Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #533801 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-17 10:42 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-11-25 23:51 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 95 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
long antenna RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-17 10:42 -0800
Re: long antenna Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 12:46 -0600
Re: long antenna Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 20:10 +0100
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-17 20:28 +0000
Re: long antenna benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 16:59 -0500
Re: long antenna Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-18 22:56 +0100
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-18 16:57 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-18 23:15 +0000
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-18 20:42 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-19 05:29 +0000
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-19 08:54 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-19 18:44 +0000
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-22 15:32 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 23:16 +0000
Re: long antenna HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 06:59 -0800
Re: long antenna benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 20:02 -0500
Re: long antenna benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 01:36 -0500
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-17 13:28 -0600
Re: long antenna "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:04 -0800
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-17 22:35 +0000
Re: long antenna benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 19:28 -0500
Re: long antenna Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-11-17 17:18 -0800
Re: long antenna RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-24 11:39 -0800
Re: long antenna benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 15:12 -0500
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-26 09:21 -0600
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-26 10:05 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-26 20:05 +0000
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-26 18:39 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-27 01:46 +0000
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-26 19:55 +0000
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-24 20:04 +0000
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-24 16:33 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-24 22:58 +0000
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-26 09:11 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-26 19:42 +0000
Re: long antenna "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 11:57 -0800
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-26 14:52 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-26 21:12 +0000
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-26 18:58 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-27 01:37 +0000
Re: long antenna benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 23:45 -0500
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-27 01:01 -0600
Re: long antenna "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 23:31 -0800
Re: long antenna benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 11:34 -0500
Re: long antenna "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 09:58 -0800
Re: long antenna benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 11:46 -0500
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-28 16:42 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-28 22:58 +0000
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-30 07:46 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-30 19:01 +0000
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-30 14:12 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-30 20:43 +0000
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-30 17:41 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-01 00:15 +0000
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-30 20:23 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-01 06:21 +0000
Re: long antenna benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 15:22 -0500
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-30 20:48 +0000
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-30 17:16 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-30 23:52 +0000
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-30 19:59 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-01 02:16 +0000
Re: long antenna benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 19:20 -0500
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-27 18:53 +0000
Re: long antenna benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 00:08 -0500
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 06:13 +0000
Re: long antenna "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 16:25 -0800
Re: long antenna "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 16:08 -0800
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 00:40 +0000
Re: long antenna "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 15:51 -0800
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 00:34 +0000
Re: long antenna jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-21 14:37 +0000
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 19:32 +0000
Re: long antenna jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-22 14:50 +0000
Re: long antenna "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 11:27 -0800
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 19:44 +0000
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 19:40 +0000
Re: long antenna jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-23 14:13 +0000
Re: long antenna benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 13:00 -0500
Re: long antenna jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-24 13:20 +0000
Re: long antenna benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 13:40 -0500
Re: long antenna jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-25 13:44 +0000
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 18:47 +0000
Re: long antenna jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-24 13:20 +0000
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-24 19:49 +0000
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-24 16:36 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-24 23:00 +0000
Re: long antenna gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-26 16:17 -0600
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-26 23:35 +0000
Re: long antenna benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 20:58 -0500
Re: long antenna benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 20:09 -0500
Re: long antenna "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 12:51 -0800
Re: long antenna benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 00:01 -0500
Re: long antenna "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 15:36 -0800
Re: long antenna jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 23:51 +0000
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-26 23:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jdR5y.141900$WF.27264@fx30.iad> |
| In reply to | #535788 |
On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 11/26/2015 3:12 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/26/2015 1:42 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/24/2015 4:58 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/24/2015 2:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On November 17, Timo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that making an antenna longer makes it work better comes from
>>>>>>>>>>>> AM radios and car whips where the antenna is much much shorter than
>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength and in that case making it longer often DOES make it work
>>>>>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It can help, even when the antenna is larger than the wavelength:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_Observatory
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Comparing dish vs. wire antenna, is apples vs. oranges.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But typically one wants to pay more attention to design than just
>>>>>>>>>>> "long extension wire".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> More dish area will collect more signal power, but
>>>>>>>>>> apparently this doesn't apply to a wire.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A dish doesn't collect anything, it concentrates energy to a point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrong again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a dish is a reflector which changes signal phase over an area, where it
>>>>>>>> adds in phase is called the focus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the focal point is where the energy is concentrated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrong, it is where the signals add in phase.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the energy density in the region of the focus with no reflector?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the energy density in the region of the focus with a reflector?
>>>>
>>>> you ask for energy density w/wo reflector. you can find that on google.
>>>
>>> Nope. It depends on the ERP of the transmitting station and the propagation
>>> characteristics between the two points.
>>
>> you over complicate it, no need for transmitting station foo foo or
>> probagation losses bla bla.
>>
>> Hint: What is energy density "ratio", w/wo reflector. (assume dipole if
>> you must)
>
> Yet again you show you haven't a clue what is going on.
>
>
>>> Normalize it for analysis, if you know what that means.
>>>
>>>> What size and type of reflector ?
>>>
>>> Any size and any type; pick one.
>>
>> again you forget frequency,
>> Frequency 60 Hz, reflector=dish, gain 20 DBi,
>> you calculate Dish size
>
> Yet again you show you haven't a clue what is going on.
>
>>>> what shape is the reflector required to have and why ?
>>>
>>> Any rational shape you desire.
>>
>> no! shape parabolic, go study equations, they are not hard, I cannot do
>> this for you.
>
> Yet again you show you haven't a clue what is going on.
>
>>>
>>>> in terms of signal travel time or phase ?
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Did you know you can make a flat C band "reflector" out of different
>>>> length beer cans ? All the cans do is reflect and change the phase do
>>>> to length.
>>>
>>> It is not a reflector, it is a horn.
>>
>> not a horn, again you eyes play tricks on you brain.
>> the reflector is made up of about 200 beer cans, attached together and
>> mostly flat, like a freznel lens. Cans are cut to length for the phase
>> change needed. but this is beyond your experience, sorry.
>
> Yet again you show you haven't a clue what is going on.
>
>>> FYI people have been making horn feeds from various cans for well over
>>> 60 years now.
>>
>> feed horns, not reflectors. I had a modified paint can feed horn tuned
>> to 1.4 to 1.6 GHz with a VSWR of 1.05 a long time ago.
>
> Yet again you show you haven't a clue what is going on.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_antenna
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, get a copy of the ARRL handbook and read it.
>>>>
>>>> no need to.
>>>
>>>
>>> You didn't read the Wiki link either, did you, or you wouldn't have
>>> posted the babbling gibberish below.
>>
>> wiki worse than amatuer ARRL.
>
> Both are far better than you word salad babble.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> you thinking magnifying lens as in optics,
>>>>>> like when you were burning ants on sidewalk
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is not that way in RF or Microwave.
>>>>>
>>>>> Light, RF, and microwave are ALL electromagnetic radiation.
>>
>>>> the solutions are vastly different in the bands. Gamma? X-ray ?
>>>> Parabolic antennas are phase changers, from 700MHz to 40GHz.
>>>> does your parabolic work on gamma ? or 200GHz ?
>>>
>>> Babbling gibberish.
>>>
>>> Whether of not a parabolic antenna works or not is purely a function
>>> of it's size in wavelengths.
>>
>> wrong again, how do you make it work on Gamma rays ? or x-rays ?
>> or 60 Hz ?
>
> Yet again you show you haven't a clue what is going on.
>
>> try to be specific and provide answers, instead of the red herring
>> clue-less bone throwing
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> "concentrate" is what they do to Orange Juice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> concentrate verb
>>
>>>>>>> to bring or come together in a large number or amount in one particular
>>>>>>> area
>>
>>>>>>> Again, get a copy of the ARRL handbook and stop being so ignorant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you base you knowledge on an out of date, stale, amateurish, Amateur
>>>>>> Radio book
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, but if YOU were to read the 2015 edition, you might lose some
>>>>> of your ignorance about the basics of RF, such as light and microwaves
>>>>> being different and what a reflector in an antenna system does.
>>>>
>>>> forget ARRL, that is kindagarden,
>>>
>>> Then you must be pre-school.
>>>
>>>> move to "Antennas" by Kraus immediatly, then read "Antennas for all
>>>> Applications" by Kraus, then read "Radio Astronomy" by Kraus
>>>> seems like some should be online, public domain stuff.
>>>
>>> I actually have a job and buy books.
>>
>> ok, you got Kraus in you libarary ? (any of them?)
>
> Did you mean to say, "do you have Kraus in your library?"
>
> If so, yes, and many others, but that doesn't fix your ignorance
> of RF.
Hey, Gilber34, I actually studied under Kraus himself! What did you
study? Not much as far as I can tell. Sorry but I have to side with jimp
here. You haven't a clue.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-27 01:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n38v4p$jf2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #535836 |
On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote: > On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>> On >> Did you mean to say, "do you have Kraus in your library?" >> >> If so, yes, and many others, but that doesn't fix your ignorance >> of RF. > > Hey, Gilber34, I actually studied under Kraus himself! What did you > study? Not much as far as I can tell. Sorry but I have to side with jimp > here. You haven't a clue. cool, you are one of the priveleged, bet that was great too. I studied under Rau, inventer of JPG encoding, (cosign transform) and I know RF/uW very well, +patents, got paid big bucks for it too, designs and systems worldwide, mil and civilian, Old Crow. (big bucks turned into obama dollars, 50% smaller in size far less in value) So I will take some to task if they blow it on RF or uW in a large way. If anyone wants to stay on subject we could discuss something, but pot shots are easier, (ya'lls) memories are poor because we have all done a LOT of things to remember, and posting in a news group is like chalking on a wall, everybody can grafettie it up as they walk by, and jimp gave up this time saying over and over "...haven't got a clue"(he's projecting again, unconcious self referenceing, still looking for that gamma ray parabolic dish antenna) FYI - I do have a phased array antenna that I will soon sell on ebay, goes on an F111, part of terrain following radar, works well about 15 to 20 GHz, dual feed too, (makes a great clock on the wall) and I have another chunck of the radar system that goes with it, receiver mostly, dual channel, I think the last of the F111s were burried in Austrailia. your not going to find any of these antennas anywhere, anymore. ANYHOW, this is much better that C+Peeing in here with global worming lefty green shallow propaganda from some dense fat man in a cube in england. you can side with jimp, like Erdogan sides with Putin, like Trump and Hillary(ugh...)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-26 23:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <61362572-1405-4198-af24-6e543ae13cc0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #535846 |
On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 11:01:49 PM UTC-8, gilber34 wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote: > > On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: > >>> On > >> Did you mean to say, "do you have Kraus in your library?" > >> > >> If so, yes, and many others, but that doesn't fix your ignorance > >> of RF. > > > > Hey, Gilber34, I actually studied under Kraus himself! What did you > > study? Not much as far as I can tell. Sorry but I have to side with jimp > > here. You haven't a clue. > > cool, you are one of the priveleged, bet that was great too. > I studied under Rau, inventer of JPG encoding, (cosign transform) and > I know RF/uW very well, +patents, got paid big bucks for it too, designs > and systems worldwide, mil and civilian, Old Crow. (big bucks turned > into obama dollars, 50% smaller in size far less in value) So I will > take some to task if they blow it on RF or uW in a large way. > > If anyone wants to stay on subject we could discuss something, but pot > shots are easier, (ya'lls) memories are poor because we have all done a > LOT of things to remember, and posting in a news group is like chalking > on a wall, everybody can grafettie it up as they walk by, and jimp gave > up this time saying over and over "...haven't got a clue"(he's > projecting again, unconcious self referenceing, still looking for that > gamma ray parabolic dish antenna) > > FYI - I do have a phased array antenna that I will soon sell on ebay, > goes on an F111, part of terrain following radar, works well about 15 to > 20 GHz, dual feed too, (makes a great clock on the wall) and I have > another chunck of the radar system that goes with it, receiver mostly, > dual channel, I think the last of the F111s were burried in Austrailia. > your not going to find any of these antennas anywhere, anymore. > > ANYHOW, this is much better that C+Peeing in here with global worming > lefty green shallow propaganda from some dense fat man in a cube in > england. > > you can side with jimp, like Erdogan sides with Putin, like Trump and > Hillary(ugh...) We implemented a JPEG2000 RWT/IWT in silicon. You all should get along. This is a serious radio shack and you all should get along. That said I heartily enjoy the differences because those are informed differences of opinion. Informed differences of opinion are key and critical for development. Please carry on as you see fit. That said I somewhat despise garbage smack talk and you all should get along. It's OK where it's not distracting and as among men and as among peers, as it were, show those garbage smack faces how small they are instead of how easy it is to go so low as them. All you here should get along just fine, dammit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-27 11:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bC%5y.253089$1J.34304@fx31.iad> |
| In reply to | #535851 |
On 11/27/2015 02:31 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 11:01:49 PM UTC-8, gilber34 wrote:
>> On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> On
>>>> Did you mean to say, "do you have Kraus in your library?"
>>>>
>>>> If so, yes, and many others, but that doesn't fix your ignorance
>>>> of RF.
>>>
>>> Hey, Gilber34, I actually studied under Kraus himself! What did you
>>> study? Not much as far as I can tell. Sorry but I have to side with jimp
>>> here. You haven't a clue.
>>
>> cool, you are one of the priveleged, bet that was great too.
>> I studied under Rau, inventer of JPG encoding, (cosign transform) and
>> I know RF/uW very well, +patents, got paid big bucks for it too, designs
>> and systems worldwide, mil and civilian, Old Crow. (big bucks turned
>> into obama dollars, 50% smaller in size far less in value) So I will
>> take some to task if they blow it on RF or uW in a large way.
>>
>> If anyone wants to stay on subject we could discuss something, but pot
>> shots are easier, (ya'lls) memories are poor because we have all done a
>> LOT of things to remember, and posting in a news group is like chalking
>> on a wall, everybody can grafettie it up as they walk by, and jimp gave
>> up this time saying over and over "...haven't got a clue"(he's
>> projecting again, unconcious self referenceing, still looking for that
>> gamma ray parabolic dish antenna)
>>
>> FYI - I do have a phased array antenna that I will soon sell on ebay,
>> goes on an F111, part of terrain following radar, works well about 15 to
>> 20 GHz, dual feed too, (makes a great clock on the wall) and I have
>> another chunck of the radar system that goes with it, receiver mostly,
>> dual channel, I think the last of the F111s were burried in Austrailia.
>> your not going to find any of these antennas anywhere, anymore.
>>
>> ANYHOW, this is much better that C+Peeing in here with global worming
>> lefty green shallow propaganda from some dense fat man in a cube in
>> england.
>>
>> you can side with jimp, like Erdogan sides with Putin, like Trump and
>> Hillary(ugh...)
>
> We implemented a JPEG2000 RWT/IWT in silicon.
>
> You all should get along. This is a serious
> radio shack and you all should get along.
>
> That said I heartily enjoy the differences
> because those are informed differences of
> opinion. Informed differences of opinion
> are key and critical for development.
> Please carry on as you see fit.
>
> That said I somewhat despise garbage smack
> talk and you all should get along. It's OK
> where it's not distracting and as among men
> and as among peers, as it were, show those
> garbage smack faces how small they are instead
> of how easy it is to go so low as them.
>
> All you here should get along just fine, dammit.
One can't get along with those who job it is would be to disrupt and
derail discussion on certain "forbidden" topics. Or one can't get along
with those who have a political agenda based upon public respect for
science and use that respect to attempt to fool the public for political
and financial gain (Glow-bull warming).
And unfortunately garbage-smack from those activities carries over into
other subject which aren't political or forbidden, but it is the mere
ignorance of and misapplication of science of the posters that leads
them to reject any attempt to correct their errors. Such hard-headed
nonsense then leads to more garbage-smack.
Yes?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-27 09:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d2e01f2f-97e9-4621-bc38-342c4c8d9314@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #535916 |
On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 8:34:18 AM UTC-8, benj wrote: > On 11/27/2015 02:31 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 11:01:49 PM UTC-8, gilber34 wrote: > >> On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote: > >>> On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: > >>>>> On > >>>> Did you mean to say, "do you have Kraus in your library?" > >>>> > >>>> If so, yes, and many others, but that doesn't fix your ignorance > >>>> of RF. > >>> > >>> Hey, Gilber34, I actually studied under Kraus himself! What did you > >>> study? Not much as far as I can tell. Sorry but I have to side with jimp > >>> here. You haven't a clue. > >> > >> cool, you are one of the priveleged, bet that was great too. > >> I studied under Rau, inventer of JPG encoding, (cosign transform) and > >> I know RF/uW very well, +patents, got paid big bucks for it too, designs > >> and systems worldwide, mil and civilian, Old Crow. (big bucks turned > >> into obama dollars, 50% smaller in size far less in value) So I will > >> take some to task if they blow it on RF or uW in a large way. > >> > >> If anyone wants to stay on subject we could discuss something, but pot > >> shots are easier, (ya'lls) memories are poor because we have all done a > >> LOT of things to remember, and posting in a news group is like chalking > >> on a wall, everybody can grafettie it up as they walk by, and jimp gave > >> up this time saying over and over "...haven't got a clue"(he's > >> projecting again, unconcious self referenceing, still looking for that > >> gamma ray parabolic dish antenna) > >> > >> FYI - I do have a phased array antenna that I will soon sell on ebay, > >> goes on an F111, part of terrain following radar, works well about 15 to > >> 20 GHz, dual feed too, (makes a great clock on the wall) and I have > >> another chunck of the radar system that goes with it, receiver mostly, > >> dual channel, I think the last of the F111s were burried in Austrailia. > >> your not going to find any of these antennas anywhere, anymore. > >> > >> ANYHOW, this is much better that C+Peeing in here with global worming > >> lefty green shallow propaganda from some dense fat man in a cube in > >> england. > >> > >> you can side with jimp, like Erdogan sides with Putin, like Trump and > >> Hillary(ugh...) > > > > We implemented a JPEG2000 RWT/IWT in silicon. > > > > You all should get along. This is a serious > > radio shack and you all should get along. > > > > That said I heartily enjoy the differences > > because those are informed differences of > > opinion. Informed differences of opinion > > are key and critical for development. > > Please carry on as you see fit. > > > > That said I somewhat despise garbage smack > > talk and you all should get along. It's OK > > where it's not distracting and as among men > > and as among peers, as it were, show those > > garbage smack faces how small they are instead > > of how easy it is to go so low as them. > > > > All you here should get along just fine, dammit. > > One can't get along with those who job it is would be to disrupt and > derail discussion on certain "forbidden" topics. Or one can't get along > with those who have a political agenda based upon public respect for > science and use that respect to attempt to fool the public for political > and financial gain (Glow-bull warming). > > And unfortunately garbage-smack from those activities carries over into > other subject which aren't political or forbidden, but it is the mere > ignorance of and misapplication of science of the posters that leads > them to reject any attempt to correct their errors. Such hard-headed > nonsense then leads to more garbage-smack. > > Yes? > You're an Aussie. (I surmise this from your vocabulary.) We're looking for "wit", not "twit". Those are trolls, benj. Don't bait the trolls, and don't bate the bears. Now back in the interests of "long antenna" and keeping it on-topic and making sci.physics an uncomfortable place for trolls, I have it as falling under signal engineering, the design and implementation of antennae. I just don't know so much about them and op-aps and transistor networks for boost and otherwise the amplification of signals as resonate the antenna medium then for filtering and variously for means of reconstruction of the carrier signals then the extraction thereof of noise. That said, I will that _others can learn here_, because there's honest, open, and ebullient input and output from all these emeritus engineers and anyone else who cares to sign on to sci.physics and not be disgusted away by trolls, sock-puppets, nor shifts, fake-nyms, channel hijackers, and other dishonest would-be defacers of the charter. So trolls or toads can go stuff it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-27 11:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <NN%5y.199808$sK.13157@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #535846 |
On 11/27/2015 02:01 AM, gilber34 wrote:
> On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On
>>> Did you mean to say, "do you have Kraus in your library?"
>>>
>>> If so, yes, and many others, but that doesn't fix your ignorance
>>> of RF.
>>
>> Hey, Gilber34, I actually studied under Kraus himself! What did you
>> study? Not much as far as I can tell. Sorry but I have to side with jimp
>> here. You haven't a clue.
>
> cool, you are one of the priveleged, bet that was great too.
> I studied under Rau, inventer of JPG encoding, (cosign transform) and
> I know RF/uW very well, +patents, got paid big bucks for it too, designs
> and systems worldwide, mil and civilian, Old Crow. (big bucks turned
> into obama dollars, 50% smaller in size far less in value) So I will
> take some to task if they blow it on RF or uW in a large way.
>
> If anyone wants to stay on subject we could discuss something, but pot
> shots are easier, (ya'lls) memories are poor because we have all done a
> LOT of things to remember, and posting in a news group is like chalking
> on a wall, everybody can grafettie it up as they walk by, and jimp gave
> up this time saying over and over "...haven't got a clue"(he's
> projecting again, unconcious self referenceing, still looking for that
> gamma ray parabolic dish antenna)
perhaps not gamma ray, but you DO know that X-ray parabolic antennas
exist, right?
> FYI - I do have a phased array antenna that I will soon sell on ebay,
> goes on an F111, part of terrain following radar, works well about 15 to
> 20 GHz, dual feed too, (makes a great clock on the wall) and I have
> another chunck of the radar system that goes with it, receiver mostly,
> dual channel, I think the last of the F111s were burried in Austrailia.
> your not going to find any of these antennas anywhere, anymore.
You mean the actual antenna off an F111 for sale as a decorator item? I
love crap like that!
> ANYHOW, this is much better that C+Peeing in here with global worming
> lefty green shallow propaganda from some dense fat man in a cube in
> england.
Much better. The whole problem is this is supposed to be technical
discussions and the people with political agendas and no technical
knowledge come in and take it over. For them it's all about WORD GAMES
and unfortunately that seems to rub off on everyone else here...even me.
> you can side with jimp, like Erdogan sides with Putin, like Trump and
> Hillary(ugh...)
side with Hillary or Trump? UGH is RIGHT!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-28 16:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3dala$v0i$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #535920 |
On 11/27/2015 10:46 AM, benj wrote: > On 11/27/2015 02:01 AM, gilber34 wrote: >> On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > perhaps not gamma ray, but you DO know that X-ray parabolic antennas > exist, right? using glancing, paraboioids and hyperboioids, not quite the same as a dish. but my point was to counter the over generalization that EM frequency being the same. Still waiting on the size of the 60 HZ dish for 20 dB gain... that was great you studied w Kraus, his book(s) are very clear on the complex relationships in antenna design > >> FYI - I do have a phased array antenna that I will soon sell on ebay, >> goes on an F111, part of terrain following radar, works well about 15 to >> 20 GHz, dual feed too, (makes a great clock on the wall) and I have >> another chunck of the radar system that goes with it, receiver mostly, >> dual channel, I think the last of the F111s were burried in Austrailia. >> your not going to find any of these antennas anywhere, anymore. > > You mean the actual antenna off an F111 for sale as a decorator item? I > love crap like that! yes, I bought about 10 of them on ebay, cheap, a group was selling off all the stuff this depot level tech accumulated into a wherehouse, they did not know it was an antenna, did not take off the cover. They had about 40 of them. I also got the receiver box for one, not too hard to reverse engineer it, but if I got it working, what would i do with it, so.... nada. THe box is a lot of discrete logic on about 6 large boards, not enough support for a mil aircraft imho. (MTBF killer), if you look at the F111 nose electronics, no wonder lot of large boards, discrete electronics, before the implementation of uP I guess. or nuclear hard. I still have 2, one is a wall clock, the other is in garage "ageing" with all the other stuff. the dish is about 8" across. The AN/APQ-171 is a very large system, low MTBF, boat anker http://www.nf6x.net/2012/07/anapq-171-radar-antennas/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-28 22:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <16opic-5al.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #536177 |
gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: > On 11/27/2015 10:46 AM, benj wrote: >> On 11/27/2015 02:01 AM, gilber34 wrote: >>> On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote: >>>> On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >> perhaps not gamma ray, but you DO know that X-ray parabolic antennas >> exist, right? > > using glancing, paraboioids and hyperboioids, not quite the same as a > dish. but my point was to counter the over generalization that EM > frequency being the same. Still waiting on the size of the 60 HZ dish > for 20 dB gain... Pretty large, but the physical size is irrelevant; the gain of a dish is a function of it's diameter in wavelengths, so the gain of a 3 lambda 60 Hz dish is the same as the gain of a 3 lambda 60 GHz dish. The only issue with a dish at gamma or X-ray frquencies is that the dish has to be made of a material that is reflective at those frequencies, so a 3 lambda dish at X-ray frequencies would have the same gain as a 3 lambda 60 Hz dish. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 07:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3hjv2$kku$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #536183 |
On 11/28/2015 4:58 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >> On 11/27/2015 10:46 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 11/27/2015 02:01 AM, gilber34 wrote: >>>> On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>> >>> perhaps not gamma ray, but you DO know that X-ray parabolic antennas >>> exist, right? >> >> using glancing, paraboioids and hyperboioids, not quite the same as a >> dish. but my point was to counter the over generalization that EM >> frequency being the same. Still waiting on the size of the 60 HZ dish >> for 20 dB gain... > > Pretty large, but the physical size is irrelevant; the gain of a dish > is a function of it's diameter in wavelengths, so the gain of a 3 lambda > 60 Hz dish is the same as the gain of a 3 lambda 60 GHz dish. as usual, WRONG. the 60Hz dish would be 17,794,063.6 meters wide or 11,056 miles wide or 100 times the diameter of the Earth. Impossable to build it at all. THE PHYSICAL SIZE IS THE ISSUE ! (what size waveguide do you feed a 60 Hz dish with ?) your max surface roughness at 60GHz is what ? How much beam taper do you illuminate the edges with to avoid backlobes at 60GHz? which would pick up the 60HZ earth very well. What would the F/B ratio be to pick up a 60Hz craft 1,000,000,000 miles out ? > The only issue with a dish at gamma or X-ray frquencies is that the > dish has to be made of a material that is reflective at those frequencies, which there are not any for a parabolic dish. what is the max surface roughness you could have ? (hint: 1/4 lamda and how much is that?) can anybody do that yet ? so you are WRONG again, find the answer in ARRL, not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 19:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <s0juic-u98.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #536476 |
gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: > On 11/28/2015 4:58 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>> On 11/27/2015 10:46 AM, benj wrote: >>>> On 11/27/2015 02:01 AM, gilber34 wrote: >>>>> On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> perhaps not gamma ray, but you DO know that X-ray parabolic antennas >>>> exist, right? >>> >>> using glancing, paraboioids and hyperboioids, not quite the same as a >>> dish. but my point was to counter the over generalization that EM >>> frequency being the same. Still waiting on the size of the 60 HZ dish >>> for 20 dB gain... >> >> Pretty large, but the physical size is irrelevant; the gain of a dish >> is a function of it's diameter in wavelengths, so the gain of a 3 lambda >> 60 Hz dish is the same as the gain of a 3 lambda 60 GHz dish. > > as usual, WRONG. Nope. Then why do antenna books have nomographs of dB gain verssus physical size with straight lines for frequency. > the 60Hz dish would be 17,794,063.6 meters wide or 11,056 miles wide or > 100 times the diameter of the Earth. Impossable to build it at all. Not in space given enough time and money. > THE PHYSICAL SIZE IS THE ISSUE ! Nope. Physical size only determines the econonomic practicably, not the RF characteristics. > (what size waveguide do you feed a 60 Hz dish with ?) You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general that all dishes are fed with waveguide; they are not. It is very common to feed dishes in the lower microwave region and below with coax. > your max surface roughness at 60GHz is what ? It is perfect because competant people were used to build it and irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. > How much beam taper do you illuminate the edges with to avoid backlobes > at 60GHz? which would pick up the 60HZ earth very well. What would the > F/B ratio be to pick up a 60Hz craft 1,000,000,000 miles out ? The same as at 60 GHz. >> The only issue with a dish at gamma or X-ray frquencies is that the >> dish has to be made of a material that is reflective at those frequencies, > > which there are not any for a parabolic dish. Which is irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. If you can find a material that is relective at gamma or X-ray frquencies, then such a dish will perform just the same as any other dish at any other frequency with the same diameter in wavelengths. > what is the max surface roughness you could have ? (hint: 1/4 lamda and > how much is that?) can anybody do that yet ? > so you are WRONG again, find the answer in ARRL, not. The requirements would be the same as any other dish at any other frequency with the same diameter in wavelengths. The thing you are utterly unable to understand is that electromagnetic theory of antennas is frequency independant. The practical ability to construct a given antenna may change with frequency, but the electromagnetic theory does NOT. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 14:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3iajn$ha2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #536531 |
On 11/30/2015 1:01 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >> On 11/28/2015 4:58 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/27/2015 10:46 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 11/27/2015 02:01 AM, gilber34 wrote: >>>>>> On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> perhaps not gamma ray, but you DO know that X-ray parabolic antennas >>>>> exist, right? >>>> >>>> using glancing, paraboioids and hyperboioids, not quite the same as a >>>> dish. but my point was to counter the over generalization that EM >>>> frequency being the same. Still waiting on the size of the 60 HZ dish >>>> for 20 dB gain... >>> >>> Pretty large, but the physical size is irrelevant; the gain of a dish >>> is a function of it's diameter in wavelengths, so the gain of a 3 lambda >>> 60 Hz dish is the same as the gain of a 3 lambda 60 GHz dish. >> >> as usual, WRONG. > > Nope. > > Then why do antenna books have nomographs of dB gain verssus physical > size with straight lines for frequency. you should stay away from them, they cause you to over-generalize > >> the 60Hz dish would be 17,794,063.6 meters wide or 11,056 miles wide or >> 100 times the diameter of the Earth. Impossable to build it at all. > > Not in space given enough time and money. infinite time, infinite money, infinite stupidity, it cannot be built in space either. (extra credit for why) > >> THE PHYSICAL SIZE IS THE ISSUE ! > > Nope. > > Physical size only determines the econonomic practicably, not the RF > characteristics. Wrong. In what bands is RF treated as primarly magnetic, treated as EM, and then treated as partical ? > >> (what size waveguide do you feed a 60 Hz dish with ?) > > You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general > that all dishes are fed with waveguide; they are not. It is very > common to feed dishes in the lower microwave region and below with > coax. answer the question, what size waveguide do you feed a 60Hz dish with ? (since you say RF scales with everything) > >> your max surface roughness at 60GHz is what ? > > It is perfect because competant people were used to build it and > irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. so what is the surface roughness ? use rms and again you are wrong, antennas scale over ranges, not infinities. > >> How much beam taper do you illuminate the edges with to avoid backlobes >> at 60GHz? which would pick up the 60HZ earth very well. What would the >> F/B ratio be to pick up a 60Hz craft 1,000,000,000 miles out ? > > The same as at 60 GHz. Totally wrong, one is easy, the other is impossable. How thick must your dish be to reflect 60Hz ? how much beam taper ? > >>> The only issue with a dish at gamma or X-ray frquencies is that the >>> dish has to be made of a material that is reflective at those frequencies, >> >> which there are not any for a parabolic dish. > > Which is irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. Wrong, because you cannot use a parabolic with gamma, so the do not scale. wrong, because you over-generalized > > If you can find a material that is relective at gamma or X-ray frquencies, > then such a dish will perform just the same as any other dish at any > other frequency with the same diameter in wavelengths. "if" but it dosent, so a parabolic dish will not work, and has no gain. Not scalable. > >> what is the max surface roughness you could have ? (hint: 1/4 lamda and >> how much is that?) can anybody do that yet ? >> so you are WRONG again, find the answer in ARRL, not. > > The requirements would be the same as any other dish at any other frequency > with the same diameter in wavelengths. more foo-foo. You have not been able to justify your absurd over-generalization. go do that to a bicycle, one can be made at any size and still function... > > The thing you are utterly unable to understand is that electromagnetic > theory of antennas is frequency independant. wrong. antennas are resonate material structures only at certian frequiencys. > > The practical ability to construct a given antenna may change with > frequency, but the electromagnetic theory does NOT. wrong again. EM theory(s) applies differently to different structures, it is not one equation governs all. And is driven by boundry conditions, some scale, some do not. at times you have to use other means than stright EM to make the antenna work, like the capacitive match at a single helix antenna reflector, diameter of Yagi elements. take the transmitter, receiver transmission path reciprosity, it can be non linear. EM theory says linear. here is a link you can study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 20:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i0puic-at8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #536546 |
gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: > On 11/30/2015 1:01 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>> On 11/28/2015 4:58 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/27/2015 10:46 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 11/27/2015 02:01 AM, gilber34 wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> perhaps not gamma ray, but you DO know that X-ray parabolic antennas >>>>>> exist, right? >>>>> >>>>> using glancing, paraboioids and hyperboioids, not quite the same as a >>>>> dish. but my point was to counter the over generalization that EM >>>>> frequency being the same. Still waiting on the size of the 60 HZ dish >>>>> for 20 dB gain... >>>> >>>> Pretty large, but the physical size is irrelevant; the gain of a dish >>>> is a function of it's diameter in wavelengths, so the gain of a 3 lambda >>>> 60 Hz dish is the same as the gain of a 3 lambda 60 GHz dish. >>> >>> as usual, WRONG. >> >> Nope. >> >> Then why do antenna books have nomographs of dB gain verssus physical >> size with straight lines for frequency. > > you should stay away from them, they cause you to over-generalize You should look at some and learn something. >> >>> the 60Hz dish would be 17,794,063.6 meters wide or 11,056 miles wide or >>> 100 times the diameter of the Earth. Impossable to build it at all. >> >> Not in space given enough time and money. > > infinite time, infinite money, infinite stupidity, it cannot be built in > space either. (extra credit for why) Electromagnetic theory has nothing to do with structural engineering. >> >>> THE PHYSICAL SIZE IS THE ISSUE ! >> >> Nope. >> >> Physical size only determines the econonomic practicably, not the RF >> characteristics. > > Wrong. In what bands is RF treated as primarly magnetic, treated as EM, > and then treated as partical ? None; you are a babbling idiot. >> >>> (what size waveguide do you feed a 60 Hz dish with ?) >> >> You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general >> that all dishes are fed with waveguide; they are not. It is very >> common to feed dishes in the lower microwave region and below with >> coax. > > answer the question, what size waveguide do you feed a 60Hz dish with ? > (since you say RF scales with everything) You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general that all dishes are fed with waveguide; they are not. It is very common to feed dishes in the lower microwave region and below with coax. While one COULD construt 60 Hz waveguide in space, doing so would be stupid. >> >>> your max surface roughness at 60GHz is what ? >> >> It is perfect because competant people were used to build it and >> irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. > > so what is the surface roughness ? use rms It is perfect because competant people were used to build it and irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. > and again you are wrong, antennas scale over ranges, not infinities. Nowhere in any electromagnetic theory will you find anything like A < frequency < B. You are an ignorant idiot. >> >>> How much beam taper do you illuminate the edges with to avoid backlobes >>> at 60GHz? which would pick up the 60HZ earth very well. What would the >>> F/B ratio be to pick up a 60Hz craft 1,000,000,000 miles out ? >> >> The same as at 60 GHz. > > Totally wrong, one is easy, the other is impossable. Nope, just not practically economical to build. > > How thick must your dish be to reflect 60Hz ? New flash idiot, the skin effect scales with frequency also. > how much beam taper ? Irrelevant. >> >>>> The only issue with a dish at gamma or X-ray frquencies is that the >>>> dish has to be made of a material that is reflective at those frequencies, >>> >>> which there are not any for a parabolic dish. >> >> Which is irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. > > Wrong, because you cannot use a parabolic with gamma, so the do not scale. > wrong, because you over-generalized All the laws of electromagnetics says it scales. The fact that there is no practical material to build one is irrelevant to the theory of electromagnetics. >> >> If you can find a material that is relective at gamma or X-ray frquencies, >> then such a dish will perform just the same as any other dish at any >> other frequency with the same diameter in wavelengths. > > "if" but it dosent, so a parabolic dish will not work, and has no gain. All the laws of electromagnetics says it scales. The fact that there is no practical material to build one is irrelevant to the theory of electromagnetics. > Not scalable. Yep. >> >>> what is the max surface roughness you could have ? (hint: 1/4 lamda and >>> how much is that?) can anybody do that yet ? >>> so you are WRONG again, find the answer in ARRL, not. >> >> The requirements would be the same as any other dish at any other frequency >> with the same diameter in wavelengths. > > more foo-foo. You have not been able to justify your absurd > over-generalization. All the laws of electromagnetics says it scales. > go do that to a bicycle, one can be made at any size and still function... The subject is the laws of electromagnetics. >> >> The thing you are utterly unable to understand is that electromagnetic >> theory of antennas is frequency independant. > > wrong. antennas are resonate material structures only at certian > frequiencys. Apples and oranges and shows an utter lack of understanding of electromagnetic theory. A yagi antenna has a particular size in WAVELENGTHS. That means that if the antenna is described in WAVELENGTHS, it works identically at any frequency. All half wavelength dipoles work identically because their size is described in WAVELENGTHS. >> >> The practical ability to construct a given antenna may change with >> frequency, but the electromagnetic theory does NOT. > > wrong again. > EM theory(s) applies differently to different structures, it is not > one equation governs all. And is driven by boundry conditions, some > scale, some do not. Babbling gibberish. > at times you have to use other means than stright EM to make the > antenna work, like the capacitive match at a single helix antenna > reflector, diameter of Yagi elements. Babbling gibberish. > take the transmitter, receiver transmission path reciprosity, it can be > non linear. EM theory says linear. Babbling gibberish. > here is a link you can study > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations And where in there do you see any term that looks like A < freq < B, you babbling idiot? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 17:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3imr2$dn9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #536554 |
On 11/30/2015 2:43 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >> On 11/30/2015 1:01 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/28/2015 4:58 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/27/2015 10:46 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/27/2015 02:01 AM, gilber34 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> perhaps not gamma ray, but you DO know that X-ray parabolic antennas >>>>>>> exist, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> using glancing, paraboioids and hyperboioids, not quite the same as a >>>>>> dish. but my point was to counter the over generalization that EM >>>>>> frequency being the same. Still waiting on the size of the 60 HZ dish >>>>>> for 20 dB gain... >>>>> >>>>> Pretty large, but the physical size is irrelevant; the gain of a dish >>>>> is a function of it's diameter in wavelengths, so the gain of a 3 lambda >>>>> 60 Hz dish is the same as the gain of a 3 lambda 60 GHz dish. >>>> >>>> as usual, WRONG. >>> >>> Nope. >>> >>> Then why do antenna books have nomographs of dB gain verssus physical >>> size with straight lines for frequency. >> >> you should stay away from them, they cause you to over-generalize > > You should look at some and learn something. > >>> >>>> the 60Hz dish would be 17,794,063.6 meters wide or 11,056 miles wide or >>>> 100 times the diameter of the Earth. Impossable to build it at all. >>> >>> Not in space given enough time and money. >> >> infinite time, infinite money, infinite stupidity, it cannot be built in >> space either. (extra credit for why) > > Electromagnetic theory has nothing to do with structural engineering. which EM theory ? and it is all governed by boundry conditions which is structural, got it ? > >>> >>>> THE PHYSICAL SIZE IS THE ISSUE ! >>> >>> Nope. >>> >>> Physical size only determines the econonomic practicably, not the RF >>> characteristics. >> >> Wrong. In what bands is RF treated as primarly magnetic, treated as EM, >> and then treated as partical ? > > None; you are a babbling idiot. > >>> >>>> (what size waveguide do you feed a 60 Hz dish with ?) >>> >>> You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general >>> that all dishes are fed with waveguide; they are not. It is very >>> common to feed dishes in the lower microwave region and below with >>> coax. >> >> answer the question, what size waveguide do you feed a 60Hz dish with ? >> (since you say RF scales with everything) > > You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general > that all dishes are fed with waveguide; they are not. you said that I did not. > > It is very common to feed dishes in the lower microwave region and below > with coax. so what does the FEED HORN look like ? a WAVEGUIDE ? Got anything to back you wild ass disperate hand waving up? > > While one COULD construt 60 Hz waveguide in space, doing so would be > stupid. so, although you said it can be done, which I disagree with, you do finally agree with me, after considerable thought, that it is TOTALLY STUPID. > >>> >>>> your max surface roughness at 60GHz is what ? >>> >>> It is perfect because competant people were used to build it and >>> irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. >> >> so what is the surface roughness ? use rms > > It is perfect because competant people were used to build it and > irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. so what is the number in inches ? Can't you figure it out ? All you do is answer in *weazel word* vague statements like grandma Trollie. is it 1/10 of an inch ? afraid of "guessing", that is all you do. > >> and again you are wrong, antennas scale over ranges, not infinities. > > Nowhere in any electromagnetic theory will you find anything like > A < frequency < B. wrong again. perhaps you should read some books first, you are too green to be able to add anything useful here. So What is your "electromagnetic theory" ? can you list a reference ? or the equations ? you have certianly missapplied them > > You are an ignorant idiot. > >>> >>>> How much beam taper do you illuminate the edges with to avoid backlobes >>>> at 60GHz? which would pick up the 60HZ earth very well. What would the >>>> F/B ratio be to pick up a 60Hz craft 1,000,000,000 miles out ? >>> >>> The same as at 60 GHz. >> >> Totally wrong, one is easy, the other is impossable. > > Nope, just not practically economical to build. wrong again, you really have to give up your idealism, as it is wrong, ' Answer now, what is the F/B ratio of a 60Hz dish 11,000 miles in diameter ? > >> >> How thick must your dish be to reflect 60Hz ? > > New flash idiot, the skin effect scales with frequency also. no, it is non linear, pupa. > >> how much beam taper ? > > Irrelevant. yes another weakness, due to your inexperience. google "BEAM TAPER" or look it up in Kraus. > >>> >>>>> The only issue with a dish at gamma or X-ray frquencies is that the >>>>> dish has to be made of a material that is reflective at those frequencies, >>>> >>>> which there are not any for a parabolic dish. >>> >>> Which is irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. >> >> Wrong, because you cannot use a parabolic with gamma, so the do not scale. >> wrong, because you over-generalized > > All the laws of electromagnetics says it scales. The fact that there is > no practical material to build one is irrelevant to the theory of > electromagnetics. wrong, you stuck on this wrongness, things scale some, but if not into the real world, the do not scale. Does you parabolic dishes work on atoms ? and what is your "laws of electromagnetics" AND "theory of electromagnetics" ? they are just buzzzwords to you, some EM god equation that saves your obviously wrong postings from smelling like poo poo. > >>> >>> If you can find a material that is relective at gamma or X-ray frquencies, >>> then such a dish will perform just the same as any other dish at any >>> other frequency with the same diameter in wavelengths. >> >> "if" but it dosent, so a parabolic dish will not work, and has no gain. > > All the laws of electromagnetics says it scales. The fact that there is > no practical material to build one is irrelevant to the theory of > electromagnetics. it doesnt work at gamma, nor at 60 Hz, so it does not scale, your so call theory of electromagnetics what ever that is. > >> Not scalable. > > Yep. > >>> >>>> what is the max surface roughness you could have ? (hint: 1/4 lamda and >>>> how much is that?) can anybody do that yet ? >>>> so you are WRONG again, find the answer in ARRL, not. >>> >>> The requirements would be the same as any other dish at any other frequency >>> with the same diameter in wavelengths. >> >> more foo-foo. You have not been able to justify your absurd >> over-generalization. > > All the laws of electromagnetics says it scales. every law ? can you list them ? > >> go do that to a bicycle, one can be made at any size and still function... > > The subject is the laws of electromagnetics. no the subject is obvious misuse of scaleability . A typical problem Physicists have. > >>> >>> The thing you are utterly unable to understand is that electromagnetic >>> theory of antennas is frequency independant. >> >> wrong. antennas are resonate material structures only at certian >> frequiencys. > > Apples and oranges and shows an utter lack of understanding of > electromagnetic theory. > > A yagi antenna has a particular size in WAVELENGTHS. That means that > if the antenna is described in WAVELENGTHS, it works identically > at any frequency. wrong, it works only at that one wavelength, that is why is it called a resonate structure, (and odd harmonics with discrintegrating pattern) it is in your ARRL book, this is kindgarten stuff. > > All half wavelength dipoles work identically because their size is > described in WAVELENGTHS. so where is your 60GHz 1/2 wavelength antenna ? or your 1/2 wavelength 60 Hz antenna ? > >>> >>> The practical ability to construct a given antenna may change with >>> frequency, but the electromagnetic theory does NOT. >> >> wrong again. >> EM theory(s) applies differently to different structures, it is not >> one equation governs all. And is driven by boundry conditions, some >> scale, some do not. > > Babbling gibberish. > >> at times you have to use other means than stright EM to make the >> antenna work, like the capacitive match at a single helix antenna >> reflector, diameter of Yagi elements. > > Babbling gibberish. > > >> take the transmitter, receiver transmission path reciprosity, it can be >> non linear. EM theory says linear. > > Babbling gibberish. > >> here is a link you can study >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations > > And where in there do you see any term that looks like A < freq < B, > you babbling idiot? look again, there are two constants in the equations, perhaps you cannot read, and cannot understand equations. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 00:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe5vic-j4a.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #536605 |
gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: > On 11/30/2015 2:43 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>> On 11/30/2015 1:01 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/28/2015 4:58 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/27/2015 10:46 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/27/2015 02:01 AM, gilber34 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> perhaps not gamma ray, but you DO know that X-ray parabolic antennas >>>>>>>> exist, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> using glancing, paraboioids and hyperboioids, not quite the same as a >>>>>>> dish. but my point was to counter the over generalization that EM >>>>>>> frequency being the same. Still waiting on the size of the 60 HZ dish >>>>>>> for 20 dB gain... >>>>>> >>>>>> Pretty large, but the physical size is irrelevant; the gain of a dish >>>>>> is a function of it's diameter in wavelengths, so the gain of a 3 lambda >>>>>> 60 Hz dish is the same as the gain of a 3 lambda 60 GHz dish. >>>>> >>>>> as usual, WRONG. >>>> >>>> Nope. >>>> >>>> Then why do antenna books have nomographs of dB gain verssus physical >>>> size with straight lines for frequency. >>> >>> you should stay away from them, they cause you to over-generalize >> >> You should look at some and learn something. >> >>>> >>>>> the 60Hz dish would be 17,794,063.6 meters wide or 11,056 miles wide or >>>>> 100 times the diameter of the Earth. Impossable to build it at all. >>>> >>>> Not in space given enough time and money. >>> >>> infinite time, infinite money, infinite stupidity, it cannot be built in >>> space either. (extra credit for why) >> >> Electromagnetic theory has nothing to do with structural engineering. > > which EM theory ? and it is all governed by boundry conditions which is > structural, got it ? There is no boundry condition for frequency, got it? >>>> >>>>> THE PHYSICAL SIZE IS THE ISSUE ! >>>> >>>> Nope. >>>> >>>> Physical size only determines the econonomic practicably, not the RF >>>> characteristics. >>> >>> Wrong. In what bands is RF treated as primarly magnetic, treated as EM, >>> and then treated as partical ? >> >> None; you are a babbling idiot. >> >>>> >>>>> (what size waveguide do you feed a 60 Hz dish with ?) >>>> >>>> You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general >>>> that all dishes are fed with waveguide; they are not. It is very >>>> common to feed dishes in the lower microwave region and below with >>>> coax. >>> >>> answer the question, what size waveguide do you feed a 60Hz dish with ? >>> (since you say RF scales with everything) >> >> You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general >> that all dishes are fed with waveguide; they are not. > > you said that I did not. Assumed by your repeated demand for a waveguid size. >> >> It is very common to feed dishes in the lower microwave region and below >> with coax. > > so what does the FEED HORN look like ? a WAVEGUIDE ? Yet more ignorance. You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general that all dishes are fed with a feed horn; they are not. I have a very nice X band dish that is fed with a dipole. > Got anything to back you wild ass disperate hand waving up? Just who is desperately hand waving here? >> While one COULD construt 60 Hz waveguide in space, doing so would be >> stupid. > > so, although you said it can be done, which I disagree with, you do > finally agree with me, after considerable thought, that it is TOTALLY > STUPID. Yes, 60 Hz waveguide is stupid and YOU are the one that brought it up. >>>>> your max surface roughness at 60GHz is what ? >>>> >>>> It is perfect because competant people were used to build it and >>>> irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. >>> >>> so what is the surface roughness ? use rms >> >> It is perfect because competant people were used to build it and >> irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. > > so what is the number in inches ? Can't you figure it out ? > All you do is answer in *weazel word* vague statements like grandma > Trollie. Surface roughness has nothing to do with the fact that antennas scale in frequency. > is it 1/10 of an inch ? afraid of "guessing", that is all you do. Surface roughness is measured in wavelenths, not inches. > >> >>> and again you are wrong, antennas scale over ranges, not infinities. >> >> Nowhere in any electromagnetic theory will you find anything like >> A < frequency < B. > > wrong again. perhaps you should read some books first, you are too > green to be able to add anything useful here. So you should be able to point to somewhere that this appears other than in your imagination. > So What is your "electromagnetic theory" ? can you list a reference ? > or the equations ? you have certianly missapplied them You might try reading the works of Fraday, Henry, Maxwell, Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. If you want a specific book, start with "Electromagnetics" by Kraus and Carver as it is a standard text on the subject. >> You are an ignorant idiot. >> >>>> >>>>> How much beam taper do you illuminate the edges with to avoid backlobes >>>>> at 60GHz? which would pick up the 60HZ earth very well. What would the >>>>> F/B ratio be to pick up a 60Hz craft 1,000,000,000 miles out ? >>>> >>>> The same as at 60 GHz. >>> >>> Totally wrong, one is easy, the other is impossable. >> >> Nope, just not practically economical to build. > > wrong again, you really have to give up your idealism, as it is wrong, What I have is not idealism, it is called an education. > Answer now, what is the F/B ratio of a 60Hz dish 11,000 miles in diameter ? How much are you offering for me to do this? >>> >>> How thick must your dish be to reflect 60Hz ? >> >> New flash idiot, the skin effect scales with frequency also. > > no, it is non linear, pupa. I did not say it was either linear or non-linear, I said it scales with frequency. >>> how much beam taper ? >> >> Irrelevant. > >> >>>> >>>>>> The only issue with a dish at gamma or X-ray frquencies is that the >>>>>> dish has to be made of a material that is reflective at those frequencies, >>>>> >>>>> which there are not any for a parabolic dish. >>>> >>>> Which is irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. >>> >>> Wrong, because you cannot use a parabolic with gamma, so the do not scale. >>> wrong, because you over-generalized >> >> All the laws of electromagnetics says it scales. The fact that there is >> no practical material to build one is irrelevant to the theory of >> electromagnetics. > > wrong, you stuck on this wrongness, things scale some, but if not into > the real world, the do not scale. Electromagnetic theory scales. All half wave dipoles work exactly the same no matter the physical size because they are all a half wavelength long. > Does you parabolic dishes work on atoms ? Gibberish. > > and what is your "laws of electromagnetics" AND "theory of > electromagnetics" ? Two way of saying the same thing, idiot. > they are just buzzzwords to you, some EM god equation that saves your > obviously wrong postings from smelling like poo poo. Oh, did I hurt your feelings by calling your ignornant nonsense ignorant nonsense? >> >>>> >>>> If you can find a material that is relective at gamma or X-ray frquencies, >>>> then such a dish will perform just the same as any other dish at any >>>> other frequency with the same diameter in wavelengths. >>> >>> "if" but it dosent, so a parabolic dish will not work, and has no gain. >> >> All the laws of electromagnetics says it scales. The fact that there is >> no practical material to build one is irrelevant to the theory of >> electromagnetics. > > it doesnt work at gamma, nor at 60 Hz, so it does not scale, your so > > >> >>> Not scalable. >> >> Yep. >> >>>> >>>>> what is the max surface roughness you could have ? (hint: 1/4 lamda and >>>>> how much is that?) can anybody do that yet ? >>>>> so you are WRONG again, find the answer in ARRL, not. >>>> >>>> The requirements would be the same as any other dish at any other frequency >>>> with the same diameter in wavelengths. >>> >>> more foo-foo. You have not been able to justify your absurd >>> over-generalization. >> >> All the laws of electromagnetics says it scales. > > every law ? can you list them ? Idiot. > >> >>> go do that to a bicycle, one can be made at any size and still function... >> >> The subject is the laws of electromagnetics. > > no the subject is obvious misuse of scaleability . A typical problem > Physicists have. Clueless. > >> >>>> >>>> The thing you are utterly unable to understand is that electromagnetic >>>> theory of antennas is frequency independant. >>> >>> wrong. antennas are resonate material structures only at certian >>> frequiencys. >> >> Apples and oranges and shows an utter lack of understanding of >> electromagnetic theory. >> >> A yagi antenna has a particular size in WAVELENGTHS. That means that >> if the antenna is described in WAVELENGTHS, it works identically >> at any frequency. > > wrong, it works only at that one wavelength, that is why is it called a > resonate structure, (and odd harmonics with discrintegrating pattern) > > it is in your ARRL book, this is kindgarten stuff. It is in every book on antennas and every book on electromagnetic theory, idiot. > >> >> All half wavelength dipoles work identically because their size is >> described in WAVELENGTHS. > > so where is your 60GHz 1/2 wavelength antenna ? > or your 1/2 wavelength 60 Hz antenna ? Yet more meaningless babble. >> >>>> >>>> The practical ability to construct a given antenna may change with >>>> frequency, but the electromagnetic theory does NOT. >>> >>> wrong again. >>> EM theory(s) applies differently to different structures, it is not >>> one equation governs all. And is driven by boundry conditions, some >>> scale, some do not. >> >> Babbling gibberish. >> >>> at times you have to use other means than stright EM to make the >>> antenna work, like the capacitive match at a single helix antenna >>> reflector, diameter of Yagi elements. >> >> Babbling gibberish. >> >> >>> take the transmitter, receiver transmission path reciprosity, it can be >>> non linear. EM theory says linear. >> >> Babbling gibberish. >> >>> here is a link you can study >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations >> >> And where in there do you see any term that looks like A < freq < B, >> you babbling idiot? > > look again, there are two constants in the equations, perhaps you cannot > read, and cannot understand equations. Utter nonsense. If such actually existed, you would be gleefully pointing it out and crying "see, see!!" but you can't as such does not exist. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 20:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3j0b1$tv8$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #536607 |
On 11/30/2015 6:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >> On 11/30/2015 2:43 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/30/2015 1:01 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/28/2015 4:58 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/27/2015 10:46 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2015 02:01 AM, gilber34 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> perhaps not gamma ray, but you DO know that X-ray parabolic antennas >>>>>>>>> exist, right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> using glancing, paraboioids and hyperboioids, not quite the same as a >>>>>>>> dish. but my point was to counter the over generalization that EM >>>>>>>> frequency being the same. Still waiting on the size of the 60 HZ dish >>>>>>>> for 20 dB gain... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pretty large, but the physical size is irrelevant; the gain of a dish >>>>>>> is a function of it's diameter in wavelengths, so the gain of a 3 lambda >>>>>>> 60 Hz dish is the same as the gain of a 3 lambda 60 GHz dish. >>>>>> >>>>>> as usual, WRONG. >>>>> >>>>> Nope. >>>>> >>>>> Then why do antenna books have nomographs of dB gain verssus physical >>>>> size with straight lines for frequency. >>>> >>>> you should stay away from them, they cause you to over-generalize >>> >>> You should look at some and learn something. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> the 60Hz dish would be 17,794,063.6 meters wide or 11,056 miles wide or >>>>>> 100 times the diameter of the Earth. Impossable to build it at all. >>>>> >>>>> Not in space given enough time and money. >>>> >>>> infinite time, infinite money, infinite stupidity, it cannot be built in >>>> space either. (extra credit for why) >>> >>> Electromagnetic theory has nothing to do with structural engineering. >> >> which EM theory ? and it is all governed by boundry conditions which is >> structural, got it ? > > There is no boundry condition for frequency, got it? > every antenna has a boundry condition on frequency band it operates in, GOT IT ? you have no specifics you just grannie troll. > >>>>> >>>>>> THE PHYSICAL SIZE IS THE ISSUE ! >>>>> >>>>> Nope. >>>>> >>>>> Physical size only determines the econonomic practicably, not the RF >>>>> characteristics. >>>> >>>> Wrong. In what bands is RF treated as primarly magnetic, treated as EM, >>>> and then treated as partical ? >>> >>> None; you are a babbling idiot. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> (what size waveguide do you feed a 60 Hz dish with ?) >>>>> >>>>> You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general >>>>> that all dishes are fed with waveguide; they are not. It is very >>>>> common to feed dishes in the lower microwave region and below with >>>>> coax. >>>> >>>> answer the question, what size waveguide do you feed a 60Hz dish with ? >>>> (since you say RF scales with everything) >>> >>> You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general >>> that all dishes are fed with waveguide; they are not. >> >> you said that I did not. > > Assumed by your repeated demand for a waveguid size. Google for it, you scale everything but waveguide size, why ? > >>> >>> It is very common to feed dishes in the lower microwave region and below >>> with coax. >> >> so what does the FEED HORN look like ? a WAVEGUIDE ? > > Yet more ignorance. > > You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general > that all dishes are fed with a feed horn; they are not. > > I have a very nice X band dish that is fed with a dipole. what is the pattern of a dipole ? you have a cheap splatter dish, not a good focused one. Your pattern is multilobed with high F/B ratio, and you dont know it. > >> Got anything to back you wild ass disperate hand waving up? > > Just who is desperately hand waving here? > >>> While one COULD construt 60 Hz waveguide in space, doing so would be >>> stupid. >> >> so, although you said it can be done, which I disagree with, you do >> finally agree with me, after considerable thought, that it is TOTALLY >> STUPID. > > Yes, 60 Hz waveguide is stupid and YOU are the one that brought it up. ....you talked about building one....... so you don't know you were being fooled all along. 60Hz waveguide! silly > >>>>>> your max surface roughness at 60GHz is what ? >>>>> >>>>> It is perfect because competant people were used to build it and >>>>> irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. >>>> >>>> so what is the surface roughness ? use rms >>> >>> It is perfect because competant people were used to build it and >>> irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. >> >> so what is the number in inches ? Can't you figure it out ? >> All you do is answer in *weazel word* vague statements like grandma >> Trollie. > > Surface roughness has nothing to do with the fact that antennas scale > in frequency. wrong, you have never made antennas. > >> is it 1/10 of an inch ? afraid of "guessing", that is all you do. > > Surface roughness is measured in wavelenths, not inches. either, it is interchangeable, but what is surface roughness, you can google it, it is ok. > >> >>> >>>> and again you are wrong, antennas scale over ranges, not infinities. >>> >>> Nowhere in any electromagnetic theory will you find anything like >>> A < frequency < B. >> >> wrong again. perhaps you should read some books first, you are too >> green to be able to add anything useful here. > > So you should be able to point to somewhere that this appears other > than in your imagination. you lack common knowledge of the names and areas of EM spectrum, you troll. > >> So What is your "electromagnetic theory" ? can you list a reference ? >> or the equations ? you have certianly missapplied them > > You might try reading the works of Fraday, Henry, Maxwell, Lorentz, > Poincare, and Einstein. you never had a college course. > > If you want a specific book, start with "Electromagnetics" by Kraus > and Carver as it is a standard text on the subject. gernic > >>> You are an ignorant idiot. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> How much beam taper do you illuminate the edges with to avoid backlobes >>>>>> at 60GHz? which would pick up the 60HZ earth very well. What would the >>>>>> F/B ratio be to pick up a 60Hz craft 1,000,000,000 miles out ? >>>>> >>>>> The same as at 60 GHz. >>>> >>>> Totally wrong, one is easy, the other is impossable. >>> >>> Nope, just not practically economical to build. >> >> wrong again, you really have to give up your idealism, as it is wrong, > > What I have is not idealism, it is called an education. > >> Answer now, what is the F/B ratio of a 60Hz dish 11,000 miles in diameter ? > > How much are you offering for me to do this? you have 5 min. Google for it. > >>>> >>>> How thick must your dish be to reflect 60Hz ? >>> >>> New flash idiot, the skin effect scales with frequency also. >> >> no, it is non linear, pupa. > > I did not say it was either linear or non-linear, I said it scales > with frequency. when something scales with another, it is linear. everybody knows that, except you. > >>>> how much beam taper ? >>> >>> Irrelevant. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>>>> The only issue with a dish at gamma or X-ray frquencies is that the >>>>>>> dish has to be made of a material that is reflective at those frequencies, >>>>>> >>>>>> which there are not any for a parabolic dish. >>>>> >>>>> Which is irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. >>>> >>>> Wrong, because you cannot use a parabolic with gamma, so the do not scale. >>>> wrong, because you over-generalized >>> >>> All the laws of electromagnetics says it scales. The fact that there is >>> no practical material to build one is irrelevant to the theory of >>> electromagnetics. >> >> wrong, you stuck on this wrongness, things scale some, but if not into >> the real world, the do not scale. > > Electromagnetic theory scales. fish scales. > > All half wave dipoles work exactly the same no matter the physical > size because they are all a half wavelength long. > >> Does you parabolic dishes work on atoms ? > > Gibberish. from your "scaling" of your parabolic dishes, we agree you are gibberish. > >> >> and what is your "laws of electromagnetics" AND "theory of >> electromagnetics" ? > > Two way of saying the same thing, idiot. laws are not theory, and you dont know what you are talking about. > >> they are just buzzzwords to you, some EM god equation that saves your >> obviously wrong postings from smelling like poo poo. > > Oh, did I hurt your feelings by calling your ignornant nonsense ignorant > nonsense? you still offer no content, just argument, no links, just troll > >>> >>>>> >>>>> If you can find a material that is relective at gamma or X-ray frquencies, >>>>> then such a dish will perform just the same as any other dish at any >>>>> other frequency with the same diameter in wavelengths. >>>> >>>> "if" but it dosent, so a parabolic dish will not work, and has no gain. >>> >>> All the laws of electromagnetics says it scales. The fact that there is >>> no practical material to build one is irrelevant to the theory of >>> electromagnetics. >> >> it doesnt work at gamma, nor at 60 Hz, so it does not scale, your so > >> >> >>> >>>> Not scalable. >>> >>> Yep. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> what is the max surface roughness you could have ? (hint: 1/4 lamda and >>>>>> how much is that?) can anybody do that yet ? >>>>>> so you are WRONG again, find the answer in ARRL, not. >>>>> >>>>> The requirements would be the same as any other dish at any other frequency >>>>> with the same diameter in wavelengths. >>>> >>>> more foo-foo. You have not been able to justify your absurd >>>> over-generalization. >>> >>> All the laws of electromagnetics says it scales. >> >> every law ? can you list them ? > > Idiot. I am waiting, you cannot find your "All the laws of electromagnetics" yet ? Did you lose them ? try wiki > >> >>> >>>> go do that to a bicycle, one can be made at any size and still function... >>> >>> The subject is the laws of electromagnetics. >> >> no the subject is obvious misuse of scaleability . A typical problem >> Physicists have. > > Clueless. > >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> The thing you are utterly unable to understand is that electromagnetic >>>>> theory of antennas is frequency independant. >>>> >>>> wrong. antennas are resonate material structures only at certian >>>> frequiencys. >>> >>> Apples and oranges and shows an utter lack of understanding of >>> electromagnetic theory. >>> >>> A yagi antenna has a particular size in WAVELENGTHS. That means that >>> if the antenna is described in WAVELENGTHS, it works identically >>> at any frequency. >> >> wrong, it works only at that one wavelength, that is why is it called a >> resonate structure, (and odd harmonics with discrintegrating pattern) >> >> it is in your ARRL book, this is kindgarten stuff. > > It is in every book on antennas and every book on electromagnetic theory, > idiot. and yagis are resonant structures, like dipoles, monopoles, waveguides even, the work only in a limited frequency band. >> >>> >>> All half wavelength dipoles work identically because their size is >>> described in WAVELENGTHS. >> >> so where is your 60GHz 1/2 wavelength antenna ? >> or your 1/2 wavelength 60 Hz antenna ? > > Yet more meaningless babble. > cant do an equation. >>> >>>>> >>>>> The practical ability to construct a given antenna may change with >>>>> frequency, but the electromagnetic theory does NOT. >>>> >>>> wrong again. >>>> EM theory(s) applies differently to different structures, it is not >>>> one equation governs all. And is driven by boundry conditions, some >>>> scale, some do not. >>> >>> Babbling gibberish. >>> >>>> at times you have to use other means than stright EM to make the >>>> antenna work, like the capacitive match at a single helix antenna >>>> reflector, diameter of Yagi elements. >>> >>> Babbling gibberish. >>> >>> >>>> take the transmitter, receiver transmission path reciprosity, it can be >>>> non linear. EM theory says linear. >>> >>> Babbling gibberish. >>> >>>> here is a link you can study >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations >>> >>> And where in there do you see any term that looks like A < freq < B, >>> you babbling idiot? >> >> look again, there are two constants in the equations, perhaps you cannot >> read, and cannot understand equations. > > Utter nonsense. nothing, you troll. > > If such actually existed, you would be gleefully pointing it out and > crying "see, see!!" but you can't as such does not exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_frequency look anywhere, you oversimplify, you do not have experience, you troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 06:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <asqvic-vdc.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #536628 |
gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: > On 11/30/2015 6:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>> On 11/30/2015 2:43 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/30/2015 1:01 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/28/2015 4:58 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2015 10:46 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2015 02:01 AM, gilber34 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> perhaps not gamma ray, but you DO know that X-ray parabolic antennas >>>>>>>>>> exist, right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> using glancing, paraboioids and hyperboioids, not quite the same as a >>>>>>>>> dish. but my point was to counter the over generalization that EM >>>>>>>>> frequency being the same. Still waiting on the size of the 60 HZ dish >>>>>>>>> for 20 dB gain... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pretty large, but the physical size is irrelevant; the gain of a dish >>>>>>>> is a function of it's diameter in wavelengths, so the gain of a 3 lambda >>>>>>>> 60 Hz dish is the same as the gain of a 3 lambda 60 GHz dish. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> as usual, WRONG. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then why do antenna books have nomographs of dB gain verssus physical >>>>>> size with straight lines for frequency. >>>>> >>>>> you should stay away from them, they cause you to over-generalize >>>> >>>> You should look at some and learn something. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> the 60Hz dish would be 17,794,063.6 meters wide or 11,056 miles wide or >>>>>>> 100 times the diameter of the Earth. Impossable to build it at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not in space given enough time and money. >>>>> >>>>> infinite time, infinite money, infinite stupidity, it cannot be built in >>>>> space either. (extra credit for why) >>>> >>>> Electromagnetic theory has nothing to do with structural engineering. >>> >>> which EM theory ? and it is all governed by boundry conditions which is >>> structural, got it ? >> >> There is no boundry condition for frequency, got it? >> > > every antenna has a boundry condition on frequency band it operates in, > GOT IT ? Every antenna defined in physical units, i.e. meters, has boundary conditions, but an antenna defined in terms of wavelength does NOT, GOT IT? A half wave dipole is defined in terms of wavelengths and has no "boundarys" until it is physically constructed in physical, i.e. meters, GOT IT? > you have no specifics you just grannie troll. Gibberish. >>>>>> >>>>>>> THE PHYSICAL SIZE IS THE ISSUE ! >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. >>>>>> >>>>>> Physical size only determines the econonomic practicably, not the RF >>>>>> characteristics. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. In what bands is RF treated as primarly magnetic, treated as EM, >>>>> and then treated as partical ? >>>> >>>> None; you are a babbling idiot. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> (what size waveguide do you feed a 60 Hz dish with ?) >>>>>> >>>>>> You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general >>>>>> that all dishes are fed with waveguide; they are not. It is very >>>>>> common to feed dishes in the lower microwave region and below with >>>>>> coax. >>>>> >>>>> answer the question, what size waveguide do you feed a 60Hz dish with ? >>>>> (since you say RF scales with everything) >>>> >>>> You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general >>>> that all dishes are fed with waveguide; they are not. >>> >>> you said that I did not. >> >> Assumed by your repeated demand for a waveguid size. > > Google for it, you scale everything but waveguide size, why ? Sigh, like EVERYTHING ELSE, waveguide defined by wavelengths is frequency independant. It is ONLY when physical units, i.e. meters, are assigned that waveguide becomes frequency dependant, GOT IT? >> >>>> >>>> It is very common to feed dishes in the lower microwave region and below >>>> with coax. >>> >>> so what does the FEED HORN look like ? a WAVEGUIDE ? >> >> Yet more ignorance. >> >> You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general >> that all dishes are fed with a feed horn; they are not. >> >> I have a very nice X band dish that is fed with a dipole. > > what is the pattern of a dipole ? > you have a cheap splatter dish, not a good focused one. > Your pattern is multilobed with high F/B ratio, and you dont know it. Actually I have the manufacturers pattern for it and everything you say is nonsense, except it does have a high F/B ratio, which is a desirable feature, GOT IT? >> >>> Got anything to back you wild ass disperate hand waving up? >> >> Just who is desperately hand waving here? >> >>>> While one COULD construt 60 Hz waveguide in space, doing so would be >>>> stupid. >>> >>> so, although you said it can be done, which I disagree with, you do >>> finally agree with me, after considerable thought, that it is TOTALLY >>> STUPID. >> >> Yes, 60 Hz waveguide is stupid and YOU are the one that brought it up. No, YOU are the one that brought up waveguide, GOT IT? > ....you talked about building one....... so you don't know you were > being fooled all along. 60Hz waveguide! silly Babbling idiot, GOT IT? >>>>>>> your max surface roughness at 60GHz is what ? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is perfect because competant people were used to build it and >>>>>> irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. >>>>> >>>>> so what is the surface roughness ? use rms >>>> >>>> It is perfect because competant people were used to build it and >>>> irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. >>> >>> so what is the number in inches ? Can't you figure it out ? >>> All you do is answer in *weazel word* vague statements like grandma >>> Trollie. >> >> Surface roughness has nothing to do with the fact that antennas scale >> in frequency. > > wrong, you have never made antennas. I have been making antennas since about 1960, GOT IT? You haven't a clue, GOT IT? >>> is it 1/10 of an inch ? afraid of "guessing", that is all you do. >> >> Surface roughness is measured in wavelenths, not inches. > > either, it is interchangeable, but what is surface roughness, you can > google it, it is ok. No, it is NOT interchangeable, it is wavelength dependant, GOT IT? >>> >>>> >>>>> and again you are wrong, antennas scale over ranges, not infinities. >>>> >>>> Nowhere in any electromagnetic theory will you find anything like >>>> A < frequency < B. >>> >>> wrong again. perhaps you should read some books first, you are too >>> green to be able to add anything useful here. >> >> So you should be able to point to somewhere that this appears other >> than in your imagination. > > you lack common knowledge of the names and areas of EM spectrum, you troll. Babbling gibberish, GOT IT? > >> >>> So What is your "electromagnetic theory" ? can you list a reference ? >>> or the equations ? you have certianly missapplied them >> >> You might try reading the works of Fraday, Henry, Maxwell, Lorentz, >> Poincare, and Einstein. > > you never had a college course. Do you think I am going to post my degree, idiot? You never had a technician course, idiot. >> >> If you want a specific book, start with "Electromagnetics" by Kraus >> and Carver as it is a standard text on the subject. > > gernic Of course it is generic, idiot. >> >>>> You are an ignorant idiot. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> How much beam taper do you illuminate the edges with to avoid backlobes >>>>>>> at 60GHz? which would pick up the 60HZ earth very well. What would the >>>>>>> F/B ratio be to pick up a 60Hz craft 1,000,000,000 miles out ? >>>>>> >>>>>> The same as at 60 GHz. >>>>> >>>>> Totally wrong, one is easy, the other is impossable. >>>> >>>> Nope, just not practically economical to build. >>> >>> wrong again, you really have to give up your idealism, as it is wrong, >> >> What I have is not idealism, it is called an education. >> >>> Answer now, what is the F/B ratio of a 60Hz dish 11,000 miles in diameter ? >> >> How much are you offering for me to do this? > > you have 5 min. Google for it. No pay, no play, idiot. >> >>>>> >>>>> How thick must your dish be to reflect 60Hz ? >>>> >>>> New flash idiot, the skin effect scales with frequency also. >>> >>> no, it is non linear, pupa. >> >> I did not say it was either linear or non-linear, I said it scales >> with frequency. > > when something scales with another, it is linear. everybody knows that, > except you. Wrong again, idiot. The area of a circle scales with the square of the radius, that is NOT linear, idiot. Perhaps the issue is that not only are you technically ignorant, you are also functionally illiterate, idiot. >> >>>>> how much beam taper ? >>>> >>>> Irrelevant. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> The only issue with a dish at gamma or X-ray frquencies is that the >>>>>>>> dish has to be made of a material that is reflective at those frequencies, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> which there are not any for a parabolic dish. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which is irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong, because you cannot use a parabolic with gamma, so the do not scale. >>>>> wrong, because you over-generalized >>>> >>>> All the laws of electromagnetics says it scales. The fact that there is >>>> no practical material to build one is irrelevant to the theory of >>>> electromagnetics. >>> >>> wrong, you stuck on this wrongness, things scale some, but if not into >>> the real world, the do not scale. >> >> Electromagnetic theory scales. > > fish scales. More gibberish of an idiot. >> >> All half wave dipoles work exactly the same no matter the physical >> size because they are all a half wavelength long. >> >>> Does you parabolic dishes work on atoms ? >> >> Gibberish. > > from your "scaling" of your parabolic dishes, > we agree you are gibberish. Yet more gibberish of an idiot. >>> >>> and what is your "laws of electromagnetics" AND "theory of >>> electromagnetics" ? >> >> Two way of saying the same thing, idiot. > > laws are not theory, and you dont know what you are talking about. Just so stupid on so many levels the mind boggles. >> >>> they are just buzzzwords to you, some EM god equation that saves your >>> obviously wrong postings from smelling like poo poo. >> >> Oh, did I hurt your feelings by calling your ignornant nonsense ignorant >> nonsense? > > you still offer no content, just argument, no links, just troll I offered several resources which you refuse to use, idiot. There is much more to the real world thank "links", idiot. Obviously you are one of those ass clowns that only knows what can be found with Google, and even then you don't understand the material, idiot. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you can find a material that is relective at gamma or X-ray frquencies, >>>>>> then such a dish will perform just the same as any other dish at any >>>>>> other frequency with the same diameter in wavelengths. >>>>> >>>>> "if" but it dosent, so a parabolic dish will not work, and has no gain. >>>> >>>> All the laws of electromagnetics says it scales. The fact that there is >>>> no practical material to build one is irrelevant to the theory of >>>> electromagnetics. >>> >>> it doesnt work at gamma, nor at 60 Hz, so it does not scale, your so >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> Not scalable. >>>> >>>> Yep. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> what is the max surface roughness you could have ? (hint: 1/4 lamda and >>>>>>> how much is that?) can anybody do that yet ? >>>>>>> so you are WRONG again, find the answer in ARRL, not. >>>>>> >>>>>> The requirements would be the same as any other dish at any other frequency >>>>>> with the same diameter in wavelengths. >>>>> >>>>> more foo-foo. You have not been able to justify your absurd >>>>> over-generalization. >>>> >>>> All the laws of electromagnetics says it scales. >>> >>> every law ? can you list them ? >> >> Idiot. > > I am waiting, you cannot find your "All the laws of electromagnetics" > yet ? Did you lose them ? try wiki Do you REALLY expect me to type in what amounts to two years of college level courses? >>> >>>> >>>>> go do that to a bicycle, one can be made at any size and still function... >>>> >>>> The subject is the laws of electromagnetics. >>> >>> no the subject is obvious misuse of scaleability . A typical problem >>> Physicists have. >> >> Clueless. >> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The thing you are utterly unable to understand is that electromagnetic >>>>>> theory of antennas is frequency independant. >>>>> >>>>> wrong. antennas are resonate material structures only at certian >>>>> frequiencys. >>>> >>>> Apples and oranges and shows an utter lack of understanding of >>>> electromagnetic theory. >>>> >>>> A yagi antenna has a particular size in WAVELENGTHS. That means that >>>> if the antenna is described in WAVELENGTHS, it works identically >>>> at any frequency. >>> >>> wrong, it works only at that one wavelength, that is why is it called a >>> resonate structure, (and odd harmonics with discrintegrating pattern) >>> >>> it is in your ARRL book, this is kindgarten stuff. >> >> It is in every book on antennas and every book on electromagnetic theory, >> idiot. > > and yagis are resonant structures, like dipoles, monopoles, waveguides > even, the work only in a limited frequency band. When defined in physical units such as meters, but NOT when defined in wavelengths, idiot. > >>> >>>> >>>> All half wavelength dipoles work identically because their size is >>>> described in WAVELENGTHS. >>> >>> so where is your 60GHz 1/2 wavelength antenna ? >>> or your 1/2 wavelength 60 Hz antenna ? >> >> Yet more meaningless babble. >> > > cant do an equation. A half wavelength dipole is half a wavelength long, idiot. >>>>>> >>>>>> The practical ability to construct a given antenna may change with >>>>>> frequency, but the electromagnetic theory does NOT. >>>>> >>>>> wrong again. >>>>> EM theory(s) applies differently to different structures, it is not >>>>> one equation governs all. And is driven by boundry conditions, some >>>>> scale, some do not. >>>> >>>> Babbling gibberish. >>>> >>>>> at times you have to use other means than stright EM to make the >>>>> antenna work, like the capacitive match at a single helix antenna >>>>> reflector, diameter of Yagi elements. >>>> >>>> Babbling gibberish. >>>> >>>> >>>>> take the transmitter, receiver transmission path reciprosity, it can be >>>>> non linear. EM theory says linear. >>>> >>>> Babbling gibberish. >>>> >>>>> here is a link you can study >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations >>>> >>>> And where in there do you see any term that looks like A < freq < B, >>>> you babbling idiot? >>> >>> look again, there are two constants in the equations, perhaps you cannot >>> read, and cannot understand equations. >> >> Utter nonsense. > > nothing, you troll. Gibberish. >> >> If such actually existed, you would be gleefully pointing it out and >> crying "see, see!!" but you can't as such does not exist. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_frequency Non sequitur, idiot. > look anywhere, you oversimplify, you do not have experience, you troll. You are the one making simplified, and incorrect statments, idiot. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 15:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne27y.260460$eP.96568@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #536531 |
On 11/30/2015 02:01 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2015 4:58 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/27/2015 10:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 11/27/2015 02:01 AM, gilber34 wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> perhaps not gamma ray, but you DO know that X-ray parabolic antennas
>>>>> exist, right?
>>>>
>>>> using glancing, paraboioids and hyperboioids, not quite the same as a
>>>> dish. but my point was to counter the over generalization that EM
>>>> frequency being the same. Still waiting on the size of the 60 HZ dish
>>>> for 20 dB gain...
>>>
>>> Pretty large, but the physical size is irrelevant; the gain of a dish
>>> is a function of it's diameter in wavelengths, so the gain of a 3 lambda
>>> 60 Hz dish is the same as the gain of a 3 lambda 60 GHz dish.
>>
>> as usual, WRONG.
>
> Nope.
>
> Then why do antenna books have nomographs of dB gain verssus physical
> size with straight lines for frequency.
>
>> the 60Hz dish would be 17,794,063.6 meters wide or 11,056 miles wide or
>> 100 times the diameter of the Earth. Impossable to build it at all.
>
> Not in space given enough time and money.
>
>> THE PHYSICAL SIZE IS THE ISSUE !
>
> Nope.
>
> Physical size only determines the econonomic practicably, not the RF
> characteristics.
>
>> (what size waveguide do you feed a 60 Hz dish with ?)
>
> You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general
> that all dishes are fed with waveguide; they are not. It is very
> common to feed dishes in the lower microwave region and below with
> coax.
>
>> your max surface roughness at 60GHz is what ?
>
> It is perfect because competant people were used to build it and
> irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency.
>
>> How much beam taper do you illuminate the edges with to avoid backlobes
>> at 60GHz? which would pick up the 60HZ earth very well. What would the
>> F/B ratio be to pick up a 60Hz craft 1,000,000,000 miles out ?
>
> The same as at 60 GHz.
>
>>> The only issue with a dish at gamma or X-ray frquencies is that the
>>> dish has to be made of a material that is reflective at those frequencies,
>>
>> which there are not any for a parabolic dish.
>
> Which is irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency.
>
> If you can find a material that is relective at gamma or X-ray frquencies,
> then such a dish will perform just the same as any other dish at any
> other frequency with the same diameter in wavelengths.
>
>> what is the max surface roughness you could have ? (hint: 1/4 lamda and
>> how much is that?) can anybody do that yet ?
>> so you are WRONG again, find the answer in ARRL, not.
>
> The requirements would be the same as any other dish at any other frequency
> with the same diameter in wavelengths.
>
> The thing you are utterly unable to understand is that electromagnetic
> theory of antennas is frequency independant.
>
> The practical ability to construct a given antenna may change with
> frequency, but the electromagnetic theory does NOT.
Exactly correct. And in fact X-ray antennas have been built and used!
They are very interesting practical physics.
As jimp said the theory works exactly the same as at any frequency!
The trick with X-ray antennas is to get reflectivity and achieve the
accuracy of figure at the given wavelength.
The first was done very cleverly by not trying to come into a dish
perpendicularly like a typical dish antenna or optical mirror, but
building a very low off-axis parabola so the radiation comes in at a
very low angle. Things that are not so reflective straight-on become
very shiny at low angles! Cute!
And as for accuracy, well that just means that one must use modern
techniques VERY carefully and you can get some passable results even at
x-ray wavelengths.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 20:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o9puic-at8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #536548 |
benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/30/2015 02:01 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>> On 11/28/2015 4:58 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/27/2015 10:46 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 11/27/2015 02:01 AM, gilber34 wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/26/2015 10:45 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/26/2015 08:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> perhaps not gamma ray, but you DO know that X-ray parabolic antennas >>>>>> exist, right? >>>>> >>>>> using glancing, paraboioids and hyperboioids, not quite the same as a >>>>> dish. but my point was to counter the over generalization that EM >>>>> frequency being the same. Still waiting on the size of the 60 HZ dish >>>>> for 20 dB gain... >>>> >>>> Pretty large, but the physical size is irrelevant; the gain of a dish >>>> is a function of it's diameter in wavelengths, so the gain of a 3 lambda >>>> 60 Hz dish is the same as the gain of a 3 lambda 60 GHz dish. >>> >>> as usual, WRONG. >> >> Nope. >> >> Then why do antenna books have nomographs of dB gain verssus physical >> size with straight lines for frequency. >> >>> the 60Hz dish would be 17,794,063.6 meters wide or 11,056 miles wide or >>> 100 times the diameter of the Earth. Impossable to build it at all. >> >> Not in space given enough time and money. >> >>> THE PHYSICAL SIZE IS THE ISSUE ! >> >> Nope. >> >> Physical size only determines the econonomic practicably, not the RF >> characteristics. >> >>> (what size waveguide do you feed a 60 Hz dish with ?) >> >> You assume due to your utter ignorance of antennas and RF in general >> that all dishes are fed with waveguide; they are not. It is very >> common to feed dishes in the lower microwave region and below with >> coax. >> >>> your max surface roughness at 60GHz is what ? >> >> It is perfect because competant people were used to build it and >> irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. >> >>> How much beam taper do you illuminate the edges with to avoid backlobes >>> at 60GHz? which would pick up the 60HZ earth very well. What would the >>> F/B ratio be to pick up a 60Hz craft 1,000,000,000 miles out ? >> >> The same as at 60 GHz. >> >>>> The only issue with a dish at gamma or X-ray frquencies is that the >>>> dish has to be made of a material that is reflective at those frequencies, >>> >>> which there are not any for a parabolic dish. >> >> Which is irrelevant to the fact that antennas scale in frequency. >> >> If you can find a material that is relective at gamma or X-ray frquencies, >> then such a dish will perform just the same as any other dish at any >> other frequency with the same diameter in wavelengths. >> >>> what is the max surface roughness you could have ? (hint: 1/4 lamda and >>> how much is that?) can anybody do that yet ? >>> so you are WRONG again, find the answer in ARRL, not. >> >> The requirements would be the same as any other dish at any other frequency >> with the same diameter in wavelengths. >> >> The thing you are utterly unable to understand is that electromagnetic >> theory of antennas is frequency independant. >> >> The practical ability to construct a given antenna may change with >> frequency, but the electromagnetic theory does NOT. > > Exactly correct. And in fact X-ray antennas have been built and used! > They are very interesting practical physics. > As jimp said the theory works exactly the same as at any frequency! > > The trick with X-ray antennas is to get reflectivity and achieve the > accuracy of figure at the given wavelength. > > The first was done very cleverly by not trying to come into a dish > perpendicularly like a typical dish antenna or optical mirror, but > building a very low off-axis parabola so the radiation comes in at a > very low angle. Things that are not so reflective straight-on become > very shiny at low angles! Cute! > > And as for accuracy, well that just means that one must use modern > techniques VERY carefully and you can get some passable results even at > x-ray wavelengths. I wonder how much babbling nonsense he would generate if I were to bring up dielectric lens antennas, which work exactly like a magnifying glass given he has already said RF does not work like light and magnifying glasses? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 17:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3ilck$aig$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #536556 |
The first was done very cleverly by not trying to come into a dish >> perpendicularly like a typical dish antenna or optical mirror, but >> building a very low off-axis parabola so the radiation comes in at a >> very low angle. Things that are not so reflective straight-on become >> very shiny at low angles! Cute! >> >> And as for accuracy, well that just means that one must use modern >> techniques VERY carefully and you can get some passable results even at >> x-ray wavelengths. > > I wonder how much babbling nonsense he would generate if I were to > bring up dielectric lens antennas, which work exactly like a magnifying > glass given he has already said RF does not work like light and > magnifying glasses? > you said that, not me, a dielectric lens change phase across an area, just like a reflector, but no, you cannot understand phase, too complex. and it does not "work exactly like a magnifying glass" RF is not light, dude. study the nomenclalture first. RF refers to the band of frequencies from about 0.5 MHz to 1Mhz the FCC disagrees with you,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 23:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <624vic-lt9.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #536600 |
gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: > The first was done very cleverly by not trying to come into a dish >>> perpendicularly like a typical dish antenna or optical mirror, but >>> building a very low off-axis parabola so the radiation comes in at a >>> very low angle. Things that are not so reflective straight-on become >>> very shiny at low angles! Cute! >>> >>> And as for accuracy, well that just means that one must use modern >>> techniques VERY carefully and you can get some passable results even at >>> x-ray wavelengths. >> >> I wonder how much babbling nonsense he would generate if I were to >> bring up dielectric lens antennas, which work exactly like a magnifying >> glass given he has already said RF does not work like light and >> magnifying glasses? >> > > you said that, not me, a dielectric lens change phase across an area, > just like a reflector, but no, you cannot understand phase, too complex. Nope, you said RF doesn't work like a magnifying glass. > and it does not "work exactly like a magnifying glass" A dielectric lens does. > RF is not light, dude. study the nomenclalture first. RF and light are the same thing, i.e. electromagnetic energy, at different frequencies as are gamma rays and X-rays. > RF refers to the band of frequencies from about 0.5 MHz to 1Mhz Try greater than 0 to low THz. > the FCC disagrees with you, You are clueless. Where do you get the silly nonsense you spout? Show me anywhere in electromagnetic theory where there is anything even remotely like A < frequency < B or shut the hell up. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web