On 20 Jan, 12:47, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

...





On 19 Jan, 10:56, "AI4QJ" wrote:
wrote in message

ne

http://www.energyscience.org.uk/le/le24.htm

I have just got around to reading just the intro
of the above URL. Later I will digest the rest of
the lesson.
What struck me was how deftly the author pointed out
where pseudo experts have dominated science thru the ages
such that it reflects the poles of the many led by the few.
It shows time and time again that science is a popularity
contest where the so called "in crowd" of of self rightious
people have been able to thwat the advances of science of
the past centuries. Gallilao comes to mind as does Green
of Nottingham and Heavieside of Clapton and ofcourse my favorite
Gauss. We are seeing the same thing here on this newsgroup

Wrong Art, the very purpose that the link was posted in this thread was to
encourage alternative concepts to those developed in the 1800's, 1904, 1905
and the 1930's.

There may indeed be a case for the Aether; personally, free space is merely
a concept of nothingness that only contains those parameters that the
scientist tends to use in his model. In electromagnetics, free space has a
characteristic impedance of Zo (377 ohms), it has permeability and
permittivity which fit well into our mathematical models. How can
nothingness have a characteristc impedance of 377 ohms? And today we have a
little more information (much more); we have theories of exotic matter and
energy that are so new that no one *has really taken a second look at the
old concepts and perhaps investigated for possible linkages. There may be
new possible explanations for the infinite negative energy of a Dirac sea
that didn't make sense in the 30's; there is only a shortage of physicists
with the time and money to come up with new theories in a short time.

Art, I'm sure your response to these statements will be negative (curiously
which, as in the past, actually tended to support your persistence and
encourage your new ideas but oppose your lack of scientific method). Finish
reading the article and understand the math. Judge for yourself if you see
any chinks. But do note thar Dr. Aspden uses math and logic to make his
points. He also publishes references in his paper. He leaves himself wide
open for peer review. This is the way it is properly done and completely
opposite of the faith-based approach you foist upon us.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No. Now I have read the whole thing I can state that my work resulted
from my travels
after Gauss which lead me to my personal law that an antenna to be of
maximum efficiency must be made from a diamagnetic material which can
be any size or shape or elevation as long as it is in a state of
equilibrium. I followed thru with this on computor programs which
confirmed
with my analysis. I have since made antennas of different size,shape
and elevation which is contrary to the norm which gives me impetus to
pursue the line of thought further. Gaussian law gave me a measure of
belief that static particles were at rest on a radiator which when
coupled to a diamagnetic inductance gave particles at rest at each and
every point of the radiator an ejection at right angles to the
radiator. Googling on each and every point of that traeveling gave
credence to the parth taken.When seeing that each point of a radiator
can be considered a minute electrical circuit it can be deduced that
many samples are ejected in pattern form as is the individual
impactson the radiator itself thus creating an occillation
a phenomina that has been accepted for many a year. To see the mirror
image of these impacts on a receiving antenna does seem realistic if
all particles follow the same trajectory.
The anti gravitational effects of a diamagnetic field gives credence
to a straight line trajectory and so on. So the dust can be lihas to
be linked in some way to the solar flow of particles pattern of eleven
years which matches the turn over of the sun's poles which is known to
lead to a heavy increase in solar dust into our atmosphere and where
the earth also has additional poles based on the location of various
inate elements which tend to congregate.
These poles obviously have a connection to the earth's wobbly rotation
by movement of these various poles that could account for the curl
vector in radiation as it does with a pendulum.
So I have invented a plausable account for radiation which for myself
I consider more reasonable because of computor results and my antenna
building. So far this trail has lead to antennas that are in
equilibrium and of various shapes and elevations that matches the
conclusions found on the trail.Existing computor programs also verify
the trail.When lstening to my small antennas with their wide band
coverage and small size I feel that I should be forgiven if I consider
the trail of conclusions are correct. But even if this were not so the
trail taken on this premise produced a different line of thought on
antennas that work exactly as predicted. So now I share my work and
thoughts as a layman in this area with other laymen
and not to the any society of physics which are closed units. I am
doing this to document my work for what it is and by no means put my
self on the same pedestal as Einstein, Newton and others. So by
sharing and explaining my thoughts with outhers I am taken to task
purely because such works are only credibly submitted by those skilled
in the arts within a closed circle. So it is considered wrong that I
share my experiences with other laymen if it is not previously
approved or meet the texts submitted by experts. So hams are now not
interested in antennas and I am in errorin explaining trails taken
which appear contrary to the teachings given to laymen some 50 years
ago. So the options provided by laymen is to not share, to not
discuss, to not sway people to rethink that which is 50 years old and
to not infer that bigger is not better. If you are a contestor you
must keep quiet with respect to your experiences and take them to your
grave thus giving science time to stumble across it in the future as
we have had enough of the re inventing of the wheel when we discover
to our dismay it was written up by somebody who is now deceased. I
know that people are resistant to change especially those with
experiences that are repeated exactly the same for every consecutive
day without change.
If this is so why is this newsgroup in existance? To keep old koots in
employ? Or to hold dear all the ideals that all hams have spent to
survive in their lives and keep the new at bay.
Would it not be better to converse and study each points found on the
trail so others will see a chink in my logic that can lead to even
better ideas. Could we review the trail and separate the good from the
bad leaving a new rock on which to build? Or is it our destiny to
prevent change to our ideals such when we die we take with us the
reasons for this being a hobby?"
The hobby cannot survive purely on the basis on the enjoyement of
slander and one upmanship.
When we have gone there will be no reason for this newsgroup or our
hobby since we are destroying the very tenents that allowed us to
enjoy and thus prevent those who follow us to have the same rewards.
In our younger days science profited from ham radio , but in our older
days our intransience is destroying it for future generations.Why
because there can be no future if we convince the young that all is
known about the radiation field and they should pursue other areas to
satisfy their inquisitivenes or in its absence just go with the flow
of depression.
can be any size ,shape and elevation