What is the main factor that prevents HF radiation from focussing
for extra gain?

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
What is the main factor that prevents HF radiation from focussing
for extra gain?

1, Focusing the radiation involves using a parabolic antenna whose surface
area is several wavelengths in length
2. Since our definition of HF includes frequencies between 1.8 Mhz and
50mhz, the physical size of the reflector required would be too large for
the average ham to handle.
3. However, that does not prevent HF radiation from being focused, it just
address the practicality concerning costs.
Therefore the answer is: There's nothing to prevent HF radiation for
focusing for extra gain, as long as you build the antenna or beam in
proportion to the wavelengths. If the wavelength is 10,000 times larger than
that old TV dish, then simply build your "dish" 10,000 times larger, and in
the same proportions.

On Sep 11, 11:11*pm, "Hal Rosser" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

What is the main factor that prevents HF radiation from focussing
for extra gain?

1, Focusing the radiation involves using a parabolic antenna whose surface
area is several wavelengths in length
2. Since our definition of HF includes frequencies between 1.8 Mhz and
50mhz, the physical size of the reflector required would be too large for
the average ham to handle.
3. However, that does not prevent HF radiation from being focused, it just
address the practicality concerning costs.
Therefore the answer is: There's nothing to prevent HF radiation for
focusing for extra gain, as long as you build the antenna or beam in
proportion to the wavelengths. If the wavelength is 10,000 times larger than
that old TV dish, then simply build your "dish" 10,000 times larger, and in
the same proportions.

Hal
I have a antenna the size of two shoe boxes. This antenna is multi
wave lengths long
and will radiate on top band. In making this antenna so small I added
inductance
which I consequently cancelled as lumped loads have not been included
in the laws of radiation
as espoused by Maxwell. The opinion of this group is that I place a
reflector at a great distance
from this small physical box and call it a reflector!
I place this same small antenna upon the ground and with the use of a
antenna program
determine that I have produced gain based on a perfect ground. The
design on the antenna
is based upon the laws of Gauss since the laws of Maxwell has not
provided any impetus to the
solving of the phenomina of radiation . The laws of Gauss correlate
with each other and a person came on board
to verify such. But the trail that I offered has been rejected
Not.... because the association presented is in error
it was rejected by.....well..........well just because....... without
providing evidence to the contrary.
This has lead us to the obsurd present point where a cubic foot size
antenna for top band should have
its reflecter a couple of blocks away and of a size stretching for
several thousand feet instead of a few inches
where if the antenna was a ball of presureized water the close
reflector would prevent the jet of water spreading to the rear.
Regards
Art KB9MZ.....XG

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 11, 11:11 pm, "Hal Rosser" wrote:
This has lead us to the obsurd present point where a cubic foot size
antenna for top band should have
its reflecter a couple of blocks away and of a size stretching for
several thousand feet instead of a few inches
where if the antenna was a ball of presureized water the close
reflector would prevent the jet of water spreading to the rear.

better, getting better... keep going, this concept has potential to keep me
amused for the weekend with this bad wx. pressurized water vs 160m size
photons is a good combination!

On Sep 12, 1:25*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 11, 11:11 pm, "Hal Rosser" wrote:

This has lead us to the *obsurd present point where a cubic foot size
antenna for top band should have
its reflecter a couple of blocks away and of a size stretching for
several thousand feet instead of a few inches
where if the antenna was a ball of presureized water the close
reflector would prevent the jet of water spreading to the rear.

better, getting better... keep going, this concept has potential to keep me
amused for the weekend with this bad wx. *pressurized water vs 160m size
photons is a good combination!

I have no idea of how a photon affects radiation. I do know that when
a building is being drenched by a jet of water
you do not cover the building with a protective shield or reflector
you put a reflector close to the source.
You have to be the only guy in the country with a 2000 foot diameter
umbrella to keep your hair dry! You were the leader in this ham group
that denied the mathematics of the comparison
of Maxwell and Gauss. Because the rest of the hams on this group could
not handle the transition of the different units involved
or have not studied physics they followed you over the cliff like
lemmings.
All because you were exercising free speech where verification was not
available
I assume you know how to turn on a transmitter but beyond that your
education is a great mystery.
For sure you never received a pass in physics of any sort and debate
with such a person is impossible
I await the day when a ham comes along with sufficient education to
verify or discredit the Maxwell/Gauss
mathematics but I know a ham is not around in the U.S. that can
discredit it.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
I await the day when a ham comes along with sufficient education to
verify or discredit the Maxwell/Gauss
mathematics but I know a ham is not around in the U.S. that can
discredit it.

of course not, we are all educated enough to know the proper relationship
between gauss and maxwell, and the fact that gauss's law is an accepted part
of maxwell's equations... and works fine just as it is without your extra
't' added to it. it would take someone graduating from the warped art's
college of mystical electromagnetics with an advanced degree in
neutrino-anti-gravity-weak-force-jumping-particles to handle that proof!

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

You have to be the only guy in the country with a 2000 foot diameter
umbrella to keep your hair dry!
not quite, but i do have a 120' tall by about 250' long 160m vertical array
and an inverted V at 180' that will beat your shoebox even without the amp
turned on.

You were the leader in this ham group
that denied the mathematics of the comparison
of Maxwell and Gauss.
on the contrary, i keep pointing out that Gauss is an integral part of
Maxwell's equations.

I assume you know how to turn on a transmitter but beyond that your
education is a great mystery.
For sure you never received a pass in physics of any sort and debate
with such a person is impossible
well, i did receive a bachelor of science and engineering in electrical
engineering cum laude from an ivy league university, but it was here in the
states, so that probably doesn't mean anything to you. And i did graduate
from the u.s. navy officers nuclear power school, which at least in some
areas was considered equivalent to a masters degree in nuclear engineering
at the time. but that probably doesn't mean anything either since it was in
the states again.

This has lead us to the obsurd present point where a cubic foot size
antenna for top band should have
its reflecter a couple of blocks away and of a size stretching for
several thousand feet instead of a few inches
where if the antenna was a ball of presureized water the close
reflector would prevent the jet of water spreading to the rear.

Given a 3 ft copper dipole on 1.9 MHz the free space gain is -4.6 dbi,
and exhibits a classic dipole radiation pattern. Placing a 6 ft diameter,
radial reflector 3 ft from the antenna has no effect on the radiation
pattern,
other than a slight reduction in gain to -5.2 dbi.

Frank

"Frank" wrote in message
news:iWzyk.2033$1x6.488@edtnps82...
This has lead us to the obsurd present point where a cubic foot size
antenna for top band should have
its reflecter a couple of blocks away and of a size stretching for
several thousand feet instead of a few inches
where if the antenna was a ball of presureized water the close
reflector would prevent the jet of water spreading to the rear.

Given a 3 ft copper dipole on 1.9 MHz the free space gain is -4.6 dbi,
and exhibits a classic dipole radiation pattern. Placing a 6 ft diameter,
radial reflector 3 ft from the antenna has no effect on the radiation
pattern,
other than a slight reduction in gain to -5.2 dbi.

Frank


you really don't think art is going to believe that do you?? it is after
all based on a piece of software using maxwell's equations... which he has
said he believes in and that the software works, because it obviously shows
that his antenna produces a spotlight beam when you tilt it the right
angle... but he won't believe yours.

On Sep 12, 3:17*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Frank" wrote in message

news:iWzyk.2033$1x6.488@edtnps82...

This has lead us to the *obsurd present point where a cubic foot size
antenna for top band should have
its reflecter a couple of blocks away and of a size stretching for
several thousand feet instead of a few inches
where if the antenna was a ball of presureized water the close
reflector would prevent the jet of water spreading to the rear.

Given a 3 ft copper dipole on 1.9 MHz the free space gain is -4.6 dbi,
and exhibits a classic dipole radiation pattern. *Placing a 6 ft diameter,
radial reflector 3 ft from the antenna has no effect on the radiation
pattern,
other than a slight reduction in gain to -5.2 dbi.

Frank

you really don't think art is going to believe that do you?? *it is after
all based on a piece of software using maxwell's equations... which he has
said he believes in and that the software works, because it obviously shows
that his antenna produces a spotlight beam when you tilt it the right
angle... but he won't believe yours.

Ofcourse I do! it is very logical
You certainly must have a reflector that extends beyond the emmiter
dimensions
A dipole extends about 500 feet where as mine extends one
foot.!........Big difference. Like comparing a miniature light bulb
with a string of flourescent lights in an office building.
Has it quit raining yet? you seem to be all wet I think you need to
speak to the Navy and provide some of your expertise.
One Navy port has tilted all of their antennas for better performance
per the permission of an Admiral no less.
Do you know more about antennas than they do? This analysis is easily
proved per Maxwell equations so you should be able to
dispute what the Navy did. Why are they tilted? Because they are
including the "weak" force present in Maxwells calculations.
Is Maxwell all wet too? Computer programs based on Maxwells laws prove
it is correct so try Eznec for your self.
Tilt a long wire from vertical until it is fully resistive and the
field will show gain. You just do not have any clothes.