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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.