On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:00:10 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

Very true, but the measured length is never repeatable. Only at the
point of a period
is where it is repeatable which is how a cycle comes into being.

One cycle = one period = one wavelength
Do you have a problem with this?

Ofshoot can be essentially removed or minimised by just the addition
of a resister but such methods are not included in antenna computer
programs.

Adding a resistor will increase the resonant length of an antenna by
5% to 8%. Amazing. I didn't know that. Since resonance is where the
inductive and cazapative reactances cancel, leaving only the real part
of the antenna impedance, I would think that adding a resistor
anywhere would have no effect on the reactive components.

Again what ever trips your trigger, horse shoes or Maxwells equations.

When I was younger, it was sex, drugs, and rock and roll. These days
it's pills, politics, and entertainment value that keeps me going.

Only when accurate metrics are inserted in a program can the accuracy
of Maxwell's equations be shown and the half wave length can never be
stated accurately.

How accurately would you like them to be stated?
1%? 0.1%? 0.00000001%
Accuracy is usually expressed with numbers. I fail to see any
numbers. There's also a question of what's "good enough". Infinite
resolution and accuracy doesn't do me much good if the operating
bandwidth of the antenna is substantial, or the operating requirements
of system are rather minimal.

My antennas are exact and repeatable. *Not only that, I can also
repeat my mistakes every time.

Yes you have shown evidence of that.

To err is human. Reassurances are not required.

For my mistakes, I'll accept responsibility but not blame.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but do eliminate two possibilities,
thus eventually leading to the right answer.

Positive feedback is inherently unstable. One does not learn by
getting positive acclamation and praise. One learns from negative
feedback which is inherently stable and a much more effective learning
experience.

Maybe true but physics demands accuracy

Physics does not demand accuracy. However, my customers might.

which explains the heavy
useage of constant added to justify the use of an equal sign.

None of my work is linear. Therefore constants added as fudge,
finagle, or tweak factors are useless. I prefer to multiple my
results in order to conjure the correct answer.

Same
thing goes for the myriad of particles invented that are not seen or
measurable.

Yep. I suck them up in my vacuum cleaner when they start to become
measurable.

This because those who delve in physics sometimes replace
a constant with a new invented particle that can substantiate
equilibrium or its cousin "equal"

I'll look in the vacuum cleaner bag next time I have a chance for any
new particles.

You know, a well known former ham Stephen Best got hold of a new
antenna program
that had strict adherence to Maxwells laws. The program relied on
Poynting circle as being representitive for all forces in radiation.
The program ,probably more than I can afford. produced a radiator that
was not straight according to the old wives tale that is propagated by
hams. It showed something like a tennis ball where multiple
wavelengths of radiator were stuffed inside and where balance or
equilibrium was obtained. In his study which was around a half wave
radiater produced a radiation pattern that was a perfect hemisphere
that all on this group stated was impossible to attain. ( actually it
was based on a full wave where the ground plane supplied the mirror
image) Possibly in our time, that will make it into the newer physics
books, that will force the re thinking of radiation. This paper is on
the WWW but I leave it to you to show that it must be in error as it
is not yet in the books!

I think you mean this:
http://www.cst.com/Content/Applications/Article/A+Small,+Efficient,+Linear-polarized+Omni-directional+Antenna
I've been trying to understand it for some time.

Again, it's not my place to find your errors. It's your place to
prove and demonstrate your allegations.

At the same time opponents will bring forwards Toms adage W8TI, that
for maximum efficiency a radiator must be straight, thus leaving him
with the onus of showing that Steven Best efforts were all wrong by
the use of the soon to be corrected theory corrections
before old theories are fully discounted where all may read it for
themselves in a book.

Dr Best didn't seem to mention anything about the design being any
more efficient than a larger antenna. He had a design requirement to
fit an antenna inside a 0.04 wavelength diameter ball, and optimized
his design around that requirement. Getting 1.6dBi of gain out such a
small antenna is impressive.

Incidentally, his design is NOT a half-hemisphere. He uses the
symmetry of the antenna to dramatically reduce his calculation time.

Yes, there are some things that NEC doesn't so very well, or rather
other programs do much better. For example, for microstrip and slot
antennas, I'm trying to learn Mstrip40:
http://www.spl.ch/software/MultiSTRIP/Manual.htm
when not posting inane drive to Usenet.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Nov 15, 9:50*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:00:10 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
Very true, but the measured *length is never repeatable. Only at the
point of a period
is where it is repeatable which is how a cycle comes into being.

One cycle = one period = one wavelength
Do you have a problem with this?
Ok jeff your turn wih aiming the cannon.
No ofcourse not, as long as the cycle is complete and terminates
and terminates at the point designated as the period.
Good enough ?

Ofshoot can be essentially removed or minimised by just the addition
of a resister but such methods are not included in antenna computer
programs.

Adding a resistor will increase the resonant length of an antenna by
5% to 8%. *Amazing. *I didn't know that. *Since resonance is where the
inductive and cazapative reactances cancel, leaving only the real part
of the antenna impedance, I would think that adding a resistor
anywhere would have no effect on the reactive components.

Again what ever trips your trigger, horse shoes or Maxwells equations.

When I was younger, it was sex, drugs, and rock and roll. *These days
it's pills, politics, and entertainment value that keeps me going.

Only when accurate metrics are inserted in a program can the accuracy
of Maxwell's equations be shown and the half wave length can never be
stated accurately.

How accurately would you like them to be stated? *
1%? *0.1%? 0.00000001%
Enough according to my needs. If the needs are expanded then their is
no point
in expanding errors implanted for past convenience. O.K ?
Accuracy is usually expressed with numbers. *I fail to see any
numbers. *There's also a question of what's "good enough". *Infinite
resolution and accuracy doesn't do me much good if the operating
bandwidth of the antenna is substantial, or the operating requirements
of system are rather minimal.
very true as your needs are minimal OK ?

My antennas are exact and repeatable. *Not only that, I can also
repeat my mistakes every time.

Hmm I wont bite at that bait OK?

Yes you have shown evidence of that.

To err is human. *Reassurances are not required.

For my mistakes, I'll accept responsibility but not blame.

Again very understandable

Two wrongs don't make a right, but do eliminate two possibilities,
thus eventually leading to the right answer.

Quite true. Only one who has experienced many bankrupcys
has the necessary wisdom to become rich The wisdom is usually at the
expense of others
OK?

Positive feedback is inherently unstable.
Why do you think that?

*One does not learn by
getting positive acclamation and praise. *One learns from negative
feedback which is inherently stable and a much more effective learning
experience.
I believe my answer with respect to attaining wisdom is a suitable
response for that!

Maybe true but physics demands accuracy
Exactly where space for a constant is provided as learning improves.

Physics does not demand accuracy. *However, my customers might.
Might is a untangible. If one wants to expand on the design of smaller
antennas one does not pursue a fudge factor which suggests that the
smallest of smallest of radiators will also meet ones needs. That is
like adding height to buildings built on sand
instead of first ataining a sound foundation in advance of any
expansion



which explains the heavy
useage of constant added to justify the use of an equal sign.

None of my work is linear. *Therefore constants added as fudge,
finagle, or tweak factors are useless. *I prefer to multiple my
results in order to conjure the correct answer.

Same
thing goes for the myriad of particles invented that are not seen or
measurable.

Yep. *I suck them up in my vacuum cleaner when they start to become
measurable. Well physics point to a difference in pressures on a carpet from that attained
by that which provides a suction.

This because those who delve in physics sometimes replace
a constant with a new invented particle that can substantiate
equilibrium or its cousin "equal"

I'll look in the vacuum cleaner bag next time I have a chance for any
new particles.
Well an "equal" sign in mathematics designates balance on both sides
of the sign. Was it the arabs that expanded the term to equilibrium
that could accompany the use of boundary laws?





You know, *a well known former ham Stephen Best got hold of a new
antenna program
that had strict adherence to Maxwells laws. The program relied on
Poynting circle as being representitive * for all forces in radiation.
The program ,probably more than I can afford. produced a radiator that
was not straight according to the old wives tale that is propagated by
hams. It showed something like a tennis ball where multiple
wavelengths of radiator were stuffed inside and where balance or
equilibrium was obtained. In his study which was around a half wave
radiater produced a radiation pattern that was a perfect hemisphere
that all on this group stated was impossible to attain. ( actually it
was based on a full wave where the ground plane supplied the mirror
image) Possibly in our time, that will make it into the newer physics
books, that will force the re thinking of radiation. This paper is on
the WWW but I leave it to you to show that it must be in error as it
is not yet in the books!

I think you mean this:
http://www.cst.com/Content/Applications/Article/A+Small,+Efficient,+L...
I've been trying to understand it for some time.

I dont recognise that as time has passed by.

Again, it's not my place to find your errors. *It's your place to
prove and demonstrate your allegations.
That cannot be done when others rely on theories because they are seen
written in a book. It takes corroberation with existing laws to supply
a modicom of science teachings where those agreements can then be
built upon. This is a repeat of the battles of faith versus the
observations and deductions provided by science.

At the same time opponents will bring forwards Toms adage W8TI, that
for maximum efficiency a radiator must be straight, thus leaving him
with the onus of showing that Steven Best efforts were all wrong by
the use of the soon to be corrected theory corrections
before old theories are fully discounted where all may read it for
themselves in *a book.

Dr Best didn't seem to mention anything about the design being any
more efficient than a larger antenna. *He had a design requirement to
fit an antenna inside a 0.04 wavelength diameter ball, and optimized
his design around that requirement. *Getting 1.6dBi of gain out such a
small antenna is impressive.

Yes, but more important was the ability to stuff wavelengths of
radiator showing past erronius suggestion that a radiator must be
straight.On top of that he attained a hemisperical radiation pattern
that this group stated was impoissible. Thus another false old wives
tale was debunked, By the way the paper in no way suggested a
"electrically" small antenna, only a "physically" smaller antenna, so
you need to re read the paper.

Incidentally, his design is NOT a half-hemisphere. *He uses the
symmetry of the antenna to dramatically reduce his calculation time.

Yes, there are some things that NEC doesn't so very well, or rather
other programs do much better.

I have stated same



*For example, for microstrip and slot
antennas, I'm trying to learn Mstrip40:
http://www.spl.ch/software/MultiSTRIP/Manual.htm
when not posting inane drive to Usenet.

Then you are a better man than I Gunga Din. It was the very
interpretation of the phenomina of a slot antenna that led to
confrontation with the idea of particles as the carriers of radiation.
Perhaps you can find errors in that assertation which is so much less
difficult in convincing same to those who abide purely on faith.

Phew, that was a long questionaire but as always my life and thoughts
is an open book.
I hope the above satisfies your needs!

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

Helmut Wabnig wrote:

How do I simulate a sheet metal or other metal structure in NEC,
when the software only knows (infinitesimally thin) "wires"

w.

You simulate it as a wire grid, like a screen. Download the free EZNEC
demo program, or just the manual, from http://eznec.com, and look in the
index under "Wire Grid Modeling" for more information.

This technique is widely used and generally gives very good results.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Nov 15, 10:50*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:00:10 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
Very true, but the measured *length is never repeatable. Only at the
point of a period
is where it is repeatable which is how a cycle comes into being.

One cycle = one period = one wavelength
Do you have a problem with this?

Ofshoot can be essentially removed or minimised by just the addition
of a resister but such methods are not included in antenna computer
programs.

Adding a resistor will increase the resonant length of an antenna by
5% to 8%. *Amazing. *I didn't know that. *Since resonance is where the
inductive and cazapative reactances cancel, leaving only the real part
of the antenna impedance, I would think that adding a resistor
anywhere would have no effect on the reactive components.

Again what ever trips your trigger, horse shoes or Maxwells equations.

When I was younger, it was sex, drugs, and rock and roll. *These days
it's pills, politics, and entertainment value that keeps me going.

Only when accurate metrics are inserted in a program can the accuracy
of Maxwell's equations be shown and the half wave length can never be
stated accurately.

How accurately would you like them to be stated? *
1%? *0.1%? 0.00000001%
Accuracy is usually expressed with numbers. *I fail to see any
numbers. *There's also a question of what's "good enough". *Infinite
resolution and accuracy doesn't do me much good if the operating
bandwidth of the antenna is substantial, or the operating requirements
of system are rather minimal.

My antennas are exact and repeatable. *Not only that, I can also
repeat my mistakes every time.

Yes you have shown evidence of that.

To err is human. *Reassurances are not required.

For my mistakes, I'll accept responsibility but not blame.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but do eliminate two possibilities,
thus eventually leading to the right answer.

Positive feedback is inherently unstable. *One does not learn by
getting positive acclamation and praise. *One learns from negative
feedback which is inherently stable and a much more effective learning
experience.

Maybe true but physics demands accuracy

Physics does not demand accuracy. *However, my customers might.

which explains the heavy
useage of constant added to justify the use of an equal sign.

None of my work is linear. *Therefore constants added as fudge,
finagle, or tweak factors are useless. *I prefer to multiple my
results in order to conjure the correct answer.

Same
thing goes for the myriad of particles invented that are not seen or
measurable.

Yep. *I suck them up in my vacuum cleaner when they start to become
measurable.

This because those who delve in physics sometimes replace
a constant with a new invented particle that can substantiate
equilibrium or its cousin "equal"

I'll look in the vacuum cleaner bag next time I have a chance for any
new particles.



You know, *a well known former ham Stephen Best got hold of a new
antenna program
that had strict adherence to Maxwells laws. The program relied on
Poynting circle as being representitive * for all forces in radiation.
The program ,probably more than I can afford. produced a radiator that
was not straight according to the old wives tale that is propagated by
hams. It showed something like a tennis ball where multiple
wavelengths of radiator were stuffed inside and where balance or
equilibrium was obtained. In his study which was around a half wave
radiater produced a radiation pattern that was a perfect hemisphere
that all on this group stated was impossible to attain. ( actually it
was based on a full wave where the ground plane supplied the mirror
image) Possibly in our time, that will make it into the newer physics
books, that will force the re thinking of radiation. This paper is on
the WWW but I leave it to you to show that it must be in error as it
is not yet in the books!

I think you mean this:
http://www.cst.com/Content/Applications/Article/A+Small,+Efficient,+L...
I've been trying to understand it for some time.

Again, it's not my place to find your errors. *It's your place to
prove and demonstrate your allegations.

At the same time opponents will bring forwards Toms adage W8TI, that
for maximum efficiency a radiator must be straight, thus leaving him
with the onus of showing that Steven Best efforts were all wrong by
the use of the soon to be corrected theory corrections
before old theories are fully discounted where all may read it for
themselves in *a book.

Dr Best didn't seem to mention anything about the design being any
more efficient than a larger antenna. *He had a design requirement to
fit an antenna inside a 0.04 wavelength diameter ball, and optimized
his design around that requirement. *Getting 1.6dBi of gain out such a
small antenna is impressive.

Incidentally, his design is NOT a half-hemisphere. *He uses the
symmetry of the antenna to dramatically reduce his calculation time.

Yes, there are some things that NEC doesn't so very well, or rather
other programs do much better. *For example, for microstrip and slot
antennas, I'm trying to learn Mstrip40:
http://www.spl.ch/software/MultiSTRIP/Manual.htm
when not posting inane drive to Usenet.

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

Jeff, Art is going to be your buddy forever. He doesn't care whether
you praise him, bash him or anything in between, but he loves long
replies.

Jimmie

Art Unwin wrote:

So you are a millionare today? Patent number? The present industry is
advocating the invention of a new science with respect to obtaining
smaller radiators. Get in there and double your money while the
consortium continue to struggle with the design of a new
technology.alternative than that supplied by nature. If you had such
knowledge you would not be persueing insults in place of debate.



Just as a non-insulting question, to what do you attribute the
principles you describe not being discovered until radio and antenna
technology becoming fairly mature? Given that physically small
radiators have been desirable just about forever, it is interesting
that no one has not accidentally stumbled upon your type of antenna at
least once in the past hundred years.

One would not have to ascribe to your interesting views on physics to
accidentally produce something that works according to your principles.
Sweeping an antenna over a wide range should produce clues, if not
understanding.


Which is to say I'd ordinarily expect things to happen in a particular
order typically in one or two modes:

1. Discover the effect accidentally.

2. Reproduce the effect.

3. Come up with good theory to support the effect.



Way two


1. Theorize the effect.

2. Build the apparatus to prove it.

3. Reproduce the results.


Either way is fine much has been learned through honest sweat as well as
cerebral horsepower.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Nov 16, 1:03*pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

So you are a millionare today? *Patent number? The present industry is
advocating the invention of a new science with respect to obtaining
smaller radiators. Get in there and double your money while the
consortium continue to struggle with the design of a new
technology.alternative than that supplied by nature. If you had such
knowledge you would not be persueing insults in place of debate.

Just as a non-insulting question, to what do you attribute the
principles you describe not being discovered until radio and antenna
technology becoming fairly mature? *Given that physically small
radiators *have been desirable just about forever, it is interesting
that no one has not accidentally stumbled upon your type of antenna at
least once in the past hundred years.

One would not have to ascribe to your interesting views on physics to
accidentally produce something that works according to your principles.
Sweeping an antenna over a wide range should produce clues, if not
understanding.

Which is to say I'd ordinarily expect things to happen in a particular
order typically in one or two modes:

1. Discover the effect accidentally.

2. Reproduce the effect.

3. Come up with good theory to support the effect.

Way two

1. Theorize the effect.

2. Build the apparatus to prove it.

3. Reproduce the results.

Either way is fine much has been learned through honest sweat as well as
cerebral horsepower.

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -

I think Art is trying to get the members of this group to test or
affirm his theories for him so all he has to do is sit on his butt and
toss out hair brained ideas. IMO he is desperate for either money or
recognition or maybe his life is so boring doing this is all he has
left. That would be very sad. I guess if we wanted to be really mean
to him we could all just agree with everything he says.

Jimmie

Jimmie

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:56:16 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

Jeff, Art is going to be your buddy forever. He doesn't care whether
you praise him, bash him or anything in between, but he loves long
replies.
Jimmie

Sorry, but I don't have the time to craft a short reply.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Nov 15, 10:42*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


Was it the arabs that expanded the term to equilibrium
that could accompany the use of boundary laws?

Lurch imitation.. ugggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......




Again, it's not my place to find your errors. *It's your place to
prove and demonstrate your allegations.

That cannot be done when others rely on theories because they are seen
written in a book. It takes corroberation with existing laws to supply
a modicom of science teachings *where those agreements can then be
built upon. This is a repeat of the battles of faith versus the
observations and deductions provided by science.

It could be done quite easily. All you have to do is build the
antenna, and then compare it with known benchmarks.
But of course, that would be using common sense. :/
It would also prove your theories are flawed, which is why
you won't do this in public, if at all.



At the same time opponents will bring forwards Toms adage W8TI, that
for maximum efficiency a radiator must be straight, thus leaving him
with the onus of showing that Steven Best efforts were all wrong by
the use of the soon to be corrected theory corrections
before old theories are fully discounted where all may read it for
themselves in *a book.

#1, it's W8JI, not W8TI, and what he said was correct. You are just
taking what he said out of context and are distorting it to fit your
agenda. If you have a straight radiator of a certain length, yes, the
most efficient configuration will be a straight line.
If you take this same length of wire and mangle it into various
bends, twists and turns, loss will rear it's ugly head.
Deal with it. There is no free lunch.


Dr Best didn't seem to mention anything about the design being any
more efficient than a larger antenna. *He had a design requirement to
fit an antenna inside a 0.04 wavelength diameter ball, and optimized
his design around that requirement. *Getting 1.6dBi of gain out such a
small antenna is impressive.

Yes, but more important was the ability to stuff wavelengths of
radiator showing past erronius suggestion that a radiator must be
straight.On top of that he attained a hemisperical radiation pattern
that this group stated was impoissible. Thus another false old wives
tale was debunked, By the way the paper in no way suggested a
"electrically" small antenna, *only a "physically" smaller antenna, so
you need to re read the paper.

Ugh.. 1.6dbi gain is still less than a straight dipole.. There is no
free lunch when you use linear loading. Which BTW, is a technique
as old as dirt.. :/
Just because someone decides to call it a fancy name such as
"fractal", does not impart magic qualities to this old as dirt
technique.
BTW, it's quite possible one will need a matching device with such an
antenna. Even more loss.
If you don't require matching for this wonder of technology, I'd
suspect you probably have re-invented the dummy load.

But maybe that's a moot point, being as you have ignored others
that point out the same thing over and over again.
IE: all radiators are quite capable of radiating nearly all power
that is applied to them. It's getting the power to them without
it turning to heat which is the real trick. Good luck in the contest.
You are going to need it.


Phew, that was a long questionaire but as always my life and thoughts
is an open book.

I thought you had a problem with books? According to you, books
corrupt the mind. Does that mean we would be best off to ignore
everything you write?

I hope the above satisfies your needs!

I doubt it was as good for him as it was for you. You just seem
to lay there. :/

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:25:39 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:


I think Art is trying to get the members of this group to test or
affirm his theories for him so all he has to do is sit on his butt and
toss out hair brained ideas. IMO he is desperate for either money or
recognition or maybe his life is so boring doing this is all he has
left. That would be very sad. I guess if we wanted to be really mean
to him we could all just agree with everything he says.


When it comes to antenna theory and practice, it would be better to
simply acknowledge Stanley Unwin as being more knowledgeable than Art
Unwin.

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:20:09 -0600, tom wrote:

And try to learn to spell.

Good point. Looks like Art is using Firefox 3.5.5 under OS/X 10.5 and
Google Groups. There's no built in spelling chequer in Google Groups
but there are plenty of add-on spelling chequers for Firfox. Go thee
unto:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox
and find something that's usable.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558