On 10 Oct 2003 19:55:02 -0700, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

I then reason that with energy being applied to the loop it will also
create oscillation

Hi Art,

The term is resonation, not oscillation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote in message . ..
On 10 Oct 2003 19:55:02 -0700, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

I then reason that with energy being applied to the loop it will also
create oscillation

Hi Art,

The term is resonation, not oscillation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, At my stage of life where death would beat a formal education
one must resort to individual thinking,after all the exclamation of
Eureka came from a man in a bath and not from a studying classroom tho
the latter is a more consistant way to succecces. There in my case is
it not unexpected that
reasoning and thus nomenclature would be different from the regimented
norm.
You may remember that I once referred to radio waves as pulses
( it generated mirth) because I saw the current curve as starting from
zero and ending at zero where the regimented term that the current
goes THRU zero and thus is a wave. I submit that both are correct.
In a similar way an electrical engineer may well look at a leaking tap
as a continuoes leak while another may see the results as a series
of pulses as shown by the continous sccesion of pulses.
Roy used a mechanical action to bolster his case against mine
while J.H.Morecraft uses similar analogy to to bolster his
case *
If one does not strive to understand INTENT then learning and
understanding is thrown away in favour of debate.
A similar aproach was taken when I tried to describe my antenna
which is nothing more than a T section plus tuner but engineered
backward
to form a number of complex circuits where lumped circuits
can be divided up into lumped and distributed components
and thus negate the need for a serparate tuner while attaining high
radiation efficiency, this again is an example of individual thinking
and
manipulating the known via unconventional thinking which was thrown
out by those educated under the normal format.
and different nomenclature which thru out understandings and evolved
into debate. So yes, my terms may be different but thinking and
understanding
should not be thrown out because of lack of conformity.
So I must ask you to give some leeway to me and strive to
understand intent
Regards
Art

*
Principles of Radio Communication
Second Edition
With special reference to The laws of oscillating circuits/
currents in coupled circuits,chapter 111

On 11 Oct 2003 08:55:23 -0700, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote in message . ..
On 10 Oct 2003 19:55:02 -0700, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

I then reason that with energy being applied to the loop it will also
create oscillation

Hi Art,

The term is resonation, not oscillation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, At my stage of life where death would beat a formal education

Art, your correspondence here in this group has eclipsed the time
necessary for the term of study for a B.S.E.E. Using the crutch of
death to escape learning for such a length of time becomes wearing.

one must resort to individual thinking,after all the exclamation of
Eureka came from a man in a bath and not from a studying classroom tho
the latter is a more consistant way to succecces.

Strange you should offer a quote from one of history's greatest
educators to propound turning from studying in a classroom (which was
at that time quite rare, but education proceeded nonetheless).

There in my case is
it not unexpected that
reasoning and thus nomenclature would be different from the regimented
norm.

You are not alone in that respect. Many correspondents learn the
significance of their errors here daily.

You may remember that I once referred to radio waves as pulses
( it generated mirth) because I saw the current curve as starting from
zero and ending at zero where the regimented term that the current
goes THRU zero and thus is a wave. I submit that both are correct.

This is simply your insistence on maintaining a vulgar usage in the
face of appropriate usage. To that, the willful refusal to employ
accepted terms is more the quality of a rebellious teenager than a new
Edison.

If one does not strive to understand INTENT then learning and
understanding is thrown away in favour of debate.

Art, you shrink from the word debate due to your own insecurity, not
from its inherent evil that spoils learning. Certainly there are many
here that gust on in narcissistic arguments but that hardly qualifies
as debate and rather debases its goal. Call those pundits' activities
"discussions" instead as they rise neither to scholarly work nor
technical activity. You at least know which end of the soldering iron
to pick up; they often couldn't recognize which side of their credit
card displays their signature.

A similar aproach was taken when I tried to describe my antenna
which is nothing more than a T section plus tuner but engineered
backward
to form a number of complex circuits where lumped circuits
can be divided up into lumped and distributed components
and thus negate the need for a serparate tuner while attaining high
radiation efficiency, this again is an example of individual thinking
and
manipulating the known via unconventional thinking which was thrown
out by those educated under the normal format.

What you describe above was commonplace a century ago when it was
novel. You have been offered any number of writers from that day and
age in an aid to further your understanding of the fundamentals of
their working relationships and the terms commonly employed to
describe them.

Here's an example from the 1907 "Standard Handbook for Electrical
Engineers":
Sec 21, Radiotelegraphy, part 279, Method of Exciting the Antenna"
"The antenna is usually excited by a closed circuit composed of
inductance and capacity to which it is coupled either inductively
or directly (fig. 75 and 76)"
at this point I should relate to all that these figures display
EXACTLY what you have described.

and different nomenclature which thru out understandings and evolved
into debate. So yes, my terms may be different but thinking and
understanding
should not be thrown out because of lack of conformity.
So I must ask you to give some leeway to me and strive to
understand intent
Regards
Art

Hi Art,

What you describe as "understanding intent" is not at issue here
because few mistake what you describe. It is quite commonplace where
the only unique contribution is in your corruption of terms.
Absolutely every posting in response to you has been to respond to
this poor usage you embrace as invention. To summon up an analogy,
calling a dripping faucet the source of wave emanations does not
reduce the water bill, nor offer the prospects of the world rushing to
the inventor-of-the-age's door to obtain license agreements.

With all this aside, what you describe is not oscillation. Further,
if we simply abandoned that discussion, what you describe is hardly
novel. Discarding that, what you describe is not particularly more
effective nor more efficient compared to simpler constructions.
Ignoring that, no one here is rejecting your message because it goes
counter to convention - it in fact supports long standing convention,
however you appear to be the last to be aware of that.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard
I broke my post down to a single questio
and for the life of me I cannot deduce
your position.
The question:
.......could it not oscillate
under ideal conditions ?
Yes or no.
If 'NO' is it based on the terminology of
'oscillation'
I am basing my thoughts on the law of reprocity
i.e.energy can be changed but not destroyed.
Best regardsand nothing personal intended
Art

(Richard Harrison) wrote in message ...
Art Unwin, KB9MZ wrote:
"If I have a loop circuit unconnected to a transmitter could it not
oscillate under ideal conditions?"

Ideal conditions would require a source of energy to replenish losses in
the loop circuit. The source has to be the same frequency as that
consumed in operation of the loop.

A loop like any conductor or circuit has a self-resonant frequency. At
resonance, the conductor`s inductive and capacitive reactances cancel.
This zero reactance leaves only resistance to limit current in the
conductor. Some of the total resistance may be a coupled load, and some
will be radiation resistance, which is the conductor`s loss of r-f
energy to radiation. Some energy will be lost in conversion to heat at
the surface of the conductor and perhaps other locations.

At frequencies not too far from resonance, reactance of the wire rises
so high that little current flows and the wire has little effect on
anything.

Broadcasters are faced with structures which arise near their antenna
arrays. At times these are resonant at the broadcast frequency and if so
they absorb and re-radiate energy distorting the station`s radiation
pattern. The solution is usually simply applying something to the new
structure to detune it from resonance at the broadcast frequency. If not
very near resonance, the structure won`t pickup enough energy to cause
trouble. Too much reactance to allow current flow.

The hard fact that a structure must be near resonance to admit
significant energy makes broadbanding an antenna by an appurtenance
tuned to some frequency other than the fundamental frequency of the
antenna challenging. One method that works is a combination of antennas
resonant for all the desired frequencies.

There are other methods to get a wire to accept current over a wide
frequency range. Wave antennas are an example. But, standing wave
antennas are the most common and these need resonance or thereabouts.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Art Unwin, KB9MZ wrote:
"The question ....Could it oscillate under ideal conditions? Yes or no."

A tuned loop can not "oscillate", that is, to continue repeating a cycle
of motions with strict periodicity, if it does not have a continuing
supply of the resonant frequency.

Analogies pose problems, but a resonant device responds to a particular
frequency and ignores others. A resonant-reed low-frequency indicator is
a vivid analogy of a collection of tuned circuits. Only the resonant
reed responds to excitation which is applied to all of the reeds.
Likewise, a resonant loop must be excited at its resonant frequency to
accept and re-radiate energy. A collection of dipoles and loops may be
exposed to r-f. If one of the collection is resonant, it accepts energy
and re-radiates.

A common inference from the word oscillation is production of continuous
waves. The device making the oscillation is called an oscillator. I`ve
seen loops and I`ve seen oscillators, and a loop without an active
circuit is no oscillator.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Thanks for the posting Richard

I concede.....

I had thought that the 'too and fro' of the 'coupling'
would have continued after energy was turned off,
like an ever changing EMF until final decrement.
If this were true then I am sure an expert
would have piped up. Since they didn't think the
same way the energy decay (Current flow) must have been
'instantaneous'
As I am not going to try for a ELECTRICAL degree
as suggested ( O.K. I am a wimp )I am resigned to
falling down a few times if I wish to move forward.
At my age I don't get to move that fast anyway
Best Regards
Art




(Richard Harrison) wrote in message ...
Art Unwin, KB9MZ wrote:
"The question ....Could it oscillate under ideal conditions? Yes or no."

A tuned loop can not "oscillate", that is, to continue repeating a cycle
of motions with strict periodicity, if it does not have a continuing
supply of the resonant frequency.

Analogies pose problems, but a resonant device responds to a particular
frequency and ignores others. A resonant-reed low-frequency indicator is
a vivid analogy of a collection of tuned circuits. Only the resonant
reed responds to excitation which is applied to all of the reeds.
Likewise, a resonant loop must be excited at its resonant frequency to
accept and re-radiate energy. A collection of dipoles and loops may be
exposed to r-f. If one of the collection is resonant, it accepts energy
and re-radiates.

A common inference from the word oscillation is production of continuous
waves. The device making the oscillation is called an oscillator. I`ve
seen loops and I`ve seen oscillators, and a loop without an active
circuit is no oscillator.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Thanks for the posting Richard

I concede.....

I had thought that the 'too and fro' of the 'coupling'
would have continued after energy was turned off,
like an ever changing EMF until final decrement.
If this were true then I am sure an expert
would have piped up. Since they didn't think the
same way the energy decay (Current flow) must have been
'instantaneous'
As I am not going to try for a ELECTRICAL degree
as suggested ( O.K. I am a wimp )I am resigned to
falling down a few times if I wish to move forward.
At my age I don't get to move that fast anyway
Best Regards
Art




(Richard Harrison) wrote in message ...
Art Unwin, KB9MZ wrote:
"The question ....Could it oscillate under ideal conditions? Yes or no."

A tuned loop can not "oscillate", that is, to continue repeating a cycle
of motions with strict periodicity, if it does not have a continuing
supply of the resonant frequency.

Analogies pose problems, but a resonant device responds to a particular
frequency and ignores others. A resonant-reed low-frequency indicator is
a vivid analogy of a collection of tuned circuits. Only the resonant
reed responds to excitation which is applied to all of the reeds.
Likewise, a resonant loop must be excited at its resonant frequency to
accept and re-radiate energy. A collection of dipoles and loops may be
exposed to r-f. If one of the collection is resonant, it accepts energy
and re-radiates.

A common inference from the word oscillation is production of continuous
waves. The device making the oscillation is called an oscillator. I`ve
seen loops and I`ve seen oscillators, and a loop without an active
circuit is no oscillator.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Thanks for the posting Richard

I concede.....

I had thought that the 'too and fro' of the 'coupling'
would have continued after energy was turned off,
like an ever changing EMF until final decrement.
If this were true then I am sure an expert
would have piped up. Since they didn't think the
same way the energy decay (Current flow) must have been
'instantaneous'
As I am not going to try for a ELECTRICAL degree
as suggested ( O.K. I am a wimp )I am resigned to
falling down a few times if I wish to move forward.
At my age I don't get to move that fast anyway
Best Regards
Art




(Richard Harrison) wrote in message ...
Art Unwin, KB9MZ wrote:
"The question ....Could it oscillate under ideal conditions? Yes or no."

A tuned loop can not "oscillate", that is, to continue repeating a cycle
of motions with strict periodicity, if it does not have a continuing
supply of the resonant frequency.

Analogies pose problems, but a resonant device responds to a particular
frequency and ignores others. A resonant-reed low-frequency indicator is
a vivid analogy of a collection of tuned circuits. Only the resonant
reed responds to excitation which is applied to all of the reeds.
Likewise, a resonant loop must be excited at its resonant frequency to
accept and re-radiate energy. A collection of dipoles and loops may be
exposed to r-f. If one of the collection is resonant, it accepts energy
and re-radiates.

A common inference from the word oscillation is production of continuous
waves. The device making the oscillation is called an oscillator. I`ve
seen loops and I`ve seen oscillators, and a loop without an active
circuit is no oscillator.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Thanks for the posting Richard

I concede.....

I had thought that the 'too and fro' of the 'coupling'
would have continued after energy was turned off,
like an ever changing EMF until final decrement.
If this were true then I am sure an expert
would have piped up. Since they didn't think the
same way the energy decay (Current flow) must have been
'instantaneous'
As I am not going to try for a ELECTRICAL degree
as suggested ( O.K. I am a wimp )I am resigned to
falling down a few times if I wish to move forward.
At my age I don't get to move that fast anyway
Best Regards
Art




(Richard Harrison) wrote in message ...
Art Unwin, KB9MZ wrote:
"The question ....Could it oscillate under ideal conditions? Yes or no."

A tuned loop can not "oscillate", that is, to continue repeating a cycle
of motions with strict periodicity, if it does not have a continuing
supply of the resonant frequency.

Analogies pose problems, but a resonant device responds to a particular
frequency and ignores others. A resonant-reed low-frequency indicator is
a vivid analogy of a collection of tuned circuits. Only the resonant
reed responds to excitation which is applied to all of the reeds.
Likewise, a resonant loop must be excited at its resonant frequency to
accept and re-radiate energy. A collection of dipoles and loops may be
exposed to r-f. If one of the collection is resonant, it accepts energy
and re-radiates.

A common inference from the word oscillation is production of continuous
waves. The device making the oscillation is called an oscillator. I`ve
seen loops and I`ve seen oscillators, and a loop without an active
circuit is no oscillator.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI