Gentlemen
I have in the past alluded not only radiation from a straight element but
also the ADDITION of radiation
occuring from a bent element. Nobody has commented on the authentisity of
this statement and I have not come acros anything in my own collection of
books.
Now my present antenna consists of various loops connected in both a
clockwise and clockwise radiation form such that the circular polarisation
cancells leaving pure vertical polarisation.. The loops are separatred in a
way that intercapacity of the spiral loops is reduced as well as circular
cancellation All of this is based on my gut feeling that R.F.current flowing
around a circular radiating element. What I ask for for those who have a
deeper background of R.F. is verification of my assumption
that extra radiation becomes available.
Appreciate any comments on this irregular aproach as I cxannot find guidance
in the books.
A serious question regarding added radiation from an element in the hope
that insight is provided even tho it may expose the fallacy of my aproach.
Thanks in advance
Art

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:05:41 GMT, "
wrote:

verification of my assumption
that extra radiation becomes available.

Hi Art,

Extra? From where? What is the source? If it is the same source,
then it is not Extra, but simply managed to fit a need. In this sense
you still have to balance the budget of what you got, and what you
radiate and what you lose (to heat). The budget does not allow
Extras. The budget does however allow you to transfer balances as
long as you maintain the same total. In this sense, it is like
stacking elements with the correct phase relationships to move
radiation that would have gone to the clouds, towards the horizon.
You are still radiating the same power, but the relationship change
has netted more of it going in a direction more suitable to your
needs.

Now, as to the matter of bends in the antenna doing this; then the
literature is rich in examples to this matter. The Franklin antenna
comes to mind. It has lots of bends specifically tailored to create
this budget shift. It has been around for 70 or 80 years?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

wrote:

Gentlemen
I have in the past alluded not only radiation from a straight element but
also the ADDITION of radiation
occuring from a bent element. Nobody has commented on the authentisity of
this statement and I have not come acros anything in my own collection of
books.
Now my present antenna consists of various loops connected in both a
clockwise and clockwise radiation form such that the circular polarisation
cancells leaving pure vertical polarisation.. The loops are separatred in a
way that intercapacity of the spiral loops is reduced as well as circular
cancellation All of this is based on my gut feeling that R.F.current flowing
around a circular radiating element. What I ask for for those who have a
deeper background of R.F. is verification of my assumption
that extra radiation becomes available.

It does not. If you apply 100 watts to an antenna, 100 watts is
available to radiate, less any amount dissipated as heat. This applies
to EVERY antenna, from a rubber duckie to a zillion-element Yagi with a
boom you can walk on. No bending, adding of elements, supergain, loops,
or magic will give you any "extra radiation" above that. All you can do
with all the possible tricks there are is to concentrate some of that
100 watts in some directions at the expense of others.

Appreciate any comments on this irregular aproach as I cxannot find guidance
in the books.
A serious question regarding added radiation from an element in the hope
that insight is provided even tho it may expose the fallacy of my aproach.

My statement above is based on the law of conservation of energy, which
it sounds like you're trying to violate. If you think it's possible,
you'd make a lot more money by putting your effort into developing a
perpetual motion machine.

Thanks in advance
Art

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Points raised noticed and placed in my thoughts bag to digest.
With respect to radiation I revolve solidly about accedleratio during a
point in time, accelleration required to negotiat a turn which even at
constant speed create acceleration and lastly arangements that create more
current without the loss of energy of which I see as coupling. Since I am
pretty much self taught because of a loss of memory onslaught it is easy to
build on sand without a true geoligists report which is not available when
one works alone. Thus I am curious as to where exactly I have gone astray by
not having a thorough education in R.F. workings. So if there is cycliic
increases of radiation per unit length then I see the same unit length in
spiral form introduces an addition vector of forces that I translate into
radiation, I have a history of not being able to adequately explaining my
thought so hopefully the above will assist in explaining my thought
processes even tho they may seem totally rediculus to those edu8cated in the
field of whom I ask for correction.
From how I see it I have not viotated any laws with this thinking but now is
the time for me to put things in there proper place.and accepted without
rancour.
Regards
Art

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Gentlemen
I have in the past alluded not only radiation from a straight element
but
also the ADDITION of radiation
occuring from a bent element. Nobody has commented on the authentisity
of
this statement and I have not come acros anything in my own collection
of
books.
Now my present antenna consists of various loops connected in both a
clockwise and clockwise radiation form such that the circular
polarisation
cancells leaving pure vertical polarisation.. The loops are separatred
in a
way that intercapacity of the spiral loops is reduced as well as
circular
cancellation All of this is based on my gut feeling that R.F.current
flowing
around a circular radiating element. What I ask for for those who have a
deeper background of R.F. is verification of my assumption
that extra radiation becomes available.

It does not. If you apply 100 watts to an antenna, 100 watts is
available to radiate, less any amount dissipated as heat. This applies
to EVERY antenna, from a rubber duckie to a zillion-element Yagi with a
boom you can walk on. No bending, adding of elements, supergain, loops,
or magic will give you any "extra radiation" above that. All you can do
with all the possible tricks there are is to concentrate some of that
100 watts in some directions at the expense of others.

Appreciate any comments on this irregular aproach as I cxannot find
guidance
in the books.
A serious question regarding added radiation from an element in the hope
that insight is provided even tho it may expose the fallacy of my
aproach.

My statement above is based on the law of conservation of energy, which
it sounds like you're trying to violate. If you think it's possible,
you'd make a lot more money by putting your effort into developing a
perpetual motion machine.

Thanks in advance
Art

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Yes Richard the literature does abound with bent antennas, even yagis to
obtain a particular performance.
I know that there are "curls" in fields and waves analysis
but I view travering a circle at a constantspeed as generation of a force
vector as in centrifugal force which I probably falsly have placed in the
radiation category.
If I am incorrect I need to understand why so that I can rebuild my thought
processes. Modelling the antenna
shows insights that i had not realised before causing me to make an actual
antenna for follow up.
Regards
Art
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:05:41 GMT, "
wrote:

verification of my assumption
that extra radiation becomes available.

Hi Art,

Extra? From where? What is the source? If it is the same source,
then it is not Extra, but simply managed to fit a need. In this sense
you still have to balance the budget of what you got, and what you
radiate and what you lose (to heat). The budget does not allow
Extras. The budget does however allow you to transfer balances as
long as you maintain the same total. In this sense, it is like
stacking elements with the correct phase relationships to move
radiation that would have gone to the clouds, towards the horizon.
You are still radiating the same power, but the relationship change
has netted more of it going in a direction more suitable to your
needs.

Now, as to the matter of bends in the antenna doing this; then the
literature is rich in examples to this matter. The Franklin antenna
comes to mind. It has lots of bends specifically tailored to create
this budget shift. It has been around for 70 or 80 years?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The law of conservation of energy is a touchstone you should always use
as a reality check for whatever theory you have. If your theory leads to
a conclusion that contradicts that law, then either your theory is wrong
or there was an error in some step along the way from the theory to the
conclusion.

Or you belong to the perpetual motion machine crowd.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:

Points raised noticed and placed in my thoughts bag to digest.
With respect to radiation I revolve solidly about accedleratio during a
point in time, accelleration required to negotiat a turn which even at
constant speed create acceleration and lastly arangements that create more
current without the loss of energy of which I see as coupling. Since I am
pretty much self taught because of a loss of memory onslaught it is easy to
build on sand without a true geoligists report which is not available when
one works alone. Thus I am curious as to where exactly I have gone astray by
not having a thorough education in R.F. workings. So if there is cycliic
increases of radiation per unit length then I see the same unit length in
spiral form introduces an addition vector of forces that I translate into
radiation, I have a history of not being able to adequately explaining my
thought so hopefully the above will assist in explaining my thought
processes even tho they may seem totally rediculus to those edu8cated in the
field of whom I ask for correction.
From how I see it I have not viotated any laws with this thinking but now is
the time for me to put things in there proper place.and accepted without
rancour.
Regards
Art

wrote:
With respect to radiation I revolve solidly about accedleratio during
a point in time, accelleration required to negotiat a turn which even
at constant speed create acceleration

You really *are* related to Stanley Unwin, aren't you?


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:31:03 GMT, "
wrote:

If I am incorrect I need to understand why

Hi Art,

Because "Extra" in the budget does not balance.

If you get more power OUT because it is going in a circle, then you
FIRST have to put more power IN to get into that same circle. There
is no extra left.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard I need more explanation than that because power is somewhat
irrelevant.
Radiation in my mind (and I must be now worst off than I really thougt) is
accelleration and decelleration of current
which is certainly not power which in my mind is Isquared R. Thus if voltage
is increased current decreases
and therefore radiation decreases.( see effects of very close coupling of a
parallel circuit)
I really do not know where you are coming from, it seems so glib! This is
not meant in a demeaning way, I just
don't want to mix apples with oranges at this point in time. .
Current through a member travels at a constant speed but with cyclic
variations
in radiation. Travel in a circle is also at constant speed but with a
CONSTANT radiation per unit length.
Where exactly is the error in my logic? I suspect it has to do with relative
phase angles but I need it explained
in every day language
regards
Art

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:31:03 GMT, "
wrote:

If I am incorrect I need to understand why

Hi Art,

Because "Extra" in the budget does not balance.

If you get more power OUT because it is going in a circle, then you
FIRST have to put more power IN to get into that same circle. There
is no extra left.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

You mean in the way I cripple the english language?
I guess I could be
Regards
Art
"Ian White, G3SEK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
With respect to radiation I revolve solidly about accedleratio during
a point in time, accelleration required to negotiat a turn which even
at constant speed create acceleration

You really *are* related to Stanley Unwin, aren't you?


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek