My latest antenna is up! It is a window mesh curtain 8 foot by 100 foot about 1 foot off the ground. It is an all bander with the xmitter tuner on all the time, later I will trim it so I can leave the internal tuner off. At the moment the red light comes on when I am right in the center only of the top band and the SWR reads 1.5 for the middle section only!. Presume the tuner cannot handle above 1.5 on top band. Very, very quiet antenna, but it has been up less than 24 hours. Feed is on one side only with the ground connection about 2 inches away on the same side with the connections at the bottom some what towards the center of the curtain length ways.Basically it is a long one wall Faraday shield but without a drain ground on the front side. Will find a relay so I can make it bi directional
My latest antenna is up! It is a window mesh curtain 8 foot by 100 foot about 1 foot off the ground. It is an all bander with the xmitter tuner on all the time, later I will trim it so I can leave the internal tuner off. At the moment the red light comes on when I am right in the center only of the top band and the SWR reads 1.5 for the middle section only!. Presume the tuner cannot handle above 1.5 on top band. Very, very quiet antenna, but it has been up less than 24 hours. Feed is on one side only with the ground connection about 2 inches away on the same side with the connections at the bottom some what towards the center of the curtain length ways.Basically it is a long one wall Faraday shield but without a drain ground on the front side. Will find a relay so I can make it bi directional
> My latest antenna is up! > It is a window mesh curtain 8 foot by 100 foot > about 1 foot off the ground. > It is an all bander with the xmitter tuner on all the time, > later I will trim it so I can leave the internal tuner off. > At the moment the red light comes on when I am right in the center > only > of the top band and the SWR reads 1.5 for the middle section only!. > Presume the tuner cannot handle above 1.5 on top band. > Very, very quiet antenna, but it has been up less than 24 hours. > Feed is on one side only with the ground connection about 2 inches > away > on the same side with the connections at the bottom some what towards > the center of the curtain length ways.Basically it is a long one wall > Faraday shield but without a drain ground on the front side. > Will find a relay so I can make it bi directional
Art Unwin wrote: > Very, very quiet antenna, but it has been up less than 24 hours. > Feed is on one side only with the ground connection about 2 inches > away on the same side with the connections at the bottom some what > towards the center of the curtain length ways.
So he is center feeding a large curtain with a "_2 inch_" wide feed.
Yup, that WILL very definitely be quiet. I hope the tuner has a lot of loss in the way before the "antenna" (chortle) to dissipate the 99.999% of the power fed to the short at the end.
> Basically it is a long one wall > Faraday shield but without a drain ground on the front side.
It's not a Faraday shield if it's not completely surrounding something. I'd suggest a smaller one. Of tinfoil. Around your head. It won't help, but it would be amusing.
> Art Unwin wrote: > > Very, very quiet antenna, but it has been up less than 24 hours. > > Feed is on one side only with the ground connection about 2 inches > > away on the same side with the connections at the bottom some what > > towards the center of the curtain length ways.
> So he is center feeding a large curtain with a "_2 inch_" wide feed.
> Yup, that WILL very definitely be quiet. I hope the tuner has a lot of > loss in the way before the "antenna" (chortle) to dissipate the 99.999% > of the power fed to the short at the end.
> > Basically it is a long one wall > > Faraday shield but without a drain ground on the front side.
> It's not a Faraday shield if it's not completely surrounding something. > I'd suggest a smaller one. Of tinfoil. Around your head. It won't > help, but it would be amusing.
> tom > K0TAR
A Faraday shield allows for magnetic and elerctrical fields to separate and cancell leaving a RF current thast radios are designed to handle. The shield unlike what we view as radiators has two side that are independent of each other where as a "normal" radiators surface is not separated electrically. The Faraday shield operates at 90 degrees to an oncomming signal by a blocking method and does not operate as a recieving type surface that is directly connected to a radio. The Faraday shield as a single wall still has a blocking action as fields can encircle the wall but it cannot protect all. It does however protect the rear surface from field impingement and the field usually will connefct to a alternate surface leaving a void directly behind the shielding wall. The Faraday shield on the other hand is an enclosure that shields the inside from encroachment on the outside such thast fields do not interfere with activities within. It does not perform the function of field separation. In most radio circuits you will see examples of bot enclosures and shields where the latter incorporates physically unconnected surfaces for electricaly closed loops. I don't mind your postings Tom as it provides those that are educated some idea of your true standing in life. With respect to a closely aligned feed which to your mind leaves an imediate short;. I suggest you look at a three band dipole all connected at the same point. Each dipole provides a low resistance path for a particular applied frequency in its seach for a closed circuit. The applied current will not divert to a path of higher resistance or impedance in this case because we have to consider the effect of phase differences. With these sort of actions we can have several different paths for the current to follow but I assure you that it will pick the same one every time dependent on the frequency applied. Now to the wire mesh curtain. It provides a separate low impedence path for every frequency applied to it as well as a separate path for the displacement current that encloses a separate field ( see my page) which has the abilitity to accellerate mass as with an electric gun.The maximum accelleration applied to mass is obviously determined by its intrinsic mass where a minimum mass determines the speed of light. Today the smallest particle found is that of a Neutrino thus one can see the connection of the Sun to communication as we see it today. Regarding your description of the shield to a long wire or dipole, gthe curtain or shield does not provide a electrical connection for both sides of the shield as a dipole or long wire does. See Tom, your past postings are completely devoid of technical content and probably provide all readers with a silent chucklel By the way, a curtain is able to supply a very large aperture which is synonimous with the amount of gain it supplies. You might want to ponder on that aspect before you disparage it. The above is provided for you and your friends to salivate apon so you may provide a few more chuckles to those on the side lines. Note I have left some grammerr and spelling errors for you to comment upon in the absence of any technical content. Cheers and beers Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg
> A Faraday shield allows for magnetic and elerctrical fields to > separate and cancell leaving a RF current thast radios are designed to > handle
No, that's absolutely incorrect. Nothing is separated. And what's left over, if anything measurable is, is an electromagnetic wave.
> The shield unlike what we view as radiators has two side that > are independent of each other where as a "normal" radiators surface is > not separated electrically. The Faraday shield operates at 90 degrees > to an oncomming signal by a blocking method and does not operate as a > recieving type surface > that is directly connected to a radio.
> wall still has a blocking action as fields can encircle the wall but > it cannot protect all. It does however protect the rear surface from > field impingement and the field usually will connefct to a alternate > surface leaving a void directly behind the shielding wall. > The Faraday shield on the other hand is an enclosure that shields the > inside from encroachment on the outside such thast fields do not > interfere with activities within. It does not perform the function of > field separation. In most radio circuits you will see examples of bot > enclosures and shields where the latter incorporates physically > unconnected surfaces for electricaly closed loops. > I don't mind your postings Tom as it provides those that are educated > some idea of your true standing in life. > With respect to a closely aligned feed which to your mind leaves an > imediate short;. > I suggest you look at a three band dipole all connected at the same > point. Each dipole provides a low resistance path for a particular > applied frequency in its seach for a closed circuit. The applied > current will not divert to a path of higher resistance or impedance in > this case because we have to consider the effect of phase differences. > With these sort of actions we can have several different paths for the > current to follow but I assure you that it will pick the same one > every time dependent on the frequency applied. > Now to the wire mesh curtain. It provides a separate low impedence > path for every frequency applied to it as well as a separate path for > the displacement current that encloses a separate field ( see my page) > which has the abilitity to accellerate mass as with an electric > gun.The maximum accelleration applied to mass is obviously determined > by its intrinsic mass where a minimum mass determines the speed of > light. Today the smallest particle found is that of a Neutrino thus > one can see the connection of the Sun to communication as we see it > today. > Regarding your description of the shield to a long wire or dipole, > gthe curtain or shield does not provide a electrical connection for > both sides of the shield as a dipole or long wire does. > See Tom, your past postings are completely devoid of technical content > and probably provide all readers with a silent chucklel > By the way, a curtain is able to supply a very large aperture which is > synonimous with the amount of gain it supplies. You might want to > ponder on that aspect before you disparage it. > The above is provided for you and your friends to salivate apon so you > may provide a few more chuckles to those on the side lines. > Note I have left some grammerr and spelling errors for you to comment > upon in the absence of any technical content. > Cheers and beers > Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg
And I'll just summarize all the last part, since it would be a total waste of time to comment individually on points -
YOU ARE WRONG. Totally, completely, and terribly wrong.
And no, I'm not going into how or why, because you never ever listen or understand.
> > A Faraday shield allows for magnetic and elerctrical fields to > > separate and cancell leaving a RF current thast radios are designed to > > handle
> No, that's absolutely incorrect. Nothing is separated. And what's left > over, if anything measurable is, is an electromagnetic wave.
> > The shield unlike what we view as radiators has two side that > > are independent of each other where as a "normal" radiators surface is > > not separated electrically. The Faraday shield operates at 90 degrees > > to an oncomming signal by a blocking method and does not operate as a > > recieving type surface > > that is directly connected to a radio.
> No it doesn't. You are wrong.
> The Faraday shield as a single
> > wall still has a blocking action as fields can encircle the wall but > > it cannot protect all. It does however protect the rear surface from > > field impingement and the field usually will connefct to a alternate > > surface leaving a void directly behind the shielding wall. > > The Faraday shield on the other hand is an enclosure that shields the > > inside from encroachment on the outside such thast fields do not > > interfere with activities within. It does not perform the function of > > field separation. In most radio circuits you will see examples of bot > > enclosures and shields where the latter incorporates physically > > unconnected surfaces for electricaly closed loops. > > I don't mind your postings Tom as it provides those that are educated > > some idea of your true standing in life. > > With respect to a closely aligned feed which to your mind leaves an > > imediate short;. > > I suggest you look at a three band dipole all connected at the same > > point. Each dipole provides a low resistance path for a particular > > applied frequency in its seach for a closed circuit. The applied > > current will not divert to a path of higher resistance or impedance in > > this case because we have to consider the effect of phase differences. > > With these sort of actions we can have several different paths for the > > current to follow but I assure you that it will pick the same one > > every time dependent on the frequency applied. > > Now to the wire mesh curtain. It provides a separate low impedence > > path for every frequency applied to it as well as a separate path for > > the displacement current that encloses a separate field ( see my page) > > which has the abilitity to accellerate mass as with an electric > > gun.The maximum accelleration applied to mass is obviously determined > > by its intrinsic mass where a minimum mass determines the speed of > > light. Today the smallest particle found is that of a Neutrino thus > > one can see the connection of the Sun to communication as we see it > > today. > > Regarding your description of the shield to a long wire or dipole, > > gthe curtain or shield does not provide a electrical connection for > > both sides of the shield as a dipole or long wire does. > > See Tom, your past postings are completely devoid of technical content > > and probably provide all readers with a silent chucklel > > By the way, a curtain is able to supply a very large aperture which is > > synonimous with the amount of gain it supplies. You might want to > > ponder on that aspect before you disparage it. > > The above is provided for you and your friends to salivate apon so you > > may provide a few more chuckles to those on the side lines. > > Note I have left some grammerr and spelling errors for you to comment > > upon in the absence of any technical content. > > Cheers and beers > > Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg
> And I'll just summarize all the last part, since it would be a total > waste of time to comment individually on points -
> YOU ARE WRONG. Totally, completely, and terribly wrong.
> And no, I'm not going into how or why, because you never ever listen or > understand.
> tom > K0TAR
Oh My. I am wrong but you are unable to describe how I am wrong,how convenient! You need to brush up on attenuation versus skin depth, surface conduction and a host of other things such as a sealed surface can be considered as an aperture with respect to shielding. I would recommend a book on shielding etc by Ralph Morrison 5 th edition that will bring you up to date on the function of perforated shielding plates, screening etc.Just saying that I am wrong without explanation or explaining your record on the subject is nothing more than the voice of a child exercising free speech.If you can provide technical data to support your position we can discuss but just saying one is wrong serves nobody. One thing you really need to understand is the nature of a accellerated and decellerated charge and its connection with a time varient current, the latter being the only connection that a xmitter or rcvr can handle to provide communication and its connection with a parallel tank circuit.
Art Unwin wrote: > On Mar 10, 8:07 pm, tom <news4...@taring.org> wrote: >> Art Unwin wrote:
>>> A Faraday shield allows for magnetic and elerctrical fields to >>> separate and cancell leaving a RF current thast radios are designed to >>> handle >> No, that's absolutely incorrect. Nothing is separated. And what's left >> over, if anything measurable is, is an electromagnetic wave.
>>> The shield unlike what we view as radiators has two side that >>> are independent of each other where as a "normal" radiators surface is >>> not separated electrically. The Faraday shield operates at 90 degrees >>> to an oncomming signal by a blocking method and does not operate as a >>> recieving type surface >>> that is directly connected to a radio. >> No it doesn't. You are wrong.
>> The Faraday shield as a single
>>> wall still has a blocking action as fields can encircle the wall but >>> it cannot protect all. It does however protect the rear surface from >>> field impingement and the field usually will connefct to a alternate >>> surface leaving a void directly behind the shielding wall. >>> The Faraday shield on the other hand is an enclosure that shields the >>> inside from encroachment on the outside such thast fields do not >>> interfere with activities within. It does not perform the function of >>> field separation. In most radio circuits you will see examples of bot >>> enclosures and shields where the latter incorporates physically >>> unconnected surfaces for electricaly closed loops. >>> I don't mind your postings Tom as it provides those that are educated >>> some idea of your true standing in life. >>> With respect to a closely aligned feed which to your mind leaves an >>> imediate short;. >>> I suggest you look at a three band dipole all connected at the same >>> point. Each dipole provides a low resistance path for a particular >>> applied frequency in its seach for a closed circuit. The applied >>> current will not divert to a path of higher resistance or impedance in >>> this case because we have to consider the effect of phase differences. >>> With these sort of actions we can have several different paths for the >>> current to follow but I assure you that it will pick the same one >>> every time dependent on the frequency applied. >>> Now to the wire mesh curtain. It provides a separate low impedence >>> path for every frequency applied to it as well as a separate path for >>> the displacement current that encloses a separate field ( see my page) >>> which has the abilitity to accellerate mass as with an electric >>> gun.The maximum accelleration applied to mass is obviously determined >>> by its intrinsic mass where a minimum mass determines the speed of >>> light. Today the smallest particle found is that of a Neutrino thus >>> one can see the connection of the Sun to communication as we see it >>> today. >>> Regarding your description of the shield to a long wire or dipole, >>> gthe curtain or shield does not provide a electrical connection for >>> both sides of the shield as a dipole or long wire does. >>> See Tom, your past postings are completely devoid of technical content >>> and probably provide all readers with a silent chucklel >>> By the way, a curtain is able to supply a very large aperture which is >>> synonimous with the amount of gain it supplies. You might want to >>> ponder on that aspect before you disparage it. >>> The above is provided for you and your friends to salivate apon so you >>> may provide a few more chuckles to those on the side lines. >>> Note I have left some grammerr and spelling errors for you to comment >>> upon in the absence of any technical content. >>> Cheers and beers >>> Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg >> And I'll just summarize all the last part, since it would be a total >> waste of time to comment individually on points -
>> YOU ARE WRONG. Totally, completely, and terribly wrong.
>> And no, I'm not going into how or why, because you never ever listen or >> understand.
>> tom >> K0TAR
> Oh My. I am wrong but you are unable to describe how I am wrong,how > convenient!
If you were to supply a sufficient description of what you have done, you might to get more detailed responses. For example, it is unclear how you have connected the feed line to the mesh. A photo (you have a website, you could post it there) would make the details much clearer. You have not specified the nature of the mesh (the material, the thickness of the wire (assuming it is wire), how the intersections are joined, etc.). The orientation of the mesh relative to the ground is not specified.
You seem to expect detailed responses without out providing any details on your part.
> You need to brush up on attenuation versus skin depth, surface > conduction and a host of other things such as a sealed surface can be > considered as an aperture with respect to shielding. I would recommend > a book on shielding etc by Ralph Morrison 5 th edition that will bring > you up to date on the function of perforated shielding plates, > screening etc.
Just saying that I am wrong without explanation or
> explaining your record on the subject is nothing more than the voice > of a child exercising free speech.
Just believing you are right without providing any details does not mean we have to accept what you say.
If you can provide technical data to
> support your position we can discuss but just saying one is wrong > serves nobody.
Where are the technical details to support what you are syaing about this antenna? Frequency of operation: unspecified. Performace relative to known/understood reference antennas: unspecified. Feedpoint impedance: unspecified. Test conditions/setup: unspecified.
> One thing you really need to understand is the nature of a > accellerated and decellerated charge and its connection with a time > varient current, the latter being the only connection > that a xmitter or rcvr can handle to provide communication and its > connection with a parallel tank circuit.
You have failed to show how a parallel tank circuit applies.
> Art Unwin wrote: >> On Mar 10, 8:07 pm, tom <news4...@taring.org> wrote: >>> Art Unwin wrote:
>>>> A Faraday shield allows for magnetic and elerctrical fields to >>>> separate and cancell leaving a RF current thast radios are designed to >>>> handle >>> No, that's absolutely incorrect. Nothing is separated. And what's left >>> over, if anything measurable is, is an electromagnetic wave.
>>>> The shield unlike what we view as radiators has two side that >>>> are independent of each other where as a "normal" radiators surface is >>>> not separated electrically. The Faraday shield operates at 90 degrees >>>> to an oncomming signal by a blocking method and does not operate as a >>>> recieving type surface >>>> that is directly connected to a radio. >>> No it doesn't. You are wrong.
>>> The Faraday shield as a single
>>>> wall still has a blocking action as fields can encircle the wall but >>>> it cannot protect all. It does however protect the rear surface from >>>> field impingement and the field usually will connefct to a alternate >>>> surface leaving a void directly behind the shielding wall. >>>> The Faraday shield on the other hand is an enclosure that shields the >>>> inside from encroachment on the outside such thast fields do not >>>> interfere with activities within. It does not perform the function of >>>> field separation. In most radio circuits you will see examples of bot >>>> enclosures and shields where the latter incorporates physically >>>> unconnected surfaces for electricaly closed loops. >>>> I don't mind your postings Tom as it provides those that are educated >>>> some idea of your true standing in life. >>>> With respect to a closely aligned feed which to your mind leaves an >>>> imediate short;. >>>> I suggest you look at a three band dipole all connected at the same >>>> point. Each dipole provides a low resistance path for a particular >>>> applied frequency in its seach for a closed circuit. The applied >>>> current will not divert to a path of higher resistance or impedance in >>>> this case because we have to consider the effect of phase differences. >>>> With these sort of actions we can have several different paths for the >>>> current to follow but I assure you that it will pick the same one >>>> every time dependent on the frequency applied. >>>> Now to the wire mesh curtain. It provides a separate low impedence >>>> path for every frequency applied to it as well as a separate path for >>>> the displacement current that encloses a separate field ( see my page) >>>> which has the abilitity to accellerate mass as with an electric >>>> gun.The maximum accelleration applied to mass is obviously determined >>>> by its intrinsic mass where a minimum mass determines the speed of >>>> light. Today the smallest particle found is that of a Neutrino thus >>>> one can see the connection of the Sun to communication as we see it >>>> today. >>>> Regarding your description of the shield to a long wire or dipole, >>>> gthe curtain or shield does not provide a electrical connection for >>>> both sides of the shield as a dipole or long wire does. >>>> See Tom, your past postings are completely devoid of technical content >>>> and probably provide all readers with a silent chucklel >>>> By the way, a curtain is able to supply a very large aperture which is >>>> synonimous with the amount of gain it supplies. You might want to >>>> ponder on that aspect before you disparage it. >>>> The above is provided for you and your friends to salivate apon so you >>>> may provide a few more chuckles to those on the side lines. >>>> Note I have left some grammerr and spelling errors for you to comment >>>> upon in the absence of any technical content. >>>> Cheers and beers >>>> Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg >>> And I'll just summarize all the last part, since it would be a total >>> waste of time to comment individually on points -
>>> YOU ARE WRONG. Totally, completely, and terribly wrong.
>>> And no, I'm not going into how or why, because you never ever listen or >>> understand.
>>> tom >>> K0TAR
>> Oh My. I am wrong but you are unable to describe how I am wrong,how >> convenient!
> If you were to supply a sufficient description of what you have done, you > might to get more detailed responses. For example, it is unclear how you > have connected the feed line to the mesh. A photo (you have a website, you > could post it there) would make the details much clearer. You have not > specified the nature of the mesh (the material, the thickness of the wire > (assuming it is wire), how the intersections are joined, etc.). The > orientation of the mesh relative to the ground is not specified.
> You seem to expect detailed responses without out providing any details on > your part. > Where are the technical details to support what you are syaing about this > antenna? Frequency of operation: unspecified. Performace relative to > known/understood reference antennas: unspecified. Feedpoint impedance: > unspecified. Test conditions/setup: unspecified.
joe I'm with joe, Some of us may be interested enough to actually build and test some of the antennas you write about, but there is never enough detail for anyone to attempt a build. And why don't you post a link to your site? Mike
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:48:18 -0600, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote: >> Where are the technical details to support what you are syaing about this >> antenna? Frequency of operation: unspecified. Performace relative to >> known/understood reference antennas: unspecified. Feedpoint impedance: >> unspecified. Test conditions/setup: unspecified. > joe > I'm with joe, >Some of us may be interested enough to actually build and test some >of the antennas you write about, but there is never enough detail for >anyone to attempt a build. And why don't you post a link to your site?
Hi All,
This is not going to resolve issues. I have seen enough of Art's details contributed in quotations (folks should be more selective in both quotes and focus on one point) to see he claims ALL of HF at less than 2:1 and specifically the 160M band - when he uses a tuner continuously (an odd requirement adorning the claim in the advance over conventional designs there). He also reports not hearing anything on it. The two statements easily support each other in revealing the inordinate loss due to the proximity of ground. This is nothing that hasn't been reported for years by others as they encounter the silent blessings of distributed loss.
The language of Faraday shields has been corrupted to suit a fantasy, however. And Art has abandoned the arguments demanding length efficiency; and no requirement for tilting the radiator (this one is specifically described as being strictly parallel); and skewed elements (aka guss's radiators)are gone; and contra wound coils have disappeared; and what happened to paramagnetics?; and....
Well, Art's claims are like a long burning fuse that sparks for a moment leaving a trail of ash behind. The mesh burns with a sputtering flicker before it too is abandoned for the next fad when it will be discovered that the sun's particels would go through the mesh openings instead of hitting this peculiar antenna.
Richard Clark wrote: > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:48:18 -0600, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:
>>> Where are the technical details to support what you are syaing about this >>> antenna? Frequency of operation: unspecified. Performace relative to >>> known/understood reference antennas: unspecified. Feedpoint impedance: >>> unspecified. Test conditions/setup: unspecified. >> joe >> I'm with joe, >> Some of us may be interested enough to actually build and test some >> of the antennas you write about, but there is never enough detail for >> anyone to attempt a build. And why don't you post a link to your site?
> Hi All,
> This is not going to resolve issues.
I can concur. I won't go so far as to say they won't "work" - whatever work is defined as, but I don't see any new ground being broken.
ANother of Art's antennas, the rotatable coil on a stick is a tuned circuit on a stick, and probably functions as a EH antenna. I'd guess that most of it's radiation would be from the coax. Looking at the instructions given, I figured that's what it was going to do, so didn't take it any further.
This mesh device is either a wide dipole or a somethingorother worked against ground. It will probably tune and put out a signal. I wonder how things will work as it corrodes? Might get complex.
If you need to use a tuner, you might as well just put up as much number 12 THHN wire, and tune it. My doublet with an MFJ tuner works great.
> Richard Clark wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:48:18 -0600, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:
> >>> Where are the technical details to support what you are syaing about this > >>> antenna? Frequency of operation: unspecified. Performace relative to > >>> known/understood reference antennas: unspecified. Feedpoint impedance: > >>> unspecified. Test conditions/setup: unspecified. > >> joe > >> I'm with joe, > >> Some of us may be interested enough to actually build and test some > >> of the antennas you write about, but there is never enough detail for > >> anyone to attempt a build. And why don't you post a link to your site?
> > Hi All,
> > This is not going to resolve issues.
> I can concur. I won't go so far as to say they won't "work" - whatever > work is defined as, but I don't see any new ground being broken.
> ANother of Art's antennas, the rotatable coil on a stick is a tuned > circuit on a stick, and probably functions as a EH antenna. I'd guess > that most of it's radiation would be from the coax. Looking at the > instructions given, I figured that's what it was going to do, so didn't > take it any further.
> This mesh device is either a wide dipole or a somethingorother worked > against ground. It will probably tune and put out a signal. I wonder how > things will work as it corrodes? Might get complex.
> If you need to use a tuner, you might as well just put up as much number > 12 THHN wire, and tune it. My doublet with an MFJ tuner works great.
> - 73 de Mike -
Guys, I can't explain the antenna if you do not accept the basic premise of adding a time varying field to the law of Gauss is the same as Maxwells law for radiation. All of you state it is a false premise which means nothing is acceptable! For my part I am dealing with known laws of physics only which is what you are rejecting.Ask any body such as a professor or anybody who teaches theoretic physics for an opinion. At the same time find out what Gauss equation in cgs units changes to when you add a time varying field! To me it is obvious that as the old timers pass on they are being replaced by operators of a hand mike who have absolutely no interest in experimentation,how a radio works or the physics background of same. Having one of the new licenses to hold a microphone does not make one an expert of any sort let alone a major in physics. Nobody but nobody has ventured forth the resulting equation or proffered anything to justify allegations of radiation from the feed line or any other scientific fact in rebuttal to what I propose. So based on your postings I can only consider you to be microphone holders with absolutely no interest in physics and only interested in the straw men that you manufacture based on untruths to which you base your arguements upon. Frankly none of you can handle the truth or change from the past. I suppose this particular thread has now come to an end as your understanding of physics results in different result from mine and you now prefer to supply insults or spamming in line with your fellow poster KB9QRZ who now appears to be using different calls to attack to hide his identity based on the content of the posts. Cheers and beers Art Unwin......KB9MZ.....xg
> Guys, I can't explain the antenna if you do not accept the basic > premise of adding a time varying field to the law of Gauss is the same > as Maxwells law for radiation.
Gauss and Maxwell have nothing to do with describing the areas I mentioned.
All of you state it is a false premise
> which means nothing is acceptable! For my part I am dealing with known > laws of physics only which is what you are rejecting.Ask any body such > as a professor or anybody who teaches theoretic physics for an > opinion. At the same time find out what Gauss equation in cgs units > changes to when you add a time varying field!
The laws of physics were not questioned. I just wanted to know how you made the antenna. You are evading the issue.
> To me it is obvious that as the old timers pass on they are being > replaced by operators of a hand mike who have absolutely no interest > in experimentation,how a radio works or the physics background of > same. Having one of the new licenses to hold a microphone does not > make one an expert of any sort let alone a major in physics. Nobody > but nobody has ventured forth the resulting equation or proffered > anything to justify allegations of radiation from the feed line or any > other scientific fact in rebuttal to what I propose. So based on your > postings I can only consider you to be microphone holders with > absolutely no interest in physics and only interested in the straw men > that you manufacture based on untruths to which you base your > arguements upon. Frankly none of you can handle the truth or change > from the past.
So, you choose to throw more insults.
> I suppose this particular thread has now come to an end
It comes to an end because you won't supply any details. It becomes clear that you are NOT looking for any meaningful discussion.
> as your understanding of physics results in different result from mine > and you now prefer to supply insults or spamming in line with your > fellow poster KB9QRZ who now appears to be using different calls to > attack to hide his identity based on the content of the posts.
< snip the normal nonsense, and on with the new...>
> I suppose this particular thread has now come to an end > as your understanding of physics results in different result from mine > and you now prefer to supply insults
<snip more hallucinations>
> Cheers and beers > Art Unwin......KB9MZ.....xg
You nailed it. Your understanding of physics differs from mine. It also differs from any physics professor you would care to speak to, which is why none have shown up to support your nonsense. And differs from everyone here that has designed (that is an important word) an antenna that works as predicted. With real testable numbers and all that silly stuff.
|
