Superposition
 

John Smith wrote:
"Better question might be, when a run of conductor just happens to be
resonant / impedance matched at 60 Hz, why isn`t massive amounts of 60
Hz ELF being radiated?"

The hot and neutral conductors are too close together to allow energy to
stray too far.

Certain antennas exhibit "power gain". Terman defines power gain as:
"the ratio of power that must be radiated by the comparison (reference)
antenna to develop a particular field strength in the direction of
maximum radiation to the power that must be radiated by the directional
antenna to obtain the same field strength in the same direction."

The definition implies more power required by the less directional
(reference) antenna to equal the signal produced by the directional
antenna which is said to have the "power gain" in a certain direction.

The constant is the power fed to both antennas, gain and reference. The
gain antenna is sending more of its power towards the target and not
wasting so much in undesired directions. If it wasted power like the
less directional antenna, it would eat more power in total to have a
power gain ? on its target. In fact, the directional antenna is just
making more effective use of the energy it receives, not sending out
opposing streams of coincident energy.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Superposition
 

Richard Harrison wrote:
John Smith wrote:
"Better question might be, when a run of conductor just happens to be
resonant / impedance matched at 60 Hz, why isn`t massive amounts of 60
Hz ELF being radiated?"

The hot and neutral conductors are too close together to allow energy to
stray too far.

Yes, and besides that, 1/2WL at 60 Hz is 1553 miles.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

On Nov 23, 9:56 am, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
snip
As forAleph-null, that's a
mathematico-logical fantasy that was brought into existence
by giving a name to a made-up abstraction, and then using
a set of artificial, logical manipulations on the name as proof of
its existence. It's a stunt Western philosophers have been using
for centuries to confuse the gullible. I'm surprised
an intelligent man of science, like you, fell for it, Cecil.

Guess what? EVERY SINGLE LAST BIT of mathematics
is "made up abstraction". All mathematics, *all of it, is an
abstraction! You have a problem with abstraction?
Then what do you suggest be used in it's place?
You claim that "Western philosophers" have made it
up just to "confuse the gullible". So then what
alternative philosophy do you suggest should be
use that does _not_ confuse the gullible? If you cannot
provide it and prove that it indeed has more merit than
the already-existent philosophies then why bother
with it?

Superposition
 

On Nov 17, 11:46 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Hiding behind authority again, Cecil? Using a few carefully edited
quotes from Hecht doesn't prove anything. Ian hit the nail on the
head: Vague philosophical arguments using second and third order
abstractions that you can't prove to have any connection to reality
aren't going to convince anyone.

The void technical content of your objection is noted, Tom.
Why don't you present some theory and math that prove me
wrong instead of just waving your hands and uttering ad
hominem attacks?

That's not an ad hominem attack, it's a real critique of your
reasoning.
Ad hominem attacks are attacks on you, the person, not on your
argument. Not once was he attacking you, the person, above. He
was attacking your reasoning.

Appeal to authority = logical fallacy. Fact.

Not providing any physical empricial evidence to back your claim,
or theory backed by such evidence, when talking about physical,
empiricial stuff = worthless argument. Fact.

So your argument above contains an amazing 0% worth of valid
reasoning.

Evidence for his claim already exists. You can find it with any good
research into known physics. Look up all the famous experiments
that have been done to derive electromagnetic theory, and see all
the proofs. So the evidence for his claim is already on the table.
You now need to provide evidence and logic to refute it, if you want
to have a case.

I'd say his critique is 99% accurate. The last 1% is because he thinks
you need to "convince" people, which is not quite so as you have no
direct power to change others' beliefs: they must first want to be
convinced themselves. What you need is objective evidence and
logical basis for your arguments, which seems 100% lacking. That
last 1% is not because your argument is good.

Superposition
 

On Nov 17, 3:50 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
snip
Sorry, I don't, Tom. Hecht, Born and Wolf have already
proven those fundamentals of physics to be true. You
have to prove me, Hecht, and Born and Wolf wrong.


They have. But you twisted their argument. Therefore,
they are not saying what you think they are saying. What
they are saying is well proven. What you think they are
saying is not. Big difference there.

Superposition
 

On Nov 17, 9:18 pm, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Because I don't have to prove you wrong, Cecil, you have to prove
yourself right.

Sorry, I don't, Tom. Hecht, Born and Wolf have already
proven those fundamentals of physics to be true. You
have to prove me, Hecht, and Born and Wolf wrong.

And of course, you will mount every diversion known to
man to avoid facing the technical facts as explained by
Hecht, Born & Wolf, Melles-Groit, and the FSU web page.

Sorry Cecil, quoting sources you can't possibly understand, yourself,
won't prove anything. Let me know if you ever plan on doing it right.

You are wrong too. He CAN "possibly" understand them, he does
not WANT to. You allude to this with "plan on doing it right", which
obviously implies that he could understand them if he wanted to,
as he'd need to in order to do it right, and rather he doesn't WANT
to.

But no, nothing has been proven here.

Superposition
 

On Nov 16, 4:10 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
K7ITM wrote:
Nice "when are you going to stop beating your mother" sort of
question. And what was your reply?

It's a rhetorical question, Tom. What is your reply?
When someone (besides Eugene Hecht) explains it to
my satisfaction I will stop beating that dead horse.

Yes, no, yes, no fights won't get you anywhere.

Superposition
 

mike3 wrote:
On Nov 23, 9:56 am, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
snip
As forAleph-null, that's a
mathematico-logical fantasy that was brought into existence
by giving a name to a made-up abstraction, and then using
a set of artificial, logical manipulations on the name as proof of
its existence. It's a stunt Western philosophers have been using
for centuries to confuse the gullible. I'm surprised
an intelligent man of science, like you, fell for it, Cecil.

Guess what? EVERY SINGLE LAST BIT of mathematics
is "made up abstraction". All mathematics, *all of it, is an
abstraction! You have a problem with abstraction?
Then what do you suggest be used in it's place?
You claim that "Western philosophers" have made it
up just to "confuse the gullible". So then what
alternative philosophy do you suggest should be
use that does _not_ confuse the gullible? If you cannot
provide it and prove that it indeed has more merit than
the already-existent philosophies then why bother
with it?

So, an attack on one part of mathematical theory is an attack
on all mathematics? I like your vigorous defense of mathematics,
but I think you missed the point.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Superposition
 

mike3 wrote:
So the evidence for his claim is already on the table.

Would you mind providing a reference that says that the
delay through a 2" dia, 100T, 10" long coil can possibly
be 3 ns?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

mike3 wrote:
They have. But you twisted their argument. Therefore,
they are not saying what you think they are saying. What
they are saying is well proven. What you think they are
saying is not. Big difference there.

Your gut feeling, without any evidence whatsoever,
is noted.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com