On Jul 3, 12:25 pm, n
...@wt.net wrote:
> On Jul 3, 11:08 am, Art Unwin <ArthurUn
...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am trying to understand why a low swr repetitive over a band of
> > frequencies is considered by hams to be a dummy load.!
> Has nothing to do with it. SWR and antenna efficiency are
> not related. Also SWR and common mode currents, or
> the lack of are not related.
> >This
> > consistently shows up in statements by the itelligensia of this
> > newsgroup.
> Not by me. But I can't hardly spell itelligensia without help,
> much less be one..
> A man has to know his limitations.
> >Following up on the logic of that idea it would suggest
> > that if swr was totally constant ( not sure how that could be) then
> > all radiation must be zero or self cancelling.?
> That is Art logic...
> > This thus suggests that if a log periodic antenna was unlimitted in
> > the number of elements used would in the limit drop down to zero
> > radiation!. So following the thinking of this group the oscillations
> > that I show on my page
> > unwinantennas.com/
> > as a progression towards zero radiation since Q eventually is going to
> > equal zero.
> Could I interest your cat in a pair of fuzzy mittens?
> > Is this why the decreasing oscillation is defined as a dummy load on
> > this newsgroup?
> No.
> > The term comes up so often that I am compelled to look for what I am
> > missing, especially since carbon
> > is conductive and thus in the minds of many must therefore be
> > radiative!
> If Star Trek is to be believed, you are a carbon unit.
> Tie a shielded feed line to your big toe and get back to
> us on the amount of DX worked.
> I'll even grant you the benefit of a doubt, and let you ground
> your other toe to a suitable ground rod, radials, etc if needed
> for proper operation of the carbon unit miracle whip.
> > Ofcourse the statement bandied around that if a material is
> > condunctive then it must radiatiate
> > could become fact instead of an old wives tales if stated enough
> > times.
> I think it would hurt to see that statement repeated too many
> times regardless if true or not.
> The problem with your antenna will not be explained using fairy
> tales and perceptions of what you think other hams might think.
> All you need is regular old proven textbook theory which is available
> to most anyone. If you have burned all your books in a past
> fit of intellectual rage, maybe you should consider stocking up on
> a few new ones. You can buy them online and have them delivered
> via UPS, USPS, and other freight carriers. So you don't even have
> to step outside the front door to gain this new perspective on the
> "Unwin" antenna.
You did not present any logical thiknking on the subjet
Following the logic of my posting it shows a clear conflict between
normal thinking and mine. On on side we have the standard statement
that if it is conductive then it is radiative a pretty common
statement on this news group
Yet a dummy load is conductive ie carbon but is not considered
radiative, a clear conflict
My point of view which is objected to is that radiation is a measure
of the resistivity of the
current carrying material because that alone creates eddy current
depth sometimes refer to skin depth
dependent on the depth of current flow. Now eddy currents varies in
all current carrying members
where as carbon eddy production properties are minimal to zero even
tho it curries current, which is why it
it is chosen for a dummy load ie carbon does not produce a skin depth
of eddy current.
Thus the common thinking of a dummy load does not radiate or a current
carrying member always radiates
presents a problem In my thinking as neutrinos particle which is a
type of carbon because it is a side product of fusion
Thus by my definition a carbon byproduct will never rest on a carbon
product as a "free" electron
thus radiation cannot occur! The conclusion of the above logic is that
a superconducting member
cannot radiate because resistivity is zero. On the other side of the
coin copper has resistivity thus must be able to radiate
regardless of its resistivity contentand the swr figure represents the
deviating frequency of the oscillating radiation which is in a direct
opposition to the general thinking of today.Now your logic is a direct
representation of the level of education you have attained
i.e.did not complete hight school. Since there are members who have
exceeded this level on the group I assume there will be a
stepped ascention in the level of logic where both you and I will
benefit.
Art
