima" and certainly not global optima!
In summary, the only thing that Chip et al have shown with their fractal
antenna work is that it is possible to use fractal mathematics
to generate the sequence of antenna designs, within a conventional
mathematical optimization loop, to be searched for a "local"
design optimum. As such... it is an "interesting" application of known
methods of mathematical optimization, but not a breakthrough
in electromagnetics.
The attempts to throw others off the track and claims of "intellectual
property" protection which go far beyond the simple
copyright or patent of a given antenna design [A design patent rather than
a concept patent] are absurd to say the least.
But... Hey... this is America... if you can fool some of the people some of
the time then you have the right to go ahead... but those who
are knowledgeable of the methods of mathematical optimization and of the
working principles of antennas were not, and are not,
impressed one iota, notwithstanding such absurd claims.
And so... Art Unwin... Fractal Antennas do not violate, or improve upon, any
of the well known Physics of electromagnetics, what they
are is simply the result of applying a mathematical optimization technique
to the design, i.e. a tools and methodology of design application.
For those who might be interested in learning more about the generic methods
of mathematical optimization which can be applied to
many application domain areas see the mathematical optimization decision
tree at the URL below.
http://www-fp.mcs.anl.gov/otc/Guide/OptWeb/
Best Regards,
--Peter K1PO
Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL.
Peter O. Brackett
[snip]
"'Doc" <w5...@icok.net> wrote in message news:3D553853...@icok.net...
[snip]
Bravo Doc... That's the basis of the several hundred year old "Scientific
Method". Go scientific method! Let's not discourage rational po poohing!
The Scientific Method is not crucification! Rather it is a method of
validation of ideas.
For those small dogs who decry the questions recall the small dog in the
scenario, "If you can't run with the big dogs then stay on the porch!"
The world of Science is, and has always been, populated by big dogs who have
the God given right to challenge assertions and ask questions, regardless of
the "qualifications" of the protagonists.
Such questioning must never be repressed!
Best,
Art Unwin KB9MZ
> Art, KB9MZ wrote:
> "#1. Accepted law. F1 +/- F2 = F3.
>
> "5. If the other resonant structure which is coupled receives energy it
> will either null radiation from that portion or radiate in accordance to
> law #1 shown above."
>
> Art`s #1 seems to be the heterodyne story of sum and difference mixing
> products.
This requires a non-linear circuit (a loop doesn`t qualify),
> maybe a mixer such as a diode.
> Art`s #5 seems to correctly indicate a coupled radiation structure
> producing destructive interference (in some direction, which means it
> also produces constructive interference in another direction), or it can
> produce sum and difference frequencies.
>
> Coupled radiators produce a directional pattern. They usually are linear
> and so they do not produce mixing. Combined radiation from coupled
> radiators is limited to the exciting frequency(s).
> The frequencies mentioned in bandwidth specifications are limits at
> which the antenna signal level is reduced to an arbitrary level, often 3
> db below the best level, or half the maximum power in the best
> direction.
>
> This means that when the antenna is excited at the limit frequency
> instead of it`s maximum gain frequency, its response will be down by the
> arbitrary amount. This has nothing to do with the antenna generating
> extra frequencies when excited.
Is statement # 5 correct or incorrect as it stands, disregarding
jumps or conjecture as to how it is applied ?
I would rather consider the the correctness of the basic
physics rules rather that shooting all different directions
regarding the correctness of application. I was asked by someone to
dish this thing out at ONE portion at a time. If we don't it it will
lead to total confusion among the many on this thread and the silent
readers that are watching. Once we get an understanding of the basic
principles that I have applied in my work we can then determine if my
use of these laws are used correctly by me or not.
Everybody has a picture of the antenna, so when we agree on the first
part we can then debate the antenna ONE step at a time. This will not
satisfy all but overall I believe the request to be a good one and
thus I will try to follow it so that all are on the same wavelength.
You might want to model it as we go along which will give insights to
the antenna which we can refer to at a later date.
Bearing in mind that many say they 'just can't follow' this thing, a
fresh start
is in order with the first part focussing on the laws of physics as
stated to see if the basic statements are correct or incorrect which
may or may not
spiral off to a more indepth discussion before moving on. At least we
can start off with a program that all can follow.
I have made arrangements to have a 'news' article placed on the net
regarding this antenna. It was thought it may that in some way promote
the thing, but at the last interview I said to the reporter that I
felt the topic will not be of interest to his readers which to my
surprise he turned to me and said
"Art, this is NOT about antennas, this is about YOU".
Some may find this of interest as many others did who contacted me
from as far away as a ham in Colorado and the East Coast. It shows a
photo of me that was touched up to remove the horns!
I will give the URL out tomorrow or the next day as I have to Fed X
the article
to my son in San Diego to do what needs to be done.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ
Richard Harrison
"When you say "story" are you refuting the correctness of #1?"
No slam intended. "Story" is shorter than "process" by two letters.
There are true stories as well as false. Short words clarify
presentation if well chosen. I may have made a poor choice if #1 is
correct. "Story" was not meant to be derogatory.
Nw If Art really was implying a heterodyne process without a mixer, I
say it does not exist.
#1 would be irrelevant.
Art also wrote:
"Is statement #5 correct or incorrect as it stands---?"
I don`t know what #5 means. A coupled structure will produce a null in
conjuction with another radiator. The depth and direction of the null(s)
are dependent on amplitude and phase of currents in the radiator
elements. Art offers two possibilities in #5. The first is incomplete
because a null is offered as the only outcome. The other possibility
relies upon F1 and F2 producing F3 which is nonsense.
Mark Keith
> still believe is a very viable antenna of which I have made many. So
> cut me some slack guys, look at what I have shown you, the patents,
> the clear descriptions in the Arrl book for associated resonant
> antennas that I alluded to e.t.c.Plus
> a good look at the associated physics on which you base your
> conclusions so that we all can debate the plusses and negs or where
> the experts say that I have wandered from theories accepted in
> academia. Yes, I am being personal with this antenna but I want to
> share it with all because I firmly believe in it. Please don't give me
> another hoop to jump thru.
> Best regards
> Art Un win KB9MZ
Dunno Art, I think it's the other way around. You are giving us hoops
to jump through. I was looking at your webpage and the ZZ1 antenna,
And I'm still not sure what you are using. From that picture, it looks
like you have two dipole elements, each with a cap. Is that right? I
modeled only a single dipole element. I never remember you mentioning
using two dipole elements. You mention two caps in that ZZ1. I never
modeled two caps, much less two parallel dipole elements. I then read
through the text on the website, and I still end up basically confused
as there is no real description of a particular antenna. You talk of
adding a second element. All this time, I thought we were using a
single dipole element? I haven't seen your patent, as I don't ever
remember seeing a link, or a name to look up for it. So I don't know
about the others, but at this point, I'm still confused as heck about
what antenna you are even talking about. The AO list does not do me
much good at all, because I don't have AO. Does the patent have a
decent picture to where I can see exactly what you are talking about?
You are making us jump through hoops, Art. Yes, two parallel dipoles
can be steered. But all this time, I thought you were talking about a
single dipole element. When I first saw the ZZ1 antenna, I thought you
were drawing two pictures of the same single element but with
different views..But, now I'm not so sure.
It seems to me it would have been much easier for you if you modeled
this yourself using a popular program such as eznec, even if you had
to get someone else to do it for you. That way, you can hand out the
ez file, and everyone can see the antenna, and see for themselves how
it models, and judge if it's accurate, or even make one themselves to
try in the real world. There would be no confusion as there is now.
But, you are wanting us to do this, "I've made two already myself",
and I still don't know for sure what in the heck I'm really supposed
to be making. I don't mind modeling something, but it's a waste of my
time to keep modeling the wrong antenna. I can't read your mind. You
need to get your ducks in a row first. That way you can debate the
thing in an orderly military manner. It's more like helter skelter the
way things have been going. I hope you take this as friendy
criticism...No flaming intended. MK
Art Unwin KB9MZ
> "Art Unwin KB9MZ" quoted some dumb bunny...
> > "...there is nothing 'new' to be found."
>
> Yeah right...
>
> *Switch mode antennas*
>
> A radiator interspersed with numerous optically-controlled switches. The
> switches are something like (?) especially-designed ultrahigh speed FET
>
> The basic idea is that the electrical length of the antenna element could be
> dynamically controlled.
***************
If one has a constant impedance which is what my antenna revolves
around
then you wiil always control the electrical lengths of the electrical
length.
*****************
> By using "switch mode power supply" and "power factor correction"
> techniques, even the input impedance could be controlled.
>That's a neat trick !
>
****************************
I do not know whether you are pulling my leg or not, but here are my
comments
on what you have written.
ALL multi frequency anteenas should an impedance that is controlled.
A good example is a loop or even a trapped dipole, to not do so
requires extra means to obtain a good/usable SWR.
"Trick" is not what I call a good use of the term. It is done all the
time!
The antenna that I describe revolves around constant impedance and
control of the electrical length, it would not be succesful
otherwise.And as Peter Bracket
stated somewhere, the outcome MUST be predictable both in action and
also on
mathematical ground.( The man must be an engineer) If it is not then
the use of the term "trick" would be suitable.
I say again 'the antenna' is not new, I have invented nothing.All i am
doing is presenting a concept that meets most amateur requirements
Your 'tactical....
antenna seems awfully complex to me. As with the physical shape of 'my
dipole'
and the mathematics that go with it all is simple enough to follow by
all hams who have a basic license. And that's how I like it rather
than vague claims
that are often made by many.
Yes Peter, you are absolutely correct. If it cannot be proved
mathematically
then we have an enigma wrapped up in a mystery paper and we can
declare that
'The Emporer is not wearing clothes!"
Best Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG.
Art Unwin KB9MZ
> aun...@fgi.net (Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote in message
> > This is not about money now, it is about reaching finality in what I
> > still believe is a very viable antenna of which I have made many. So
> > cut me some slack guys, look at what I have shown you, the patents,
> > the clear descriptions in the Arrl book for associated resonant
> > antennas that I alluded to e.t.c.Plus
> > a good look at the associated physics on which you base your
> > conclusions so that we all can debate the plusses and negs or where
> > the experts say that I have wandered from theories accepted in
> > academia. Yes, I am being personal with this antenna but I want to
> > share it with all because I firmly believe in it. Please don't give me
> > another hoop to jump thru.
> > Best regards
> > Art Un win KB9MZ
>
> Dunno Art, I think it's the other way around. You are giving us hoops
> to jump through. I was looking at your webpage and the ZZ1 antenna,
> And I'm still not sure what you are using. From that picture, it looks
> like you have two dipole elements, each with a cap. Is that right? I
> modeled only a single dipole element.
the
> thing in an orderly military manner. It's more like helter skelter the
> way things have been going. I hope you take this as friendy
> criticism...No flaming intended. MK
No. Of course not, you are friendly and you have followed pretty good.
Sometime one strays from the task at hand to answer a question which
can then confuse others who thought they had things corectly.
Let me try it again and you can use your EZNEC which I have not used
and model the following:
A twenty metre length dipole unbroken at its center.
Feeding method should be a delta match I.E. two connection points
about the center which tapers down to to a feed point commonly used to
reduce a high impedance to a low impedance.
Hopefully you followe that as it is pretty standard.
Now place in close proximity say an inch away from the center of the
previous
dipole, a loop antenna which is variable with the use of a capacitor,
usually in the range of 5 to 60 pF when looking at the range 14 to 30
Mhz.,
This is reshaped or squeezed to form an oblong ( very inefficient)
with the long side of the oblong parallel to and about the center of
the dipole.( put the oblong on the other side from the delta match to
make things easier)
With the above you have two resonant circuits which are loosly coupled
to each other.
Now to some this would be no sweat but it may be a hurdle to you.
If we move the oblong shaped loop so the long side touches and become
one
common electrical length which provides for one antenna, dipole
shaped, with a parallel cuicuit at it's center. On the other side we
have the delta match connected.
Now we can model it as a single antenna where the object is to radiate
bidirectionally and where the capacitor provides for a constant
impedance at the feed point through out any portion of the range
provided by the now co-joined loop in a similar fashion it would do
separately and away from other radiating members.
So now you must look at the possible variables as follows:
We are striving for a constan impedance around which every thing
revolves
As I said in another posting, to use the range of capacitor given if
you go to the charts it will provide for a common reactance, 250 ohm
seems a good choice
thought you can go higher or lower depending on attributes later
desired from the antenna.
Great..... we have got rid of one variable.
Now we hae two variables left assuming that we have decided on a
common
diameter for all parts of the dipole. ( later experience will show
that modification of various diameters can/are useful, but at this
time we are not interested in niceties...keep it simple.
We now have the basics for a program where the only variables are the
overall length of the dipole and also the length of the parallel
circuit or contact point of the quasi loop
So now we can use a computor program which comprises of a sweep thru
the basic frequencies provided by the loop to obtain a common lengths
throu out the
frequency range.
I rely on your useage of computor programing of which I am not an
expert, to come up with the final figures.
Note, when you look at your created current curve for the antenna you
will note
that the loop is ineffective when using for twenty meters and will
provide
for the normal current curve( one current maxima) and a bidirection
radiation pattern.
As you move towards the other end of the range, 10 meters, the current
curve will become mischapened and provide for two points of current
maxima in hase,which in turn supplies collinear gains over a simple
dipole.
At the extreme range the current curve will provide for two full an
natural curves, in phase, which supplies the maximum collinear gain
availabble for the above antenna arrangement.
8888888888 cap 88888888
LOOP 8 8
88888888888888888888888
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
< coupling length >
DIPOLE
feed point ca be anywhere, for atarters, about the center
point
If past experiences are observed the more that is said of this antenna
the more it becomes confusing. On another thread the basics that this
design revolves around, accepted laws of nature, has come to a
screeching halt because one of natures laws has been violated and I am
stuck here in first year 101, cannot proceed.Stop and reregister next
year.
Hopefully all is now very clear and you can play with your programing
to emulate
what the above antenna does in practice over and over with predictable
results
that I assume all will turn to over the tradititional as shown by Uda
with the traditional yagi.
Have fun Keith, give a shout if you need extra guidance.
And as I have said in private you appear to be the only one to give it
a shot on the computor and put your personal beliefs aside.
Great job.
Warmest regards
Art Unwin
KB9MZ........XG
Alexander S. Wood
"Mark Keith" <nm...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:25eb70d7.02081...@posting.google.com...
><snip>
> Dunno Art, I think it's the other way around. You are giving us hoops
>. I can't read your mind. You
> need to get your ducks in a row first. That way you can debate the
> thing in an orderly military manner. It's more like helter skelter the
> way things have been going. I hope you take this as friendy
> criticism...No flaming intended. MK
On this subject, I think you've hit the real issue here Mark. I have
followed the "Fractenna" debate for some time with initially great interest,
it's now a much more weary trawl.
Personally, I am now very interested in these E-H antennas. When I saw them
I thought "you must be joking", but I try to keep an open mind. However the
proponents of this and other "new" technologies seem to feel the need to act
like QVC presenters, and attempt to blind us with pseudo-science and
marketing babble.
I would love to see some of these guys engage in a more honest debate. Less
of the marketing hype, and a bit more REAL FACTS AND FIGURES. These should
be reproduceable for verification. I'd be impressed by a headline on the QRZ
site saying "Fractenna beats all comers" as a result of his attendance at
one of the open antenna comparison days that I believe the ARRL run from
time to time. I've a feeling I'll have a long wait.
I am afraid the cynical amongst us will continue to wonder what they have to
hide if they continue to hide the REAL science behind a barricade of lawyers
and marketing men.
However, I have no doubt that new antenna design await discovery, but
babbling on about "quantum radiators" and similar rubbish does nothing to
impress or earn my respect from a scientific point of view.
One last point, you mention modelling, I presume by computer. If a "new
technology" was to be discovered, it could be a waste of time attempting to
model it using software based on "old technology". For example a
mathematical model of a steam engine will not tell me much about the
prospective power output of my new V8, would a new antenna technology be so
radically different - it could be.
Kind regards
Alec Wood M1BNK
Teesside UK
'Doc
Art,
Why do I get the impression that you are in the
second stage of the old saying, "If you can't dazzle
them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S."? This
can't be the same description you used to get a
patent, and while on that subject, what is the patent
number? Maybe I can make some sense out of that...
'Doc
'Doc
Art,
At this point, I can only wonder if your son
is in the process of having a sanity hearing
conducted for you.
'Doc
'Doc
Art,
Hows you son coming along with that sanity hearing?
'Doc
Art Unwin KB9MZ
First George I am not upset with your post.If I remember correctly you
sent me a similar one years ago. At that time this group with Tom W8TI
at the fore front
( must not forget Force 12 who had a booklet on the subject) were
lashing at
all manufactures for claiming things that they could not produce or
was misleading.
Also many times, myself included, was shown to be lacking with
computor programs
education where many claims were made in error based on faulty
programing.
Even tho a business man W7ET, wanted to totally finance the operation
in which I would have a controlling interest. I was VERY concerned at
the ethics of such a venture that possibly, I also would be making
clains that were untennable.
I could have rested on 'buyer beware" but that is not how I or my
family thinks who were aware that their money return would be made
quickly if ethics were ignored
I have or had patents that describes the antenna, that describes the
antenna to the PTO's satisfaction. The single claim allowed in no way
reflected what I asked for and I will post a news account of my
struggles where the patent office suggested that it was this or
nothing. That was totally restricted in phrasing such that it was
useless as a future business tool.
What people say I should have done cannot now be done. Frankly you
have no idea
of the many hurdles I had to overcome. It is all in the past now and I
have now abandoned all rights that I may have had. I know I do not
have the RIGHT to ask my peers or possible elmers why the antenna
works or doesn't work, but I had hoped for an explanation, somewhat in
depth as given to SWR meters, conjugate matches e.t.c
Being well into retirement I have no aspirations in life left other
than to get this load off my concience so I can explain to those close
to me how I failed them, nothing more......no monetary interests left
( My family doesn't ask for explanation ofcourse.) You have been
informed in a loose sort of way of certain efforts I made in those
years and with the news article that will be placed on the net you
will realise that efforts that I have already informed you of are
miniscule compared to what at present you do know.
Even as monday morning quarter back could I have perceived that what I
was to run into. My struggles and the controlling ethics is more that
you can see unless you are able to walk in my shoes. But no matter, I
am trying to share with all what I have found to be a terrific antenna
that provides an advancement over the Uda Yagi array. An antenna that
deserves our attention because of the 'leap in the state of the art'
which I believe it represents.
It has a patent, readily made with predicted radiation patterns,
excepted by the U of I. Yes, I know similar claims have been made
before and have failed to materialised,
In my case I believe I have supplied reasonable credentials to worthy
an examination by my peers. I will catch hell from all if my antenna
does not produce my claims which will follow me for ever, but as a
former engineer of many years I truly believe all that I have said and
done with this antenna
is true.
Lets all have fun and be happy, this could be the big laugh that we
all have been waiting for. Time for all of us to lighten up.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG
Richard Harrison
"---a terrific antenna that provides an advancement over the Uda Yagi
array."
Apples and oranges! A delta matched dipole may match a transmission line
more handily than a multielement parasitic beam, but the Yagi will
likely produce more signal with less noise.
Please be reasonable with us. Give us a comparison of the dipole with
the novel matching arrangement versus the same antenna with not so
equipped. Thanks.
J. Harvey
> Art,
> ...what is the patent number ?
5,625,367
Enter the above number here...
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm
J. Harvey
> *Switch mode antennas*
> By using "switch mode power supply" and
> "power factor correction" techniques, even
> the input impedance could be controlled.
"Art Unwin KB9MZ"
> I do not know whether you are pulling my leg...
Same thing as they do at 60Hz for power supplies, just at RF instead.
Trivial and obvious. Not pulling your leg - I'm just about ten to fifteen
years ahead of my time.
> Your 'tactical' antenna seems awfully complex
> to me.
You should see the matching radio !
Art Unwin KB9MZ
In my earlier days I tried to model a particular antenna I was playing
with.
The computor gave me 20 odd db gain which I was looking for
naturally!
Unfortunately I was a victim of poor programing and stuck with the
view of garbage in/garbage out. So when I tried to model combination
antenna it again suplied me with answers that I liked and expected,
who wouldn't?
So please understand my reluctance to provide copies of my programing
since a defect in the programing would remove all interest in the
actual antenna.
I am not knocking programing but my early efforts especially with this
particular antenna gave me fits from which I have not as yet
recovered.
Getting older seems to make the chance of making programing errors
more probable
which is my one fear with respect to this antenna even tho it works
just like the results showed.
Cheers and beers
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG
Art Unwin KB9MZ
> Art,
> Hows you son coming along with that sanity hearing?
> 'Doc
Doctor,
My son is not part of this debate ! Is this a prelude
to a rerun of the fractal debate ? Where slurs and insult's
are thrown at each other ?
Your comments make me very uneasy, could you explain yourself better ?
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG
'Doc
Art,
You brought your son into this, claiming he is
doing what he needs to do, conserning some mysterious
matter. This isn't a 'prelude' to anything. From
your posts and general behavior, that 'mysterious'
matter your son is busy with could certainly be a
sanity hearing for you.
"'Doc" is a nickname. Don't confuse me with a
'doctor' of anything. As far as my posts making you
feel 'uneasy', I don't doubt that at all.
'Doc
'Doc
Art,
I've been reminded of something I should have
remembered from some early training. With that
in mind... What ever you say Art. What ever you
say.
'Doc
PS - By the way, I'm not a 'doctor' of anything, it's
a nickname.
Mark Keith
>
> Have fun Keith, give a shout if you need extra guidance.
> And as I have said in private you appear to be the only one to give it
> a shot on the computor and put your personal beliefs aside.
> Great job.
> Warmest regards
> Art Unwin
> KB9MZ........XG
Ok, If I read all this right, you are using only one dipole, and one
loop. In that case, I already modeled it correctly the first time.
I've been feeding ity at the center of the dipole. I just wanted to
clear this up , as your ZZ1 antenna appeared to use two dipole
elements. I'll try to double check this, but I think I did it right
the first time. MK
Ken
>So he aproached a professor of a major university to review his work
>and got the retort that 'Antennas are the most widely discussed and
>investigated subject in the world and there is nothing 'new' to be
>found'.
Although trained as an engineer, I am a relative newbie to RF. I
found it interesting that the only practical ways we have of
generating RF energy is to course alternating current through a wire
path (excepting also electric spark). This seems very limited.
Light was for thousands of years generated only by burning or heating
something, then heating a wire electrically, then applying a potential
to some gases, then by chemical reaction, then via soilid-state
device. Perhaps a similar future awaits RF and other parts of the EM
spectrum. Who is to say we won't find a way to excite matter so that
it releases controllable RF energy? Then antennas would look like
light fixtures.
Ken KC2JDY
Ken
(to reply via email
remove "zz" from address)
CAM
> Who is to say we won't find a way to excite matter so that
> it releases controllable RF energy?
Stars release plenty of RF energy but I doubt that it is
"controllable". :-)
--
cheers, CAM http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Mark Keith
> And as I have said in private you appear to be the only one to give it
> a shot on the computor and put your personal beliefs aside.
> Great job.
> Warmest regards
> Art Unwin
> KB9MZ........XG
I'm afraid I'm even more confused now after looking at your patent.
#1, I get no pictures at all, when I try to d/l them. I don't know if
my firewall is blocking them or what. I killed my firewall, and still
didn't get any images.
But in reading the text, it totally contradicts what I was asking you
, and what you state about the number of dipole elements. I asked you
yesterday if the antenna used more than one dipole element. Fairly
simple question really. But you gave me about 87 miles of text, that
after digesting I came to the conclusion that yes, you are only using
one element. So I came to the conclusion I modeled it correctly the
first time. "Actually would have been the 2nd time, as you veto'd the
first." So now I go to the text on the patent page, and what do I see?
"from patent page"
*** BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
FIG. 1 shows a variable capacitance antenna having three dipole
elements.
FIG. 2 shows a cross section of the support boom of a variable
capacitance antenna detailing the structure of the variable capacitor
portion and the remote tuning portion.
FIG. 3 shows a rack and pinion movement for the remote tuning portion
of a variable capacitance antenna.
FIG. 4 shows a variable capacitor portion for use with two elements.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
FIG. 1 shows an embodiment of the variable capacitance antenna having
three dipole elements. The director element 1, driver element 2, and
reflector element 3 are shown mounted on a common support boom 4. The
variable capacitance antenna requires at least one driver element 2,
however, there can be any number of directors including zero. In a
preferred embodiment, the variable capacitance antenna contains one
director element 1 and one reflector element 3, however, reflector
elements may also be any number including zero.
**** unquote..
Here , you talk of three dipole elements???? Multi elements????
Can you see the contradiction between this antenna and what you are
posting here as a description?
I about give up. Until I can get an EXACT picture of the antenna,
there is no way I can make any kind of lucid comment on it. Your
description you gave me to model does not match this patented antenna.
I'm getting almost as confused as you seem to be. Also, you have some
other text in that patent that I don't quite agree with. IE: that a
trapped dipole is a variation of a yagi, and is limited to three
bands. I don't agree with either one of those statements as far as a
single trapped dipole.
You claim you can steer a single dipole element by adjusting the cap
on the matching device. It's plain to see from modeling, that this is
just plain untrue. I can change the value of the cap and it has no
effect on the pattern. Only the match.
But yes, if you use TWO parallel dipole elements, each with a cap/loop
matching device, it's possible to steer the antenna. Nothing really
new there. Whether it's better than using other methods to change
phase, I'm not sure. I kind of doubt it. I've seen people using
parallel dipoles and "L/C" phasing boxes for years. It seems to work
pretty well. Myself, when I did it, I changed the feedlines to change
phase. IE: adding lengths to one side of two equal lengths lines, etc.
Nothing fancy, but worked ok. Is this what you mean basically? From
your patent, it would seem so. Please unconfuse us in a simple "not
too many words" manner please. I wish I could d/l the images from the
patent site...That would help greatly. Maybe it would help if you
could draw an exact picture of the complete antenna, and scanned it
and post to the ng. You could put it on your server and post a link.
I'm afaid I'm getting more confused by the day. MK
Art Unwin KB9MZ
Well you and the others with their silence have made it quite clear to
me
that all bars are now removed and the insults and slurs are now about
to begin in earnest.
I have no wish to subject my family to what will now become a
raucious pack of wolves ala Fractal style. I have tried before to
explain my antenna and probably will do so again in the future. But I
will not give up or be pushed aside.
The English have never been ones to run away from hurdles or percieved
difficulties, other wise I would not have emmigrated as many of the
english do.
I will honour my commitment of providing to somebody the news article
that I referred to earlier, which I assume he will share with you and
probably
will generate another separate thread.
With my withdrawal from this thread I can assume that the subject
can be terminated and placed in the archives once again.
To those who have shown kindness and understanding and an open mind
with respect to various problems you have my heartfelt thanks.
I will continue in any dialogue that they may wish for but on a
private level
Every body, have a great week end with your families and friends. In
the final analysis it is those who give us the greatest joy's in life
so look after them.
Regards
Art Unwin
KB9MZ.......XG
'Doc
Don't bother, you'll never get the same answer from Art
twice in a row. Have you ever seen that behavior before?
Ought to be sort of familiar here...
'Doc
Richard Harrison
"The antennas would look like light fixtures."
My city is already surrounded by candelabra antennas.
How big are light fixtures in terms of wavelength?
Remmber the MASER which came before the LASER?
Richard Clark
>aun...@fgi.net (Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote in message
>>
>> Have fun Keith, give a shout if you need extra guidance.
>> And as I have said in private you appear to be the only one to give it
>> a shot on the computor and put your personal beliefs aside.
>> Great job.
>> Warmest regards
>> Art Unwin
>> KB9MZ........XG
>
>I'm afraid I'm even more confused now after looking at your patent.
>#1, I get no pictures at all, when I try to d/l them. I don't know if
>my firewall is blocking them or what. I killed my firewall, and still
>didn't get any images.
This is probably due to your plug-in to viewing the images expired.
The Patent Office posts their images in a format (TIFF it looks like)
that requires a commercial plug-in (or so one would think). The first
visit usually has my browser complaining of needing some add-on and
when I visit any particular site to satisfy that requirement, it is
painfully obvious that those to select from are all jockeying for
eventual cash outlay.
>But in reading the text, it totally contradicts what I was asking you
>, and what you state about the number of dipole elements. I asked you
SOP
>yesterday if the antenna used more than one dipole element. Fairly
>simple question really. But you gave me about 87 miles of text, that
>after digesting I came to the conclusion that yes, you are only using
>one element. So I came to the conclusion I modeled it correctly the
>first time. "Actually would have been the 2nd time, as you veto'd the
>first." So now I go to the text on the patent page, and what do I see?
>
>"from patent page"
>*** BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
>
>FIG. 1 shows a variable capacitance antenna having three dipole
>elements.
This is consistent with the image I e-mailed you. And, of course,
wholly inconsistent with the discussion that precedes these postings.
>
>FIG. 2 shows a cross section of the support boom of a variable
>capacitance antenna detailing the structure of the variable capacitor
>portion and the remote tuning portion.
>
I did not bother to post you that cartoon straight out of Rube
Goldberg.
>FIG. 3 shows a rack and pinion movement for the remote tuning portion
>of a variable capacitance antenna.
>
The statement is enough, a drawing hardly counts for much in the
analysis of the antenna itself.
>FIG. 4 shows a variable capacitor portion for use with two elements.
The statement is enough, a drawing hardly counts for much in the
analysis of the antenna itself.
>Here , you talk of three dipole elements???? Multi elements????
>Can you see the contradiction between this antenna and what you are
>posting here as a description?
Well Mark, to be fair, Art has deliberately avoided its discussion for
the reasons he anticipated: it is much too elaborate compared to the
general idea.
>
>I about give up. Until I can get an EXACT picture of the antenna,
>there is no way I can make any kind of lucid comment on it.
and of course the remainder of your commentary reads like a descent
into hell.
Simply put, Art is not prepared to present anything except a vague
outline for a coupled antenna system. That has been played out long
ago.
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
J. Harvey
> The Patent Office posts their images in a format
> (TIFF it looks like) that requires a commercial
> plug-in (or so one would think).
Apple's Quicktime will do it.
Innomage's InterneTiffX (v. 3.0?) is another good option.
Both are free in their basic versions (all you need).
Apparently the TIFF format is a treaty issue.
Will White
auto company executive is reputed to have had with Bill Gates at a dinner
party, to the effect that Gates bragged that if automobiles had kept pace
with the advancements, lower costs, and leaps in perfomance over the past
20 years that computers have made, you would have new cars that cost $1000,
did 0-60 in 3 seconds, and got 100 MPG! The auto exec replied: "Yeah, but
who the hell wants a car that crashes twice a day?!"
Richard Harrison wrote:
> Art Unwin wrote:
> "---a tired comment was made that such an antenna (a new multiband
> antenna) was badly needed in ham radio and then left the subject as if
> such a thing was impossible---."
>
> If antenna development had kept pace with electronics during the past 50
> years, a near d-c to daylight radiator would fit in the palm of your
> hand, have continuously selectable directivity from a 2-degree spot to
> isotropic, have 95% efficiency, accept a kilowatt continuous power
> without degradation, and present a flat 50-ohm resistance to the source
> over the entire spectrum. It would readily radiate, of course.
>
> Antenna performance is far short of ideal, so don`t close the patent
> office just yet.
>
> Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
--
Will White, KD7BFX
Seattle WA US
King County, Grid CN87tq
ITU Zone 6, CQ Zone 3
***************************************************
"The wireless telegraph is not difficult to understand.
The ordinary telegraph is like a very long cat.
You pull the tail in New York, and it meows in Los Angeles.
The wireless is the same, only without the cat."
- Albert Einstein
***************************************************
Reg Edwards
==============================
Nothing, absolutely nothing, gets past the shoal of piranas who frequent
this newsgroup.
Art Unwin KB9MZ
mail on Unwin antenna and it's previous thread.
#1 Surely all is known when you couple two simple antennas? The
experts have
given a 'thumbs down'.Accept it.
Well sir, on its face it seams clear and easy but it is more
complicated than it
appears. The experts come from a variety of backgrounds and it cannot
be expected that each on his own could give an intelligent response.
Where-as I
because of past medical problems had to re-educate myself. And where I
chose a task that was pertinent to my needs i.e. a deep but narrow
education to solve
multi frequency problems.I have no doubt in my mind that if two or
more entered into a debate on the apparently rediculous claims I made,
a firm resolution will be quickly found in my favour. Remember the
loop design is older than I am and is surrounded by myths. It was
displaced by the arrival of the Yagi and was then decimated by
A.J.Henk G4XVF. Not many really understand the nuances of the loop
design ( no offence intended to members of the group)
#2 The drawing is so simple. What makes you think that you are on to
something
that has escaped others.
Well you can have all the experts and those with theories lined up to
talk about the posabilities of some thing new. comming from the other
side of the pond I am still tied to the old ways and until somebody
gets a piece of wire and proves it to himself, all the ideas fall to
the ground. I have made such an antenna and a ham friend made one for
himself without me being present and duplicated my results. I call
that compelling evidence.
#3 This one from overseas, call sign unknown and was more insightfull
than most.
It stated that at no time except for one person have shown
you(me)disrespect.
Clarke may be different but again no evidence of disrespect (hmmmmm).
'Doc' on
the other hand does not participate in any discussion that requires
interaction of depth. You do not have to go far into the archives to
determine what manner of person he is because he has trashed others.On
your side you started the thread expecting a problem since it is said
you have raised this subject before.
It would apear that all studied your claims and all deny the
plausability of your claims.
In defence I say that not one has come forward to state exactly what
happens when co-joining basic radiators Fact is that there is so many
interlocking factors that my detractors have no idea of what could or
could not happen and i mean no disrespect.As for 'Doc' I respected his
presence because of credentials implied. Yes it would have been
different if he signed off with hospital orderly,bed pan collector
e.t.c..As far as him having a history I noted that others did not
align themselves with him. I now note that that he states that is not
a real doctor ( he is a fraud) so I see no need to waste my time in
the archives.
#4 The experts know what happens in the simple case you offered.
Accept the verdict and go away. Sir I cannot because I believe in
myself and it follows laws ennunciated by the likes of Maxwell.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG.
Art Unwin KB9MZ
is the first shot of what I promised.
It is work in progress and over time will be cleaned up
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG
Art Unwin KB9MZ
Reg,
How come I have this feeling that you, who thrives on the basics
especially in regard to loop antennas, is sitting there with a smile
on your face and a computor program in hand just waiting for when the
time is ripe and when you will disclose your program to all?
I sure hope that is the case. As for me I am going fishing before I
replace this computor thing.
Have fun.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG
Richard Clark
> sitting there with a smile
>on your face and a computor program in hand just waiting
Hi Art,
How poetic. Sounds like he's the Cheshire cat of the web.
Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.
I missed the first part of the topic, so what I have to say will
probably not be relevent. However, I have seen some fantastic new
metals being produced that could at some time in the future be a real
boon to how antennas operate.
I entered the hobby at a very young age, little to no money to spend,
and even less knowledge about how to properly construct an antenna.
Needless to say, I did the unthinkable and installed dipoles for each
band of HF operation all terminating on a connection block of my own
design. To this the coaxial cable was affixed and I was on the air.
A little trimming here and there and the SWR was almost flat across
each band I was allowed to operate on.
If I had 5 bucks invested in my antenna, it would have been a miracle.
Yet I quickly earned my WAS and several other awards.
As I aged and learned a little more about antennas, I made the changes
that were obvious from what I was studying at the time.
The result of the changes was an antenna system that did not function
as well as my original make-shift system, and trying to restore it to
exactly the way it was originally set up turned out to be impossible.
As once I fixed it, returning it to the original, caused all the
problems that the original installation should have had, to appear.
That was 3 decades ago, yet I still try various things from time to
time. On occassion, something will work perfectly for me, yet is
rarely duplicateable by others with the same results. There are just
so many factors related to the area where my antenna is situated that
falls into play.
About 6 years ago I was working in a building that was constructed
entirely of steel. Needless to say, my little HT would not get out of
this massive SHIELD. I was up on the roof and noticed a rubber plug
that was used to fill a hole where something used to exit the
building. We just happen to have plenty of music wire in the shop, so
I grabbed a piece and drove it through the rubber plug. A little math
and I cut the antenna to about 1/4 inch longer than it should be for
2-meters, figuring I would have to trim some more off, if it worked.
Inside at the ceiling I affixed the shield of the coax to the metal
roof by sliding it under the steel plating and the ceiling joist and
just wrapped the center conductor several times around the music where
where it protruded from the rubber plug.
I had all intentions of making it permanent and adjusting the SWR
after I gave it a test to see if it would work at all.
But it was Friday afternoon and time to leave work, so it was left
with the coax just running down a support column to the shop.
When I arrived for work Monday morning, the inside of the shop,
ceiling and all walls, was covered with some type of spray insulation
foam. On Tuesday, a company was there installing drop ceiling track
and by the end of the week, the ceiling was covered with heavy 5/8
inch thick fireproof panels, so there was no way I could get back at
my antenna connection. I just let the coax dangle by the post for at
least three weeks before I finally had the opportunity to see if it
would work at all.
So on Friday I brought a little BNC connector and SWR meter, affixed
the BNC to the coax and placed the SWR meter in-line. At first I
thought my radio was not working because the SWR meter did not
register anything at all. However, I heard the Repeater, so I rekeyed
and IDed myself. One of the regulars came back to me, expecting me to
be in my car. Their first statement was, you can turn your power down
a little. OK, save batteries, but I was already on the lower 150MW
setting, not on the 5 watt setting. The Repeater was like 20 miles
away.
I used this antenna, without any adjustments for the 4 years I worked
at this company, never once turning my HT above 150MW. Yet in my
vehicle, to reach the repeater at all, I had to be at 25 watts, and to
be full quieting had to kick it up to 50 watts and occasionally up to
100 watts, depending upon where I was parked in the parking lot.
On the 150MW setting, I could bring up Repeaters, some of which were
150 miles away and by kicking the little HT up to 5 watts, the
receiving station could actually make out what I was saying. Albeit I
was mostly covered with noise.
Shortly before I left the employ of that company, I brought in a
mobile rig with 5 watt and 25 watt settings, that I used on my breaks
and lunch hour. On the lowest 5 watt setting, I was continually asked
to reduce my power, as I was bringing up neighboring Repeaters on the
same repeater pair. It became necessary to go back to my 150MW HT to
prevent this problem.
Although the coax has now been cut off at the ceiling, the little
music wire was still sticking out of the rubber plug on the roof the
last time I visited the place of my former employ some 6 years after
the fact.
What is it that made this antenna outperform anything else?
Location, Height, distance between vertical and shield, or some other
unknown factor we are not yet aware of?
I have tried to duplicate this effect by carefully reconstructing the
simple antenna using the same type music wire and even the same brand
and size of rubber plug on another steel building. However, in all
attempts, a simple mag mount mobile would outperform the wire in the
plug method.
So my determination is, there was something special about either the
building itself, it's location, the placement of the antenna, or the
way it was connected to the coax. Perhaps even the foam insulation
was a contributing factor. I don't know since I did not test it prior
to the foam or ceiling being installed.
Many fellow club members came by to visit while I was working for that
company, bringing their own HTs and connecting them to the antenna,
and obtaining the same magnificant results. It was the talk of the
group for more than a year. Their determination was it was
exclusively due to the location and size of the building. Yet a mag
mount placed on top of this same building, within a foot or two of the
old antenna in any location did not produce any enhanced results.
So, just like my nickel plated yagi that wouldn't work, there are many
things about antenna's we still do not know.
TTUL - 73+ de Gary - KGØZP
Roy Lewallen
this antenna was due to anything about antennas we don't know. The fact
is, there was something about this particular antenna you don't know. A
first guess would be that it was coincidentally placed in a spot where
signals from several paths happened to add in phase from one particular
repeater -- not exactly an unknown phenomenon. Anyone with a VHF mobile
setup has observed this.
Just because we don't understand how a particular antenna works doesn't
mean there's some mysterious process that's yet to be understood. A
Brazilian tribal rain forest dweller wouldn't understand how a light
switch works. That doesn't mean that "there are things about light
switches we still do not know." Unless, of course, "we" is limited to
tribal rain forest dwellers.
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr. wrote:
> . . .