Ofcourse it is meaningless to you as you are lacking in independent thought.
Because you are mentally disabled
you should not condemn independant thoughts of others"'Doc"
I am still amazed that you think that by referring to yourself as a Doctor
your statements then carry an aura of authenticity
when in actual fact it shows your lack of knowledge

wrote in message ...
Typical 'Art Unwin'. Good word count. Zero meaning.
'Doc

Art,
Pssst! As I've explained to you at least six times before,
"Doc" is a nick name. It has nothing at all to do with any
degree, or profession. I'm sorry you can't understand that.
I have never referred to my self as a doctor of anything. You
have referred to me as 'Doctor' several times, and each time
I've tried to correct that misimpression. Add this time to that
list.
My thoughts are fairly conventional, but there are a few
independent ones that sneak in every once in a while. All in
all,
I'm boringly average. I'm comfortable with that, not sure I'd
even want to change it, too lazy I think.
I'm also fairly experienced in recognizing B.S. when I hear
it (used to be a government employee, you know).
'Doc
(Not to be confused with 'Doctor')

Art, It's Saturday morning here and I'm just reading my email before my
wife and I run away from home to visit the Grandkids and go out to eat
for the DAY.

I am a minister and will be busy most of Sunday. I'll try to respond
late Sunday or Monday morning.

Deacon Dave

aunwin wrote:
David
I think you can help me out on this efficiency malarkey. A dipole receives
all signals within the dipoles range so its receive capabilities are well
beyond
the frequency span of choice
I would venture to say that when discussing efficiency we should place
bandwidth of choice received divided by the total bandwidth that the dipole
actually receives and then multiply by 100. To say a dipole is 90 %
efficient when some parts of a dipole supply radiation that is many times
its other parts of equal lengths supply demands further explanation. Maximum
radiation can only come about when the current flow is a maximum regardless
of current input and is a constant per unit length and that description does
not match a dipole which always require added insertion losses for equipment
to overcome its inefficiences. If the dipole exceeds 90% efficiency then why
waste effort and energy on interface devices between the antenna and the
transformation to say.... audio?
Efficiency should always be aimed at the energy needs required over the
total energy
that has to be supplied to meet required needs. If a truck carries a grain
of desired gold buried in a ton of junk would you call the mining operation
100% efficient by ignoring search costs of finding the grain of gold and the
removal costs for the junk? I believe the above verifies my initial
statement that a dipole can be seen as inefficient. As an engineer I cannot
agree
with power in versus power out ( radiation) type statements as energy
cannot be created or destroyed. Energy supplied by a lump of coal does not
lose any energy in its change of state but as far as efficiency is concerned
I do not count the energy that escaped in smoke as beneficial
and thus quantified as a positive with respect to efficiency
Regards
Art



"Dave Shrader" wrote in message
news:_ozZb.356634$I06.3765208@attbi_s01...

Guys, you're off on a tangent!

I believe Efficiency is the ratio of power radiated to power input.

If a dipole is 95% efficient it radiates 95 out of 100 watts.

If a Yagi is 95% efficient it radiates 95 out of 100 watts.

If a Quad is 95% efficient it radiates 95 out of 100 watts.

If a vertical is 95% efficient it radiates 95 out of 100 watts.

If a Log Periodic is 95% efficient it radiates 95 out of 100 watts.

If a 1/10 wavelength antenna made of unobtainium is 95% efficient it
radiates 95 out of 100 watts.

Don't confuse Gain, Directivity and Efficiency in the discussion.

Deacon Dave

Richard Harrison wrote:

Art, KB9MZ wrote:


SNIP

In any case, "efficient" is only as compared with similar devices.

SNIP: Wrong!! See above


Recall that dBd is the norm as an isotropic antenna is only a
theoretical creature. Catalogs are filled with antenna characteristics
as compared with a 1/2-wave dipole in free space.

SNIP: The comparison is generally Gain as dBd, dBi, or dBu
[unobtainium]. Not Efficiency!!!

It is the standard of

comparison. It could hardly be correctly called inefficient.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Oooooops
I meant mentally challenged, mentally handicapped is politically incorrect
Art
"'Doc" wrote in message ...
Art,
Pssst! As I've explained to you at least six times before,
"Doc" is a nick name. It has nothing at all to do with any
degree, or profession. I'm sorry you can't understand that.
I have never referred to my self as a doctor of anything. You
have referred to me as 'Doctor' several times, and each time
I've tried to correct that misimpression. Add this time to that
list.
My thoughts are fairly conventional, but there are a few
independent ones that sneak in every once in a while. All in
all,
I'm boringly average. I'm comfortable with that, not sure I'd
even want to change it, too lazy I think.
I'm also fairly experienced in recognizing B.S. when I hear
it (used to be a government employee, you know).
'Doc
(Not to be confused with 'Doctor')

Z

teve Nosko wrote:
"BTW--what is your line, Richard?"

I apologize for a critical tone in my response to Steve`s posting. An
ancient previous discussion of dissipationless resistance in this
newsgroup leaves me primed to comment when it appears unappreciated.

Dissipationless resistance is the stuff which allows a Class C amplifier
exceed 50% efficiency.

I won`t say I`ve been teaching X years, as I`ve never had that role.
Long ago, I found my patience and temperament unsuited to tutoring. I am
a long retired electrical engineer and find entertainment in the
newsgroups.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote in message
m...
Tom,I agree with much of what you say but the problem goes much deeper
than that, and much of the blame rests with academics taught.
Let us look at what is called by some as a 'simple dipole'.
The dipole is very inefficient radiator.
The only claim that you can place on it is that it is has a low
impedance
at resonance...Period. There is no calculation available in any of the
touted books that maximum gain per unit length is design related to a
dipole! The dipole is only a reference that other antennas can be
related to even tho it is a very inefficient radiator per unit length.
Over time academics have made the dipole as something very efficient
about which every advance must be related .
That Tom is very incorrect and it is that which is what prevents the
emergence of new ideas that push the envelope. If one just spouts what
is in present day books then they are just followers that suck up the
dipole aproach which thus prevents them from contributing anything
that pushes out the envelope. Education
can only take you so far and it is dependent on those who have
received an education to push the envelope further. If one doesn't do
this then they are just quoting things that were told to them or they
read in some book and thus are not equiped to pushing the envelope.
Until the simple dipole is shead of its illusionary powers by the
academics who write the books newcomers can only copy, and not
progress. Ofcourse, academics who just memorise can still attack
people, those who do not agree with them, in a personal way in the
hope that a raucous crowd of peasants will echo the academics trash
around the Gillotine.

Regards
Art





Gain and efficecey have nothing to do with each other

Efficency is based on how much of your signal your antenna turns into heat
compared to the amount radiated and nothing more. Gain is based of how your
antenna shapes the pattern. The fact is a simple dipole will often service
more area than high gain antennas. The high gain antenna just uses radiation
that would normally go some where you are not interested in to intensifies
the signal in an area where you want to communicate. Art this is a fact you
really need to understand. Dont feel bad about it though, I believe gain was
a very poor word chosen to discribe the effect of an antenna on the shape of
its field. Gain typically means to amplify which is something an antenna can
not do. This all means that it is possible that a simple dipole is more
efficent than a Yagi_Uda antenna with 10 dbd of gain. The dipole may be
slighly more effeicent due to less losses coupling to the feed line. Mind
you this will be a very small diference in losses when comparing well
designed antennas.

Unless you are willing to give demonstrative proof of your ideas you should
not insult us that that hold dear our beliefs and theories by refering to us
as raucous crowd of peasants. I you are unwilling to prove your points you
only appear as a fool. Our belefs and theories have been tested over many
years and have found to be true as far as they have been tested, your ideas
have not been tested by you at all. You assign words new meanings that are
not typical of those discussing antennas and expect others to understand
you. You ask for critical opinon of your ideaas but become angry when
someone disagrees with you. If you really think you have some kind of new
break through put your money where yiur mouth is and demonstrate them or go
join the free power bunch, they will love and embrace you and take your
money..

Dave Shrader wrote:
"I believe Efficiency is the ratio of power radiated to power input."

Dave has a point. Basic efficiency is output divided by input.

Power, work, or energies can be used for the ratio. An example of energy
efficiency is in the "all day efficiency" of an electric distribution
transformer. The transformer may be energized but supplying little or no
energy during many of the 24 hours. While idle, the transformer draws
excitation current just as it does when fully loaded. So, the
transformer`s 24-hour average efficiency is lower than its efficiency
while nearly fully loaded.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

What allows a class-C amplifier to exceed 50% efficiency is a small
operating angle.

Reg, G4FGQ

"Jimmy" wrote in message
. com...

"Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote in message
m...
Tom,I agree with much of what you say but the problem goes much deeper
than that, and much of the blame rests with academics taught.
Let us look at what is called by some as a 'simple dipole'.
The dipole is very inefficient radiator.
The only claim that you can place on it is that it is has a low
impedance
at resonance...Period. There is no calculation available in any of the
touted books that maximum gain per unit length is design related to a
dipole! The dipole is only a reference that other antennas can be
related to even tho it is a very inefficient radiator per unit length.
Over time academics have made the dipole as something very efficient
about which every advance must be related .
That Tom is very incorrect and it is that which is what prevents the
emergence of new ideas that push the envelope. If one just spouts what
is in present day books then they are just followers that suck up the
dipole aproach which thus prevents them from contributing anything
that pushes out the envelope. Education
can only take you so far and it is dependent on those who have
received an education to push the envelope further. If one doesn't do
this then they are just quoting things that were told to them or they
read in some book and thus are not equiped to pushing the envelope.
Until the simple dipole is shead of its illusionary powers by the
academics who write the books newcomers can only copy, and not
progress. Ofcourse, academics who just memorise can still attack
people, those who do not agree with them, in a personal way in the
hope that a raucous crowd of peasants will echo the academics trash
around the Gillotine.

Regards
Art





Gain and efficecey have nothing to do with each other

Oooooops I have been pushing radiation efficiency per unit length for so
long my fingers gave up on me and wrote gain


Efficency is based on how much of your signal your antenna turns into heat
compared to the amount radiated and nothing more. Gain is based of how
your
antenna shapes the pattern. The fact is a simple dipole will often service
more area than high gain antennas. The high gain antenna just uses
radiation
that would normally go some where you are not interested in to intensifies
the signal in an area where you want to communicate. Art this is a fact
you
really need to understand. Dont feel bad about it though, I believe gain
was
a very poor word chosen to discribe the effect of an antenna on the shape
of
its field. Gain typically means to amplify which is something an antenna
can
not do. This all means that it is possible that a simple dipole is more
efficent than a Yagi_Uda antenna with 10 dbd of gain. The dipole may be
slighly more effeicent due to less losses coupling to the feed line. Mind
you this will be a very small diference in losses when comparing well
designed antennas.

Unless you are willing to give demonstrative proof of your ideas you
should
not insult us that that hold dear our beliefs and theories by refering to
us
as raucous crowd of peasants. I you are unwilling to prove your points you
only appear as a fool.
So am a fool.. so what

Our belefs and theories have been tested over many
years and have found to be true as far as they have been tested, your
ideas
have not been tested by you at all.

Oh not so...I tried to share it with the group many times and always called
me a fool
so I must be one. As for my ideas being tested ofcourse they have and I laid
out the money
and did the walk

You assign words new meanings that are

so if you have trouble by me not using typical word then ask questions,
I think for myself
not typical of those discussing antennas and expect others to understand
you.

Geez What started all this,are you a buddy of the doctor or something?

I declared a antenna with a patent infact two of them,they did not attract
attention
but at least I did my thing.And yes I have another one going plus I am
hoping to publish it
this year. Yes it may bomb out as far as interest goes but I am meeting my
own objectives,
if amateurs are not willing to explore or go beyond the accepted way of
thinking well to them it is a hobby
.. If you do try to push the envelope then you will inevitably focus on thing
that are not the norm. If you feel I should present them all to you in a
take and not give aproach tough I tried that a few times on this group
and experts like the Doctor and Shakespeare just wanted to laugh off the
thought of any new ideas and more like minds jumped on the bandwaggon for a
free laugh. This cruelty has happened many times before with other
people...just think of the erudite members that we have lost in just the
last two months which really doesn't matter to appliance operators but for
me who is interested in the technical side.....well I miss them

You ask for critical opinon of your ideaas but become angry when
someone disagrees with you.

Yes if I feel their attempt was dishonourable, I am English I can't think of
running away. If this is the time for me to die then so be it but I will not
be cowed.

If you really think you have some kind of new
break through put your money where yiur mouth is and demonstrate them or
go
join the free power bunch, they will love and embrace you and take your
money..Well go and read my past patents some cost me money and some cost
company money
now you have an opportunity to do the walk instead of following the Doctor
and Shakespeare
over a cliff. Now you could turn on Yuri he has the guts to stand up for
himself even if it apears that he is alone., Maybe he will be an easy target
for you but I doubt it

When I said 'peasants' I was refering to the likes of the Doctor and
Richard hic Shakespeare who just love to attack people or complain they
don't understand
or a posting is so meaningless and of course Richard has placed nasty
comments about
pretty much everybody and he hasn't jumped on me yet ,but ofcourse the
Doctor quickly got back on the net
to do his thing. I don't know if I have ever responded to you before but if
you think the hat was meant for or fitted you then I apologise. I do not
intend to be nasty but I do not hesitate to respond in kind
Best regards
Art