Jim Kelley wrote:

W5DXP wrote:
Such a bold-faced lie. I have argued loud and long with Peter (and
others) that reflected traveling waves are alive and well during the
steady-state. Peter will (hopefully) jump in and verify that fact.

You're arguing with me about it right now in another thread! :-)

The statement, "Reflected traveling waves disappear in the steady state",
means to me that the set of reflected traveling waves is null in the
steady-state - which is a statement that I never made.

In a system with a mismatched load, reflected traveling waves always
exist and I have NEVER said otherwise.

Semantic tricks and traps never prove anything. They just obfuscate.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Reg Edwards wrote:
Cec, from where do you get all your energy?


Simple - from reflected and collected waves, and rest converted to infrared
energy not radiated by the heat sink. :-)

A congenital insatiable thirst for knowledge. I asked my
first grade teacher, "Why is one plus one equal to two?"
She didn't know. I finally got my answer years later when
I took a "Foundations of Mathematics" college course.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP


That's where its coming from!
The only problem is that the more we learn we find out that we know less and
still die stupid.

Bada 3BUm

Mike sez -
I suspect that despite some aggravation and
digestive tract angst, they are enjoying it.

=============================

Mike, you are undoubtedly correct. If you ask a man why he keeps banging his
head with a hammer he will reply that he likes the feeling when he stops.


To put it in engineering terms, all living and dead materials take the line
of least resistance as perceived by their senses at the present instant of
time. The result is an unending drunken "Monte-Carlo" walk.


At MY present instant in time I am about to pour another glass of delicate
Chinese "Great Wall" white wine. If the disused coal mine under this house,
a consequence of the industrial revolution, doesn't fall in I may yet
survive to enjoy it.


There are an infinite number of ways our 'pleasure centers' make good use of
amateur radio. Between them Cecil and Co. know them all !

---
Reg, G4FGQ

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
The only problem is that the more we learn we find out that we know less and
still die stupid.

Someone said we specialize to the extent that we know more and more
about less and less and wind up knowing everything about nothing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured
against reality, is primitive and childlike ..." Albert Einstein



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Richard,
When it comes to looking up books for quotations
you do a good enough job to be a librarian, but I am unaware
of any instance where a librarian was promoted to the engineering
section on a project basis. Each of the instances that you quote
are simple and direct..... as long as particular conditions are
followed.
When you strayed from your books to combine two situations it would
be wise for you to analyse the new situation to check for changes
in conditions. Unfortuately for you this will not be neatly laid out
in your books
In the case of a so called magnetic loop there are many conditions
to be met to ensure a figure 8 radiation pattern, with or without
deep nulls.
Thus just any old loop in any sort of conditions such as being
coupled to another object or not uniform in cross section e.t.c.
is not the same as the conditions that you referenced in the
handbook thus statements that regurgitate may well not now apply.
It is a pity that you do not have a interest in computor programs
or an interest in using one because if you did you could add to
your experience without the need of buying another book.



(Richard Harrison) wrote in message ...
Art Unwin wrote:
"As far as I am concerned you do not have the faintest idea what my
antenna consists of ...or,,you don`t know what you are talking about."

How does Art`s antenna differ from Fig 10(A) on page 26-9 of the 19th
edition of the ARRL Antenna Book?. In that figure, the input of the "T"
is inductive until the series capacitance brings it into resonance.

The tuning section of Fig 10(A) forms a small loop. See Fig 4 on page
5-3 of the same Antenna Book for the small loop radiation pattern. Also,
see Fig 12 on page 2-8 for the dipole radiation pattern. Note that lobes
are perpendicular to the wire and plane of the dipole, and perpendicular
to the axis of the small loop. There are nulls perpendicular to the wire
and plane of the loop.

The loop`s null can`t help the dipole`s lobe. It can`t hurt it either,
other than by radiating some energy that might otherwise have gone into
the dipole. As the loop is small ( 0.1 lambda is one definition), its
contribution to radiation may be small. As the loop size grows, so will
its radiation, and its null will decline.

How does Art`s antenna differ from a T-matched dipole?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Actually, Art, the dissention is mostly when *you* use the term
efficiency, because for reasons of your own, you don't use it in the
universally understood way.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Dr Slick.
When the term efficiency is used on this newsgroup
it always leads to dissention.
As Roy pointed out efficiency is a ratio between two factors
X and Y only. Unfortunately in this newsgroup
people have a tendency to use Y in their derivation of efficiency
which results in people talking past each other.
I suspect we have a bit of that in this thread
Have a great day
Art

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Roy, the die was cast years ago when anything "new" was trashed
without a hearing. I now accept that all is now known about antennas
except the really deep things that Cecil is so bravely pushing on with
where I failed.

One slight correction, Art. Because of the similarity between light and
radiated EM waves, most things about antennas are known, at least to the
limit of the models to handle reality.

However, it appears to me that some things have been overlooked when the
coherent EM waves are confined to a one-dimensional transmission line. Those
things that have been overlooked are what I am pursuing and as far as I can
determine, they happen only inside a transmission line or at a thin-film
non-reflective surface using coherent light waves. That's what makes it
special.

That is not to conclude that you haven't discovered something special,
just that my focus is Z0-match points inside transmission lines and
non-glare thin-film coatings involving orthogonal coherent light.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Art Unwin wrote:
"It is a pity you do not have an interest in computor programs---."

If Art would publish impedance, gain, directivity, and bandwidth
comparisons of his antenna against a reference dipole at the same
height, from his computer programs, we might all know more about it.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:29:52 -0500 (CDT),
(Richard Harrison) wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:
"It is a pity you do not have an interest in computor programs---."

If Art would publish impedance, gain, directivity, and bandwidth
comparisons of his antenna against a reference dipole at the same
height, from his computer programs, we might all know more about it.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Hi Richard,

This would be consistent with one who is interested in antennas.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Just playing devels advocate here, but, as you state "If you put X watts
into one antenna and extract Y watts from an antenna coupled to it, and
measure the efficiency of the "transformer" the same way as you did the
conventional transformer, you'll find it has lousy
efficiency.", does that refer to the 377 ohms (or so) free space coupling
impedence, or could that effeciency be improved by having the antenna's
matched radiation resistance approach that 377 ohms? (I.E. max transfer of
power is at Z0 (in) matches Z0(out)! or, is this academic for this?
Perhaps, better for Dr. Shorza Gitchigoumi of CQ fame, or Larson E. Rapp of
ARRL fame (both with bad habit of only presenting articles in the 4th month
of the year in their respective publications) ! But, I'd thought I had
better ask! Jim NN7K


"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
I hope you'll pardon me for amplifying this a little.

If you put X watts into the primary of a transformer and extract Y watts
from the secondary, the efficiency is Y/X by definition.

If you put X watts into one antenna and extract Y watts from an antenna
coupled to it, and measure the efficiency of the "transformer" the same
way as you did the conventional transformer, you'll find it has lousy
efficiency. Why? Because a goodly fraction of the power you applied to
the "primary" antenna never gets to the "secondary" antenna because it's
radiated instead. As far as the "secondary" is concerned, it might as
well have been converted to heat.

If you look at the impedance of the "primary" antenna, you'll find an
excess of resistance -- just enough, in fact, to account for the "lost"
(radiated) power.

This isn't a statement about how well coupled antennas function as
antennas, whose purpose is to radiate after all. It's a statement about
how well they function as a transformer. Poorly.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL