On 7 Nov, 08:57, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:18:26 -0800, art wrote:
Try proving my initial post on this thread is in error

In one sentence with fewer words than? :



On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:04:38 -0800, art wrote:
Shorten your post and just type one line. I Richard, can show the error of your mathematics
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly, bluffing again no mass

Correcting myself...

That means that its *radiated power* was found to be about 59% that
of the reference monopole.

Showing my work:

[ 1/(10^(2.33/20)) ]^2 = 0.585, approx

RF

On Nov 7, 10:26 am, Spam Trap wrote:


The Real "Ham radio herd mentality" is also demonstrated by the number
of hookees swept up by these trolls.

Yea, but you are missing the boat. These guys are our amusement.
It would get way too boring if we didn't have "Heckle and Jeckle"
to give us our daily dose of "radio mentality"...
IE: the perverted load antenna = a full size monopole...
That's a good one...lol..lol..lol.. Keep em coming!
MK

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:41:47 -0800, art wrote:

On 7 Nov, 08:57, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:18:26 -0800, art wrote:
Try proving my initial post on this thread is in error

In one sentence with fewer words than? :
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:04:38 -0800, art wrote:
Shorten your post and just type one line. I Richard, can show the error of your mathematics
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²

Exactly, bluffing again no mass

So no mass and bluffing shows the error of
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²
?

No one doubts that from you Arthur. Do you know what mathematics is?

To this point, your theories lack equations, and lacking equations
they lack results. You often fail to provide the minimum enumerated
characteristics of
1. frequency;
2. wavelength;
3. angle;
4. gain;
5. resistance;
6. reactance;
7. Q;
8. voltage;
9. current.
Yet and all, you claim to have a theory of RF that lacks values for
each and everyone of these specifics that are rudderless in your brand
of math without equations. True, you line up all these words in all
the possible combinations and permutations (and sometimes even spell
them right), but not always in coherent sentences and rarely
punctuated correctly. Enlarge your word palette and you may one day
script "Hamlet" through the same random process.

However, I am glad to see you still read my comments! So that
inspires me to happily slog on through your murky postings. ;-)

Forge on for Queen and Country!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 7 Nov, 10:04, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:41:47 -0800, art wrote:
On 7 Nov, 08:57, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:18:26 -0800, art wrote:
Try proving my initial post on this thread is in error

In one sentence with fewer words than? :
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:04:38 -0800, art wrote:
Shorten your post and just type one line. I Richard, can show the error of your mathematics
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²

Exactly, bluffing again no mass

So no mass and bluffing shows the error ofRr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²

?

No one doubts that from you Arthur. Do you know what mathematics is?

To this point, your theories lack equations, and lacking equations
they lack results. You often fail to provide the minimum enumerated
characteristics of
1. frequency;
2. wavelength;
3. angle;
4. gain;
5. resistance;
6. reactance;
7. Q;
8. voltage;
9. current.
Yet and all, you claim to have a theory of RF that lacks values for
each and everyone of these specifics that are rudderless in your brand
of math without equations. True, you line up all these words in all
the possible combinations and permutations (and sometimes even spell
them right), but not always in coherent sentences and rarely
punctuated correctly. Enlarge your word palette and you may one day
script "Hamlet" through the same random process.

However, I am glad to see you still read my comments! So that
inspires me to happily slog on through your murky postings. ;-)

Forge on for Queen and Country!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Get to mathematics. Prove me wrong by your own hand.
Nobody has yet and nobody can.
Words don't trump mathematics

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:33:10 -0800, art wrote:

Words don't trump mathematics

And yet you haven't produced a lick of equations, or solutions.

Do you still maintain
mass and bluffing shows the error of
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²
?

You asked for a simple, one-sentence equation you could prove wrong
with mathematics. Feel free to fill in the variables and show how the
solution is wrong. [Hint: the same formula can even be found in a
book you own, page 12 of chapter 2, of J&J, if you haven't colored
over it on the page.]

Note, that if you prove this wrong by your mathematics as you said you
would, you simultaneously impeach your only reference book that you
have used to prove your theory. Quite a paradox isn't it? I don't
think Johnson and Jasik ever show that mass and bluffing like yours
proves the error of their own work.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

wrote:
On Nov 7, 10:26 am, Spam Trap wrote:

The Real "Ham radio herd mentality" is also demonstrated by the number
of hookees swept up by these trolls.

Yea, but you are missing the boat. These guys are our amusement.
It would get way too boring if we didn't have "Heckle and Jeckle"
to give us our daily dose of "radio mentality"...
IE: the perverted load antenna = a full size monopole...
That's a good one...lol..lol..lol.. Keep em coming!
MK


Oh, it's meant to be fun, silly me! The humour must get attenuated
in the translation I guess. Not sure if they are trolls but they
really ought to get a motel room - sorry, I meant blog - where they
can carry on.


Charlie.

--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
Most hams who strive for maximum radiation that is horizontally
polarised place the radiator parallel to the earths surface.
That is an example of herd mentallity.
When the vectors of radiation fields and "curl" are summated
the resulting vector is NOT along the axis of the radiator.
For maximum horisontally polarised radiation it is this
vector that must be parallel to the earths surface.
By the way Maxwell confirms this but hams chose
to ignore it.
Yup, herd mentallity!
Art

A herd is by definition relatively unstructured. However, there may be one
or a few animals which tend to be imitated by the rest of the members of the
herd more than others. An animal taking this role is called a "control
animal", since its behaviour will predict that of the herd as a whole. It
cannot be assumed, however, that the control animal is deliberately taking a
leadership role. Control animals are not necessarily, or even usually, those
that are socially dominant in conflict situations, though they frequently
are.

On 7 Nov, 15:36, "Bob" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

Most hams who strive for maximum radiation that is horizontally
polarised place the radiator parallel to the earths surface.
That is an example of herd mentallity.
When the vectors of radiation fields and "curl" are summated
the resulting vector is NOT along the axis of the radiator.
For maximum horisontally polarised radiation it is this
vector that must be parallel to the earths surface.
By the way Maxwell confirms this but hams chose
to ignore it.
Yup, herd mentallity!
Art

A herd is by definition relatively unstructured. However, there may be one
or a few animals which tend to be imitated by the rest of the members of the
herd more than others. An animal taking this role is called a "control
animal", since its behaviour will predict that of the herd as a whole. It
cannot be assumed, however, that the control animal is deliberately taking a
leadership role. Control animals are not necessarily, or even usually, those
that are socially dominant in conflict situations, though they frequently
are.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Interesting. So in the case of amateur radio it is the ARRL who
is the control animal
because they are socially dominant. Very good!
I always saw it as a group of lemmings where each animal has his
nose stuck under the rear of the animal in front, often called
brown nosing, in a pecking order.
So what's in it for ARRL to keep angled radiators a secret by
, keeping it out of the handbook, did they copy write it so
they can take the secret to their graves?
Best regards
Art

Art wrote:
"Most hams who strive for maximum radiation that is horizontally
polarized place the radiator parallel to the earth`s surface."

Reflection from the ionosphere nakes unpredictable changes in
polarization. Nevertheless, the angle of arrival equals the angle of
reflection at the ionosphere. Experience shows best results on a
transmission path happen when the antennas at both ends of the path are
complimentary. See E.A. Laport, "Radio Antenna Engineering" page 215,
"High Frequency Antennas".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI