|
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
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 |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
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. Then you haven't read anything newer than pre-Apollo. Actually, it was known long before that; Apollo just proved it. snip insanity -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
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 |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
On 8 Jul, 20:35, wrote:
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. Then you haven't read anything newer than pre-Apollo. Actually, it was known long before that; Apollo just proved it. snip insanity -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Proved what specific details? Art |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
On 8 Jul, 20:41, art wrote:
On 8 Jul, 20:35, wrote: 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. Then you haven't read anything newer than pre-Apollo. Actually, it was known long before that; Apollo just proved it. snip insanity -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Proved what specific details? Art If as you say they knew of the specifics of moon dust before they got there one must presume that materials used for the landrover did not consist of aluminum or any other diagmatic material as that would certainly limit its useful life Art |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
art wrote:
On 8 Jul, 20:41, art wrote: On 8 Jul, 20:35, wrote: 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. Then you haven't read anything newer than pre-Apollo. Actually, it was known long before that; Apollo just proved it. snip insanity -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Proved what specific details? Art If as you say they knew of the specifics of moon dust before they got there one must presume that materials used for the landrover did not consist of aluminum or any other diagmatic material as that would certainly limit its useful life Art There is no such word in English as "diagmatic" and you are talking to yourself. Yet another sign of dementia. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
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 |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
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! |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
On Jul 9, 1:05 pm, wrote
There is no such word in English as "diagmatic" Suggest you do a Google search next time "before" you put your foot in your mouth. bluey |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
Derek wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:05 pm, wrote There is no such word in English as "diagmatic" Suggest you do a Google search next time "before" you put your foot in your mouth. Google shows 24 hits for "diagmatic". 4 are non-English sites. 1 is from eHam.net in an article by Art. The rest are apparently typos. Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language; no "diagmatic". Dictionary.com; no results found for "diagmatic". Suggest you do a Google and dictionary search next time before you put your foot in your mouth. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
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. |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
On 9 Jul, 07:35, wrote:
Derek wrote: On Jul 9, 1:05 pm, wrote There is no such word in English as "diagmatic" Suggest you do a Google search next time "before" you put your foot in your mouth. Google shows 24 hits for "diagmatic". 4 are non-English sites. 1 is from eHam.net in an article by Art. The rest are apparently typos. Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language; no "diagmatic". Dictionary.com; no results found for "diagmatic". Suggest you do a Google and dictionary search next time before you put your foot in your mouth. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. It could well be a use of the word diagmatic since it is used extensively in quantum studies of chemicals and the human body. It may well be a derivative of the word diagmagnetic or it may well be a word that is gaining in use. Either way I would decline to call it a non word on what I know. I would have thought the subject matter would have been more important than just name calling but I will ascede to your wishes and contain myself to the word DIAGMAGNETIC and try to avoid latin derivitations |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
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 |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
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. |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
art wrote:
On 9 Jul, 07:35, wrote: Derek wrote: On Jul 9, 1:05 pm, wrote There is no such word in English as "diagmatic" Suggest you do a Google search next time "before" you put your foot in your mouth. Google shows 24 hits for "diagmatic". 4 are non-English sites. 1 is from eHam.net in an article by Art. The rest are apparently typos. Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language; no "diagmatic". Dictionary.com; no results found for "diagmatic". Suggest you do a Google and dictionary search next time before you put your foot in your mouth. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. It could well be a use of the word diagmatic since it is used extensively in quantum studies of chemicals and the human body. It may well be a derivative of the word diagmagnetic or it may well be a word that is gaining in use. Either way I would decline to call it a non word on what I know. I would have thought the subject matter would have been more important than just name calling but I will ascede to your wishes and contain myself to the word DIAGMAGNETIC and try to avoid latin derivitations It could well be that you and the other 19 Google posters just don't know how to spell. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
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 |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
Osnip.
This is probably why eHam has revoked your privileges. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC You wish |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
Art wrote:
"What really bothers me is that people in the space industry seem not to have any inclination of the nature of (what) this dust is." It is believed that in prehistoric times, an ice comet collided with the earth with so much force*at a spot near the Yucatan Peninsula, that a chunck was dislodged and hurled into orbit. This collected and compacted becoming the earth`s moon. The moon should be expected to contain minerals similar to those on earth. NASA`s missions to the moon confirmed it wasn`t really green cheese but rather very similar to the stuff on earth. NASA`s business is finding and confirming scientific information. NASA has landed on Mars and sent rovers over its surface in a search for conditions permitting some sort of life. On January 21, NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) landed a scientific package on Titan, one of Saturn`s moons with some similarities to Earth. It reports back that the atmosphere is 96.3% H2 (hydrogen). Titan is too far to go for a clean-burning fuel. The package landed on Titan was thought to need a radio repeater aboard its orbiting mother-ship to relay data to earth. Crossed signals in this arrangement did not immediately work. Fortunately, the Robert C. Byrd radio telescope in Green Bank. W. VA was able to pick up the data signals directly from the data package on the ground at Titan and there was much relief on earth. NASA has used spectrum analyzers on light from many bodies in the cosmos to determine what atonic elements are associated with various bodies in space. They now have a good idea of their compositions. An atom is the smallest particle with unique characteristics. Subatomic particles are similar regardless of their source. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
On 9 Jul, 14:39, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote: "What really bothers me is that people in the space industry seem not to have any inclination of the nature of (what) this dust is." It is believed that in prehistoric times, an ice comet collided with the earth with so much force at a spot near the Yucatan Peninsula, that a chunck was dislodged and hurled into orbit. This collected and compacted becoming the earth`s moon. The moon should be expected to contain minerals similar to those on earth. NASA`s missions to the moon confirmed it wasn`t really green cheese but rather very similar to the stuff on earth. NASA`s business is finding and confirming scientific information. NASA has landed on Mars and sent rovers over its surface in a search for conditions permitting some sort of life. On January 21, NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) landed a scientific package on Titan, one of Saturn`s moons with some similarities to Earth. It reports back that the atmosphere is 96.3% H2 (hydrogen). Titan is too far to go for a clean-burning fuel. The package landed on Titan was thought to need a radio repeater aboard its orbiting mother-ship to relay data to earth. Crossed signals in this arrangement did not immediately work. Fortunately, the Robert C. Byrd radio telescope in Green Bank. W. VA was able to pick up the data signals directly from the data package on the ground at Titan and there was much relief on earth. NASA has used spectrum analyzers on light from many bodies in the cosmos to determine what atonic elements are associated with various bodies in space. They now have a good idea of their compositions. An atom is the smallest particle with unique characteristics. Subatomic particles are similar regardless of their source. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI And ?????............. Yes We have read all that on the net but why are you repeating that? Did you intend to make a specific point but accidently hit "send"? I look forward to the point that you were preparing to make and to what it was directed to |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
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 |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
Art wrote:
"And?" My point is that Art is full of it when he says people in the space industry don`t have a clue about "Surface dust on the orbiting Universe". Art is likely to say that the experts` dust isn`t Art`s dust. Art`s dust would best be gone with the wind and Gaussian antennas. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
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 |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
Michael Coslo wrote:
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=A9...... and with shapes that have both microspheres and Ack! sorry - I pasted that too long url and accidentally sent the message instead of undoing what I did. mea maxima culpa! Point is, that the source and composition of the lunar dust is well known. We can even duplicate it here on earth. There isn't anything magic about dust that consists of a combination of microspheres and hook ended fractured rocks. Put that in a highly charged environment, and no strange and incomprehensible theories are needed to explain why it sticks to things. It's shape, size, and static...... And now for Art. Art, the dust in not specifically something that is roaming around the universe in packs. The dust or lunar soil is composed of fractured and spheroidal minerals mixed in with meteoriodal material from the little buggers that hit the moon and formed those fragements. The reason that there is a lot of that stuff on the moon as compared to the earth is because metoroids hit the moon with regularity, and once formed, tend to stay there. On earth only the larger meteoroids make it to the surface (yeah, I know a meteoroid is one that makes it to the surface) and once there, they become assimilated, and are hard to find. Occam's razor isn't always correct, but in this case..... - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
Richard Harrison wrote:
Art wrote: "And?" My point is that Art is full of it when he says people in the space industry don`t have a clue about "Surface dust on the orbiting Universe". Art is likely to say that the experts` dust isn`t Art`s dust. Art`s dust would best be gone with the wind and Gaussian antennas. All physical properties of Moon dust are easily accounted for by anyone who took and passed High School science. No strange physics is needed. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
It is believed that in prehistoric times,
an ice comet collided with the earth with so much force at a spot near the Yucatan Peninsula, that a chunk was dislodged and hurled into orbit. This collected and compacted becoming the earth`s moon. I think you will find that the Earth had two moons, and the one in a decaying orbit hit the Earth - creating the (now burried) crater, as well as leavin us with a somewhat thinner crust. The bit of green cheeze out there, over our heads, is as old as the "inner Earth", but like the Earth, it is steadily growing as more space debris arrives. If a comet had struck the Earth, then just the sheer momentum would have destroyed it, if it had been big enough to hurl something out of the Earths gravity. Even the Manson comet was not that big, and look at the size of that crater ;-) But back to space dust - Fred Hoyle (a well-know scientist from Yorkshire, England) pointed out that we all have noses with the holes underneath so that our air-intake is sheltered from the debris and diseases that are falling from space. Fred also invented the term "Big Bang", although he meant it sarcastically, in true Yorkshire fashion. (Eeeeeeee bah gum! The's nowt as odd as fowk!) |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
If you guys want to read hard science without any mathematical
equations, read ATOM by Larry Krause... This is as close as you can get to understanding cosmology without having to take a PhD in physics at the university... If you read this and take the time to think and understand what he is sayiing I 'garontee' you will see the world in a whole new way... denny - an old farm boy who never wondered about the ability of cow **** to stick to your shoes... and "Two quarks for Muster Mark" |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
In article ,
Harry wrote: It is believed that in prehistoric times, an ice comet collided with the earth with so much force at a spot near the Yucatan Peninsula, that a chunk was dislodged and hurled into orbit. This collected and compacted becoming the earth`s moon. I think you will find that the Earth had two moons, and the one in a decaying orbit hit the Earth - creating the (now burried) crater, as well as leavin us with a somewhat thinner crust. The bit of green cheeze out there, over our heads, is as old as the "inner Earth", but like the Earth, it is steadily growing as more space debris arrives. As I understand it, the current "mainstream" thinking is that there were numerous collision events, of greatly different magnitudes, and very far apart in time. It's now believed that quite early in the lifetime of the solar system, when the planets were accreting out of a large dust-ring around the young Sun, a planetoid of roughly the size of Mars collided with the proto-Earth, striking a glancing blow. This impact shattered the smaller body and did really serious damage to the larger (probably re-melting much of it) and threw a lot of material back up into orbit around the (now-larger) Earth. Much of this material eventually fell back to the surface, some escaped entirely, and most of the rest eventually formed the moon. This event occurred quite a few billions of years ago. The impact at what is now Chicxulub in the Yucatan was a lot more recent (65 million years ago) and involved a much smaller body (perhaps 10 miles across). Current mainstream thinking is that this impact was probably the coup de grace for most of the dinosaurs... it was one of the largest impacts in the history of Earth, but there are geologic records of earlier impacts that left larger craters (the Vredefort and Sudbury structures). -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
While the geologic record for Chicxulub is well documented the
commonly known "fact" that this caused the dinosaurs to die out is debatable since their demise was spread over millions years covering both pre and post Chicxulub impact; not just over a few weeks or months, or even a few hundred years.. The seabed record does show Chicxulub caused a drop in temperatures for some time period and significant species losses.. There have been a number of other massives die offs seen in the fossil records that are not well explained and not all can be tied to an impact... The other issues you point out, such as the genesis of the earth's moon coming by impact from an extra solar body is the currently accepted theory of mainstream cosmologists, less a maverick or two... denny |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
In article .com, Denny wrote: While the geologic record for Chicxulub is well documented the commonly known "fact" that this caused the dinosaurs to die out is debatable since their demise was spread over millions years covering both pre and post Chicxulub impact; not just over a few weeks or months, or even a few hundred years.. Oh, I agree... that's why I used the phrase "coup de grace" and "most of the dinosaurs". There's good evidence that there was a lot of ecological stress from other causes (e.g. volcanism, change in ocean circulation patterns, etc.) which had been reducing the diversity and population of many Dinosauria for quite some time before the Chicxulub impact. And, of course, mainstream scientists now believe that one branch of the Dinosauria survived right up until present times. The seabed record does show Chicxulub caused a drop in temperatures for some time period and significant species losses.. I've seen one report which indicates that the area in which this asteroid hit consisted of rock which was unusually rich in sulphur, thus leading to a more severe sulphate-particle "nuclear winter" effect than what might have occurred if the impact had been elsewhere. One way or the other, it was probably a rather rotten time to be on this particular planet. There have been a number of other massives die offs seen in the fossil records that are not well explained and not all can be tied to an impact... Agreed. Life, and death, are both rather complex matters :-) -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 04:38:39 -0700, art wrote:
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? 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! Well Arthur, Some several silent days have passed on this subject that is going nowhere - it seems to mimic your forced retirement at eHam (or are both due to the wholesale lack of interest?). However, in keeping some semblance of a technical discussion on antennas (I have to review just which group this is), then some technical enquiry is in order (which I admit has a slim prospect of any coherent answer). So, does the a.) absence b.) presence of lunar particle coverings on my antenna c.) improve DX d.) exclude DX 5.) does not matter To repeat a message that hinged on the outcome of the Battle of the Coral Sea: "The World Wonders." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
Richard Clark wrote:
However, in keeping some semblance of a technical discussion on antennas (I have to review just which group this is), then some technical enquiry is in order (which I admit has a slim prospect of any coherent answer). So, does the a.) absence b.) presence of lunar particle coverings on my antenna c.) improve DX d.) exclude DX 5.) does not matter To repeat a message that hinged on the outcome of the Battle of the Coral Sea: "The World Wonders." I have copyrighted "Moonduster Antennas", so everyone else has to leave it alone. Patent is also pending. The Moonduster is an antenna made from moondust (of course!) Moonduster's utilize porous sintering technology to achieve not only the unique qualities of the lunar covering, but the immense surface area allows bandwidth previously achieved only by folded dipoles. All with much greater efficiency. neener, neener, neener. ;^) Now all I have to do is figure out how to get there....... - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:50:15 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote: I have copyrighted "Moonduster Antennas", so everyone else has to leave it alone. Patent is also pending. Hi Mike, Pending this idea elevates the gravitas of your contribution to science and has immediately validated your theory (what was it again?). Whatever was Einstein thinking when he missed this milestone in the march of physics? Once it is patented, the towers of academia will shudder and collapse into the dust of ages with your eclipse ushering in the golden dawn of a new age. 100 years of Nobel Laureates will be nothing more than a chorus line of troglodytes stunned by the harmony of your work. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
Richard Clark wrote in
: On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:50:15 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote: I have copyrighted "Moonduster Antennas", so everyone else has to leave it alone. Patent is also pending. Hi Mike, Pending this idea elevates the gravitas of your contribution to science and has immediately validated your theory (what was it again?). Whatever was Einstein thinking when he missed this milestone in the march of physics? Once it is patented, the towers of academia will shudder and collapse into the dust of ages with your eclipse ushering in the golden dawn of a new age. 100 years of Nobel Laureates will be nothing more than a chorus line of troglodytes stunned by the harmony of your work. I could just hug myself! ;^) In the end, we shall all see that indeed it is turtles all the way down.... Let us now sing The turtles are ancient and they are justified, The source of all matter and wit. The dust of the cosmos proper is naught but turtle..... Let this be a warning to everyone, don't mix Alka-Seltzer plus and Starbucks coffee....... - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Surface dust on the orbiting Universe
Mike Coslo wrote:
I could just hug myself! ;^) In the end, we shall all see that indeed it is turtles all the way down.... Let us now sing The turtles are ancient and they are justified, The source of all matter and wit. The dust of the cosmos proper is naught but turtle..... Let this be a warning to everyone, don't mix Alka-Seltzer plus and Starbucks coffee....... Yay! I killed the thread! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com