Cecil, are you discussing 'pea soup'?

Cecil Moore wrote:

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:

Piddle means to mess around with things, ...


My unabridged dictionary says it has a second meaning.
There are many piddling contests on r.r.a.a :-)
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Gene I suspect your Google has yet to be updated
but if not look up Tom's responses to me just for this month. As for Brian I
did not trash him ! I think he said at the end it was impossible ! I suspect
you are a new person on this newsgroup so I suppose one has to accept such
statements and not take to much notice of such bland conclusions.......Now
do you have anything to contribute?
Regards
Art

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Art,

You just received two serious and legitimate responses from Tom and Brian.
You
proceeded to trash each of them for their contributions.

How do you expect to get useful input if you are not willing to accept
anything
that does not agree with your preconceived notions?

YOU are the one with the loaded pea shooter.

Shame on you!

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Hmmmm
They said that the idea of break dancing was an impossibility but they
have
classes for same in East St Louis Students are not allowed to graduate
until thay exhibit the ability of removing a hub cap off of a moving
vehicle
!
They probably have the same class in The Goebals
Regards
Art

Gene,
Brian is a fellow Brit why would I trash a fellow 'G'
Come to think of it why are you trashing me when you contributed nothing ?
Just try to get along and you are home free
Art

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Art,

You just received two serious and legitimate responses from Tom and Brian.
You
proceeded to trash each of them for their contributions.

How do you expect to get useful input if you are not willing to accept
anything
that does not agree with your preconceived notions?

YOU are the one with the loaded pea shooter.

Shame on you!

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Hmmmm
They said that the idea of break dancing was an impossibility but they
have
classes for same in East St Louis Students are not allowed to graduate
until thay exhibit the ability of removing a hub cap off of a moving
vehicle
!
They probably have the same class in The Goebals
Regards
Art

Cecil,

I am not Tom, but I will respond anyhow.

It is so hard to keep up with you. This entire thread started a few days ago
with a debate between you and Roy. You chastised Roy for considering the net
current instead of the individual components. Now you have switched back to
talking about net currents resulting from the addition of individual phasor
currents.

Which one do you want to talk about?

It is unlikely that anyone reading this newsgroup is confused regarding the back
and forth nature of the current on a thin wire. To insinuate such is merely a
cheap shot that appears intended to intimidate. (Go ahead, take your best shot.)
8-)

The concept of phasors is a common and useful tool for visualization and some
elementary numerical solutions. The simple standing wave analysis currently
under discussion and debate is certainly an appropriate subject for phasor
treatment. However, once outside of the realm of ideal one-dimensional systems
the use of phasors gets much more complicated. The use of conventional
mathematics for such problems is pretty standard.

The typical equation describing a standing wave is:

I = A * sin (kx) sin (wt)

The spatial phase of this equation is "kx", while the temporal phase is "wt". At
no time do these phases suddenly reverse direction. The resulting value for I
ranges through positive and negative values, and again it is unlikely that
anyone is confused.

If you choose to call the switch from current flow in the positive direction to
the negative direction a 180 degree phase shift, so be it. I prefer to keep the
phase in its place and let the sine function do its thing to reverse the value
of the equation.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Cecil Moore wrote:

Tdonaly wrote:

(P.S. Art, I hope you don't equate disagreement with ridicule. I
reserve all my
ridicule for Cecil since he can take it.)


.... .. .... ..

Tom, I notice you have not posted your calculations for
the phase angles of those superposed phasors I presented
yesterday. Did you come up with any phase angle other
than zero and 180 degrees? Do you understand why Kraus'
phase graph for standing wave current contains only two
possible values of phase?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Art wrote,
Don't make up a false augument, nowhere do I say that parts of a dipole
does not radiate, soon you will have half the neibourhood up in arms
regarding something I didn't say. As for your parlying the term 'false' so
liberaly it is clear that you were sleeping during class, but then even
those who know little of radiation can have an oponion.
So what is your vision of the future with respect to antenna and are you
doing anything to make that vision come true i.e. walking the walk.or are
your jollies gained by shooting at those such as Cecil that does have the
required knoweledge? On top of all that read carefully regarding'
efficiency' since I have qualified it as ' per unit length'
Best regards
Art Unwin


Actually, Art, I have come up with a small antenna that radiates well enough,

although I don't see any point in making anything out of it since I can't get
it
to do anything impossible. ( A full-size antenna would work better.)
I apologize if I misunderstood you. You might pause to consider, however,
that a half-wave dipole at the correct height is quite efficient, anyway, and
improving it from, say, 98% to 99% won't gain you much advantage,
even if your idea has merit.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Art,

OK, here is my contribution.

Short antennas are quite thoroughly understood. Most of the analytical
treatments of antenna theory I have seen start with short dipoles and then
expand to longer dipoles and other types of antennas.

There have been any number of segmented antennas proposed and built, including
multiple trap antennas, multiple capacitor antennas, curtain antennas, fractal
antennas, and so on. Do you have some new idea that has not already been tried?

Short antennas radiate just fine, IF one can feed the power into the antenna and
avoid losing too much to non-radiative losses.

It has already been pointed out that all parts of a dipole antenna contribute to
the radiation. Sure, it is possible to shorten the antenna and even maintain the
same total radiated power. However, the pattern will change and the antenna may
become more difficult to feed.

It is not clear what issue you find with Yagi antennas. Keep in mind that it is
unlikely that one can achieve high directionality and gain from an antenna with
a size that is a tiny fraction of the wavelength. This is the case for radio
waves, optics, or any other wave phenomena. The reason people choose to use
large Yagi antennas is gain, not efficiency or cost.

Soooo, the bottom line is that there are large antennas, and there are small
antennas. Different applications favor one type over others.

Do you expect to develop some new antenna design concepts or even some new
science? If the former, then the field is well-plowed, even if it is
theoretically still infinite. If the latter, well, good luck.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:

Gene,
Brian is a fellow Brit why would I trash a fellow 'G'
Come to think of it why are you trashing me when you contributed nothing ?
Just try to get along and you are home free
Art

Art wrote,

Gene I suspect your Google has yet to be updated
but if not look up Tom's responses to me just for this month.


What responses? I don't normally respond to your posts, Art.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Cecil wrote,

Tdonaly wrote:
(P.S. Art, I hope you don't equate disagreement with ridicule. I reserve
all my
ridicule for Cecil since he can take it.)

.... .. .... ..

Tom, I notice you have not posted your calculations for
the phase angles of those superposed phasors I presented
yesterday. Did you come up with any phase angle other
than zero and 180 degrees? Do you understand why Kraus'
phase graph for standing wave current contains only two
possible values of phase?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP




What! And get into a 500 post exchange with you? You must think I'm
mad.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Gene Fuller wrote:
It is so hard to keep up with you. This entire thread started a few days
ago with a debate between you and Roy. You chastised Roy for considering
the net current instead of the individual components. Now you have
switched back to talking about net currents resulting from the addition
of individual phasor currents.

Which one do you want to talk about?

Nice try, Gene. What got Roy into trouble is forgetting that the net
current consists of two components. One can choose to talk about either
the components or the net as long as one realizes that the net is the
sum of the components. Roy has said, in so many words, that I am stupid
to worry about the components when all I need to worry about is the net.
It's obvious that Kraus worries about the components and, therefore, I
have good reason for such. Great insight is afforded to he who considers
the primary components of the sum instead of ignoring them.

At no time do these phases suddenly reverse direction.

Aha, so you disagree with Kraus and apparently don't understand the
thin wire analysis of standing waves in his book.

If you choose to call the switch from current flow in the positive
direction to the negative direction a 180 degree phase shift, so be it.

A DDS chip can generate a sine wave. Are you telling me that +0.001 volts
out of a DDS chip is not 180 degrees different from a -0.001 volts out of
a DDS chip? At exactly what voltage level does it have to get to to call
it a 180 degree phase shift? If all you see is a step from +0.001 volts
to -0.001 volts, does the information that you don't know dictate whether
is is a 180 degree phase shift or some other phase shift? If so, you are
in deep doo-doo, my friend, and you cannot trust any measurements because
there are always unknowns.

This situation of math models dictating reality (instead of vice-versa) is
worse than I thought. In reality, there is no imaginary current when the
real current is zero. All current in the real-world is real. I suppose that
all current in the imaginary world is imaginary but that's not the world I
live in. If the real current is zero then, for people living in the real world,
the current is zero - there ain't no more. In reality, God doesn't control
everything about the universe according to his whim. HE allows HIS physical
laws to run the universe. If a 180 degree reversal in the direction of flow
of current is not a 180 degree reverse in reality, exactly what is it? If you
have a square wave with one amp as the maximum, and -0.1 amp as the minimum,
is that not a 180 degree phase shift? If you have a square wave with 0.00001
amp as the maximum and 0.00001 amp as the minimum is that not a 180 degree
phase shift? Is the quantum shift from +0.0000...01 volts to -0.0000...01
volts not a shift of 180 degrees?

Gene, I hate to burst your (sacred cow) bubble, but the imaginary part of
the current doesn't actually exist in my universe. If it exists in yours,
I suggest you subscribe to r.r.a.a in that universe, wherever it might be.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Tdonaly wrote:

Cecil wrote,
Tom, I notice you have not posted your calculations for
the phase angles of those superposed phasors I presented
yesterday. Did you come up with any phase angle other
than zero and 180 degrees? Do you understand why Kraus'
phase graph for standing wave current contains only two
possible values of phase?

What! And get into a 500 post exchange with you? You must think I'm
mad.

Heh, heh, it won't be a 500 post exchange if you got the same answer
as Kraus and I did (50 years ago). :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----