Yuri, to say this is mumbo jumbo at this point puts you in a much
smaller group
than the large group following the thread from the beginning. That
also includes
a group of people from the Eham forum that formerly allowed you to be
a part of them.
We are at the point where "natural" radiation of a particular
polarised field is not
at right angles to the plane of the radiator and yet still obeys
Maxwellian law,
the basis of which computor programs are based upon. Thus you should
changed from your aproach of a Lemming or snake and attempt to
understand the
logic that is now being placed before you and the observations
reported
along the way. I would suggest that you abandon your normal derisive
position and determine the vertical polarised radiation gain of a
vertical dipole at
various angles with respect to the ground starting at right angles and
progresively
tip the dipole where you will see a correlation to the science
explanations that
I am providing. Thus, by your own observations you will find that
your allegations
of mumbo jumbo is totally misplaced and where you will regret the
slander
that you have applied to me over the years. Ofcourse, you can close
your mind,
shake your head where your brain will rattle in the much larger
confines of your skull
and instead of being a Lemming you can continue to be a rattle snake.
as well
... You badly need an attitude adjustment,this is a good time to
comply
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG

On Jun 30, 10:02 am, art wrote:
Yuri, to say this is mumbo jumbo at this point puts you in a much
smaller group
than the large group following the thread from the beginning.

Maybe not as small as you think..

An example of mumbo...
"With some sort of engineering background we can add
vectors to provide a single vector aimed somewhere in the middle of
the two vectors and at an angle to the element. "

Well, let me see, what if one didn't have some sort of engineering
background? Would the antenna thusly be forever stunted and doomed
to a life residing inside a cheap cell phone?
All my antennas work the same no matter the education level of
the builder. Why are yours so special?

Art, I hate to break it to you, but the post that I yanked that quote
from had me rolling on the floor. It took me nearly two days to
recover
enough to be able to type this short friendly message.

I won't even venture into the many other areas of jumbo mumbo..
I'll leave that to Dave... It's his Q and A session...
You started out on the right track for maybe about 10 hours, but you
have reverted to your previous mumbo jumbo mode..Please reboot
yourself, and try again. If you have no reset button, have a family
member unplug, and then plug you back in... At least you haven't
been whining as much lately..That's a definite step in the right
direction. Discuss...
MK

art wrote:

...

I am plonking this whole thread ... starting a whole thread to respond
to such is just too amazingly wasteful, trouble-some, annoying, etc ...

JS

Mark Keith, NM5K wrote:
"Why are your`s so special?"

Art can`t answer but I will. Art is dead wrong.

Radiation resistance is a resistance. Radiated energy has its current
in-phase with its voltage.

FCC defines output power of a transmitter as RF current at a designated
common-point of known resistance, thus calculated as I squared R.

Terman says on page 2 of his 1955 opus:
"A plane parallel to the mutually perpendicular lines of electric and
electromagnetic flux is called the wavefront."

Mutually perpendicular describes the physical positions of the fields,
not the timing of their waxing and waning, which is simultaneous.

The intrinsic impedance of free-space is the E/H ratio, a resistance of
377 ohms. The vector product of E and H gives the Poynting vector, or
power flow in watts per square neter in the direction of propagation.
The above is found on page 7 of E.A. Laport`s "Radio Antenna
Engineering".

Art has been promulgating pure baloney no matter how it is sliced about
vector analysis. I recommended B. Whitfield Griffith,Jr.`s
"Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" to Art for an understanding
of Maxwell and radiation. He obviously hasn`t yet studied Mr.
Griffith`s work.

I hate to dash the dreams of an old man, but he is leading others
astray.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 09:02:42 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

he is leading others astray.

Hi Richard,

That would be true if anyone could follow him.

In the 20 Questions thread, there have been 19 questions and 25
answers, and Arthur is no further than explaining what he understands
from Faraday - imagine what it would take to get to Gauss, through his
work, and on to Maxwell, then Heavisides beyond him. Then comes the
pioneers of antennas.

As I recall, the game of 20 Questions could resolve an answer with
less work. Imagine, Arthur's final answer is:
the right hand
rule
is still preserved

What insight! There's more interest in the morbid lock-step of how
many questions until Arthur spits on Dave. I'm taking the pool number
of 43.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Harrison wrote:
Radiation resistance is a resistance. Radiated energy has its current
in-phase with its voltage.

The IEEE Dictionary is pretty clear when they define two
types of resistances: (A) a resistor with resistance and
(B) a virtual resistance with the V/I ratio in phase.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Jul 1, 4:35 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
Radiation resistance is a resistance. Radiated energy has its current
in-phase with its voltage.

The IEEE Dictionary is pretty clear when they define two
types of resistances: (A) a resistor with resistance and
(B) a virtual resistance with the V/I ratio in phase.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I could not find "virtual resistance" in "IEEE 100, The Authoritative
Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh
Edition".

Do you have a reference?

Interesting, they explicitly define "radiation resistance" as
"The ratio of the power radiated by an antenna to the
square of the RMS antenna current referred to a specified
point.
Notes: 1. The total power radiated is equal to the power
accepted by the antenna minus the power dissipated in the
antenna.
2. This term is of limited utility for antennas in lossy
media."

There seems to be a lot of opportunity for confusion with
this definition: "referred to a specified point" indeed.
Which point?

The IEEE definition of "resistance" is hardly less obtuse:
"(1)(A)(network analysis) That physical property of an
element, device, branch, network, or system that is the
factor by which the mean-square conduction current must be
multiplied to give the corresponding power lost by
dissipation as heat or as other permanent radiation or
loss of electromagnetic energy from the circuit.
(B)(network analysis) The real part of impedance.
Note: Definitions (A) and (B) are not equivalent but are
supplementary. In any case where confusion may arise,
specify definition being used. See also: resistor."

....Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 1, 4:35 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
Radiation resistance is a resistance. Radiated energy has its current
in-phase with its voltage.
The IEEE Dictionary is pretty clear when they define two
types of resistances: (A) a resistor with resistance and
(B) a virtual resistance with the V/I ratio in phase.

I could not find "virtual resistance" in "IEEE 100, The Authoritative
Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh
Edition".

Do you have a reference?
Note: Definitions (A) and (B) are not equivalent but are
supplementary. In any case where confusion may arise,
specify definition being used. See also: resistor."

Sure do, Keith - your own quote. An example of Definition
(A) is a resistor. An example of Definition (B) is the
characteristic impedance of a transmission line which
is a virtual dissipationless resistance. Another example
of (B) is the feedpoint impedance of a standing wave
antenna. Another example of (B) is the virtual impedance
at the end of a quarter-wave series section transformer.
Another probable example of (B) is the dissipationless
part of a generator's source impedance.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Jul 1, 11:14 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 1, 4:35 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
Radiation resistance is a resistance. Radiated energy has its current
in-phase with its voltage.
The IEEE Dictionary is pretty clear when they define two
types of resistances: (A) a resistor with resistance and
(B) a virtual resistance with the V/I ratio in phase.

I could not find "virtual resistance" in "IEEE 100, The Authoritative
Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh
Edition".

Do you have a reference?
Sure do, Keith - your own quote. An example of Definition
(A) is a resistor. An example of Definition (B) is the
characteristic impedance of a transmission line which
is a virtual dissipationless resistance. Another example
of (B) is the feedpoint impedance of a standing wave
antenna. Another example of (B) is the virtual impedance
at the end of a quarter-wave series section transformer.
Another probable example of (B) is the dissipationless
part of a generator's source impedance.

I understand now. "Virtual resistance" is a term of your
own invention, not the IEEE, which explains why it is not
in the dicionary.

It is not a bad term for the concept, just misattributed.

....Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
I understand now. "Virtual resistance" is a term of your
own invention, not the IEEE, which explains why it is not
in the dicionary.

I didn't invent the term, Keith. It is simply
descriptive of a resistance when the resistance
is not a resistor - a virtual resistance as
opposed to a physical resistor.

The fact that there are two definitions, (A) and
(B), for resistance in the IEEE dictionary is what
is important. But their definition has (A) as a
subset of (B). So what do we call a resistance that
satisfies the (B) definition but not the (A) definition?
Walter Maxwell calls it a virtual resistance and that's
good enough for me.

It is not a bad term for the concept, just misattributed.

I believe the first time I encountered the word
"virtual" used for an impedance was when I read
Walter Maxwell's early QST articles some 30 years
ago.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com