Double helix antenna KB9MZ

[M3KXZ]

Does anyone have any info, or have they tried this? What brought it to mind was M0VEY's top band helical post. KB9MZ mentions a helical antenna winding up one way then back down - I guess like a helical folded monopole?

Can;t find much info. Thoughts please.

Pete

[KL7AJ]

Does anyone have any info, or have they tried this? What brought it to mind was M0VEY's top band helical post. KB9MZ mentions a helical antenna winding up one way then back down - I guess like a helical folded monopole?

Can;t find much info. Thoughts please.

Pete

This would most likely result in complete cancellation of your signal. Be my guest!

Eric

[M3KXZ]

But what if it's not fed at the bottom? Imagine fed 1/3 way up one side, like a wonkey folded dipole, and operated on a range of bands. Feeding off centre would make matching easier over many bands, and if length done right then the phases of currents in each parallel side of the antenna could be such that they add, rather than cancel.

[M3KXZ]

Forgot, it's already been done before - the G3RXO "Unitenna".

[M3KXZ]

Wow! I just modeled a 5 metre long vertical off-centre fed folded dipole, fed 30% up from the bottom, with the bottom 0.5m above ground, and the wires closely space at 2cm. Ran a frequency sweep and found best performance to be right on 27MHz! Fate eh? Anyway, performance there looked ok, but it is shocking at 14 MHz. So I ditched everything except the one wire to leave me with a 5m tall off centre fed vertical dipole....and the jump in modeled performance was huge! Light and day.

I wish I knew how to model the folded dipole as two helical windings....I bet if they were wound in opposite directions it would be great :D

[W8JI]

Wow! I just modeled a 5 metre long vertical off-centre fed folded dipole, fed 30% up from the bottom, with the bottom 0.5m above ground, and the wires closely space at 2cm. Ran a frequency sweep and found best performance to be right on 27MHz! Fate eh? Anyway, performance there looked ok, but it is shocking at 14 MHz. So I ditched everything except the one wire to leave me with a 5m tall off centre fed vertical dipole....and the jump in modeled performance was huge! Light and day.

I wish I knew how to model the folded dipole as two helical windings....I bet if they were wound in opposite directions it would be great :D

Why would you want to make a folded helical antenna? What purpose would that serve if you could get it to work?

I can't think of a single advantage, especially if you counter wind them!!

What are you after?

73 Tom

[M3KXZ]

Why would you want to make a folded helical antenna? What purpose would that serve if you could get it to work?

I can't think of a single advantage, especially if you counter wind them!!

What are you after?

73 Tom

Tom, I would NOT want to make one. I was more interested in whether anyone had actually done so after reading all the stuff written by Art Unwin. Then I realised that Art Unwin must be the fella whose names crops up here quite a bit.

73

Pete

[W8JI]

Tom, I would NOT want to make one. I was more interested in whether anyone had actually done so after reading all the stuff written by Art Unwin. Then I realised that Art Unwin must be the fella whose names crops up here quite a bit.

73

Pete

Art is a really nice guy with a totally unique way of looking at antennas. It is a fresh viewpoint I can't ever follow. My wife looks at the things offered in info-commercials on TV in a very similar way. I can't follow them either, but they are interesting to watch.

73 Tom

[WB2WIK]

Art is a really nice guy with a totally unique way of looking at antennas. It is a fresh viewpoint I can't ever follow. My wife looks at the things offered in info-commercials on TV in a very similar way. I can't follow them either, but they are interesting to watch.

73 Tom

::I've learned a lot from the infomercials. Now I can end every sales pitch with, "If you call in the next seven minutes, we'll give you two of them for the same price, and throw in a set of Ginzu knives.":)

[KB9MZ]

Art is a really nice guy with a totally unique way of looking at antennas. It is a fresh viewpoint I can't ever follow. My wife looks at the things offered in info-commercials on TV in a very similar way. I can't follow them either, but they are interesting to watch.

73 Tom

deleted kb9mz

[AC0GR]

It is a shame that modern hams deny physics by stating all is known about antennas when physics state that a radiator need not be straight as you yourself imply. Hams deny the presence of physic and thus resist change
Best regards
Art KB9MZ

I have yet to hear any person say that 'all is known' about antenna theory or physics, apart from yourself like in the above and in other forums.

Many hams like to tinker and experiment with new ways of doing things. If the new ways are not better or significantly different than the old ways, they get discarded or are tweaked further.

The primary thing missing from your physics model is a working example that can be shown that it is not just a simple renaming or reinterpretation of existing theory.

So far, most of your theories and proposed examples are not only different from existing theory, but are so radical that existing theory says they will simply not work as you claim.

If anyone can show working physical examples of where existing theory falls short, or is wrong, I encourage them to do so. But a theory written on paper without example is worth a ruined piece of paper.

[ZL3GSL]

Maybe he's an economist. After all, economic theorists have got Nobel prizes for rejecting the experience of centuries, and new economic theories put into practice have given us the wonderfully successful results we are enjoying today.

Perhaps physics can be as successful ... :(

[KB9MZ]

I have yet to hear any person say that 'all is known' about antenna theory or physics, apart from yourself like in the above and in other forums.

Many hams like to tinker and experiment with new ways of doing things. If the new ways are not better or significantly different than the old ways, they get discarded or are tweaked further.

The primary thing missing from your physics model is a working example that can be shown that it is not just a simple renaming or reinterpretation of existing theory.

So far, most of your theories and proposed examples are not only different from existing theory, but are so radical that existing theory says they will simply not work as you claim.

If anyone can show working physical examples of where existing theory falls short, or is wrong, I encourage them to do so. But a theory written on paper without example is worth a ruined piece of paper.

If you understand physics you can check out http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/
It is not very orderly and writing is terrible but if you can understand physics it will be no problem. As yet I have not found anybody with physics knowledge plus not bound to change only people who wish to deride the new which discourages me from putting all the facts out. I read Tom's posting some weeks ago and thought that possibly there could be a change in outlook thus my post. I have a patent request printed on the web somewhere if you need more input. As yet nobody has found error in the snippets that I have provided over the years but you can read it for what it is worth
Regards
Art

[KB9MZ]

Maybe he's an economist. After all, economic theorists have got Nobel prizes for rejecting the experience of centuries, and new economic theories put into practice have given us the wonderfully successful results we are enjoying today.

Perhaps physics can be as successful ... :(

Yes, it does give a different take from what is taught in the books but the underlying physics from the time of Maxwell is still used. Normally comments become belligerent if one does not understand the logic or does not consult their professor regarding the legitemacy of the statements and in that case I discontinue the discussion, remove my writings and move on. I still look forward to the day it can be discussed between two engineers but I don';t have any hope as yet that it will happen. When the discussion tends to reject change just because then I have had plenty of those so nothing more needs to be said and I leave and enjoy my antenna. Sooner or later change will come about in the books.
Cheers
Art

[M3KXZ]

Art, many thanks for your comments on the double helix antenna. I'm having trouble getting my head around how it works as all I can visualise is two helically wound antennas in very close proximity to each other, and imagine virtually complete cancellation of the fields. I will keep reading your write up until I get it.

Out of interest, have you been able to make direct comparisons with one you've put together vs a normal vertical dipole?

73

Pete

[KB9MZ]

Pete I don't understand the antenna addition to the postings! Who ever is doing it should be put where the pier was.
When discussing inductance there are two forms, lumped and distributed.
The distributed inductance and capacitance are the main parts of a" tank circuit"which is what interests us as this is the mechanism for levitation and spin applied to a particle, both of these are very close to the surface of the wire.
The magnetic field you are thinking of is at a distance from the wire and contribute to the slow wave function of the electrical current.
Note that in the writings the particles are on the surface of the wire as are the
many small constituents of capacitance inductance and resistance all of which increase incrementally with radiator length. It is this group that contribute to the sloshing backwards and forwards of energy that the "tank circuit" alludes to
which is seen by the root LC statement. Now this is not to say that while particles can arrive at a radiator that the displacement field itself cannot be
neutralized vis the close proximetries and thus dilute transmission but that is another story. The conclusion that you and Tom jumped on was generated
more than 100 years ago when Maxwell found that his initial formula struggle did not amount to equilibrium per Newtons laws so he added the metrics that would amount to equilibrium and called it a displacement current by guestimating what the actual metrics would amount to. It was another hundred years before displacement or eddy currents were discovered
however it could not displace the long held idea of communication via waves
or that it is directly related to modern day p-hysics model to this very day.
Note that Kraus with his single windings helix advocated several wavelength.
Unfortunately one of the metrics added was "e" which sugested a decay of some sort which lead to skin depth being a lamina structure of decay as opposed to the resistive reaction of the eddy currents which Einstein looked for as the connecting force of the "weak" force which he considered part and parcel of another one of the four forces postulated in "the standard model"
Have fun, you are now getting ahead of the curve of present day knowledge!
Cheers and beers
Art KB9MZ....xg
of radiatig wire which was is a direct descent from the "slow wave theorem"

[W8JI]

If you understand physics you can check out http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/
It is not very orderly and writing is terrible but if you can understand physics it will be no problem. As yet I have not found anybody with physics knowledge plus not bound to change only people who wish to deride the new which discourages me from putting all the facts out. I read Tom's posting some weeks ago and thought that possibly there could be a change in outlook thus my post. I have a patent request printed on the web somewhere if you need more input. As yet nobody has found error in the snippets that I have provided over the years but you can read it for what it is worth
Regards
Art

Art,

If we took any basics physics courses and stayed awake in class, we would have learned that EM radiation comes from charge acceleration. It is all about the spatial distance charges wiggle over, NOT the conductor length. All the conductor length alters is energy storage and resistance. The radiation is always a function of the ampere-feet of in-line distance.

If I have an antenna that is 5 feet long between two supports, it is a five foot long antenna so far as radiation goes. I can coil the wires, fold the wires, and do anything else I want to pack more wire in that five feet of linear spatial distance and I still have....a five foot long antenna.

This is at the root of why a short mobile whip has much more current than a long antenna on 75 meters when each is radiating the same power level. As the spatial distance is reduced for the same amount of radiated power we have to have more current. It is all about the ampere-feet.

If I could load the whip at the open end with a large capacitance hat the current would be uniform, and that would make the current required (the ampere feet) minimum. If I coiled the whip out of a much longer conductor to add distributed capacitance and inductance and make it resonate, the current would be a triangular shape and the current required would be double that of the hat loaded whip. The path length through the conductors would be much longer increasing the resistance, so we would have more loss. The stored energy in the electric field would be higher with the helical, and so we could easily have less bandwidth at the same time we have less efficiency.


If we considered the radiation resistance twice the current means to dissipate the same power we have four times the radiation resistance with the hat. If the hat loaded antenna would have 1 ampere with uniform current, the helical would have 2 amperes to radiate the same power. If this power was 1 watt the hat loaded antenna would have a radiation resistance (using IRE standards of the maximum current required to cause radiation) of one ohm and the helical antenna a radiation resistance of 1/4 ohm. 1 watt / 1^2 amperes = 1 ohm for 1 watt radiated at one ampere and 1 watt / 2^2 amperes = .25 ohms to radiate one watt at 2 amperes.

You are absolutely wrong with your physics of how the antenna works. No question about it. A helical antenna is a terrible way to load an antenna to reduce the size for resonance, and a double helical is even worse. All you are doing is packing more and more wire into the same physical space which means you are increasing distributed losses while the actual radiation resistance goes down!!!

The goal of most antennas is not to maximize heat while minimizing radiation unless we are making heat. That's why filaments are coiled, sometimes with double helices, and why good antennas are not.

73 Tom

[KB9MZ]

Pete I don't understand the antenna addition to the postings! Who ever is doing it should be put where the pier was.
When discussing inductance there are two forms, lumped and distributed.
The distributed inductance and capacitance are the main parts of a" tank circuit"which is what interests us as this is the mechanism for levitation and spin applied to a particle, both of these are very close to the surface of the wire.
The magnetic field you are thinking of is at a distance from the wire and contribute to the slow wave function of the electrical current.
Note that in the writings the particles are on the surface of the wire as are the
many small constituents of capacitance inductance and resistance all of which increase incrementally with radiator length. It is this group that contribute to the sloshing backwards and forwards of energy that the "tank circuit" alludes to
which is seen by the root LC statement. Now this is not to say that while particles can arrive at a radiator that the displacement field itself cannot be
neutralized vis the close proximetries and thus dilute transmission but that is another story. The conclusion that you and Tom jumped on was generated
more than 100 years ago when Maxwell found that his initial formula struggle did not amount to equilibrium per Newtons laws so he added the metrics that would amount to equilibrium and called it a displacement current by guestimating what the actual metrics would amount to. It was another hundred years before displacement or eddy currents were discovered
however it could not displace the long held idea of communication via waves
or that it is directly related to modern day p-hysics model to this very day.
Note that Kraus with his single windings helix advocated several wavelength.
Unfortunately one of the metrics added was "e" which sugested a decay of some sort which lead to skin depth being a lamina structure of decay as opposed to the resistive reaction of the eddy currents which Einstein looked for as the connecting force of the "weak" force which he considered part and parcel of another one of the four forces postulated in "the standard model"
Have fun, you are now getting ahead of the curve of present day knowledge!
Cheers and beers
Art KB9MZ....xg
of radiatig wire which was is a direct descent from the "slow wave theorem"

Tom
All discussions in ham radio start off with I am right and you are wrong.
That aproach gets nowhere.
I stated to you that I am working from first principles in physics. I started with the statement that if you apply atime varying field and radiators to the Gaussian law of statics then it equates exactly to Maxwells laws.
This alone settles a long puzzle when comparing particles to waves in radio generation. This is not a small finding but it large in physics. Disregard the rest of the trail I proposed and concentrate just on this one item. If your physics trumps mine then that is the end of it. If my finding trumps yours then we can move on to the next point of discussion. I can't debate a ham with respect to physics if there is not a controlled line of thought that other students can follow. Surely some time in your life you have made a proposal
together with supporting mathematics so why should this be different. I am sharing not ramming something down your throat
Regards
Art

[M3KXZ]

Art, I'm having visions of Planck's constant, particle spin, Gaussian wavepackets, wavepacket spreading, Coulomb potential, Schroedinger's equation.....am I heading off down a dangerous slippery slope of reading? Particles and all.

And could "particle spin" be the reason why the electrons in the ionosphere has a different impact on the X and O modes?

Pete

[M3KXZ]

And a radio wave of a specific frequency is an ensemble of single-particle systems prepared in the same state. So the current induced in an antenna element by the application of the alternating current of a specific frequency is what prepares this "ensemble of single-particle systems in the same state"...so we have all these single particles radiating outward from the antenna. And then for the receiving antenna, do some of these identically prepared particles arrive at the antenna and produce the current that is then detected by the receiver?

[KB9MZ]

Well it did not take long for this thread to go down the tube. Physics again is thrown out of the window. All it takes is a verification or otherwise on the extension to Gaussian law as I proposed. As an engineer I am asking to much of hams
Take care, I will withdraw from this thread in the absence of the intrusion of physics Hopefully it will not take ten years before I post on this forum again
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

[M3KXZ]

Well it did not take long for this thread to go down the tube. Physics again is thrown out of the window. All it takes is a verification or otherwise on the extension to Gaussian law as I proposed. As an engineer I am asking to much of hams
Take care, I will withdraw from this thread in the absence of the intrusion of physics Hopefully it will not take ten years before I post on this forum again
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg


Art, I was just posting my thought - thinking aloud so to speak - to get a handle on it.Why do you think otherwise? I certainly wasn't intending to send the thread down the tubes. There are some things I have thought of that I will post here after dinner.

Pete

[KB9MZ]

Peter, your post like Tom's went all over the place and did not address one thing that I put forward
I started of with the statement that extending Gaussian law on statics results in the same as Maxwell. Think about that statement. At last a connection has been put before ham radio that once and for all places particles into the radiation picture. Is that statement a important finding? Is it backed up by physics? I am not asking or begging that like Moses somebody comes out of the wilderness and makes a statement that pushes science to one side.
What do hams want? Continuos arguments where all talk past each other.
Now I could carry on and say that antenna computer programs back me up but that means nothing here so I concentrate on just one single issue that provoked my thinking over the years. Tom skillfully got around the basic science question and moved on to opinions that were not part of the thread.
You on the other hand, pulled out a encyclopedia and threw phrases at me that also had nothing to do with the thread. The scientific statement that I put forward is tremendously important in determining what radiation is, but all the engineers have left the hobby leaving increasing numbers of CB style talking heads. Why else would hams place physics in the garbage can so one needs not prove me wrong and sing along with the majoritory?
If anybody can prove me in error regarding the Gaussian statement all would learn and I would be rightfully trashed, but the fact is that what I have provided is correct but you prefer your own self perceived judges but without corroberating facts. Get back to the simple basic physics starter question and then you have my attention such that I will continue to share
but it does require a modicom of physics knowledge so that the correct logic can be provided., which leads us to a big fat zero of suitable qualified hams.
Regards
Art

[M3KXZ]

OK, I was working back to the beginning, looking at texts in combination with your notes. So, Maxwell ignored the "equilibrium" aspect of Gauss's law when he came up with his first equation. And it is this aspect that you have been able to tie into Maxwell's equations, is that right? And if the (antenna) system is in equilibrium then we can do away with the ground plane that would be required for an antenna system not in equilibrium, thus enabling an antenna of smaller dimensions (I know I've written this very simplistically - again, it's just my thought process)

So, to produce an antenna system which is in equilibrium, you have the two Meander type circuits - the contra helical turns. THIS is where I find it interesting - typical radio wave thought would tell me that the fields from opposing circuits like this would cancel. But when looking at it in terms of particles, that would follow a helical path (as particles do) then two out of phase particles would superpose, rather than arithmetically adding to zero which would occur if they were on straight line trajectories.

I'm sorry if I'm way off. I do have a pretty reasonable physics background - it made up a fair part of my degree - but it's not that deep, which is why I'm trying to get to grips with this.

73

Pete

[KB9MZ]

Deleted KB9MZ

[KB9MZ]

OK, I was working back to the beginning, looking at texts in combination with your notes. So, Maxwell ignored the "equilibrium" aspect of Gauss's law when he came up with his first equation. And it is this aspect that you have been able to tie into Maxwell's equations, is that right? And if the (antenna) system is in equilibrium then we can do away with the ground plane that would be required for an antenna system not in equilibrium, thus enabling an antenna of smaller dimensions (I know I've written this very simplistically - again, it's just my thought process)

So, to produce an antenna system which is in equilibrium, you have the two Meander type circuits - the contra helical turns. THIS is where I find it interesting - typical radio wave thought would tell me that the fields from opposing circuits like this would cancel. But when looking at it in terms of particles, that would follow a helical path (as particles do) then two out of phase particles would superpose, rather than arithmetically adding to zero which would occur if they were on straight line trajectories.

I'm sorry if I'm way off. I do have a pretty reasonable physics background - it made up a fair part of my degree - but it's not that deep, which is why I'm trying to get to grips with this.

73

Pete

Peter, I got your e mail
First the entry from Tom. He has been on automatic for several years now and doesn't check facts any more so to continue with him means a long drawn out struggle which he enjoys.
Now to the facts
The Gauss extension theorem can be found in many books, I suggest ch2/3 of Electromagnetic concepts and applilications by Marshall
This establishes the content of particles in radiation which hams reject out of hand
From this one can postulate that a radiator can be any size shape or elevation as long as it is in equilibrium.
From the above you can apply any radiator to a program with a optimizer and it will respond with an assembly in equiulibrium thus by passing planar designs ( don't pre guide the program with your input)
From the above research salvage operation machine in scrap yards where a macro repeat of the particle ejection aqction in line with radiating particles.
Also review connections between pendulum, period length and radiation in regards to equilibrium
For the computer program I suggest AO or AO pro tho there are free programs on the web with optimizer
From above look up my printed patent request on Gaussian antennas
I could supply all but without participation by the user you will fall in the catogery of a talking ham and nothing else
Have fun
Art

[M3KXZ]

Art, many thanks for referring me to those sources of information - I appreciate it, and have saved the text for reference in case you delete it!

From what I have learned, I have no problem with the particle theory. I have a couple of comments to add but it will have to be alter today as rushing out the door to work at the moment.

73

Pete

[WB3BEL]

I'd listen to W8JI's advice.

Sure there is a well known wave-particle duality in physics. But as far as any antenna operating in a quasi-free space environment it can be completely explained using the wave physical model. This encompasses all amateur radio uses of antennas.

On the other hand if you are talking about EM radiation where you need to observe phenomenon at sub-atomic distances, or near exceedingly dense masses, or in the presence of strong forces then you might need to understand particle physics. Even then you might get carried away and discover that you really need some emerging theory that is under intense debate like superstring theory or alternate universes. You would let the math tell you what is real or false and perhaps get confused about time and space.

The essence of Engineering is knowing how to simplify until you have a good enough approximation of the problem and can solve it to obtain a good enough answer.

As far as the posts regarding alternative theories and equilibrium, it appears that the words are English, but their selection and position in the sentences seems random. My neural processor can not parse their syntax and obtain meaningful information so I will not comment on their technical accuracy.

[KB9MZ]

I don't know exactly what you are advocating or what one should discard!
There are several ways of arriving at Maxwell's laws (at least three)
You can settle on just the laws and put them in memory or you can investigate other routes for clues just for the sake of physics. Most books have reference to these including the radio engineers reference books as do other reference books. When the math comes out to be the same it provides the clues with respect to particles where 100 years of following the wave theory has provided nothing. Einstein predicted that the 'weak force' was encompassed in the radiaion theorem which he failed to find and thus turned to other views on science i.e E = mc squared. Using present day advances such as antenna computer programs based on Maxwell you find that they also support the equilibrium aproach which includes the weak force and over rides planar forms such as the Yagi providing equilibrium forms for higher gain. Yes, some will say it proves that computer programs are in error so that change is resisted, I don't. One can then review how particles can be ejected from the surface of a radiator but also in a straight line thus overtaking the force of gravity, this when starting off as a passive static particle. Well scrap yards use science in separating diamagnetic and ferromagnetic items by the application of eddy current which elevats materials and applies spin to the sorting method which is an exact example of the application of spin to static parcels plus confirming Einstein prediction
of the presence of three of the four forces in the standard model was present in the action of radiation and where decay is present within the static particles by reason of its nuclear content from the sum.
I know it is difficult for the older generation to accept change but the compartmentalizing of the three methods of arriving at Maxwell's laws has gone on far to long and time for amateurs to get back to experimenting rather than rely on the results arrived at by conjecture while reclining on the sofa on the assumption that all is known. Yes, my writing skills are putrid because of my age and health but that is no reason to discard mathematics
or to bolster your idea that with such writings I am one of the little people
Then again you stated" if you was me,", when actually you are not, but you have a very easy path in front of you! Make one or stay on the couch and pour water on all findings that cross your bow. Why? Well because...
Think about Obama and think 'yes we can' instead of looking for obsticles to progress
Art Unwin..... KB9MZ..xg

[WB3BEL]

I don't know exactly what you are advocating or what one should discard!
There are several ways of arriving at Maxwell's laws ...

I'll try to make my position crystal clear.

I am advocating that people interested in antenna designs and antenna theory use solid engineering methods.

I am further advocating that the methods most suitable are those that are simplest but still able to solve the problem at hand.

There is an elegance in taking a complex topic and distilling it so that it is easy to grasp. Richard Feynman was one very notable practitioner and his physics lecture recordings are still quite popular today.

I am fairly certain that we have no difference of opinion so far. But correct me if I assume too much.

I do not know of any antenna problem that is of relevance to the amateur experimenter that can not be analyzed using EM wave methods of which Maxwell's equations are a cornerstone.

I agree that there are a number of ways to derive Maxwell's equations from first principles, but as an engineer, I do not need to derive them every time I wish to use them. In the same way that I take a tool from my toolbox like a hammer when I wish to drive a nail, or a saw when I desire to trim a board, I can take a mathematical tool from algorithmic library and apply it. There is no need to beat a nail in with riverbed stone or rip a two by four with a blowtorch.

I would not say that everything is known about any subject. But, on the subject of antennas, enough is known to apply the existing EM wave theory to solve real world problems. I may not be able to solve them all personally, but that has more to do with the skill of the craftsman than the power of the tools.

I agree that encouraging all radio enthusiasts to investigate and stimulate the mind is always excellent advice.

By the way, I don't consider myself to be "the older generation" but perhaps I delude myself as my teenage kids have a different perspective.

73, Harry WB3BEL

[KB9MZ]

Obviously I am a bad engineer and you are a excellent engineer. Why all expences were paid for me and my family to come over and work in the US is some sort of non understandable logic. Your post is littered with intangiables like" you might" and similar intangiables where I have stated points
Provide counterpoints to what I proffer and you have my attention.

Discard computer programs because they are not all encompasing
Discard Maxwell as they are not all encompasing
Discard salvage sorting machines or the physics that are relied upon to get the job done.
Discard the aproach of the necessity of applied spin to a particle to arrive at a straight line trajectory.
Discard the notion of vibrational or oscillation with respect to communication.
Discard Newtons and Gaussian aproach to enclosed arbitrary borders.
Continue to impoede the new until the time arrives that one can state that one knew that all the time yes and light is the subject of waves not particles because....Oh yes, get rid of Hawkins until he learns how to speak like you
so that he attains credibility... Jiminny cricket
Art.

[M3KXZ]

I like to know how and why things are as they are. The more I can understand different theories, the more I can figure out the hows and whys, and perhaps figure out something new. What Art has brought to the table - the link between particle physics and radio waves - has got my brain thinking and is giving me thoughts on a few things..such as:

X and O modes - could the fact that particles have spin explain the interaction that happens in the ionosphere, where the X and O modes are sent following different azimuths. And could different spins explain why the X mode critical frequency is higher than the O mode

Small Transmitting Magnetic Loop antennas - when modeled, they seem to be very inefficient when going very small. They are so different from dipoles that take up so much linear space - one would expect them to be poor performers - their capture area is many many times smaller than a full size dipole - yet anecdotal evidence concerning their performance indicates they can perform as well as a dipole at a much higher height, and can even perform better. It's thought that the strong magnetic field is what's responsible for this, but what if it's the particle emission being so much higher due to the high voltages and currents? Modeling software will show a thin wire small mag loop to have really poor efficiency because of the wire losses, yet anecdotal evidence has shown this is not necessarily the case. Hell, a mag loop has been made out of heater wire and performed very strongly, when it should have been diabolical...

There's more....after dinner!

Pete

[KB9MZ]

Peter; I would not jump on the back of Feyman just yet.It is much better to pursue thinking on a platform of rock rather than sand.
The suns arbritary boundary does fracture because the byproducts of the nuclear action of the sun demands such via the laws of Newton. One can easily accept that as we observe the changes of communication which provides credence to the presence of fine particles. At the same time we must accept that the emmision of particles from the sun is scattered and with little spin even tho we would like to substitute a jump of the grand canyon in two jumps
to prove a determined theory. We do know that billions of particles arrive at the earths surface but under the power of the solar stream and not of their own
So this is the path we are compelled to follow even tho at the moment the trail is not leading where we had hoped tho we do know that clumped particles hitting the magnetic field produces light as with the Noirthern lights which still allows a tenuous path with respect to particles. Since these particles can be seen as unbound electrons they must be able to alight on surfaces that do not absorb these electrons within their normal matrix and so on the trail goes. If the trail gets broken then we must stop and regroup.
I am focussed on the progression of the particles within the universe with the thought at the back of my mind the thoughts of Einstein and cannot be
moved over to thinking of the Feynman diagrams or the fledging string theory until I have completed the present trail and the thoughts of a possible Grand Universal Theory which started the thinking of Newton and the Greek phylosifers where each progressive step is supported from other directions which are considered firm and not mere theories which progress to a foundation of sand as it fits the moment
Cheers
Art

[KB9MZ]

Peter
With regard to the loop antenna. When you connected Gauss with Maxwell you can then postulate that a radiator can be any shape ,size or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium ,a factor that is demanded in all laws of the universe.
This immediately destroys the idea that a radiator must be straight as proposed by many! If charges can appear at the end of a fractional wave antenna then that radiator is not in equilibrium or for that matter a closed circuit. A mechanical engineer whose introduction to electricity is via the passage of water would immediately see the loop radiator as a stratisfied flow within a circle until the time comes about that the voltage is zero at the end of the circuit which is very much like a loop antenna with inherrant turbulence or cavitation. When one states that a whip antenna extended with extra wire is still a whip antenna is forgetting that he is making the application of Maxwells laws invalid by the addition of lumped circuitry where Maxwells laws are valid in the absence of lumped loads ala
root LC which does not include lumped loads only distributed. Another point that is raised is the acceleration of charge a Newton aspect which in itself demands mass. You will remember that the Maxwell addition with respect to dt includes mass as well as velocity which is incomprehensible when conceptulizing waves together with the decay factor which was also included
which by referal to nuclear content of particles destroys the idea of stratified decay forming skin depth. Upto a few years ago we would have been stymied in progress because of the allagation of waves meant parcels of
energy without mass. Now that is debunked by Experiments in Illinois and Japan and now being pursued by the CIRN experiments. So with the theory of massless energy being debunked the prediction made via mathematics by Maxwell when ensuring all metrics must cancel and equal zero comes blazing to the front. So, getting back to the loop, one could state that if the radiator was in equilibrium there is also a limit to the number of particles present per unit length represented by a period which controls an attractive or repulsive volume which cannot be exceeded ie spacial terms. Ofcourse a physicist is not interested in radio as is the student who accepts Maxwells laws is not interested in different ways something can be accepted or derived, so both compartentize the known clues presented by Gauss instead
of re conceptulising Einstein's prediction of G.U.T.
I am starting to ramble so I will stop and provide space for the inevitable naysayers present in ham radio.
Regards
Art
Regards
Art

[M3KXZ]

Art, many thanks again for your help. This is really helping with my understanding and filling in gaps. If it's ok with you, I'd like to keep in touch to talk about this further as soon as I've caught up.

Kind regards

Pete

[KB9MZ]

Pete
The following is a sample of a single element that is not parallel to the earths surface
Freq 145 Mhz
element dia 1"
center fed

x y z x y z
-24.353 8.825 48.797 12.575 11.951 53.803

Put this in Eznec or similar as is and check for max gain, vertical, horizontal ccw,cw etc
I set this up for max purity of horizontal signal and minimum vertical signal
but as you can see it is certainly not parallel to the earth's surface when it attains equilibrium . When checking for wind shear they(airport) check for change of the reflection, so they want minimum vertical signal going out to clarify resulting distortion on receipt of reflection. The angle of the radiator
is a direct result of the eddy current ( magnetic field of the capacitance) which Einstein would have called the "weak force" instead of displacement current as termed by Maxwell.
Forgot to mention tuning method on earlier double helix. Changing the relative position of the tube of windings changes impedance ie shift the inner tube winding forward relative to the outer windings thus you can
realize all frequencies on or off amateur bands continuous. Jumping is another option or even a sliding contact,. With a reflector you also gain the advantage of changing take off angle.
Cheers
Art

[W8JI]

I set this up for max purity of horizontal signal and minimum vertical signal
but as you can see it is certainly not parallel to the earth's surface when it attains equilibrium . When checking for wind shear they(airport) check for change of the reflection, so they want minimum vertical signal going out to clarify resulting distortion on receipt of reflection. The angle of the radiator
is a direct result of the eddy current ( magnetic field of the capacitance) which Einstein would have called the "weak force" instead of displacement current as termed by Maxwell.
Forgot to mention tuning method on earlier double helix. Changing the relative position of the tube of windings changes impedance ie shift the inner tube winding forward relative to the outer windings thus you can
realize all frequencies on or off amateur bands continuous. Jumping is another option or even a sliding contact,. With a reflector you also gain the advantage of changing take off angle.
Cheers
Art

Radiation is exclusively caused by charge acceleration. It is an entirely different force than the electric fields or magnetic fields, which are only induction or energy storage fields. You cannot convert a magnetic field into radiation by mixing, stretching, twisting, or painting it a different color. It is a different effect.

charge movement=magnetic short range force on other charges

charge difference between two points= electric field short range force on other charges

charge acceleration=radiation, a weak force that decays slowly with distance only by spreading into a larger volume of space and goes on forever unless something eventually cancels it out


This is why the decay of the locally strong magnetic and electric fields occurs at a much faster rate than the weaker electromagnetic fields that must be used for distant communications.

By the time we are out 1/2 wave from a small radiator, all that strong local magnetic field or electric field stuff is gone and all that remains is the slower decreasing electromagnetic force.

As a matter of fact at a distance of only 1/10th wave from a small magnetic loop the electric fields dominate, so it is not a "magnetic radiator" at all. That magnetic radiator stuff is nonsense and it can easily be proven.

Sorry, but it is all about charge acceleration over a linear spatial distance of conductor. Always has been and always will be.

73 Tom

[K7KBN]

I'd expect a "Double Helix" Antenna to be produced by some ham with a call sign ending in "DNA".

[KB9MZ]

Radiation is exclusively caused by charge acceleration.
I have no problem with that

It is an entirely different force than the electric fields or magnetic fields, which are only induction or energy storage fields.
Gauss states there are static particles on the radiator surface. Maxwell laws shows that there is a weak displacement force that accelerates the static particles


You cannot convert a magnetic field into radiation by mixing, stretching, twisting, or painting it a different color. It is a different effect.
Thaqt is a opinion

charge movement=magnetic short range force on other charges
It has nothing to doi will bound charges

charge difference between two points= electric field short range force on other charges

There is no charge difference effect between an unbound electron and a superimposed displacement force

charge acceleration=radiation, a weak force that decays slowly with distance only by spreading into a larger volume of space and goes on forever unless something eventually cancels it out

The decay has nothing to do with travel decay. The decay referes to the nuclear content of the particle. The particle is impinged by a week force that is stronger than the gravitational force plus spin is applied like a bullet.
It gives up its kinetic energy when impinging on a resonant diamagnetic radiator upon which it settles


This is why the decay of the locally strong magnetic and electric fields occurs at a much faster rate than the weaker electromagnetic fields that must be used for distant communications.
The magn etic fields do not decay they just change the structure of energy

By the time we are out 1/2 wave from a small radiator, all that strong local magnetic field or electric field stuff is gone and all that remains is the slower decreasing electromagnetic force.

The force on the particle propells the particle away from the magnetic fields as they move backwards and forwards between capacitance and the inductance both of which are distributed. Science states that the radiating system must be in equilibrium so the circuit system is a tank circuit

As a matter of fact at a distance of only 1/10th wave from a small magnetic loop the electric fields dominate, so it is not a "magnetic radiator" at all.
I totally agree and do noit support that ideaThat magnetic radiator stuff is nonsense and it can easily be proven.

Sorry, but it is all about charge acceleration over a linear spatial distance of conductor. Always has been and always will be.

No. It is an imposed displacement force on a resident particle on the surface
of the radiator which also provides spin for straight line projection which is a necessity when dealing with particles in flight. The matrix of the diamagnetic material, the radiator, is not depleted in any way.

73 Tom
Tom you are debating the present thought regarding radiation all of which is not fully understood. I started with Gauss using first principles which led to a trail of science that appears to back up a sequence of events.
In science one does not feel compelled to stay with previous thoughts unless science, not opinion, destroys the alternate theory.
I welcome your scientific input that destroys the progression of events that science provided me. It starts off with Gaussian law for statics which is in units of measurement that are different from those of Maxwell. I changed those metrics so that both were the same such that the Gaussian equation
when extended became exactly the same arithmetrically as those of Maxwell
which puts firmly in place the presence of a unbound electron or particle.
And the trail goes on.
I have given a proposal that is supported by science at every stage.
You can ignore it if you want to avert change or you can prove the science
applied is faulty at any step along the way or even improve it
This is my proposal and I welcome its destruction via scientific analysis and not just conjecture or long held opinions or poll numbers.
Note
You have long extolled the position that a "radiator must be straight."
The connection between Gauss and Maxwell states that as long as the arrangement is in equilibrium it can be any shape or elevation. May I suggest you update your tutorials
Nothing personal or malice implied, just the pursuit of science


Best regards
Art

[M3KXZ]

<snip>
Sorry, but it is all about charge acceleration over a linear spatial distance of conductor. Always has been and always will be.

73 Tom


Tom, what about helical antennas like this http://helix.remco.tk/ (for axial directivity) - invented in the 40s by John Kraus W8JK, and the quadfilar helix which consists of two helical loops (to provide horizon to horizon dome shaped coverage)? There doesn't seem to be much linearity with either of these.

73
Pete

[M3KXZ]

Art, have you seen Robert Drewett's helically wound antenna - with windings of opposing sense? There's some info here http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4160979.html but I can't find diagrams. I think I get it in my head, but not sure! Pete

[KB9MZ]

No I had not seen it but it is interesting.
There is another later patent where the windings are placed on a toroid which is really the same. Niether of them say why it works in a scientific manner tho it is not necessary for patent purposes.
One aspect both iof them have is a paramagnetic center piece thru which the magnetic field flows. This is not good as radiation requires the fields to be close to the wire surface and not contained within the center of the coils,
Using a paramagnetic material encourages hysterysis losses also which is not good. It should behave o.k. as a receiving antenna but NOT as a transmitting antenna, at least not the way I see it
Regards
Art

[KB9MZ]

Peter, did you ever put that verticle on an antenna program (Eznec? )
to see what it looks like? It is the result given by an optimizer program whiuch shows a tipped radiator per the "weak force" inter action.
It seems very odd that so many hams have viewed this thread and yet nobody
has solved it to show a tipped radiator. Is it because the ham fraternity are not interested in the programs thinking they are worthless?
This is what a optimizer presented which is totally against the teachings of the books but instead substantiates my aproach to radiation.
Have all the smart peoiple left leaving us with a majority of just opiniated talking heads ? You had no problems in accepting the arbitrary aproach of Gauss to the sun and extending it for equality to Maxwells mathematics but Americans have a real problem with it. Perhaps their system of education
does not emphasise the importance of equilibrium in science and in fact they always ask what equilibrium means
Wierd, very wierd
Cheers
Art

[M3KXZ]

Hi Art. I'm looking at the non-horizontal dipole at the moment in MMANA-GAL and am trying to figure it out at the moment. I can't find a method to optimise for max H over V so will keep twiddling.

Pete

[W8JI]

Tom, what about helical antennas like this http://helix.remco.tk/ (for axial directivity) - invented in the 40s by John Kraus W8JK, and the quadfilar helix which consists of two helical loops (to provide horizon to horizon dome shaped coverage)? There doesn't seem to be much linearity with either of these.

73
Pete


Peter,

There isn't anything that says, or that I said, that claims a curved conductor won't radiate.

The reason it radiates is because the conductor occupies space between points, and charges accelerate in that space. If for example you have a small loop antenna 3 feet across and it is fed with a time-varying current, it appears as a series of small in-line areas of current that wiggle charges.

Now look at the amount of current that is required in a 0.1 wave diameter loop to radiate 100 watts of actual RF power as EM energy. It is 97 amperes!

If you straighten that loop into a 0.1 wave long dipole with triangular current distribution the current required to radiate 100 watts is now about 7.5 amperes, and if you made the current distribution uniform like it is in the closed loop the current is now about 3.8 amperes!!!

Why does the circle with the same conductor length as a dipole require 97 amperes to radiate the same 100 watts of total EM energy when the dipole requires less than 4 amperes with uniform current and 7.5 amperes with triangular current distribution with the very same conductor length (measured in wavelengths)?

Sorry, it is all about the ampere-feet of linear spatial area.

73 Tom

[KB9MZ]

Tom, Welcome
Rather than repeating your past mantras why not look at the paper that I present. As with all science papers you start at the begining and then debate or accept the first point provided. When we get to a point where there is disagreement then we debate our differences. Very simple and standard method of examination. I am very well aware of your teachings of which you are propagating but the subject that I form from first principles is what is under examination, which is what you state as incorrect.

First point.
When the gaussian law of statics ie an arbitrary field in equilibrium is supplimented with a radiator whilst maintaining the required equilibrium and then subjected to a time varying field it then becomes the arithmetrical
equivalent oif Maxwell's laws for radiation.

Note
There are many ways that Maxwell's laws can be proven but the use of
Gaussian law is not the prevalent choice in the physics books tho it is referred to in some. This is probably due to the difference of units used in the gaussian law relative to Maxwells laws. I know of no instance where this finding is used in the subject of radiation or the application of the "weak force" as predicted by Einstein.,
Tom you now have the first point of discussion. Agreed?> If not why not.

I have no wish for mud slinging or a mixing or changing the point under discussion. A debate calls for a orderly logical progression of discussioin
such that when the point of discussion comes about that one can prove is incorrect, at which point the debate becomes open for wider discussion until the problem is resolved. If no resolvement then the debate comes to an end
as with all examinations of scientific matter so that all can understand
where there is no common understanding.
There are not many points on this trail so the debate should be short and to the point so that all can understand.
I look forward to your response to the first point raised from the trail above.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

[KB9MZ]

Hi Ant. I'm looking at the non-horizontal dipole at the moment in MMANA-GAL and am trying to figure it out at the moment. I can't find a method to optimise for max H over V so will keep twiddling.

Pete

Pete,
Those are the figures that an optimizer supplies which is not the conventional
that you see in the books. Place it on Eznec to see how it varies to the std planar form.
On the subject of Kraus and curved radiators. Radiators do not have to be straight for maximum performance as many preach. Kraus like Yagi Uda provides a method of radiation that is less than optimum in that both do not utelize all four forces of the standard model. Maximum utelization of radiation can ONLY come about when the system is under equilibrium ie
a full wavelength antenna is under equilibrium., A half wave antenna, tho it may be resonant, is not in equilibrium and thus requires extra circuitry so it can be seen as a SYSTEM in equilibrium.
The first requirement for maximum radiation is that the system enclosed within a arbritrary border is in equilibrium. When this is achieved the subject of feeding comes about which requires resonance, but first equilibrium must be dealt with, so that Maxwell's laws become applicable. All the above is derived from first principles where equilibrium MUST exist, contrary to what the books say.
Hope that clarifies things a bit better noting that Maxwells laws are held in full compliance which is what computor programs are also held to which conforms to my paper on the subject of radiation..
Regards
Art

[W8JI]

Tom, Welcome
First point.
When the gaussian law of statics ie an arbitrary field in equilibrium is supplimented with a radiator whilst maintaining the required equilibrium and then subjected to a time varying field it then becomes the arithmetrical
equivalent oif Maxwell's laws for radiation.

Note
There are many ways that Maxwell's laws can be proven but the use of
Gaussian law is not the prevalent choice in the physics books tho it is referred to in some. This is probably due to the difference of units used in the gaussian law relative to Maxwells laws. I know of no instance where this finding is used in the subject of radiation or the application of the "weak force" as predicted by Einstein.,
Tom you now have the first point of discussion. Agreed?> If not why not.

I have no wish for mud slinging or a mixing or changing the point under discussion. A debate calls for a orderly logical progression of discussioin
such that when the point of discussion comes about that one can prove is incorrect, at which point the debate becomes open for wider discussion until the problem is resolved. If no resolvement then the debate comes to an end
as with all examinations of scientific matter so that all can understand
where there is no common understanding.
There are not many points on this trail so the debate should be short and to the point so that all can understand.
I look forward to your response to the first point raised from the trail above.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

Art,

When I read what you say, it becomes very clear you have no feel at all for the physics behind radiation. You seem to assume equations cause the force on distant charges we call EM radiation, and that by manipulating the terms we can create a new physical cause. That is not how things work.

The math actually just quantifies a certain set of forces that are caused by a physical event, it isn't the other way around where we can change the math and create a new cause.

Not understanding that is the downfall of all the people who claim to have a free lunch of some form. There is a small group who can be fooled by double-speak and who want that magical perpetual motion machine, and there is nothing anyone can do to change that. So have fun with it!

73 Tom

[KB9MZ]

Tom
I am aware that many like you are against change as you and others are locked in the past.
Theories come and go some last longer than others such as the world is flat.
To ensure one is on the side of truth one has to b e aware of all things that may point out the real truth. Ofcourse the real truth does not matter to those who want to avert change. By not examining what has been placed before you is a way of denial of the truth.
Science shows that a vector formation derived from Gaussian law of statics is arithmetically the same as Maxwells laws. This is factual.
This also states that contrary what you say in your tutorials that a radiator needs to be straight for maximization of radiation.
You can deny the scientific facts by refusal to examine the scientific reality and propagate your own thinking that is unsupported by science.
The world knows that the Gauss connection is correct, it is quoted in some technical books and fully supported by mathematics and yet you wish to deny. That is O.K. with me but frankly your credability suffers as far as I am concerned, I have never in my life met a person of science that resists the advances that science reveales until I met you. If you cannot accept what is universally stated regarding Maxwell and Gauss and continue to support
a theory which to this day is not fully understood then you are not what I thought you were. To debunk a fresh scientific aproach is tantamount to fraud upon the human race , but that is your choice I suppose. Verbalized personal opinion again trumps proven scientific fact
Have a happy day
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ xg

[K7KBN]

Anybody heard from Pushraft lately?

[WB2WIK]

Anybody heard from Pushraft lately?

::I have. He's studying for his ham ticket and expects to take the test in March or April I believe.

In the meantime he's trying to work moonbounce using FRS radios and six thousand phased rubber duckies.:p Okay, I'm kidding about that part...;)

[M3KXZ]

Anybody heard from Pushraft lately?

No, but then what has that got to do with this topic anyway?

[W8JI]

Tom
Verbalized personal opinion again trumps proven scientific fact
Have a happy day
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ xg

You are right. You win. I agree. All the physics texts in the world are wrong about the root cause of EM radiation, Maxwell was only guessing, and the modeling programs are all wrong. How could anyone have doubted you?

[M3KXZ]

The way I see it is this: Art is not suggesting that equations produce RF. He has taken Gauss's law of statics which states that the system with a constant charge applied is in equilibrium - i.e. there a net charge E of zero inside the conductor, with an electrical flux on the surface of the conductor which is equal to the charge applied to the conductor. I believe this is a widely accepted law. The Gaussian law of statics, though, has no term for "time". What Art has done is to add a term for a time varying field, as opposed to a constant field. This then provides a transition to electromechanical law from the Gaussian law for statics. It's all perfectly logical.

[KB9MZ]

That is not nice Tom.
Why should you taunt me in such a demeaning manner?
I am not thrusting anything down your throat and will not respond in kind.
If you do not want to debate then that is your choice.But it was you who said I was wrong , that I slept thru the physics class and it is you in your lectures on ham radio who stated that the requirement for a good radiator is that it must be straight. Present day science points to the fact that you are in error and I was willing to show you the science process to back it up which for some reason you reject to investigate. For the rest of the world
and the ham radio community I leave this single paragraph that they can show to their professor or other people knowledgable in physics for comment.

When the gaussian law of statics is made dynamic the mathematics come out to the same as Maxwell's laws.This is one of the many ways that prove the integrity of Maxwells laws and is written about it physics books as well as
reference books. From this it can be seen that an radiating array within a dynamic arbritary closed gaussian border can be any size or shape as long as that inside the border is in equilibrium. This scientific fact disproves your position regarding straight radiators. I did not make this up, tho I did come across it before I found it referred to in standard physics books. There is absolutely no physics books that suggest that there is any question about the veracity of those published statements, not one. By the same token it
also the suggestion that particles are part of the process of radiation as well as Einsteins prediction of the presence of the "weak force".
Yes, the term of 'accelerated charge' is correct which requires the presence of mass and not this "wiggling movement" from your imagination. Yes particles are propelled by the displacement current ( eddy current) which is stronger than gravitational force where the eddy current applies spin for the required straight line projection. This same scientific process is duplicated thru out the World when sorting metals in scrap yards, exactly the same way that radiation is provided via Gaussian particles particles. Yes, you may want to close your eyes to that which is evident in theory and practice around you but their is absolutely no reason for you to diss me in any way because I present an alternate view to your own.

I have no problem with your rejection of classical science in pursuit of your own opinions I am just presenting facts as written in the books for you to destroy in favor of your own musings. Maxwell is accepted in science and Gauss is accepted in science, and both are accepted in present day University teachings.
What you accept is for you to decide. For myself I lean on the side of science
Art Unwin....KB9MZ.....xg

[W8JI]

So Art, what has your new science helped you invent that actually works? Describe one system and how you confirmed the new radiation science actually works.

73 Tom

[M3KXZ]

Thinking aloud.....applying an alternating charge at RF frequencies causes charge acceleration which is what results in production of EM radiation. Now on a straight element (or linear antenna section), this acceleration is back and forth linearly (near enough) along the element. But with a helical element or a circular loop, then surely the acceleration is much greater as it takes place around the axis as well as back and forth along the wire.

Now how can this be properly modeled in currently available antenna software? The models I've seen seem to make loops and helixes from a number of straight wires joined together. The calculations are based on adding together all those straight sections aren't they? Surely this is different from a circular loop or helix as the charge acceleration is much greater on a proper loop or helix than what would be shown by lots of straight wires.

How can these models (NEC type models) possibly be deemed accurate for anything other than antennas composed of lots of straight sections?

[KB9MZ]

Peter, re your other post. You are totallyt correct in your description as is the physics you applied. You have now discovered new points that now deviate from the common description. First you have proved the presence of particles in the same way that Maxwell had to add the extra term for /dt so that the laws are now in equilibrium. This decides once and for all that radiation consists of particles and not waves tho it is very difficult to get scientists to change in midstream because they expanded the error by extrapolating that light was a matter of waves also even tho it was known that he impact of particles on the earths magnetic field produces light, but let us move on.
From what you have noted with respect to a dynamic Gaussian field it is thus
determined that any array contained inside the Gaussian border is determined by the shape that ensures equilibrium So there you have it the array is in equilibrium with static particles on its surface. If you google for the method of scrap yard sorting of materials you will see the same physics applied as with radiation. This is very factual and not just a whimsical idea
The science uses diamagnetic materials, uses eddy currents to levitate particles which is another name for displacement current or the weak force in
standard model terms. The eddy current elevates non ferrous particles with its circular pattern which at the same time applies spin to the particle for straight line projection as per a rifle bullet except that the accellerated particle is stronger than gravitational force as science already derscribes the standard model. But then Peter it is much better for you to procede from the position you mentioned by reviewing Google.
Modeling of a helix by the way is a series of straight lines to form a circle, obviously more segments means better accuracy. With respect to operating on the beach I feel you will get much better results by operating on the
Downs where your take off angle will be negative
Cheers and beers
Art

[KB9MZ]

Tom.
There is no point in continuing with you as you reject science which comprises the backbone of any new discovery, which by the way is also confirmed by present day antenna computer programs. Your intent in life is to prove that all others are idiots and only you are correct. I have no stomache to involve myself in a discussion with you when you refuse to debate the scientific
backbone preferring to hammer away at your own thoughts while belittleing others. I offered to share with all and you rejected by dissing. I prefer to leave it at that. When I placed computer patterns with pictures of the antennas on the net you ignored them in your attack. Nothing more needs to be said.
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg.

[KB9MZ]

Peter
Regarding computer programs and helical antennas. If you view radiation from a loop or helix in the same way you see a racing car on the dirt track the driver is accellerating all the time even tho his velocity is constant.
As with any radiator sharp corners provide lamination or cavitation to the flow of current which is determined as slow wave. This means that a wavelength is much longer than a straight electrical wave which is why helical designs usually point to 2 to 7 wavelengths for maximum gain. This is a duplicate action of a pendulum when one lengthens the lever so that the period is lengthened and the 3 dimensional movement becomes apparent. Computer programs have programed in this circular pattern which is why for maximum
or most efficient radiation a verticle radiator is tipped with respect to ground
and allows it to be seen in action( the rotating weak force).
This force by the way is what Newton was refering to when he talks of action and reaction. Most people interprete this as meaning two forces in isolation
on earth where Newton intended it as a disturbance and reaction disturbance
with respect to the Universe as a whole and not in isolation. This is best depicted on earth by the rotation of the main rotor of a helicopter where the rotation of the rear rotor is at right angles such that the helicopter is equilibrium. Hope the above helps in your present brain storming
Cheers
Art Unwin KB9MZ...xg
I.E see the optimized verticle I gave you earlier

[WB2WIK]

What's the status of the patent application?

WB2WIK/6

[W8JI]

What's the status of the patent application?

WB2WIK/6

They patent anything these days, even things that don't work at all, so long as the application is worded right. Typically the patents take about six months to year.

I've had some take a couple years lately, with all the back and forth.

73 Tom

[W8JI]

The way I see it is this: Art is not suggesting that equations produce RF. He has taken Gauss's law of statics which states that the system with a constant charge applied is in equilibrium - i.e. there a net charge E of zero inside the conductor, with an electrical flux on the surface of the conductor which is equal to the charge applied to the conductor. I believe this is a widely accepted law. The Gaussian law of statics, though, has no term for "time". What Art has done is to add a term for a time varying field, as opposed to a constant field. This then provides a transition to electromechanical law from the Gaussian law for statics. It's all perfectly logical.

Let me get this right.

Art has taken a rule of STATIC fields, and added a term to vary the STATIC field over time, and has produced radiation without doing it by making up an equation.

And to you this sounds "logical"?

It sounds as logical to me as the false manipulation or misunderstanding of the equations and the root cause of radiation by Hately http://www.rexresearch.com/xfldant/search.htm and Hart http://www.eh-antenna.com/

This quack antenna theories will always pop up and go nowhere, because the "inventors" have no real concept of what causes radiation and the things they invent (and sometimes patent) never work as claimed.

If a broadcast station could get 500 feet of perfromance in a 20 foot antenna, it would not take almost 20 years and we still have virtually zero in use. They would be everywhere.

Crack open a first year college physic textbook and you will see why this stuff is all nonsense.

73 Tom

[WB2WIK]

They patent anything these days, even things that don't work at all, so long as the application is worded right. Typically the patents take about six months to year.

I've had some take a couple years lately, with all the back and forth.

73 Tom

::Yeah, I know...I have a couple patents, myself (with others as co-inventors). They don't mean much unless somebody with money infringes and you take them to court after they ignore your cease & desist letters.:p

I asked because I thought Art had previously written he was applying for a patent on his invention. After reading the way he curiously words things I think he'd have a patent examiner's head spinning.

The purpose of a patent is actually to teach others how to do something. That was the initial purpose, and it remains the purpose. If the patent can't explain how to do something new so others can do the same, usually it cannot be granted.

Clearly explaining the invention, better still with diagrams, pictorials, photographs and so forth, improves the chances for award.

WB2WIK/6

[M3KXZ]

Let me get this right.

Art has taken a rule of STATIC fields, and added a term to vary the STATIC field over time, and has produced radiation without doing it by making up an equation.

And to you this sounds "logical"?

<snip>
73 Tom

As a matter of fact, Gauss's theorem is always satisfied for a moving charge (unlike Coulomb's law which had to be added to by Maxwell) - so we have a moving charge caused by a time varying applied charge, so where's the problem with that part?

Pete

[M3KXZ]

<snip> If a broadcast station could get 500 feet of perfromance in a 20 foot antenna, it would not take almost 20 years and we still have virtually zero in use. They would be everywhere.

<snip>
73 Tom

From what I understand, Art is talking about full wave antennas, so maybe a broadcast station's linear 1/2 wave dipole, or vertical 1/4 wave with radials, can become smaller in terms of space occupied, while utilising a full wavelengh of wire - perhaps something like this http://www.cst.com/Content/Applications/Article/A+Small,+Efficient,+Linear-polarized+Omni-directional+Antenna .

Pete

[KB9MZ]

Thanks for that link Peter. Best is well known as a antenna designer so I will read it if only to learn more about the French program. Up to now
I thought that only the South African antenna program had the dexterity to model a helix in full because it has unlimited segments available for use.
My modelling confined me to 10 segments per line and tho not completely accurrate one can rest asured that accuracy increases with the number of segment. I use such a program not because of accuracy of gain determination
but to solely satisfy a trend when dealing with directional top band arrangements. I am in the middle of a change at the moment where my efforts are directed towards a reflector in horn fashion design as opposed to a flat or parabolic shape which were not successful. The change to a symetrical horn seems so much more logical if you remove yourself from standard designs used for standard antennas, which this is not. With respect to other computer programs
available I am shocked to hear that they can only supply total gain as opposed to the individual contributions of other polarizations. Ideally you want to be able to pick up as many polarizations as possible to ensure that you can pick up any signal that comes your way even if it has been deflected
from the ideal mode. After all the penalty is only a loss of 3 db with respect
to the value of maximum gain which is not much compared to the failure of hearing other polarizations. Good luck with Tom but I have found that americans just cannot accept the thought of equilibrium along the lines of Newton which prevent the placement of one foot on the ladder for understanding. Deduction from first principles is absent from the educational procedure that now evolves of penciling in the correct circle for A thru C
tho I was just informed that the same is followed now in the UK.
Cheers and beers
Art Unwin....KB9MZ......xg

[M3KXZ]

<snip>
This quack antenna theories will always pop up and go nowhere, because the "inventors" have no real concept of what causes radiation and the things they invent (and sometimes patent) never work as claimed.

<snip>

Crack open a first year college physic textbook and you will see why this stuff is all nonsense.

73 Tom

How about Francesco Errante's experiments? Could these go some way to show that radiation of radio waves is photonic?

[KB9MZ]

Peter
I have tried for years on amateur radio antennas to explain the meaning
of equilibrium without success. In fact they ask for a definition no less.
There are many known names on that newsgroup including Lewellen, and other self styled experts who over estimate their abilities with respect to physics who will not accept even the mathematics when it is placed in front of them.( a ham with a doctorate working at MIT for the space agency provided the physics facts and they dissed him unmercifully as is the norm in ham radio. Seems like the academics have left ham radio.
Tried to do the same thing on E ham and the group there led by w2wik/6
gave me hell for propagating such an idea and even E mailed a Professor at the University of Illinois to check up on me. Fact is that the UoI professor
who is president of the IEEE antennas didn't understand the equilibrium
theorem and thus let me down on her promises to help.
The general thinking is in America is that all is known otherwise the alternative would have been invented 100 years ago. Unlike the situation with respect to the earth being flat I have not been threatened with excomunication from the church. If understanding is to come about it will be from your side of the pond
where experimentation in ham radio is still prevalent where here it is buy and then thro away or you are dissed by psuedo antenna experts who fight change to the limits.Surely somebody on the other side of the pond is recognised as a physics expert that can shed light? But then even academics
fight change which is why physics books plagarize each other.
What I am saying is that radiation and light eminates fromn particles and not wave formation. I am also saying that I have identified the "weak force" and its application with respect to the "standard model".
I am also saying that the "weak force" is very evident in antenna programing built around Maxwell also agree that the "weak force" demands that for maximum gain the radiator or array must be away from right angles to the Earth. As well as that : a radiator or a array can be any size, shape or varied elevation to achieve maximum efficiency as long as all is in equilibrium
All the above statements are directly related to Newton's laws that amateur radio apparently disparages, at least in North America as well as its teaching establishments.
I am happy here in the U.S. Peter but in ham radio as a result of CB we have degenerated into a bunch of talking heads where the magazines such as Radcom ,QST and others now rely on the old articles like how to solder a connector to coax,how to make your own morse code keyer and even how
to trouble shoot a radio built with tubes (valves). None of these magazines are interested in the physics of ham radio and why radiation to this day is not fully understood. Yet at the same time dwell on how usefull we are to the Country with our activities!
Cheers and Beers
Art Unwin......KB9MZ.....xg

"In the corner of every battlefield there lies a piece of England" so I suppose
I will need to identify quickly my personal burial spot!

[W8JI]

As a matter of fact, Gauss's theorem is always satisfied for a moving charge (unlike Coulomb's law which had to be added to by Maxwell) - so we have a moving charge caused by a time varying applied charge, so where's the problem with that part?

Pete

pete,

Like all the people that take off on these weird theories that have no basis in science, you seem to think the formulas cause the effect. The formulas only show the relationship between the forces on charges caused by various physical things we observe.

If we have a charge moving it affects other moving charges. That force is only magnetic and it is a "static" field that is not involved in radiation. Even if we vary the charge over time, the fact the charge is moving at a constant velocity in different infinitely small slices of time means we have a magnetic force that is "static" for that instant. You can't use that equation at will to describe other forces just because you decide to do it.

EM radiation comes only from one thing, charge acceleration. It has its own set of equations that describe this effect, because it is a very different force than a steady (even for an infinitely small instant of time) charge movement.

The force we create with charge acceleration depends on the number of charges we "wiggle" and the spatial area in which all the charges appear to wiggle in unison. There are of course phase delays involved, since that force travels through space at the speed of light.

When we curve the charges back around in a circle that is a small fraction of a wavelength, the distance does not allow sufficent time delay as the wave travels through space to produce the phase shift we need to see, from a distance, the charges moving back and forth in unison. What we see is the force from charges cancelling.

This is why a small loop has to have a terrible amount of current to radiate the same field intensity as a similar sized very small dipole.

If you sit back and ponder how antennas behave you will soon rationalize what happens. As we make the antenna spatial area smaller and smaller in terms of a fractional wavelength the current gets higher and higher. This is the old ampere-feet thing at work. If we try to coil or bend that wire to fit more and more conductor into the same space, the net current to radiate the same power either stays the same or increases. It stays the same if the antenna does not fight itself, or the current increases if it does fight itself (like a loop or coil would do).

I know this is sad news for people who want to rewrite physical behavior of charges so they can see their name in lights, but this is why no one since the 1800's has ever found any other way to make a charge behave, no matter how they pervert the equations used to describe the three things that cause force on charges at a distance.

The behavior of the charges are explained by the equations, you can't suddenly decide to change the meaning of the equations to change how the charges behave. It just won't work no matter how much we want to work it backwards.

I'll tell you the same thing I told Hately and Hart and others with this silly EH field nonsense. In 10 years come back and show me a working antenna based on the nonsense science. You won't be able to do it, because the basic theory is all rubbish.

See you in ten years.

73 Tom

[M3KXZ]

pete,

Like all the people that take off on these weird theories that have no basis in science, you seem to think the formulas cause the effect. The formulas only show the relationship between the forces on charges caused by various physical things we observe.

No no no, I don't think formulas cause the effect at all, and I never said that either. I am fully aware that a mathematical formula is a way of describing an effect, not producing an effect! All I am interested in doing is looking at the different theories - of course not all theories can be correct. But just because one theory has been in general acceptance for 100 years doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged, or alternatives ignored. It's only by constantly challenging things that theories can be either reinforced or new discoveries made. If nobody challenged anything then we'd all think that God made the world in seven days and put Adam and Eve there. Evolution would never have been discussed.



If we have a charge moving it affects other moving charges. That force is only magnetic and it is a "static" field that is not involved in radiation. Even if we vary the charge over time, the fact the charge is moving at a constant velocity in different infinitely small slices of time means we have a magnetic force that is "static" for that instant. You can't use that equation at will to describe other forces just because you decide to do it.

I accept that an accelerating charge produces EM radiation. When I referred to Gauss I wasn't meaning a charge moving with constant velocity, but rather a charge accelerating. Changing the direction of an applied current causes change of direction of the charge - or acceleration. Moving the charge in a circle or in a helix adds to that acceleration.

You can't break time down into "infinitely small slices of time" and say that the charge is moving at a constant velocity in that small slice of time, and is therefore not producing EM radiation. The reason being, in one infinitely small slice of time you are saying the velocity is constant, and then in the next infinitely small slice of time the velocity is constant but is also higher or lower than in the previous infinitely small slice of time. So there is a change of velocity between these two infinitely small slices of time - this IS acceleration. And from what you said it is now occurring in an infinitely small slice of time between two infinitely small slices of time, which means the acceleration must be infinite!

The charge is not moving at a constant velocity if it is changing direction or changing velocity. This acceleration of a charged particle results in the release of a photon (production of EM radiation) which carries off energy and momentum. Because of conservation of energy, the emitting particle's energy and momentum is changed, but energy coming into the system keeps it all in equilibrium. If the charge is being accelerated around a circle or helix then there is additional acceleration on top of the acceleration causes by the alternating applied current.

PERHAPS, it's this additional acceleration that more readily allows photon release, and hence requires greater energy flow into the system to bring it back into equilibrium - the result being lower resistance and hence greater current draw for the system at resonance.


I'm coming to your other points in a minute - I need to have some breakfast and fed the kids first!

Pete

[KB9MZ]

Peter,
You are underestimating your own abilities with respect to physics. I pale in front of you. You are so much more elequent when talking science but as you can see America does not and will not accept what Europe does in University teachings
Cheers
Art

[M3KXZ]

Thanks Art. I try to keep my mind open to different ideas rather than just unquestioningly (made up word?) accepting one particular widely believed hypothesis. I'm finishing off a D.Phil at the moment that is full of experimental work and statistical analysis concerning uncertainty, and although it's not a directly related field, my mind is still in the same study mode when I'm looking at radio. Just can't help it!

Pete

[M3KXZ]

pete,

<snip>

The force we create with charge acceleration depends on the number of charges we "wiggle" and the spatial area in which all the charges appear to wiggle in unison. There are of course phase delays involved, since that force travels through space at the speed of light.

When we curve the charges back around in a circle that is a small fraction of a wavelength, the distance does not allow sufficent time delay as the wave travels through space to produce the phase shift we need to see, from a distance, the charges moving back and forth in unison. What we see is the force from charges cancelling.

This is why a small loop has to have a terrible amount of current to radiate the same field intensity as a similar sized very small dipole.

If you sit back and ponder how antennas behave you will soon rationalize what happens. As we make the antenna spatial area smaller and smaller in terms of a fractional wavelength the current gets higher and higher. This is the old ampere-feet thing at work. If we try to coil or bend that wire to fit more and more conductor into the same space, the net current to radiate the same power either stays the same or increases. It stays the same if the antenna does not fight itself, or the current increases if it does fight itself (like a loop or coil would do).

I know this is sad news for people who want to rewrite physical behavior of charges so they can see their name in lights, but this is why no one since the 1800's has ever found any other way to make a charge behave, no matter how they pervert the equations used to describe the three things that cause force on charges at a distance.

The behavior of the charges are explained by the equations, you can't suddenly decide to change the meaning of the equations to change how the charges behave. It just won't work no matter how much we want to work it backwards.

I'll tell you the same thing I told Hately and Hart and others with this silly EH field nonsense. In 10 years come back and show me a working antenna based on the nonsense science. You won't be able to do it, because the basic theory is all rubbish.

See you in ten years.

73 Tom


Tom, consider for a moment the linear antenna when used for receiving. Is it receiving a similarly polarised planar wave front and is it oriented parallel to that wave front? I guess this would be the case in only the situations where the two antennas (transmitting and receiving) are perfectly aligned and for line of sight. As soon as the wave front has encountered the ionosphere then it is no longer nicely aligned - it has become circular, parts have canceled out, other parts have added together. The nice single element linear antenna is no longer optimal for intercepting these signals - or is it? Perhaps Eric KL7AJ could add something here about CPOL and turnstile antennas.

If we bend a transmitting antenna round into a loop then yes, the phase relationship in the EM radiation emitting from it will be different, but you can't suggest it will only result in cancellation of field. There will also be addition of field - maybe at different points, but there will be addition. Hence the different radiation pattern observed for a small loop antenna compared with a linear dipole. And assuming the field is going to be changed by the ionosphere anyway, what does it matter, so long as there is plenty of low angle RF so the ionosphere can be glanced at low angles for good path length, or plenty of high angle RF when the antenna is orientated for NVIS comms.

The main issue I see is the increased wire losses due to the high currents involved in the small loops. But if the small antenna is made differently then perhaps this can be overcome - consider the small spherical dipole of S. R. Best which is modeled here http://www.cst.com/Content/Applications/Article/A+Small,+Efficient,+Linear-polarized+Omni-directional+Antenna - this models with a resistive feedpoint impedance of 9 ohms and virtually no reactive component at its design frequency. So this should be easy to feed. It fits inside a sphere of radius 0.0415 wavelength, exhibits excellent modeled gain and only slight directivity. The antenna is balanced and symmetrical, and for 20m could probably be put together around an over-inflated pilates ball. With "pop up tent" technology one of these could easily be made that would fit in small bag when folded! Could be a fun project.

Perhaps there is something else other than full size linear elements.

Pete

[KB9MZ]

A D Phil no less then that explains all. I am really surprized that other Europeans have not entered the fray particularly Germany. I would have thought that there were more academics still involved with ham radio over there but it has been a while since I have been back home. I have family that live on the front a mile west or so from where you live.Last time I was in Brighton we came across a thief a couple of times at the railroad. He would board a train, walk down a section and then battle against those with baggage trying to get on board. Ofcourse nobody will get off the train to rescue their belongings. He picked up my stuff once but it was to heavy for him to run with it! When my mother lived at Bracklesham Bay I used to put a whip on a tea tray and work IOW, that is G3IOW.who may well be a silent key now.But I often thought of climbing the Downs for a QSO. Illinois State U has connections with Brighton and students exchange regularly. For myself I am a East Londoner and was born in the Jack the Ripper surroundings near the Tower in the early thirties, thus with school closings during the war my schooling got of to a poor start.Like all Londoners I did get on my bike and cycled to Brighton and back in one day but only the one time Hi Southend was oh so much closer for other forays tho I did cycle to Paris when I was demobbed and the troops were going over to Egypt which i was one place I did not want to go at the time
Cheers and beers
Art Unwin KB9MZ...xg

[M3KXZ]

And remember Tom...with the spherical antenna of Stephen Best, and the helical of Art, we are not talking about electrically shortened antennas - they utilise elements of full wavelength, which if oriented linearly would exhibit extremely high impedance values. Folding them into a small dimension brings these impedance values right down.

[M3KXZ]

Art, it's a small world - I'm just to the east of Brighton, 2 miles inland from Rottingdean (up on the hill in Woodingdean). And you mention East London...well, I was born in Leigh-on-Sea and lived in Chingford before moving down this way. and we had many days out in Southend, and Clacton-on-Sea.

I'd love for Stephen Best to provide some input here :) And come on German hams...where are you? I'll try and find some of the university faculty who are interested in reseach in the radio field next time I'm in there. Would be interesting to see what current research is going on at Sussex. Meanwhile...I'm off hunting for more papers!

[KB9MZ]

Well my goodness. When I left the UK it was from my house up the road from Chingford Mount Harold rd it was backing on the cemetary. Used to work on Blackhorse lane as a experimental engineer. Also taught evening classes at West Ham after I completed all for Mech E.
A big point that is missed by hams on antennas is that the formula has
root WL which accounts only for distributed loads in the calculations. Thus if lumped loads are generated then they must be cancelled to achieve equilibrium
On one of the antennas I made for top bamd the anti resonant poit was in the order of a couple of 100 ohms up at the 100Mhz end and then quickly aproached the 50 ohm range as the frequency moved down. The standard resonant point started just above zero and then rose to 40 ohms, both curves
appearing sort of parabolic and with the multi resonant points along the line which was quite close which makes it easy for continual tuning. If one models it on a perfect ground gain is approx 9 db ie end fire. I use cardboard formers 12 inches diameter by 4 foot long from the hardware store which they use for pouring concrete poles and then slightly smaller for tubes inside. Making them this way makes it easy to climb the tower with it and place it in the rotor. I also have a rotator with asmith movement ready to try out when time becomes available. I wish Moxon was still around for an antenna for small gardens. Had a nice chat with him at his new house before he became a SK. Back to the Root LC. It is the distributed loads that supply the magnetic fields that slop back and forth in the tank circuit which represents the equilibrium length of a WL where if there were no losses would constitute perpetual motion. Of course there are losses in real life tho very small but for survalence they are excellent as there is not a void over head which would be crazy for defence equipment
Antenna computer programs show that the most efficient radiators are tilted as opposed to planar which makes sense, but the increase is exceedenly small which for an array would not displace a yagi for ease in manufacture.
However, for an antenna that comprises of a small volume it cannot be beat.
What I like about it that tho it is often seen as only CP yet it does in fact also pick up H and V signals which for those who live in high density towns would help with respect to reflected signals. I have tuned using the slider method as the jumper but when spring comes my intention is to slide the inner tube windings along the axis for variable field tuning. plus a horn form for the reflector. At the moment it is all snow and ice here which makes things difficult for an old man to get moving. By the way they unveiled a scuplture in Brighton last summer where my nephew one the design contest for it so the World is getting smaller every day.
Cheers
Art

[KB9MZ]

Oops. The swr curve was low at 100 Mhz and high at the high band end with narrow movement of use for the 50 ohm stretch. This was for using wire of 1 WL This is why those who followed Kraus spoke of 2 to 7 WL so that the swr parabolic curve becomes more constant for top band where the excursion for top band SWR between resonance and anti resonance consists of one unit point where the curve become undulating. This becomes very similar to a transmission line that is shielded as you can imagine when you are dealing with
cancelled inductance loads and a low VF
Sorry if I messed up your brain storming
Art

[KB9MZ]

Peter
In my patent I point to the importance of equilibrium especially when dealing with an array within an arbritary border. When using an optimizer you can detail several radiators of 1 WL in random dimensions of length and elevation etc and then let the optimizer function and do its job of rearanging the randomly placed elements in positions such that the array as a whole is in equilibrium to suit the object implied by the user. The result will be that the elemements in the main are all resonant ie you can feed any element that you want., You will also see that the elements tho not parallel to each other or the ground will be in stacked form! Sometimes an element will not be a WL but instead a 1/2 WL and it po0ssition possibly be close to the arbritary border which has a defection or ripple in the border signifying a probably fracture point of the border which is required to obtain absolute resonance within the enclosed border. In a field in equilibrium all flus is accounted for for the equation to equal zero. This is contrary to the case of a planar antenna that moves radiation by first absortiuon and then reradiation to another element and so on. Thus in such a case all flux can never be totally inclusive as no matter how many elements one has on a planar form there is still the need for another element to receive radiation and then reradiate. This situation thus can never account for all flux even if the boom length is infinitely long which, however, does not make it useless.
In the case of a two element in equilibrium within a Gaussion border results in two resonant elements either or both of which can be driven and where all flux vectors are accounted for similarly to Poyntings vector The importance betweehn these two arrangements is not necessarily bound up with gain but the angle of gain emmision is more accurate in the case of equilibrium which is very important in radio treatment of the human brain e.t.c.It is also because of the particles that my reflector is going to be of a horn design (wave guide being a misnomer)such that it equates the same as for light and higher freqencies all of which
provides for acceleration of charges i.e reflections as one would see on impact with the Earth's outer layers that provide dx type operation.
Cheers
Art Unwin KB9MZ......xg

[KB9MZ]

The main issue I see is the increased wire losses due to the high currents involved in the small loops. But if the small antenna is made differently then perhaps this can be overcome - consider the small spherical dipole of S. R. Best which is modeled here http://www.cst.com/Content/Applications/Article/A+Small,+Efficient,+Linear-polarized+Omni-directional+Antenna - this models with a resistive feedpoint impedance of 9 ohms and virtually no reactive component at its design frequency. So this should be easy to feed. It fits inside a sphere of radius 0.0415 wavelength, exhibits excellent modeled gain and only slight directivity. The antenna is balanced and symmetrical, and for 20m could probably be put together around an over-inflated pilates ball. With "pop up tent" technology one of these could easily be made that would fit in small bag when folded! Could be a fun project.

Perhaps there is something else other than full size linear elements.

Pete
Peter
I have studied in detail the "Best" Paper URL
My comments are as follows.
1 Placing the array within a circle ascounts for all flux movements
2 The radiator within the circle is in equilibrium with the circle acting as the arbritrary border in a similar function to Poynting which exactly equivalent to my dynamic Gaussian boirder
3 All lumped loads created in manufacture have been cancelled
4 This appears to conform with loop theory
5 The law deducted from the presence of particles is held to in every way i.e
For maximum radiation a radiator or array can be any shape size or varied elevation as long as that within the arbritary border is in equilibrium.
6 In a section of the article the reflector chosen is a horn which also coincides with my design........../
The Best article confirms in it's entietry with the every part of the theory that I present for examination.
I am very very pleased that you have come across this valuable evidence
that confirms my theory but from a different direction, and made it available to me. Now there is NO doubt that radiation and light is a culmination of the acceleration of a charge in the manner of a particle.
It also identifies the Foucault current as the WEAK force that Einstein predicted would be seen as part of the radiation equation.
It also confirms that with the presence of the WEAK frorce the radiator must be tipped relative to the earth and in equilibrium within the Universe per Newton. It also shows that skin effect is without a doubt the resistance created by the eddy current ( weak force ,Foucault current) at right angles to the main current and not a skin with varying density of matter.
I am sure that this document puts aside any doubts about my findings (theory) Of course all copy rights are reserved and your University has permission from me to write a paper if that helps you.
My very best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk)
aunwin@insightbb.com
Bloomington
IL 61705
USA

[WB2WIK]

I see the patent application 20080231540 filed 09-25-08 but the images won't download.

Do you have any actual photographs of a working model? Since the application's already been filed, you're protected. Why not share them?

To me, it's all still vaporware.;)

[KB9MZ]

Tom, consider for a moment the linear antenna when used for receiving. Is it receiving a similarly polarised planar wave front and is it oriented parallel to that wave front? I guess this would be the case in only the situations where the two antennas (transmitting and receiving) are perfectly aligned and for line of sight. As soon as the wave front has encountered the ionosphere then it is no longer nicely aligned - it has become circular, parts have canceled out, other parts have added together. The nice single element linear antenna is no longer optimal for intercepting these signals - or is it? Perhaps Eric KL7AJ could add something here about CPOL and turnstile antennas.

If we bend a transmitting antenna round into a loop then yes, the phase relationship in the EM radiation emitting from it will be different, but you can't suggest it will only result in cancellation of field. There will also be addition of field - maybe at different points, but there will be addition. Hence the different radiation pattern observed for a small loop antenna compared with a linear dipole. And assuming the field is going to be changed by the ionosphere anyway, what does it matter, so long as there is plenty of low angle RF so the ionosphere can be glanced at low angles for good path length, or plenty of high angle RF when the antenna is orientated for NVIS comms.

The main issue I see is the increased wire losses due to the high currents involved in the small loops. But if the small antenna is made differently then perhaps this can be overcome - consider the small spherical dipole of S. R. Best which is modeled here http://www.cst.com/Content/Applications/Article/A+Small,+Efficient,+Linear-polarized+Omni-directional+Antenna - this models with a resistive feedpoint impedance of 9 ohms and virtually no reactive component at its design frequency. So this should be easy to feed. It fits inside a sphere of radius 0.0415 wavelength, exhibits excellent modeled gain and only slight directivity. The antenna is balanced and symmetrical, and for 20m could probably be put together around an over-inflated pilates ball. With "pop up tent" technology one of these could easily be made that would fit in small bag when folded! Could be a fun project.

Perhaps there is something else other than full size linear elements.

Pete

Peter.
The proiblem that Tom has is that he is anable to separate the static field from a dynamic field. Gaussian law of statics is just a sample of mathematical use of Newtons laws vis arbritary borders.
Maxwells laws establishes the accelleration of charges via a time varying field.Whben Gaussian static enclosed boundary is subject to a time varying field it becomes the same as Maxwell's equations. It is this connection that establishes the presence of particles on all surfaces on earth that does not absorb the particles into its matrics. Therefore they settle on diamagnetic materials such as a resonant radiator in equilibrium b ut without the application of a time vary field it is still an enclosed Gaussian field in equilibrium.
When a time vary field is applied we then have a situation of a dynamic field i.e. it is not static any more. The addition of /dt that Maxwell added to his laws are the metrics of a charge being applied to a mass or in this case a
resting particle where the applied time varying current is split into two parts,
The applied current and the Foucault current which is demanded by Newtons laws. The latter current is a revolving current on the surface of the radiator
and it is this swirling current that supplies the opposition to the applied current which is often called the skin effect. The swirling current by the way is used in non destructive metal testing to determine if there are fissures present in the material which is signified by closed current circles with respect to depth.
It is this swirling eddy type current that generates a magnetic field that levitates the particle as seen in high school experiments and at the same time applying a rotational movement to the particle. It is this rotation that
makes it difficult to maintain elevation when the test is performed.
Thus the particle is lifted from the surface of the radiator as per a accellerating charge which like a bullet fired from a rifle maintaines a straight line projection. However in this case the force applied to the particle called the weak force is actually stoger than the gravitational force so unlike a bullet it maintains a straight line which we know by experience is how communication occurs.
So here we are using two laws, the first is Gauss where he introduces statics
within a Gaussian field, a derivitation of Newtons law. We then have the laws of Maxwell with his addition with respect to time which is later applied to the Gaussian static field to make it a dynamic field again under the same controls of Newton with respoect to equilibrium.
When we use comnputer programs for antennas we only use some of Maxwells forces contained in his equations. For instance a yagi antenna does not take advantage of the swirling weak force but if we use all of Maxwells applied vector forces each radiator will be a different angle with respect to all others because we have allowed Maxwell to uteliz
e the weak force which is included in his laws.,
The yagi antenna is a situation where only inter coupling effect of the radiators are taken into consideration. It has never been considered as being totally inclusive of all the vector forces encompassed by Maxwell.
Since the coupling effect of the Yagi radiators also reradiate a portion of the radiation energy that it receives it never includes all the radiation generated
since it can never have enough elements for all energy to be accounted for.
This is not the case for radiators that are in equilibrium to which Maxwell's laws apply.
Note, when non equilibrium radiators are used such as fractional wave antennas again all energy is not accounted for as in end effect. As shown in Quito Equador a change to a quad design which is considered as being in equilibrium there are no end effect losses. In other words a quad is more efficient than a yagi because of end effect losses encountered with arrays that are not in equilibrium,
Peter, re Universal law. Consider electrons resting on the surface of water
which also gets drawn into the skies in a storm and where the water vapour turnes to ice and the particals have to look for somewhere else to rest ie the ground where the charge is released to return to the sky. and then again we see a circulation of presurres which can change to a circulating tornado.
This could be a case of Universal laws in action and account why frogs suddenly appear in strange places after a storm as they are basically water
content!
Cheers and beers
Art KB9MZ......xg (uk)

[WB2WIK]

I see the patent application 20080231540 filed 09-25-08 but the images won't download.

Do you have any actual photographs of a working model? Since the application's already been filed, you're protected. Why not share them?

To me, it's all still vaporware.;)

Art, if you cannot answer such a simple question, you're simply a fraud. Period. No need for further discussion, it will have no merit.

[M3KXZ]

Hold on - if you go to patents.com you will see that Art has provided sketches and a clear explanation. I wasn't aware that photographs had to be provided for a patent application, and I don't understand why you would call someone who has had an idea and put this forward a "fraud". Seems harsh to me.

[KB9MZ]

Peter
He is no different from Tom. Neither are from the Obama camp with their
"no you can't" attitude. Neither has been able to point to anything in terms of physics that pushes the idea aside. As naysayers they need a lynch pin around which to argue not a reasonable point that one can build upon for good as their only interest is to destroy. I was reading the other day that the weak force
was the only force that can impact a Neutrino both of which are involved in this discussion, interesting I thought but neither has put forward anything that destroys the concept. Even if they thought the concept was in error they could at least confirm what was correct such that it can be built upon.
They could even point out that computer programs were in error and why when they confirm the subject since I am sure they are aware that programs are now accepted. To prove that antenna programs were in error would be a tremendous service to radio hams. They could also provide a physics based reasoning for stating that a radiator must be straight as they preach or what really determines aperture and why in physics terms
More than 2.5k have viewed this thread and nobody has provided a physical reason why any stated point is in error. Both are determined to prevent change whether it be antennas or anything else and both will revert to personal terms as a replacement for the provision of facts.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ

[WB2WIK]

It's amazing how you miss the point entirely.

I couldn't care less about whether a concept is valid or not.

Here's my concept: I can travel at Warp speed and reach Mars in 200 seconds.

I can sketch diagrams about how I'll accomplish that. However, I've never actually done it.

I'm applying for a patent.

73

[M3KXZ]

Steve, put the whole patent issue aside for a moment...you said "I couldn't care less about whether a concept is valid or not". Well, if you couldn't care less about the validity of the concept, then why are you even bothering to knock it? This says to me that you do care, but haven't been able to come up with a reason that makes the concept wrong. Same for Tom.

73

Pete

[WB2WIK]

Steve, put the whole patent issue aside for a moment...you said "I couldn't care less about whether a concept is valid or not". Well, if you couldn't care less about the validity of the concept, then why are you even bothering to knock it? This says to me that you do care, but haven't been able to come up with a reason that makes the concept wrong. Same for Tom.

73

Pete

::I have no idea if the concept is wrong. That's why I don't care. The only thing that bothers me is if a concept cannot become reality by demonstration then there's really not much to discuss. I can work the world on 160 meters with a paperclip, by concept. In reality, I can't. The difference is vast.

[M3KXZ]

Of course there's much to discuss - one thing being whether or not the theory has some merit, and another being whether the theory can be put into practice and demonstrated. I'm intrigued and fascinated by the whole concept of how radio waves or particles work, and how the different theories have come about, which I think fits in well with what ham radio was supposed to be about. We know radio works, we know there are theories to explain it - but they are theories to explain something that we can't see....so how do we know whether or not there are gaps in these theories?

[KB9MZ]

Peter
To understand what manner of man he is go to e ham forumTower talk and insert KB9MZ to read the last two threads I was involved with before I abandoned that forum and came here. Wb2wik/6 expanded his thoughts on my antenna concept even to the point of contacting U of I antenna laboratory professor Jenny Barnhart who I had spoken to about this anttena in its entirety.
When you have read those threads it will show you what manner of man he really is.
As for me being a fraud computer programs confirm my position but they
(him and Tom) continue to hoot on my concept.
Extending Gaussian static theorem by adding a time varying field becomes mathematically the same as Maxwells laws which explains the presence of particles in radiation. Neither of them is familiar enough with physics to disprove that but I am still a fraud.Tom preaches in his tutorials that radiators should be straight etc but the S Best paper that you brought forward shows otherwise. Maxwell's laws confirm that for maximum efficiency a radiator need not be straight so now Maxwell is a fraud and so is Tom for stating otherwise in his antenna tutorials. Both of them have not offered one iota of physics to disprove the concept, relying on the fact that all other attempts to describe radiation in any other way that disagrees with
their King Soloman thinking is always be proved to be in error. I am guided by Maxwell,Gauss,antenna computer programs e.t.c that prove my concept and they are of the thought that all is in error, because they said so! Now they demand photographs and other things of me. Jimminy cricket ! 2500 people have viewed what they have had to say on this thread and they both perceive themselves as "antenna experts" which really opposes the positions that they have taken with respect to physics by relying on folk law.
They just cannot and will not accept change with respect to radiation and antennas. This shows what manner of men they really are where they turn to personal comment to defile all opposition. Read the Tower talk forum for your own education with respect who he really is
Cheers and beers
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk)

[WB2WIK]

Of course there's much to discuss - one thing being whether or not the theory has some merit, and another being whether the theory can be put into practice and demonstrated.

::I agree with you. They are two completely different things.

Putting theory into practice, however, is very important; otherwise no theory is verifiable. Again, in theory I can visit Mars in 200 seconds, traveling at Warp 1. I have many ways I might accomplish that, but no way that actually accomplishes it. As such, the theory is without merit at this point in time.

[KB9MZ]

I am old and not in good health. I have the antenna and many anacdotal
results which can only be rectified with money and time. My experience as a ham is that field results are always attacked because of methodology.I do not want to introduce facts that at this time I cannot confirm to others.
The task I have taken is to supply a foundation upon which one can build upon before I pass on. I do not want another hundred years to pass without a rethink on radiation. For those who demand more I cannot supply anything that will outdo the personal experiences of those who make or try one.
Those who are content can be talking heads on a couch where as I am not made like that even tho it presents security in thinking. The CERN experiment as are others are spending a lot of money with respect to Higgs field and weak force collisions and yet nobody knows what a Higgs field really is or its impact on the scientific world, but curiousity drives scientists on because a theory has arisen regarding something that mathematics indicates is real but the human sences cannot confirm. CERN is not a whimsical playground like attaching wires to a drain, it is a proving ground based on theories that the human race has not yet defined. So I put forward my paper to the internet where sometime in the future it is available for pick up by those that are curious. For those who are naysayers that demand more ,now, without contribution of there own other than snide remarks, will have to be content with living in a garbage can where food is available to the touch and the vessel they are in provides protection. Yes, they smell but while they reside in a garbage can they have no influence on the outside world. I am sharing and not thrusting things down ones throat and am leaving a trail for history to review.
Art Unwin......KB9MZ..xg (uk)

[WB2WIK]

>KB9MZ;1505512]I am old and not in good health. I have the antenna and many anacdotal
results which can only be rectified with money and time. My experience as a ham is that field results are always attacked because of methodology.<

::Really? I don't know how long you've been a ham, but for me it will be 44 years next month and this hasn't been my experience at all. Results are results, and when they can be repeated by others they are even more certain to be well embraced by the community. I might sustain a fusion reaction for 1 second before it fails and might call that a success; however it would not be accepted by the scientific community until someone else can also do it. And then, of course, it would be deemed a very limited success since it has no real value -- yet. But it's a start that might pave the way to cold fusion in the future, and its merit lies therein. The only time I've ever seen hams attach field results is when they cannot be reproduced -- nothing to do with methodology.

>I do not want to introduce facts that at this time I cannot confirm to others.
The task I have taken is to supply a foundation upon which one can build upon before I pass on. I do not want another hundred years to pass without a rethink on radiation.<

::Seems very reasonable.

>For those who demand more I cannot supply anything that will outdo the personal experiences of those who make or try one.<

::I probably missed some details along the way: Who are those people?

>Those who are content can be talking heads on a couch where as I am not made like that even tho it presents security in thinking. The CERN experiment as are others are spending a lot of money with respect to Higgs field and weak force collisions and yet nobody knows what a Higgs field really is or its impact on the scientific world, but curiousity drives scientists on because a theory has arisen regarding something that mathematics indicates is real but the human sences cannot confirm. CERN is not a whimsical playground like attaching wires to a drain, it is a proving ground based on theories that the human race has not yet defined. So I put forward my paper to the internet where sometime in the future it is available for pick up by those that are curious. For those who are naysayers that demand more ,now, without contribution of there own other than snide remarks, will have to be content with living in a garbage can where food is available to the touch and the vessel they are in provides protection. Yes, they smell but while they reside in a garbage can they have no influence on the outside world. I am sharing and not thrusting things down ones throat and am leaving a trail for history to review.<

::Well, that certainly spun out of control. I try to stick to one subject at a time, being a very simple person. To me, the theory is of no practical use to hams or the communications industry at this point because I've seen no demonstration of its successful use. Simple as that. When somebody builds this and can demonstrate its usefulness, that's an invention. Prior to that, it's only a theory. You can't patent a theory, only an invention. How's the patent coming?

[WB2WIK]

It appears my last post blew Art's mind.

:p;)

[KB9MZ]

I'll try to make my position crystal clear.
snip
I do not know of any antenna problem that is of relevance to the amateur experimenter that can not be analyzed using EM wave methods of which Maxwell's equations are a cornerstone.
snip
I would not say that everything is known about any subject. But, on the subject of antennas, enough is known to apply the existing EM wave theory to solve real world problems. I may not be able to solve them all personally, but that has more to do with the skill of the craftsman than the power of the tools.

snip
73, Harry WB3BEL


Your addition to the thread is that of a follower and not of a leader by accepting all that has been placed before you by prior generations on faith.
In the 1600 Maxwell devised his formulas that are held to this very day.
He corrected prior analysis by holding to Newtons Laws especially with respect to equilibrium. The Newtonian finallity check for equilibrium showed that equilibrium was not being met. He solved this b y the addition of metrics that allowed for all remaining metrics cancelled out. The added metrics were called the displacement current even tho no actual current matching this addition existed. Thus mathematics was the main predictor of this new current of force.The current thinking at that time revoved around magnetism as being the central part of our universe or in other words a wave like feature.As science progressed the idea of particle advanced such that it came to a point that for "unaminity" it was agreed that the duality theorem came about and to this day despite pointers to the contrary radiation is considered as the transmission method of communication even tho the paradox of duallity has not been solved.
Re examination of Gaussian rule of Statics can be extended mathematically to that of Maxwell and also in concurrence with Newtons requirement law for equilibrium. Now this statement is factual and agreement by all.
What is missed by all is the connection to radiation that Einstein predicted.
Mathematics has come again to the fore as with Newton i9n the 1600 that
particles were part and parcel of the radiation story. Period
The particles per the arithmetrical process were clearly displaced by the displacement current that Maxwell was forced to add to his formula such that the particles travelled from A to B to form a means of communication.
True, these departing and arriving particles impact radiators where the samples of such impacts can be graphed in cyclic form or a series of waves.
But this is not "duallity" Everything that is in our universe is mobile thus movement can be of the wave matric such as magnetic waves or anything that moves but on cannot transition movement to something other than the prior assesment of mass. his "mass" is clearly identified in the Newton ,Maxwell, Gauss association which is accepted as the inclusion of mass ie particles
Period
So you bring forward the idea of EM and duallity without a true understanding of the Physics involved by attaching yourself to the proclamations of the past presently stated in books, yes, out of faith.
Now I present to you a paradox that arithmetrically the presence of particles are pre eminent in the radiation phenomina, Something that is proven arithmetrically correct, predicted by Einstein and where the displac ement force was not identified for more than a generation all based purely
via mathemetacics the same tool today used in the advancement in science.
Think back again to your posting with respect to EM and duallity and many other things and examine where your statements gives priority to waves over particles which thus over throws the mathematicall type predictions
upon which all science is based. As an engineer I present this to all so a question has to be considered. Do we as a fraternity continue to resist
change in how we view radiation or are we compelled to follow the plagerization trail presented in physics books by those who consider others as the little people?
Think about it and then consider confronting the professors and all the self perceived experts on radiation and watch them wriggle. As yet not one expert have taken up the challenge of confronting this paradox, not one!
Math shows that particles are dominant in radiation. No one has proved otherwise, not one.
Best regards to all
Art Unwin KB9MZ...xg

[KB9MZ]

Fellow hams and engineers
With the subject of radiation being considered two items come to the fore.
Equilibrium and duality.
Equilibrium is really the condition of perpetual motion. Where the arbitrary boundary is drawn around all that can be accounted for in closed circuit form
as per the laws of Newton I.E Every action or disturbance produces another
action or disturbance which, when accounted for, provides for equality of force along the chosen boundary. The english language as evolved from the time of Shakspere and Newton such that the choice of 'equal and opposite' type words have changed. If we stretch a piece of caramel the x dimension becomes longer and this imposed disturbance creates forces in the y and z dimension to create balance. Note that the forces are not "equal and opposite "and does not reflect Newton's true intent. In the UK all laws are reflective of the 'intent' at that time of the printed word where in the U.S. the actual printed 'word' is the law. thus changes the intent over time.

Duality
Current produces an electromagnetic field. In other words it is a reaction to the application of current which can be termed as a force within a arbritrary border. From the extension I give to Gaussian law we also have particles at rest within the same border. This particle is the only object that cannot be seen as a closed circuit function because it is propelled outside the border if and when a time varying current is applied ie a static field and a dynamic field. If there is a reaction to what leaves the border then it can only be the reaction to the expelled particles which is the only carrier possible to anything beyond the border that can carry the means of communication.
The varying magnetic fields as per a tank cuircuit applies two varying magnetic fields in cyclic form to particles to eject them from the enclosed border. These magnetic field vary because of the time constants and other factors provided by a tank circuit such that no individual particle emitted from the border has the same amount and direction of spin applied because per Newtons law it is a reflection of the magnetic forces applied in that moment of time.
Now we see the reason that the term duality was invented! The particle is seen as sequence of actions as applied by the time varying field where all are rotating but not at the same physical direction such that it reflects the attributes to the eye of that of a magnetic field.
Each particle is enclosed within its own abritrary border which of course is much smaller than that which encloses our Universe such we have a sustem just like a bubble bath where each bubble impacts all other bubbles in the bath per Newtons laws
We now know that particles are moving thru out our Universe but we also know that our Universe is not in true equilibrium as it has relative movement ( Einstein) which is also proven when we intercept radio or particle from outside our Galaxy. But it does show that that sound radio and time is a function of a particle since each bubble or Galaxy emits them.
Thus the particle is the carrier of communication and the magnetic wave is what allows or gives direction to that same departing particle.
When a packet of particles are in motion they assume the connection to each other in the same way as the bubbles in a bubble bath which can also be seen as a "wave" where in actual fact each morsel, droplet or particle,
traveling indifferent harmonic motion made up of the harmonics of each and every particle in the wave , packet, assembly, travelling arbitrary border or what ever name you whish to assign
Food for thought which is to be digested in moderation
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG

[KB9MZ]

Interesting thing that I ran into that is connected to cosmic particles and radiation. Visitors to the Moon have a problem with moon particles sticking to their space suits via static. These particles are sharp and abrasive and they are concerned that if these particles enter the spacecraft damage could occur.
NASA, when experimenting on how to remove these particles were partially succesfull when they applied the same process used in scrap yards for sorting materials.
This proces is really an application of a tank circuit where cans or particles are elevated and projected away from where they are at rest ie on a conveyor.
This same process is what I suggest is used to project resting particles on a resonant antenna for communication means. Of course, the space suits are not resonant so when the tank circuit is applied it is not exactly efficient however, it did dislocate the moon particles away from the surface of the suits i.e. it changed the static field of particles into a dynamic field in the same way I changed the static field of Gauss into a dynamic field of Maxwell for radio style radiation.
Like natures way of adding swirling actions behind a car or accelerating weather patterns, it appears to be just the sequence of connecting the correct points of observation that has been apparent for centuries and pointed out by Newton and others. Thus the elegancy of nature strikes again
in an unexpected simple way again. The Moon is dormant so the dust stayes
where as the Sun is active and thus particles are ejected from it's borders

Cheers
Art

[KB9MZ]

At the begining of this thread I was described as having a unique view of radiation such that it was difficult to understand and so radical that it is obvious
that I slept thru the duration of my classes in physics! Judging by the number of hits on this thread I thought I should discuss the physics behind my thoughts which I see as an explanation of the nature of our Universe and the role of mass (particles) have in the production of light and radiation.
This will be placed for viewing on
unwinantennas.com
in a few days as it is not directly pertinent to the formation of radiation from a contrawound helix antenna in equilibrium which is the substance of this particular thread.
Thanks for your patience and interest
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg (uk)

[KB9MZ]

Page is now up

unwinantennas.com
regards
Art

[KB9MZ]

Obviously this thread has created a lot of interest but I feel that there is not a full understanding of the term "equilibrium" which is covered by Newton's law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction which must balance after the designated time. In other words when looking at an arbitrary border all forces summed must equal zero or as some like to say ernergy in equals energy out.
Thus if we are considering a cycle when the vectors returns to its starting point then all forces will equals zero.
Now in radio circles we don't look at the term equilibrium means one wave length, we decided that a quarter or a fractional wavelength is smaller and therefore more convenient and the main concern was how to feed it.
We found that there was two resonant points, resonant and anti rezonance where the resonant point was of the lowest impedance and the anti resonant point which reflects a full WL or period was a higher and more difficult impedance. We also "jumped" to the conclusion that sine wave was an accurate summation of the radiation process and thus all four quarters of the sine wave were equal in area
When Maxwell based his equations on the position of equilibrium it can be seen that he did not take into consideration "end effect" which a hams we all know something about or we think we do. Did Maxwell break the rules of equilibrium. No !..... End effect only occurs when a radiator is NOT in equilibrium.
It is sometimes seen as a spark which is wasted energy as the electricity in the antenna tries to seek passage to a closed circuit which represents equilibrium. I personally do not know of any equation that stands rigouros
mathematical examination even by such a master as Maxwell. So how did
Maxwell's forces when summed equal zero? Now you should be able to understand that "end effect" waste is purely a consequence of our deviation
from Newton's laws. If the radiator was a full wave length long such as a quad antenna then we would be following the approach of Maxwell which accounts for all forces that were present and as you can now see the wastage of energy represented by "end effect" is now non existent !
The bottom line is that the human race sacrificed efficiency and accepted wastage in return for a choice of a smaller radiator.
Hopefully this will clear things up in the minds of radio hams by understanding that radiation as shown in the books is a choice of convenience by man and not by the search for maximum efficiency and accountability as demanded by Classical Physics.
Regards
Art KB9MZ.......xg
Art

[KB9MZ]

HELICAL WOUND ANTENNAS
Hams are still looking at this thread So this week end I will try to
add the two patents that I have applied for on my page (Unwin antennas)
I think it is.! That way some of you can try out these new fangled antennas for yourself. There is some additional stuff on the Standard model( Weak force) so if your niche in life is physics you may find that of interest.
Be patient as I am not very smart on the page thing.
For your interest I wound some tape made of aluminum window insect mesh( 6 inches wide) and wound it tightly on a pole and it resonated on top band! Mesh has a coating on it so you have to dip it into Muriatic acid so it is conductive. Flattening the mesh for electrical contact helps a lot
You may have to make a couple of them to get the hang of it. It is end fed without a ground plane and a MFJ 259B helps a lot also. Impedance changes with height ofcourse.
Cheers
Art

[KB9MZ]

Have put one application request on my page
unwin antennas
and will add the other one tomorrow
cheers

[K8JD]

Wow! I just modeled a 5 metre long vertical off-centre fed folded dipole, fed 30% up from the bottom, with the bottom 0.5m above ground, and the wires closely space at 2cm. Ran a frequency sweep and found best performance to be right on 27MHz! Fate eh? Anyway, performance there looked ok, but it is shocking at 14 MHz. D

Maybe you could do it with buddipole plans in mind. ?
Would make a good footwarmer for birds in winter.:D

[KB9MZ]

What you are basically saying is that without increasing the height of the radiator you were able to remove the need for a ground plane which, for some people with a small garden, is an advantage!
When using same for 20 metres the absence of a ground plain was
terrible..... What you could have done is continue the radiator up and down again in closed circuit form and then use on 20 metres was possible, again without needing a ground plain. The ground plain requirement is a hardy task for many and invariably means a high angle TOA.
The "mesh circuit" shows that this can be arranged several times to cover all bands without ground losses and with low angle radiation. If conductive jumpers were used along the length of the radiator, frequencies in between then become available!
I wonder if you could bend the whole thing to half height again without
losing efficiency? The cloud warming feature mentioned would occur if it was end fed but you avoided that with a off centre feed, good idea.
Art

[WB2WIK]

Need a physical working sample to evaluate.

Provide one, and I can provide a complete test report using the sample antenna in a 10m anechoic chamber or a 30m outdoor range with highly accurate, calibrated reference antennas and FS measurements accurate within 0.3 dB in the HF spectrum (3-30 MHz), at a NVLAP accredited facility using NIST traceable standards.

No charge for the tests, but I need a sample working antenna do perform any of them.

[KB9MZ]

Thanks for the offer, but I am finished with antennas for a while and now the wife is demanding my attention . Actually, I suspect that most hams avoid change and the antenna will fade away like my other designs. For me, it is just a technical project for my retirement which picked up when I gained an interest in the "Standard Model" where my present interests lie. Where it is freely acknowledged that all is not now known, which is somewhat different with respect to antennas! The antenna project was initially set up by me when I recognized that Maxwell's equations were being ignored by hams and thus the
arrival of smaller antennas were being pushed aside. I will leave it to others who are motivated to explore methods for even smaller radiators (for small gardens) as Moxon visualized before he passed away.

[WB2WIK]

Thanks for the offer, but I am finished with antennas for a while and now the wife is demanding my attention . Actually, I suspect that most hams avoid change and the antenna will fade away like my other designs. For me, it is just a technical project for my retirement which picked up when I gained an interest in the "Standard Model" where my present interests lie. Where it is freely acknowledged that all is not now known, which is somewhat different with respect to antennas! The antenna project was initially set up by me when I recognized that Maxwell's equations were being ignored by hams and thus the
arrival of smaller antennas were being pushed aside. I will leave it to others who are motivated to explore methods for even smaller radiators (for small gardens) as Moxon visualized before he passed away.

I disagree. Sorry to hear about your XYL, by the way.

I don't think "new" hams avoid change, as they're new, and there's nothing to change from. Most haven't even studied Maxwell or any antenna theory beyond how to build a dipole and their minds are wide open.

The Moxon isn't innovative; it's essentially a close spaced 2-element Yagi with the ends folded back to create a rectangle that has about the same performance as the regular 2-element close spaced Yagi. It occupies slightly less space, but isn't what I'd call a miniature antenna or anything terribly innovative. The Pfeiffer Quad and Hexbeam do about the same thing, just wrapping wires around forms in different ways; and they are all "reduced size," but also "reduced performance" antennas that don't really compare to their full-sized counterparts.

Without a practical, physical, working model of a design, it remains only a theory and not a reality. In theory, I could visit the moon in 1.3 seconds, if I could travel as fast as light. In reality, I can't do it.

[KB9MZ]

Hams are reluctant to change M3*** made a vertical without the need of a ground plane but I have not heard of anybody duplicating it!
I once wound a wire mesh tape for top band 6 inches by a 100 foot again without a ground plane! Haven't heard of any body else doing it! Also got hold of a roll ribbon wire for computer and used that for a radiator. Have got hold of some 6 foot dia balloons which I will use for top band one day. I am hanging around for tom W8JI to tackle it to prove to the world that it can't possibly work and also placed it on sci,physics.research for them to review the math for my own piece of mind. Never mind the attacks it certainly makes for small antennas even if they may not be satisfactory, I took a bash at it even tho Tom said I slept thru physics classes.

[WB2WIK]

Hams are reluctant to change M3*** made a vertical without the need of a ground plane but I have not heard of anybody duplicating it!
I once wound a wire mesh tape for top band 6 inches by a 100 foot again without a ground plane! Haven't heard of any body else doing it!

A physical working model is worth a million words. Since you already built this thing, why not provide it as a model for validated field analysis?

[K4SAV]

I am hanging around for tom W8JI to tackle it to prove to the world that it can't possibly work and also placed it on sci,physics.research for them to review the math for my own piece of mind.

There doesn't appear to be any messages on sci.physics.research recently addressing the weak force. Guess it didn't make it past the moderator.

[WB2WIK]

There doesn't appear to be any messages on sci.physics.research recently addressing the weak force. Guess it didn't make it past the moderator.

If the inventor created a working model it would behoove him to produce it.

End of story.

No -- wait -- I have a miniature antenna here that's the size of a postage stamp and I'm using it right now on 80 meters. I've been calling CQ for eleven days but nobody's answered yet. Are all hams stupid? They should answer me!

[AD2U]

No -- wait -- I have a miniature antenna here that's the size of a postage stamp and I'm using it right now on 80 meters.

That will be a holy grail for geeks, just like a mouth lock which will shut up a bickering wife.

[AD2U]

No -- wait -- I have a miniature antenna here that's the size of a postage stamp and I'm using it right now on 80 meters.

That will be a holy grail for geeks, just like a mouth lock that will shut up a bickering wife :D:D:D.

Sorry for the double post - the other party turned on the microwave oven and floor my WiFi's front end.

[KB9MZ]

Early days!
Apparently it takes 7 days for the moderator to decide and then they notify me. No harm in trying, modeling confirms things with respect to gain and conformity to Maxwell. Now my priorities have changed with respect to the STD model that is really out of my league, which is why I have submitted knowing that I probably will be hammered. But they do know what they are talking about, and it is moderated which stops silly posts and attacks
and provides pointers as to where I can improve Then I can drop this thread because of diminishing returns on my time. Probably this is my last post
on the subject as it doesn't look like Tom will climb aboard and provide technical input which is sparse on this particular newsgroup where spammers rule.

[WB2WIK]

Early days!
Apparently it takes 7 days for the moderator to decide and then they notify me. No harm in trying, modeling confirms things with respect to gain and conformity to Maxwell. Now my priorities have changed with respect to the STD model that is really out of my league, which is why I have submitted knowing that I probably will be hammered. But they do know what they are talking about, and it is moderated which stops silly posts and attacks
and provides pointers as to where I can improve Then I can drop this thread because of diminishing returns on my time. Probably this is my last post
on the subject as it doesn't look like Tom will climb aboard and provide technical input which is sparse on this particular newsgroup where spammers rule.

Spammers don't rule here. I've made you a valid offer, which you've evidently declined. If you have a working model of an antenna, it would be interesting to test it on a calibrated range and see how it does. I have a calibrated (NVLAP accredited, FCC listed) range, validated from 300 kHz to 30 GHz.

[KB9MZ]

I have been asked to give a bit more information on what the helical can do and if possible provide a computer round up of the design!
Yes, I will put a computer run down of the helical on my page when I get time,probably a week or so.
The helical will pick up pretty much every thing that is directed at it, horizontal, vertical, LHC and RHC and others without having to mess with the antenna setting on the tower. Some hams have problems with signals that are deflected prior to arrival so this radiater is a fix for that. A radiator made of mesh is at least as good in gain as a dipole regardless of polarity applied and obviously much lighter and of course, rotatable. A small dish reflector also helps.Note,, If you purchase wire mesh remove the insulation coating applied so conductivity is maintained. By the way physics doctors will not even look at it since it is not backed up by the books that they read so it wouldnt hurt if antenna builders put the project on hold until the sun spot cycle picks up or somebody else does the work first Hi. At the moment
everything about the helical by those knowelegable in the field hams and physics people has been denied it as being possible according to current science, So beware!

[WB2WIK]

A working model (physically) would help enormously.

PLEASE try to provide one for empirical trials by a few independent labs.

If we can make something work that's new and innovative, the whole world should know about it.

Of course, I've made DX contacts on 20m using a paperclip for an antenna, but that wasn't innovative, that was just propagation.:)

N6BT's "array of light" (using light bulbs as antennas) worked the whole world, but I think that was just propagation, too.:p

[K4WGE]

If you understand physics you can check out http://users.sdsc.edu/~unwin/
It is not very orderly and writing is terrible but if you can understand physics it will be no problem.

From your link: "The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it produces soot and other by products in abundance... "

If you, Art, understand physics then you would know the difference between nuclear fusion and chemical combustion. Your problem is not disorderly writing, it is appalling ignorance.

[KB9MZ]

I just put 4 window mesh frames together with sticky tape. Clamp your feeder any where you want!
What so hard about that so you can try it?
You could put it in your chamber and check it out for yourself.
Go to the store and buy some mesh and make a tube out of it
It is all so easy, it is just that the cross field inventor chose the wrong thing to balance out! A Faraday shield does that automatically.

[G6AIG]

There is an omnidirectional antenna called the quadrafilar helix which seems to appear on lots of old satellite spacecraft, probably because of the cardioid radiation pattern, circular polarised and no need for a large groundplane behind it. This is basically 2 twisted loop antennas. Google search throws up lots.

[KB9MZ]

That is just 4 single helix antennas fed at the same time.It would be so much better if all the helixes were made of twin line closed at the ends. In fact, just one twin helix tape close wound would probably provide more gain when end fed and joined at the top. This would also provide both circular polarities as well as horizontal and vertical so when conditions change you will still be able to copy.

[KB9MZ]

I thought I would pick up the trail in a different way to explain antennas.
Most people have heard of the Gaussian border which encircles static particles
in a state of equilibrium. So if the border is seen as a radiator all it would take to transmit would be to apply a time varying field so that a charge or particle could be accellerated. Yup, radiation is created by a accellerated charge,no doubt about it as it is in all the books.The difference debated by scientists is that it is the wave generated around the accellerated particle is what bears the actual communication and not the actual particle. So in fact one could say we all agree wiuthout the generated wave around the particle there would be no communication. Yes, it is a sort of playing with words.
Most people have heard of Faraday and the Faraday cage. Basically it is a conductive metal container that if hit by a pulse of electric power it will generate a current inside of the container. This current is what you apply to a transmitter for communication and it is this same current that is used to receive comunication. So how does this differ from the Gaussian border containing static particles where a time varying field was applied?
Actually it is one and the same thing! How about that?
Let us look at a sphere made of wire mesh and inside we have a radio.
A electrical current hits the outside mesh where the current or the charge is a particle that is carrying an electrical wave. When it hits the Faraday cage
it is instantly DECELERATED and where the particle is stuck to the Farady cage. Now we know that the "charge" is a alternating field of electric and magnetic where the particle has a electrical field still attached to it.
Since the cage or border must stay in equilibrium a separate magnetic
field is generated on the inside of the cage. Since there are many uncharged particles clinging to the inside of the cage this magnetic field is passed to join
a resting particle. But to retain equilibrium this magnetically charged particle
must move so that it is exactly opposite the particle that impacted the outside of the Faraday cage where it in effect cancelled the outside force.
Thus we first had a particle at rest which was then accelerated and sped thru tha atmospere where it accumulated a charge. It then took on the mode of decelleration when it hit the outside of the Faraday shield which created movement of a charge inside the Faraday shield. When a charge is moved it creates a current which is then fed to the radio. We started with a current
which changed to an occillating magnetic and electric field which cancelled each other on both sides of the Faraday shield leaving us with the same shaped current that we started with.
That is what radiation is all about but let us take a moment in reviewing what makes a Faraday shield. It is a vessel made of a conducting material, it can be solid or it can have holes in it small enough so that anything electrical
cannot pass thru it. This surface is actually your radiator! You can apply a time varying current to the inside from your radio and it will generate an accelleration and ejection to a charge resting on the outside of the shield and send it on it"s way to another conducting radiator so that it can revert to a current again for a receiver. That same receiver can do the same thing
and send a charge particle back to the originating transmitter.
So to sum things up we hit a radiater with a current which also includes an displacement current which ejects the sitting particle where it can gain a charge on its travels.
So the original question comes up again " Is it a particle or a wave that creates radiation" And the answer is that the particle carries a message that is wrapped up within a electro mechanical wave which is then transformed into a time varing current.

So what do we learn from this?
We now finally understand what the fuss is all about with respect to waves and particles.
We have also proved that it is correct that radiation is created by acceleration or decelleration of a charge just like it says in the books.
We also have found out that a radiator need not be straight after all but it must be in equilibrium or balanced. Thus if we introduce a coil then we must add a coil wound in the opposite direction to balance the radiator.
We also know that only distributed loads are used in Maxwell equations which gives us another reason that if we have introduced a lumped load we also have to cancell it leaving just distributed loads.
Now we can look at the radiators final volume which is really just a balanced arrangement of distributed resistance and loads. If we are looking for efficiency then the aparture can be represented by a sphere in Faraday form
and where the inside surface area equals the transformation form in terms of volume where if the shield is vanishingly thin we have not lost any energy in the transition.
One final thing. We have always used fractional wave lengths for our radiators because it was resonant and thus better to feed. Actually the resonant point varies from the half way point because of overshoot so the first point of repeatability is a full wavelength or a period which is also resonant which is much longer. However we have just learned that the radiator does NOT have to be straight, just balanced or in equilibrium so in effect we can now make radiators that occupy a smaller volume than ever known before without inventing a new science but just by connecting the right dots that science has known for years, but ignored.
Cheers and beers
Art Unwin KB9 MZ..;..xg
By the way I have something else to pass on!
This type of enclosed antenna is not concerned with installation height
or even ground planes, so small gardens are now back in the picture.
If you make a hole in the Faradaysphere the skip distance is now TWICE that of a conventional antenna where you can tip the radiator to vary the skip distance as well as turn it because even a radiatoir for top band is small and light enough for a rotator. O yes! Theoretically if you make the hole in the shaped form of a firemans hose you can now make a pencil type beam with a whole lot of increased gain.

WHO SAID THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH?. Byob !

[KB9MZ]

So you have a day off at Xmas and you are willing to try it out!
I know,Boxing day would be a good time.
So you have a empty metal dustbin. Great.
Take the coax and lengthen the center wire and the ground braid with some insulated wire. Tie a piece of metal to the center insulated wire and drop it inside the dustbin. Connect the braiding to the outside of the dustbin.
Ser up the dustbin at an angle and you are ready to go.

Now I am not sure if the dustbin is conductive so I will provide an option.
You have a plastic dustbin ? then you are in good shape. Get some wire mesh from the store that they use for preventing insects getting in the house.(window mesh)
Roll that around the plastic dustbin so the mesh duplicates the mtal dust bin
then staple it together.
Same as before you are now ready to go as you connected the ground to the outside and stuck the metal piece inside the mesh against the dustbin.

Now that should get you 20 M and above and maybe lower.
If you like it then make a bigger one for top band.
If you can stick a stake into the ground to connect to the outside of the dustbin then do it.
Have fun and a merry Xmas. My gift to you.
Art KB9MZ
If you can't find some mesh then use aluminium cooking foil in its place for trial purposes

[KB9MZ]

Tom W8TI
You are rightly listened to with respect to antennas and communication
because as often as not you can quote the books where explanations are given that back you up. In the case of Maxwells equations there are many ways listed in the books that can also be traced back such there is an interlocking of equations which provide confidence in the veracity of these equations.
How ever, in some cases when using the work of previous masters there are questions that need to be asked that physicisicts "will not address" even to the point of calling engineers "crackpots" for even bringing it up.
A case in point is the use of a arbitrary boundary around static particles which the books atribute to Gauss as a field in equilibrium.
It is well known that when you change the Gaussian field to a dynamic form by adding a time varying field that it equates to Maxwells equations for radiation.
Tho the masters of the present day avoid these facts like a plague one cannot avoid the following as being obvious based on these findings.
I Radiators must be of a full WL long to attain a position of equilibrium
2 Radiators can be any size shape or elevation when in equilibrium utilising all forces available for maximum efficiency.
3 An array as such will contain all radiators that are in equiibrium as is the
array as a whole where any of the radiators can be fed because they are resonant.
I could go on of course, but it is clear in science that a static boundary can be made dynamic in the form of Maxwell equations ,but is pushed aside by all because of the presence of particles instead of waves.This they cannot handle.
Today we have computer programs for radiators based solely on Maxwells equations and pretty much everybody accepts their validity. There are also additions that will correct a users metrics of input such that the program can work with it as all the metrics equate with Maxwell. These same programs will always gyrate to a non planar form to achieve a array that is in equilibrium.
Now it is not the physicisicts that are pushing this fact aside but also the pseudo ham experts again, without reqsonable explanation
Thus radiators of maximum efficiency and the smallest size will never come into being unless these mathematical facts are fully examined.
At the moment it is hams that ar preventing progres by shouting down the comments of enquiring minds.
Tom I am sure you have an understanding of physics as well as the love of the subject of antennas so why not jump in nd place your take on physics that I discuss above for the benefit of ham radio?

[KB9MZ]

It was quite some time ago that Tom W8ji posted on this thread where he stated I must have slept thru my physics class. Yes that was a go ahead for spammers and pseudo experts to join in with a lengthy set of insults etc.
The following article explains the physics basics on which I built the new small volume antennas as well as my writings on the standard model.
I suspect it will take quite a while before amateur literature will recognise the significance of the article to my antenna work and I suspect it will show up first in physics journals, scientific american e.t.c.
Eithe way, it clearly describes the mathematical error made by Heaviside and Maxwell which has now put physics and antenna design back on its heels to where we were over 100 years ago.

http://www.james-clerk-maxwell.com/

The good thing about this discovery is that antenna design is equipt to take advantage of this disclosure to arrive at the holy grail of smaller volume antennas so that all may now place a directional antenna for top band in the garden or on top of a tower as envisaged by Moxen.
See other antenna forums for more information.
Cheers
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg(uk)
unwin antennas page