On 8 Jul, 20:05, art wrote:
Just had some interesting reading on moon dust, mars dust e.t.c
I am amased that scientists had not figured out what the dust really
is.
Actually it fits very nicely in my thesis where errent particles fly
thru space
in swarm form as per radio communication. Just one thing escapes me
and that is particles pointed at the moons surface which penetrate the
extreme earths fields and then go on to hit the moon and then reflect
back.
Yet on the moons surface are zillians of these static particles stuck
to its surface.
The question is thus why is the moon which is covered with static
particles
also allow static particles to deflect? I don't know to much about
the moon but this would suggest the moon has a minimum gravitational
pull .
Not enough strength to totally absorb the impact of static
particles which are then allowed to bounce back to earth where it
becomes atached to diagmatic materials in radio antenna form.
This fits my thesis on radio propagation. What really bothers me is
that people in the space industry seem to not have any inclination
of the nature of this dus tis.. Anybody aware of papers that discuss
the
phenomina of surface covering materials of orbiting masses in the
Universe? I sure would appreciate pointers where the specifications
of surface dust is located together with comparisons to that covering
other orbiting units in the universe.
Art

I forgot to mention something else. Moon dust in my terms consists
of static particles that lay on the surface of diagmatic materials
which means it would also adhere to spacemans uniform because of
bodily
attaction i.e. the human body is mostly water together with oxygen
which is diagmatic as is any radio antenna. The fact that static
particles are attached to orbiting masses surface suggest that a
correllation can be made between gravitational pull to the mass itself
which will then determine that the mass is in fact a diagmatic
material
of which there are relatively few. Methinks that I need to study
up a bit more unless there is a physisist on board this news group
that can guide me
Art KB9MZ

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:39:09 -0700, art wrote:

Methinks that I need to study
up a bit more unless there is a physisist on board this news group
that can guide me

Have you invented your own vocabulary to substitute for what is more
commonly known as Pixie Dust? Research that term first to confirm or
deny.

As an aside, what has this got to do with the focus (eg. antennas) of
this forum? Did the moderators kick you out of eHam?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 8 Jul, 23:24, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:39:09 -0700, art wrote:
Methinks that I need to study
up a bit more unless there is a physisist on board this news group
that can guide me

Have you invented your own vocabulary to substitute for what is more
commonly known as Pixie Dust? Research that term first to confirm or
deny.

As an aside, what has this got to do with the focus (eg. antennas) of
this forum? Did the moderators kick you out of eHam?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Every thing!
They are static particles that rest on diamagnetic materials
used for antennas. These particular lunar particle coverings was
predicted more than a hundred years ago by the masters which
is before radio was even thought of . I would have thought
that the subject of antennas would fit right in here!

art wrote:
On 8 Jul, 23:24, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:39:09 -0700, art wrote:
Methinks that I need to study
up a bit more unless there is a physisist on board this news group
that can guide me

Have you invented your own vocabulary to substitute for what is more
commonly known as Pixie Dust? Research that term first to confirm or
deny.

As an aside, what has this got to do with the focus (eg. antennas) of
this forum? Did the moderators kick you out of eHam?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Every thing!
They are static particles that rest on diamagnetic materials
used for antennas. These particular lunar particle coverings was
predicted more than a hundred years ago by the masters which
is before radio was even thought of . I would have thought
that the subject of antennas would fit right in here!

OK, now we have an English word to work with.

From http://en.wikipedia.org:

"Diamagnetism is a form of magnetism that is only exhibited by a substance
in the presence of an externally applied magnetic field."

"All materials show a diamagnetic response in an applied magnetic field;
however for materials which show some other form of magnetism (such as
ferromagnetism or paramagnetism), the diamagnetism is completely
overpowered. Substances which only, or mostly, display diamagnetic
behaviour are termed diamagnetic materials, or diamagnets. Materials
that are said to be diamagnetic are those which are usually considered
by non-physicists as "non magnetic", and include water, DNA, most organic
compounds such as petroleum and some plastics, and many metals such as
mercury, gold and bismuth."

So would Art's magic pixie dust particles rest on a ferromagnetic
antenna such as one constructed of a ferrous based alloy?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

snip
Jim Benito

I'm sorry but I will have to let you go. I am like others
prone to spelling errors when using the internet and it is
certainly not my intent to offend others who want to
procrastinate about such things to the exclusion of
every thing else However you do have a history of name
calling and procrastination which is testing my civility
to its limits. I wish you well in your future endeavers
with the expectation that they do not involve me. For myself
I also will avoid involvement with you
Bye Bye
Art

art wrote:
snip
Jim Benito

I'm sorry but I will have to let you go. I am like others
prone to spelling errors when using the internet and it is
certainly not my intent to offend others who want to
procrastinate about such things to the exclusion of
every thing else However you do have a history of name
calling and procrastination which is testing my civility
to its limits. I wish you well in your future endeavers
with the expectation that they do not involve me. For myself
I also will avoid involvement with you
Bye Bye
Art

Do you have the slightest clue what "procrastinate" and "procrastination"
mean?

It doesn't appear so.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 04:38:39 -0700, art wrote:

I would have thought
that the subject of antennas would fit right in here!

So would most, but your topic is Pixie Dust (look at the subject
line).

This is probably why eHam has revoked your privileges.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Osnip.

This is probably why eHam has revoked your privileges.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

You wish

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:14:37 -0700, art wrote:

Osnip.

This is probably why eHam has revoked your privileges.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

You wish

Not at all, Arthur. WELCOME BACK TO THE PIT OF HELL! where you seek
solace from your bruising. The acclaim to your theories at eHam is
about as amusing as they are here. ;-)

I particularly enjoyed Tom's response about clicking Ruby Slippers to
make something come true. I wouldn't wish the hall monitors to snub
your fulminations (although it appears several of your new-found
correspondents wouldn't mind) as I anxiously await your inundating Tom
with a gallon of spit.

Isn't amazing how these academic idylls of civil discourse (populated
by gentlemany of infinite wisdom) crumble into viper's nests when you
arrive? The term correlation comes to mind, but I don't know what
word it would be in your vocabulary so as to make the concept
meaningful to you.

For others who haven't read that comic strip, Arthur has proven
Einstein was wrong! Well, proven in the sense that Arthur proves
anything. Which is to say "he said so." After all, there is nothing
mentioned about anything specific from Einstein (special theory?
general theory? the photon theory? the cosmological constant?). That
is best left to our imagination as Arthur has dismissed it all with a
wave of the hand, whiting out Einstein's name on the Nobel prize to
pencil in Art.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

Isn't amazing how these academic idylls of civil discourse (populated
by gentlemany of infinite wisdom) crumble into viper's nests when you
arrive? The term correlation comes to mind, but I don't know what
word it would be in your vocabulary so as to make the concept
meaningful to you.

For others who haven't read that comic strip, Arthur has proven
Einstein was wrong! Well, proven in the sense that Arthur proves
anything. Which is to say "he said so." After all, there is nothing
mentioned about anything specific from Einstein (special theory?
general theory? the photon theory? the cosmological constant?). That
is best left to our imagination as Arthur has dismissed it all with a
wave of the hand, whiting out Einstein's name on the Nobel prize to
pencil in Art.


http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra...st_060223.html

Is a nice little understandable and believable bit on moon dust.

Created in a massively electrically charged environment by a constant
rain of micreometeorites.

http://faculty.rmwc.edu/tmichalik/moon8.htm

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyGXe_p...c_truefake.htm

and with shapes that have both microspheres and