On Dec 6, 1:23 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
You should also consider a shortened monopole
where lumped elements are used to tune out
the reactance.

Please feel free to pursue that line of
development if you are so inclined.

Since lumped elements do not exist in reality,
they are outside of the scope of real-world
75m mobile loading coils that I am trying to
cover here. I am not proposing a theory of
everything nor do I intend to waste my time
with such. But be my guest.

You have done this before; postulating
explanations that only work in the complexity
of the "real" world, but fail when presented with
the simplicity of ideal test cases.
Then, when the explanations fail on the simple
cases, claiming these cases are not of interest
because the real world is more complex.

It won't fly. Good explanations also work when
presented with test cases from the simpler
world of ideal components.

....Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
You have done this before; postulating
explanations that only work in the complexity
of the "real" world, but fail when presented with
the simplicity of ideal test cases.

For Pete's sake, Keith, Ohm's law doesn't even
work when R=0.

Then, when the explanations fail on the simple
cases, claiming these cases are not of interest
because the real world is more complex.

I define the boundary conditions within which my
ideas work. Whether they work outside those defined
conditions is irrelevant. I believe they do work
for ideal conditions, but I don't have the need
to prove a "theory of everything".

Every model that we use has flaws. Asking me to
come up with a flawless "theory of everything"
model is an obvious, ridiculous diversion but
you already know that.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Dec 7, 12:46 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
You have done this before; postulating
explanations that only work in the complexity
of the "real" world, but fail when presented with
the simplicity of ideal test cases.

For Pete's sake, Keith, Ohm's law doesn't even
work when R=0.

A rather large red herring. Ideal components are
the topic, and we mostly use ideal wire with R=0
without difficulty.

Then, when the explanations fail on the simple
cases, claiming these cases are not of interest
because the real world is more complex.

I define the boundary conditions within which my
ideas work. Whether they work outside those defined
conditions is irrelevant. I believe they do work
for ideal conditions, but I don't have the need
to prove a "theory of everything".

Sounds good, but mostly you do not examine
ideal conditions because they tend to show that
the models fail. With non-ideal conditions, the
discussion is easy to drive far from the target
and prevent resolution of whether the model
works.

....Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:

Sounds good, but mostly you do not examine
ideal conditions because they tend to show that
the models fail. With non-ideal conditions, the
discussion is easy to drive far from the target
and prevent resolution of whether the model
works.

My postulate is that Newton was wrong: moving objects come to a rest
without any external applied force. Every observation made supports
this. There's no need to consider what happens in a frictionless
environment, since such a thing doesn't exist.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
My postulate is that Newton was wrong: moving objects come to a rest
without any external applied force. Every observation made supports
this. There's no need to consider what happens in a frictionless
environment, since such a thing doesn't exist.

There seems no limit to which you will go to protect
your old wives' tales. How about taking a look at the
EZNEC file at: http://www.w5dxp.com/coil512.ez
and commenting on the results. Nobody is going to hold
his breath while you make up your mind.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 7 Dec, 12:24, Roy Lewallen wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:

Sounds good, but mostly you do not examine
ideal conditions because they tend to show that
the models fail. With non-ideal conditions, the
discussion is easy to drive far from the target
and prevent resolution of whether the model
works.

My postulate is that Newton was wrong: moving objects come to a rest
without any external applied force. Every observation made supports
this. There's no need to consider what happens in a frictionless
environment, since such a thing doesn't exist.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Wrong.. When you are beyond the confines of all gravitational fields
and in a state of equilibrium then there can not be friction.
Somebody somewhere has obviously postulated that gravitational
forces are every where which puts science back in the stone
ages.
Sure messes up Gauss and quite a few others. In fact the law
of
statics is based on gravitational field which extends to what
Gauss called the limits of gravitational effects.
Quite a few other laws are based on similar logic

Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG(uk)

art wrote:

Wrong.. When you are beyond the confines of all gravitational fields
and in a state of equilibrium then there can not be friction.
Somebody somewhere has obviously postulated that gravitational
forces are every where which puts science back in the stone
ages.
Sure messes up Gauss and quite a few others. In fact the law
of
statics is based on gravitational field which extends to what
Gauss called the limits of gravitational effects.
Quite a few other laws are based on similar logic

Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG(uk)

That has got to be the worst logic I have EVER heard and flies in the
face of common sense to be unspeakable--Roys' comment.

An object in motion, with NO external forces HAS to continue to move
with exactly the same stored energy as it began with, even a trillion
years later ...

Logic asks: Where would the stored energy go? Imparted to nothing?
Just disappears--breaking all the laws dealing with the conservation of
energy also?

Art, give up, we are in the twilight zone, look for an exit!

However, an ABSOLUTE frictionless environment may be quite difficult to
come up with ...

Regards,
JS

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:53:09 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:
Somebody somewhere has obviously postulated that gravitational
forces are every where which puts science back in the stone
ages.

Hi Art,

It was some schlemiel called Isaac Newton.

He offered a very simple equation you probably are not familiar with:
G times the Mass of Body A time the Mass of Body B
divided by
distance between them squared

This English clown's theory was put into a cocked hat by Einstein - so
you two have something in common!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 7 Dec, 16:46, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:53:09 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

Somebody somewhere has obviously postulated that gravitational
forces are every where which puts science back in the stone
ages.

Hi Art,

It was some schlemiel called Isaac Newton.

He offered a very simple equation you probably are not familiar with:
G times the Mass of Body A time the Mass of Body B
divided by
distance between them squared

This English clown's theory was put into a cocked hat by Einstein - so
you two have something in common!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I did not know that equation. Einstein said a lot of things and
was often proved in error. Did he mention equilibrium or the
other laws like:
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? For that matter
how many laws of Newton did he put down?
Any idea where I can read up on that and how he arrived at that
conclusion? Seems odd that we have so many gravity centers in this
universe and a neutral point never occurs.....anywhere.
Some of those stationary things in the sky must be holding on to a
piece of string tied to the moon
No. I do not have any books on Einstein but do have Planck and
I don't recall him mentioning that.Is it just called Einsteins Law
of ???????
Art
Oh, and another thing why are you injecting the word "clown"?
Are you reverting to your old tricks or did you just slip up?

Roy Lewallen wrote:


My postulate is that Newton was wrong: moving objects come to a rest
without any external applied force. Every observation made supports
this. There's no need to consider what happens in a frictionless
environment, since such a thing doesn't exist.


Isn't that like lossless wires, perfect grounds, and other such?

The conditions that cause an object to slow and stop in real life are
the proof of the law. To the contrary, it proves Newton correct. The
forces act just as they should.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -