On May 10, 8:21*pm, tom wrote:
On 5/10/2010 12:35 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

I just completed a experiment with my antenna optimizer program where
I had a dipole in free space and where I increased the diameter until
it was close to.003 ohms resistive
What this means is the current flow is right at the surface where
there is no skin depth
penetration involved and thus close to zero material resistance. This
means that the total resistance is the radiation resistance of the
surface encapsulating particles. The radiation was 35 db in a shape
close to that of a sphere. (when the resistance of the aluminum dipole
went to zero the radiation went to a perfect sphere) Efficiency was
stated at 100% efficient pointing to 100% accountability for all
forces involved and where losses were at a minimum.
Regards
Art

What program would this be? *I would like to try and duplicate your
results, as would others here.

tom
K0TAR

Great, tho most people on the group have yet to learn about antenna
programs preferring to procede by intuition.
Choose a dipole suitable for a particular frequency
in FREE SPACE.
Increase diameter incrementaly in the order of 1000
inches or so.
Plot radiation field
Continue until impedance drops to much less than 1 ohm (I dropped to
about .003 ohms) Plot radiation pattern and compare change from donut
to sphere shape of pattern and compare results.
What to expect.
Radiation will increase as impedance decreases.
Maximum radiation will occur when the dipole impedance drops to zero
and the particle skin becomes the sole resistance of the composite
dipole.
The radiation pattern will reflect point radiation within the cosmos.
Note some programs provide an impedance in negative terms. It is
better that impedance stays positive to determine all trends.

On 5/10/2010 8:44 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 10, 8:21 pm, wrote:
On 5/10/2010 12:35 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

I just completed a experiment with my antenna optimizer program where
I had a dipole in free space and where I increased the diameter until
it was close to.003 ohms resistive
What this means is the current flow is right at the surface where
there is no skin depth
penetration involved and thus close to zero material resistance. This
means that the total resistance is the radiation resistance of the
surface encapsulating particles. The radiation was 35 db in a shape
close to that of a sphere. (when the resistance of the aluminum dipole
went to zero the radiation went to a perfect sphere) Efficiency was
stated at 100% efficient pointing to 100% accountability for all
forces involved and where losses were at a minimum.
Regards
Art

What program would this be? I would like to try and duplicate your
results, as would others here.

tom
K0TAR

Great, tho most people on the group have yet to learn about antenna
programs preferring to procede by intuition.
Choose a dipole suitable for a particular frequency
in FREE SPACE.
Increase diameter incrementaly in the order of 1000
inches or so.
Plot radiation field
Continue until impedance drops to much less than 1 ohm (I dropped to
about .003 ohms) Plot radiation pattern and compare change from donut
to sphere shape of pattern and compare results.
What to expect.
Radiation will increase as impedance decreases.
Maximum radiation will occur when the dipole impedance drops to zero
and the particle skin becomes the sole resistance of the composite
dipole.
The radiation pattern will reflect point radiation within the cosmos.
Note some programs provide an impedance in negative terms. It is
better that impedance stays positive to determine all trends.

And the program you are using is?

tom
K0TAR

"tom" wrote in message
t...
On 5/10/2010 3:12 PM, wrote:
As Clint said in the wonderful old movie, "A man's gotta know his limits".
For antenna modelers it should read, "A man's gotta know the program's
limits".

Of course, Art thinks things have changed and the computer modelers have a
better grasp upon reality than the ones even he calls "the masters". He is
an example of the blind man leading himself.

tom
K0TAR

The computer program should know its limits. Anytine a program allows the
data entered to be too large or small for the calculations, it should be
flagged as being out of range. Also many computer programs will use
simplified formulars that can mast the true outcome. Usually it is not very
much, but as all errors start to add up the end results may be way off.

I often enter data that I know will be difficult for programs to use. If
the program gives an answer then I usually don't use that program expecting
a exect answer.
Back in the Windows 3.1 and 3.11 days the simple calculator would give wrong
answers to simple problems. I think if you entered 3.11 and subtracted 3.1
from it you got the wrong answer. That program was not corrected by
Microsoft.

On 5/10/2010 9:34 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

The computer program should know its limits. Anytine a program allows the
data entered to be too large or small for the calculations, it should be
flagged as being out of range. Also many computer programs will use
simplified formulars that can mast the true outcome. Usually it is not very
much, but as all errors start to add up the end results may be way off.

I often enter data that I know will be difficult for programs to use. If
the program gives an answer then I usually don't use that program expecting
a exect answer.
Back in the Windows 3.1 and 3.11 days the simple calculator would give wrong
answers to simple problems. I think if you entered 3.11 and subtracted 3.1
from it you got the wrong answer. That program was not corrected by
Microsoft.



I disagree. The program cannot "know" its limits if the problem it's
modeling is complex enough. So the user must understand the program and
especially the math related to what the program is modeling.

Blaming the program for giving you the "wrong" answer is like blaming
the tires for hitting the guard rail because you exceeded their limits.
Those limits are not the same under varying conditions and must be
filtered by experience and understanding.

tom
K0TAR

On May 10, 9:34*pm, "Ralph Mowery" wrote:
"tom" wrote in message

t...

On 5/10/2010 3:12 PM, wrote:
As Clint said in the wonderful old movie, "A man's gotta know his limits".
For antenna modelers it should read, "A man's gotta know the program's
limits".

Of course, Art thinks things have changed and the computer modelers have a
better grasp upon reality than the ones even he calls "the masters". He is
an example of the blind man leading himself.

tom
K0TAR

The computer program should know its limits. *Anytine a program allows the
data entered to be too large or small for the calculations, it should be
flagged as being out of range. *Also many computer programs will use
simplified formulars that can mast the true outcome. *Usually it is not very
much, but as all errors start to add up the end results may be way off.

I often enter data that I know will be difficult for programs to use. *If
the program gives an answer then I usually don't use that program expecting
a exect answer.
Back in the Windows 3.1 and 3.11 days the simple calculator would give wrong
answers to simple problems. *I think if you entered 3.11 and subtracted 3.1
from it you got the wrong answer. *That program was not corrected by
Microsoft.

Ralph, the computer program I use is AO pro which is equipt with an
optimiser and based on Maxwells equation. It is required to provide
arrays where the whole is in equilibrium as is its parts where all
forces are taken into account according to boundary rules.
It is quite easy to confirm if the results are in equilibrium.There
are many programs that arer similar
only they will not crunch the numbers as an optimiser will but instead
calculate only from your input but without alteration. These also are
based on Maxwells equations. However hams are bound to Yagi style
antenna designs which are planar and not in equilibrium. This style of
program is modified to encompass its primary use. There are also
programs that are specifically designed for planar arrangement only
per the Yagi and are not based solely on Maxwell equations that demand
equilibrium.
To apply any of these programs is ok for a dipole in free space say
for 14 Mhz and should give the same results. Same goes if one changes
the diameter as will the radiation pattern provided. So in this
particular
situation it matters not what program one uses the results will be the
same. To conform with Maxwells equation equilibrium is demanded ie all
vectors add up to zero.Since it is based on boundary rules one can
make a static field dynamic which thus includes particles where the
result is applicable to Maxwells equations. Thus we have an conductive
element covered or encapsulated by particles the later being
dynamic.This produces two resistances, the element and the particle
skin. The element resistance goes to zero as the current flow moves
towards the surface thus removing skin penetration losses and where
all energy input is applied to propagation where we get accountability
for all forces resulting in an array or element where all is in
equilibrium without being planar as one must account for the earths
rotation vector as well as that for gravity otherwise equilibrium
cannot be retained. Thus as the diameter of the element is increased
so does the surface increase for the resting particles such that the
applied energy equals the energy required to elevate and propagate
the supplied particles. without penetrating the surface of the
element. This way we do not get into the situation of dealing with the
sharing of the total resistance and thus removing element losses that
do nothing for propagation, at the same time balancing the propagation
vectors upon the particles alone to the applied energy.
All basic classical physics which uses only fully accepted rules of
the masters without alteration of any kind as predicted by Einstein in
his search for the std model.

On 5/10/2010 10:21 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
Ralph, the computer program I use is AO pro which is equipt with an
optimiser and based on Maxwells equation. It is required to provide

Art

I was an alpha tester on AO. Do you know what an alpha tester is?

I am sure that I know much more about this program's capabilities and
especially its limitations than you.

And almost everything you claim about it, now that I know what you're
making claims against, is either wrong or inaccurate.

tom
K0TAR

On May 10, 10:40*pm, tom wrote:
And almost everything you claim about it, now that I know what you're
making claims against, is either wrong or inaccurate.

Here's my super-gain antenna with 24 dBi gain at a TOA of 23 degrees.

http://www.w5dxp.com/SUPRGAIN.EZ
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On May 11, 7:35*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 10, 10:40*pm, tom wrote:

And almost everything you claim about it, now that I know what you're
making claims against, is either wrong or inaccurate.

Here's my super-gain antenna with 24 dBi gain at a TOA of 23 degrees.

http://www.w5dxp.com/SUPRGAIN.EZ
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Shall I help you file the patent? Maybe we can split the sales
50/50 ? Chortle.. We will be rich beyond our wildest dreams.
Go down in history as two of the "masters"... :/
I'll be able to finally afford the GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip after
all
these years. After all, that's what really matters.

On May 11, 4:40*am, tom wrote:


Art

I was an alpha tester on AO. *Do you know what an alpha tester is?

I am sure that I know much more about this program's capabilities and
especially its limitations than you.

And almost everything you claim about it, now that I know what you're
making claims against, is either wrong or inaccurate.

tom
K0TAR
..
How many threads here and elsewhere are dedicated to demonstrating to
Art Unwin that he is wrong. The number must be in the hundreds. What a
waste.
Does anyone benefit? Art will go to his grave convinced that the world
is in error.
Usenet allows one person to irritate hundreds (at least) of people at
one time, on a regular basis. A borderline personality for sure.

Ralph Mowery wrote:
"tom" wrote in message
t...
On 5/10/2010 3:12 PM, wrote:
As Clint said in the wonderful old movie, "A man's gotta know his limits".
For antenna modelers it should read, "A man's gotta know the program's
limits".

Of course, Art thinks things have changed and the computer modelers have a
better grasp upon reality than the ones even he calls "the masters". He is
an example of the blind man leading himself.

tom
K0TAR

The computer program should know its limits.

yes and no. For EM modeling codes originally intended for use by
sophisticated users with a knowledge of the limitations of numerical
analysis, they might assume the user knows enough to formulate models
that are "well conditioned", or how to experiment to determine this.
NEC is the leading example here. It doesn't do much checking of the
inputs, and assumes you know what you are doing.

There were modeling articles in ARRL pubs 20 years ago that described
one way to do this at a simple level: changing the number of segments in
the model and seeing if the results change. The "average gain test" is
another way.

In many cases, the constraints on the model are not simply representable
(a lot of "it depends"), so that raises an issue for a "design rule
checker" that is reasonably robust. Some products that use NEC as the
backend put a checker on the front (4nec2, for instance, warns you about
length/diameter ratios, almost intersections, and the like)

It's sort of like power tools vs hand tools. The assumption is that the
user of the power tool knows how to use it.


Anytine a program allows the
data entered to be too large or small for the calculations, it should be
flagged as being out of range. Also many computer programs will use
simplified formulars that can mast the true outcome. Usually it is not very
much, but as all errors start to add up the end results may be way off.

There's whole books written on this for NEC. Part I of the NEC
documents, in particular, discusses this. There's also a huge
professional literature on various FEM computational techniques and
their limitations. NEC, like most numerical codes (for mechanics,
thermal, as well as EM), is very much a chainsaw without safety guards.
It's up to the user to wear gloves and goggles and not cut their leg off.