On Jan 11, 9:09*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
When you move out further with the introduction of protons my eyes
glaze over because I know nothing of such things.

Actually, photons are easier to understand than Maxwell's
equations. Maybe it would help if you researched the
ability of electron carriers to absorb and/or emit
photons plus the physical characteristics of electrons
and photons. Wikipedia has fairly good sections on
these two elementary particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, I try to read all sides but the botton line is that
communication is definitely linked to the Sun.
Also It is known that antennas are made from diagmagnetic material and
the expansion of Gaussian law implies the presence of particles.
The books support Maxwells equations to its limits and none of the
above violate those same principles when based on mathematics. I
understand that words like photon and quarks are parotted around and
it may be correct but I have no indication of what their reaction is
with respect
to a rejection force of diamagnetic materials. If it was proven that a
particle from the sun when resting on a diagmagnetic surface loses its
original qualities via a radical change in the particle itself then I
would be forced to consider it. But that is only a theory that is not
backed up by known facts. That is why I turn the subject on its head
when I turn to computer programs which are a fact of life and in use.
Thus the question is reduced from these other aproaches by asking the
question,
why do antenna programs agree that a vertical antenna must be tilted
for best results? Forget the theoretical routes that current takes and
also the presence of particles I have brought the question
of antennas to the level of every body. There is the Eznec program
available to all so all can tackle this paradox for themselves very,
very simply. Input a vertical full wave antenna at various angles in a
resonant form and see what angle is best. Simple oh so simple. No
arguements, no disputes, no presentation of selected articles just a
simple personal homework assignment which is very specific to which
there is only one answer. for say vertical radiation.
No, it is not in the books so it has to be YOUR findings as in
homework
When the answers come back I will place an answer on my page that is
acceptable to all programs in existance. If you have a program with an
optimiser then the project takes less that 5 minuits.
If you use your own programs it will take longer after which you will
be confident of the answer you arrive at. It is very cold outside so
you really have nothing better to do than to shut Art's mouth up once
and for all with a fact that is inescapable of escape from, one that
satisfies all.
Vertical full wave antenna, frequency 14.00Mhz ,diameter 1 inch
material aluminum
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Also It is known that antennas are made from diagmagnetic material and
the expansion of Gaussian law implies the presence of particles.
I have ferromagnetic antennas that art can't explain. obviously they work
and i have never seen any magical levitating neutrinos jumping off them!
Vertical full wave antenna, frequency 14.00Mhz ,diameter 1 inch
material aluminum
Art
change that material to steel and see if it still works!

On Jan 11, 8:40*am, "Dave" wrote:
* "Richard Fry" wrote in ...
* On Jan 10, 6:59 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

* I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the
* routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You
* spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be
* accepted.

* Not so, Art.

* The simplest reason that you should abandon your line of thinking
* about there being no current reflection from the unterminated end
* along the outside of all radiators is that such beliefs were proven
* invalid by the measured results of Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago
* -- as shown in the excerpt of their IRE paper which has been linked to
* twice, now.

* RF

the more it gets quoted the more he will consider it lemming talk and reject
it. *art is in his own little world now, full of magical levitating
diamagnetic neutrinos and burrowing anti-eddy currents up the middle of
conductors... of course, where those currents go when they reach the
feedpoint would be an interesting thing to hear, maybe art can comment on
that for a while... they probably just jump up to the surface again and go
around in circles.

Pull your dress down your slip is showing

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 8:40 am, "Dave" wrote:
"Richard Fry" wrote in
...
On Jan 10, 6:59 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the
routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You
spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be
accepted.

Not so, Art.

The simplest reason that you should abandon your line of thinking
about there being no current reflection from the unterminated end
along the outside of all radiators is that such beliefs were proven
invalid by the measured results of Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago
-- as shown in the excerpt of their IRE paper which has been linked to
twice, now.

RF

the more it gets quoted the more he will consider it lemming talk and
reject
it. art is in his own little world now, full of magical levitating
diamagnetic neutrinos and burrowing anti-eddy currents up the middle of
conductors... of course, where those currents go when they reach the
feedpoint would be an interesting thing to hear, maybe art can comment
on
that for a while... they probably just jump up to the surface again and
go
around in circles.

Pull your dress down your slip is showing

so you can't even come up with another technical comeback? just got to
stoop all the way down to a cheap personal attack. I guess this thread is
over then since you have run out of fun things to say.

On Jan 11, 11:28*am, "Dave" wrote:
* "Art Unwin" wrote in ...
* On Jan 11, 8:40 am, "Dave" wrote:
* "Richard Fry" wrote in
...
* On Jan 10, 6:59 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
*
* I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the
* routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You
* spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be
* accepted.
*
* Not so, Art.
*
* The simplest reason that you should abandon your line of thinking
* about there being no current reflection from the unterminated end
* along the outside of all radiators is that such beliefs were proven
* invalid by the measured results of Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago
* -- as shown in the excerpt of their IRE paper which has been linked to
* twice, now.
*
* RF
*
* the more it gets quoted the more he will consider it lemming talk and
reject
* it. art is in his own little world now, full of magical levitating
* diamagnetic neutrinos and burrowing anti-eddy currents up the middle of
* conductors... of course, where those currents go when they reach the
* feedpoint would be an interesting thing to hear, maybe art can comment
on
* that for a while... they probably just jump up to the surface again and
go
* around in circles.

* Pull your dress down your slip is showing

so you can't even come up with another technical comeback? *just got to
stoop all the way down to a cheap personal attack. *I guess this thread is
over then since you have run out of fun things to say.

Nope
You have the solution in your own hands where you have total control
if you are able to use a antenna computer program.Many on this group
have an aversion to computers and thus rely on other means which puts
control
in book authors. If you have a similar aversion thats O.K.
For those who can use a computer they can determine for themselves if
antenna programs can be trusted or not. The exercise is totally in
their hands where they can manipulate the rules in any way
when using these programs. If it works out that this group cannot cope
with computers then the solution will not surface and thus reliance of
the truth resides some where else and not in their hands.
Simple, simple simple
Art

On Jan 11, 10:37*am, Art Unwin wrote:
Thus the question is reduced from these other aproaches by asking the
question, why do antenna programs agree that a vertical antenna must
be tilted for best results?

What antenna programs are you describing, and for what parameters do
you think they show this?

Instead of stating your claim about "tilt" and then trying to coerce
others to prove you are wrong, why not take the initiative to try to
prove you are right?

RF

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

Nope
You have the solution in your own hands where you have total control
if you are able to use a antenna computer program.Many on this group
have an aversion to computers and thus rely on other means which puts
control
in book authors. If you have a similar aversion thats O.K.

yeah, right... i am an author, and i also use computers, where does that put
me? EVERYONE on this group must use a computer... kind of hard to use
newsgroups like this without a computer.

For those who can use a computer they can determine for themselves if
antenna programs can be trusted or not.

no they can't... not unless they have a sophisticated test setup to do fill
size models and measurements to compare predicted with actual results. YOU
don't even have that art, so how can you be so sure that the programs are
doing what you think they are doing?

On Jan 11, 12:12*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Jan 11, 10:37*am, Art Unwin wrote:

Thus the question is reduced from these other aproaches by asking the
question, why do antenna programs agree that a vertical antenna must
be tilted for best results?

What antenna programs are you describing, and for what parameters do
you think they show this?

Instead of stating your claim about "tilt" and then trying to coerce
others to prove you are wrong, why not take the initiative to try to
prove you are right?

RF

I could do that but you will only accept what you yourself can prove
by your own means.
I said I would provide what you are asking for so you have control of
the solution i.e
my solution is or is not the same as your own
What you are proposing is nothing more than a way out to prevent a
solution
If you cannot operate a computer then that aproach has no standing
with you or myself
So now we are back to a word war on facts which are indeterminate.
When you do it for yourself you can voutch for all steps taken by you
that proves your point.
Self reliance instead of default

On Jan 11, 11:28*am, "Dave" wrote:
* "Art Unwin" wrote in ...
* On Jan 11, 8:40 am, "Dave" wrote:
* "Richard Fry" wrote in
...
* On Jan 10, 6:59 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
*
* I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the
* routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You
* spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be
* accepted.
*
* Not so, Art.
*
* The simplest reason that you should abandon your line of thinking
* about there being no current reflection from the unterminated end
* along the outside of all radiators is that such beliefs were proven
* invalid by the measured results of Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago
* -- as shown in the excerpt of their IRE paper which has been linked to
* twice, now.
*
* RF
*
* the more it gets quoted the more he will consider it lemming talk and
reject
* it. art is in his own little world now, full of magical levitating
* diamagnetic neutrinos and burrowing anti-eddy currents up the middle of
* conductors... of course, where those currents go when they reach the
* feedpoint would be an interesting thing to hear, maybe art can comment
on
* that for a while... they probably just jump up to the surface again and
go
* around in circles.

* Pull your dress down your slip is showing

so you can't even come up with another technical comeback? *just got to
stoop all the way down to a cheap personal attack. *I guess this thread is
over then since you have run out of fun things to say.

No,No,Noi There is no evidence that you have a yearning for the
backsides of man
it is just a play on words which point to your error in thinking. ala
the slip. Get it?
I have made no attempt to hide my thinking with a torrent of words
under the guise of shakespeare
to provide cover
I provided a single liner. No more, no less

On Jan 11, 12:50*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I could do that but you will only accept what you yourself can
prove by your own means.

No, I accept the work of Kraus, Terman, Balanis etc and the
experimental work of George Brown et al as they have written and
proven it.

The undocumented statements of Art Unwin I do not.

But for your edification, Art, below is a link to what NEC shows for a
full-wave, base-fed vertical monopole over a perfect ground plane.

Note that it has zero gain in the horizontal plane, and about 6.7 dBi
gain at an elevation angle of 37 degrees. So yes, tilting the
radiator would increase gain in the horizontal plane, by varying
amounts depending on azimuth (two azimuths would still be zero)..

Is this the basis for your claim? If so, why would anyone install
such a thing, as more than that peak gain in the horizontal plane is
supplied by a cheaper, shorter VERTICAL monopole of about 0.6
wavelengths.

If this model is not what you have in mind then please completely
define your radiator (including how it is fed and its relation to the
ground plane), and your meaning of "best results" due to tilting it.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...alMonopole.gif

RF