| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
Guy's
You must know that the holy grail of physics is GUT which is now gyrating towards relatavistic theory out of delusionment with Newton. Newtons laws are based around equilibrium with respect to gravitational forces. Maxwells laws do not but we are in the same universe so it is reasonable that both sciences are unified. Gauss's theory of statics evolves around equilibrium with respect to a group of static particles held within the limits of a gravitational force ie. Newtons terminology.Adding a time varient brings the stage to a electromagnetic arrangement with respect to Maxwell. On the way we learn about equilibrium being maintained by adding full wave length radiators to Gaussian law. We then see that the resultant of the transition from Gauss to Maxwell type radiation formula becomes the equivalent of a "tank" circuit where if the radiator is diamagnetic the static particals can rest on its surface. We also know that levitation is created when current flows followed by a magnetic field which ejects the particles outside the immediate gravitational field. So with science being what it is, today where we have computor programs built around Maxwell's laws that can be used to deduce radiator dimensions with respect to shape and elevation positions when maximum horizontal polarisation is required. Thus modern day computors provide the answer as a full wavelength radiator that is at an angle to the earth of just under 80 degrees. Now I had no input with resect to the design of Maxwellian computor programs but I have messed with some jigsaw puzzles where it is well known that the first portion placed on the table determines the speed of the process. So I invite you to ask your computor program to deduce the style of a radiator that produces the maximum horizontal polarization and then determine if Maxwell would have helped himself and all science by adding a time variant to Gaussian law and incorporated it into his own? Put the request into your Maxwellian based radiation computor program if you are not to lazy, where you will learn details of the GUT that Maxwell failed to provide. The holy grail is no more! Best regards Art Unwin...KB9MZ...xg (uk) |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
Ignoring for now the unsupported claims art made earlier in
this same post of his, here are some comments relating to this incomplete and curious sentence fragment he posted... "So with science being what it is, today where we have computor programs built around Maxwell's laws that can be used to deduce radiator dimensions with respect to shape and elevation positions when maximum horizontal polarisation is required." and "Thus modern day computors provide the answer as a full wavelength radiator that is at an angle to the earth of just under 80 degrees." ____________ art, Theoretical physics, many decades of accurate field measurements, and the free-field NEC data I posted earlier in this thread do not support your intuition / belief about this. With all due respect, art, you need to educate yourself further on such topics if you wish to avoid the criticism of your views such as haunt you here. RF |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
On Dec 6, 9:19 am, "Richard Fry" wrote:
Hi Richard Art has given the "key" try turning it in the lock before making comments as to whether it works or not, then wipe the egg off your face Derek |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
"Derek" wrote
Art has given the "key" try turning it in the lock before making comments as to whether it works or not, then wipe the egg off your face ____________ Derek, Not to be abrasive -- the technically accurate content of your post is noted. No doubt the readers of your post who believe as you do will be happy, never mind the science here. RF |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
On Dec 6, 9:50 am, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Derek" wrote Art has given the "key" try turning it in the lock before making comments as to whether it works or not, then wipe the egg off your face ____________ Derek, Not to be abrasive -- the technically accurate content of your post is noted. No doubt the readers of your post who believe as you do will be happy, never mind the science here. RF |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
On Dec 6, 9:50 am, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Derek" wrote Art has given the "key" try turning it in the lock before making comments as to whether it works or not, then wipe the egg off your face ____________ Derek, Not to be abrasive -- the technically accurate content of your post is noted. No doubt the readers of your post who believe as you do will be happy, never mind the science here. RF Hi Richard I say again try the key in the lock, you may be surprised. Derek |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
Derek wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:19 am, "Richard Fry" wrote: Hi Richard Art has given the "key" try turning it in the lock before making comments as to whether it works or not, then wipe the egg off your face Derek Art is giving away LSD? Or mushrooms? Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
"AI4QJ" wrote in message ... "art" wrote in message ... Guy's You must know that the holy grail of physics is GUT which is now gyrating towards relatavistic theory out of delusionment with Newton. Newtons laws are based around equilibrium with respect to gravitational forces. Maxwells laws do not but we are in the same universe so it is reasonable that both sciences are unified. Gauss's theory of statics evolves around equilibrium with respect to a group of static particles held within the limits of a gravitational force ie. Newtons terminology.Adding a time varient brings the stage to a electromagnetic arrangement with respect to Maxwell. On the way we learn about equilibrium being maintained by adding full wave length radiators to Gaussian law. We then see that the resultant of the transition from Gauss to Maxwell type radiation formula becomes the equivalent of a "tank" circuit where if the radiator is diamagnetic the static particals can rest on its surface. We also know that levitation is created when current flows followed by a magnetic field which ejects the particles outside the immediate gravitational field. So with science being what it is, today where we have computor programs built around Maxwell's laws that can be used to deduce radiator dimensions with respect to shape and elevation positions when maximum horizontal polarisation is required. Thus modern day computors provide the answer as a full wavelength radiator that is at an angle to the earth of just under 80 degrees. Now I had no input with resect to the design of Maxwellian computor programs but I have messed with some jigsaw puzzles where it is well known that the first portion placed on the table determines the speed of the process. So I invite you to ask your computor program to deduce the style of a radiator that produces the maximum horizontal polarization and then determine if Maxwell would have helped himself and all science by adding a time variant to Gaussian law and incorporated it into his own? Put the request into your Maxwellian based radiation computor program if you are not to lazy, where you will learn details of the GUT that Maxwell failed to provide. The holy grail is no more! Best regards Art Unwin...KB9MZ...xg (uk) Adding a time variant (dt) to Gause's static law turns "charge" (coulombs) into "current" (amperes). I think Maxwell's equations already cover that concept and goes on to decribe the effects of changing voltages and currents on electric and magnetic fields. I don't see any new concepts being added here. With regard to unification theory, I sure would like to see that in my lifetime but probably will not. There may simply be no direct correlation between gravitational, electrical and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Why MUST there be a unifier? No unification may have been intended ;-) Light is distorted by gravity Light is propagated by photons Photons are characterised as an oscillating packet of electrical and magnetic fields Photons are emitted and absorbed by electrons which encircle an atomic neucleus Atomic nucleii are held together by the strong and weak nuclear forces Atomic nucleii have mass which gives rise to gravity (which distorts light) How much more unification is needed? Simplistic, but does it really have to be much more complicated than this at a practical (everyday) level? Proving this mathematically is a real nightmare, which probably goes to show that it is our understanding of mathematics that is lacking rather than some inherent error in the way the universe works. Mike G0ULI |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
Put the request into your Maxwellian based radiation computor program
if you are not to lazy, where you will learn details of the GUT that Maxwell failed to provide. The holy grail is no more! Best regards Art Unwin...KB9MZ...xg (uk) Does this effect my HF arrays? W4OP |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
On Dec 6, 11:43 am, Roy Lewallen wrote:
Hi Roy You have the program, do as Art say's and tell us what it comes up with. Derek |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
AI4QJ wrote:
"art" wrote in message ... Guy's You must know that the holy grail of physics is GUT which is now gyrating towards relatavistic theory out of delusionment with Newton. Newtons laws are based around equilibrium with respect to gravitational forces. Maxwells laws do not but we are in the same universe so it is reasonable that both sciences are unified. Gauss's theory of statics evolves around equilibrium with respect to a group of static particles held within the limits of a gravitational force ie. Newtons terminology.Adding a time varient brings the stage to a electromagnetic arrangement with respect to Maxwell. On the way we learn about equilibrium being maintained by adding full wave length radiators to Gaussian law. We then see that the resultant of the transition from Gauss to Maxwell type radiation formula becomes the equivalent of a "tank" circuit where if the radiator is diamagnetic the static particals can rest on its surface. We also know that levitation is created when current flows followed by a magnetic field which ejects the particles outside the immediate gravitational field. So with science being what it is, today where we have computor programs built around Maxwell's laws that can be used to deduce radiator dimensions with respect to shape and elevation positions when maximum horizontal polarisation is required. Thus modern day computors provide the answer as a full wavelength radiator that is at an angle to the earth of just under 80 degrees. Now I had no input with resect to the design of Maxwellian computor programs but I have messed with some jigsaw puzzles where it is well known that the first portion placed on the table determines the speed of the process. So I invite you to ask your computor program to deduce the style of a radiator that produces the maximum horizontal polarization and then determine if Maxwell would have helped himself and all science by adding a time variant to Gaussian law and incorporated it into his own? Put the request into your Maxwellian based radiation computor program if you are not to lazy, where you will learn details of the GUT that Maxwell failed to provide. The holy grail is no more! Best regards Art Unwin...KB9MZ...xg (uk) Adding a time variant (dt) to Gause's static law turns "charge" (coulombs) into "current" (amperes). I think Maxwell's equations already cover that concept and goes on to decribe the effects of changing voltages and currents on electric and magnetic fields. I don't see any new concepts being added here. With regard to unification theory, I sure would like to see that in my lifetime but probably will not. There may simply be no direct correlation between gravitational, electrical and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Why MUST there be a unifier? No unification may have been intended ;-) By whom? 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
Derek wrote:
Hi Roy You have the program, do as Art say's and tell us what it comes up with. Derek Sorry, I haven't taken orders since I became a civilian again nearly 40 years ago. Why don't you? I don't have the right kind of program, anyway. EZNEC doesn't have checkboxes to select "Gaussian", "equilibrium" and photon velocity. I think Art must use a special version of MN which takes all those factors into account. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
Art wrote:
"Thus modern day computors provide the answer as a full wavelength radiator that is at an angle to the earth of just under 80 degrees." In the real world we try to get maximum results with minimum investmennt in effort and materials. An unbalanced 1/4-wave or a balanced 1/2-wave seems appropriate. As far as angles go, polarization is the direction of the electric field, usually horizontal or vertical for mechanical as well as electrical purposes. You can take Kraus to the bank. Check his index for "Mutual Impedance" of paralleled dipoles or echelon antennas. Better yet, you likely have experience with trials of cross-polarization of VHF or UHF antennas. You have seen the havoc cross-polarization causes. Now, is there any angle between fully aligned and completely misaligned where we discover a magic peak? Of course not. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
On 5 Dec, 20:33, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote: "Thus modern day computors provide the answer as a full wavelength radiator that is at an angle to the earth of just under 80 degrees." In the real world we try to get maximum results with minimum investmennt in effort and materials. An unbalanced 1/4-wave or a balanced 1/2-wave seems appropriate. As far as angles go, polarization is the direction of the electric field, usually horizontal or vertical for mechanical as well as electrical purposes. You can take Kraus to the bank. Check his index for "Mutual Impedance" of paralleled dipoles or echelon antennas. Better yet, you likely have experience with trials of cross-polarization of VHF or UHF antennas. You have seen the havoc cross-polarization causes. Now, is there any angle between fully aligned and completely misaligned where we discover a magic peak? Of course not. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI O.K. you WIN Richard. You run so many different routes that I can't keep up with you. You deny the validity of computor programs and Roy sulks because none of his programs have the optimiser feature which is the easiest way of solving the question. You can place the radiator where ever you want to get the results that you would like to see.So you don't trust computor programs, programmers or you just never tried to use them? You can now get back to argueing with Cecil on coil currents which will allow some more disconnecting reading from Terman of yesteryear. There is nothing more to be said regarding the resultant vector of a radiator's active vectors which is the basic issue that I was discussing in the first place. Hopefully you will recover by morning and look on life in a different manner. Art |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
On 5 Dec, 19:54, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"Mike Kaliski" wrote in message ... "AI4QJ" wrote in message ... "art" wrote in message ... Guy's You must know that the holy grail of physics is GUT which is now gyrating towards relatavistic theory out of delusionment with Newton. Newtons laws are based around equilibrium with respect to gravitational forces. Maxwells laws do not but we are in the same universe so it is reasonable that both sciences are unified. Gauss's theory of statics evolves around equilibrium with respect to a group of static particles held within the limits of a gravitational force ie. Newtons terminology.Adding a time varient brings the stage to a electromagnetic arrangement with respect to Maxwell. On the way we learn about equilibrium being maintained by adding full wave length radiators to Gaussian law. We then see that the resultant of the transition from Gauss to Maxwell type radiation formula becomes the equivalent of a "tank" circuit where if the radiator is diamagnetic the static particals can rest on its surface. We also know that levitation is created when current flows followed by a magnetic field which ejects the particles outside the immediate gravitational field. So with science being what it is, today where we have computor programs built around Maxwell's laws that can be used to deduce radiator dimensions with respect to shape and elevation positions when maximum horizontal polarisation is required. Thus modern day computors provide the answer as a full wavelength radiator that is at an angle to the earth of just under 80 degrees. Now I had no input with resect to the design of Maxwellian computor programs but I have messed with some jigsaw puzzles where it is well known that the first portion placed on the table determines the speed of the process. So I invite you to ask your computor program to deduce the style of a radiator that produces the maximum horizontal polarization and then determine if Maxwell would have helped himself and all science by adding a time variant to Gaussian law and incorporated it into his own? Put the request into your Maxwellian based radiation computor program if you are not to lazy, where you will learn details of the GUT that Maxwell failed to provide. The holy grail is no more! Best regards Art Unwin...KB9MZ...xg (uk) Adding a time variant (dt) to Gause's static law turns "charge" (coulombs) into "current" (amperes). I think Maxwell's equations already cover that concept and goes on to decribe the effects of changing voltages and currents on electric and magnetic fields. I don't see any new concepts being added here. With regard to unification theory, I sure would like to see that in my lifetime but probably will not. There may simply be no direct correlation between gravitational, electrical and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Why MUST there be a unifier? No unification may have been intended ;-) Light is distorted by gravity Light is propagated by photons Photons are characterised as an oscillating packet of electrical and magnetic fields Photons are emitted and absorbed by electrons which encircle an atomic neucleus Atomic nucleii are held together by the strong and weak nuclear forces Atomic nucleii have mass which gives rise to gravity (which distorts light) How much more unification is needed? Simplistic, but does it really have to be much more complicated than this at a practical (everyday) level? Proving this mathematically is a real nightmare, which probably goes to show that it is our understanding of mathematics that is lacking rather than some inherent error in the way the universe works. Agree completely. But I don't think it has anything to do with diamagnetic materials and loose electrons being levitated due to a relationship between electric and gravitational forces whose relationship maxwell missed somewhere along the way.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I know you are a newby to physics and you stated "but I don't think" But I want you to think about the materials that are selected for radiation. Are they all of a specific type? Which has this levitation effect connection on all or some of these materials ? What is the connection with respect to tank circuits and oscillation? Where do oxide particles come into the picture? Where does the equilibrium or gravitational factors of Newton blend in with the electromagnetic phenomina. Where does the particulates come from that for a external layer that is called a "skin". Why do some decay and others do not.What does it mean when a particle escapes from the immediate gravitational borders as alluded to by Gauss e.t.c None of this is mentioned by Maxwell other than the basic law created by intuition but without the associated facts.So to answer the questions about which you "don't think" you now have to be a detective yourself to provide any possible direction as an alternate.Suggestion, look up the definitions of equilibrium and gravitation to see exactly how those words became interactive in the minds of the masters in the 18th century and mull in your mind the implications that they have with respect to the universe or nature, which ever you prefer. Also look up G.U.T. to see why physics attach so much importance to the subject and again mull in your mind why there is so much research and time in the subject of which you "don't think" about. But then I am asking to much of you to try to understand radiation or even antenna computor programs. Art |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
Art wrote:
"O.K. you win Richard." It isn`t a competition. It`s a discussion. Art is aware that the electric field vector is at right angles to the magnetic field vector and that both are at right angles with the direction of propagation. When the receiver`s electric vector is aligned with the transmitter`s, their magnetic vectors are in alignment too. Communications couldn`t be better to the best of my knowledge. With circular or elliptical polarization, we worry about right hand or left hand polarizations, but I`m assuming linear polarizations. There is a wave tilt associated with propagation along a lossy surface, but I`ll be darned if I can grasp Art`s tilt factor. Best regards, RRichard Harrison, KB5WZI |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
On 5 Dec, 22:27, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote: "O.K. you win Richard." It isn`t a competition. It`s a discussion. Art is aware that the electric field vector is at right angles to the magnetic field vector and that both are at right angles with the direction of propagation. When the receiver`s electric vector is aligned with the transmitter`s, their magnetic vectors are in alignment too. Communications couldn`t be better to the best of my knowledge. With circular or elliptical polarization, we worry about right hand or left hand polarizations, but I`m assuming linear polarizations. There is a wave tilt associated with propagation along a lossy surface, but I`ll be darned if I can grasp Art`s tilt factor. Best regards, RRichard Harrison, KB5WZI That is because you quote outdated technology and have lost the means of deduction for yourself. You are not alone. Apparently the group itself are in the same boat. Somehow it seems a bit rediculous that we have a group for discussing antennas where NONE can deduce the most efficient angle of a radiator with respect to ground when desiring maximum horizontal polarisation gain with the majority having possesion of an "american" degree! It seems rediculous that a argument on just a coil can go on for years with nothing to show for it other than talking about it forever and displaying their ever growing testerone level in a fashion that pushes aside all other discussion. If you were willing to accept computor aids in your life and learn how to use them you could leapfrog into the present age. But you are to lazy and to old and unwilling to change thus relying on a education that is over fifty years old. You just cannot have reasonable communication on antennas or anything else by disregarding present science and substitute insults in the place of knoweledge ,or for that matter, quoting a books writings not pertinant to the subject at hand.It makes no sense for anybody that is interested in antennas is not interested or care about any radiator other than those that are planar . That also goes for the naval academy in Washington and NASA and other institutions. Art |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
art wrote:
... Washington and NASA and other institutions. Art My mother 78+ has trouble with her cell phone ... I shudder at teaching her the ins-and-outs of a programmable calculator ... long hand calculations take time. Some are stuck with antenna modeling programs ... indeed, a tribute to them for mastering those. The world will not change at a snap of your fingers. I have a smith chart program, that is enough for me--Cecil does it by hand! Regards, JS |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
John Smith wrote:
I have a smith chart program, that is enough for me--Cecil does it by hand! Are you talking about the Smith Chart or sex? I have MicroSmith and use it often. Unfortunately, I cannot do a MicroSmith screen capture with Windows XP so I am handicapped in passing on the results. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
Cecil Moore wrote:
... Are you talking about the Smith Chart or sex? I have MicroSmith and use it often. Unfortunately, I cannot do a MicroSmith screen capture with Windows XP so I am handicapped in passing on the results. Should be able to hit "print screen" button, open paint and paste the image in, then save the file and attach it to an email/post ... sometimes the print screen button is used in conjunction with a "function button", especially on laptops. If all that fails, a good utility for screen capture is mwsnap, you can find it he http://www.mirekw.com/winfreeware/mwsnap.html Regards, JS |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
Art wrote:
"That is because you quote outdated technology and have lost the means of deduction for yourself." O.K, Not much technical content in that posting, nor hint of what Art hopes to do with an 80 degree tilt. Maximizing horizontal polarisation is another mystery. Vertical polarization is the way to launch groundwaves and it will be so 100 years from today. Modern technology is unlikely to improve the FCC approved antenna and grounding systems used in AM broadcasting, thanks to RCA`s B., L., & E. (1927). The coil argument has persisted a long time but it has provoked some searching into the behavior of inductance. W8JI may be on to something but he may not have it exactly right. Terman and Lenkurt have the TWT down, as invented in England (1943) but its coil is stretched out so that a foot long coil only has a dozen turns and lacks tight coupling which might work as W8JI describes. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
John Smith wrote:
Should be able to hit "print screen" button, open paint and paste the image in, then save the file and attach it to an email/post ... sometimes the print screen button is used in conjunction with a "function button", especially on laptops. That worked with Windows 98 and SE. Doesn't work with XP. When I go to paste into paint, there is nothing there to paste. The problem is that XP won't allow me to display MicroSmith in a window. If all that fails, a good utility for screen capture is mwsnap, you can find it he http://www.mirekw.com/winfreeware/mwsnap.html I wonder if it will work with a Quickbasic DOS program running under XP that will not display in a window? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
Cecil Moore wrote:
... I wonder if it will work with a Quickbasic DOS program running under XP that will not display in a window? OK, I was too quick to dismiss the REAL problem ... if I come across anything--I'll let ya know ... I stand corrected. Ever think about an updated freeware/shareware smith program? Regards, JS |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
On 6 Dec, 13:40, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote: "That is because you quote outdated technology and have lost the means of deduction for yourself." O.K, Not much technical content in that posting, nor hint of what Art hopes to do with an 80 degree tilt. Maximizing horizontal polarisation is another mystery. Hmm You put a stake in the ground when you stated that you can take Kraus to the bank. Have you changed your mind regarding a tilt angle? Why do you state that maximising horizontal polarisation is a mystery if you are now finally aware of antenna tilt? As far as maximising specific polarisation apparently airports need to devise such a system to find wind shear systems. I suspect that medical systems would appreciate a clearer focus. But describing this effect to fill a hole that is present in industry it is just something that was revealed when adding time varient and radiators to Gaussian law. It forced me to consider the equilibrium effects within the arbitary gravitational field which thus demanded a full wave length radiator and not to accept fractional lengths. The same trail also showed me that an array in equilibrium provides stacked gain tho using a single feed and again the tilt angle comes into play. These determinations along the path of the trail showed that the helix angle that Kraus found by experimentation was a reflection of the radiator tilt revealed while on the trail. This tilt angle is given by all computor programs some thing I was unaware of and where all people on this group are in denial. The same trail leads to helix antennas that are in equilibrium which by following the trail provides me with a rotatable directive antenna which also provides a path to a near point radiation system predicted by a russian scientist as being possible. What I intend to do with the radiator tilt is of no concern to me or that the trail's final destination is Maxwell's law which is thus now described in deeper detail. This emphasises that old chinese saying It is n ot the destination that counts but the journey taken to get there. You can mock the idea of a tilt and any program that portrays it but for the young and inquisitive it is quite exciting. When we are gone and forgotten new wheels will roll on this same trail and there will be an understanding as how the Japanese did not have a yagi antenna during the last war. This was the unwillingnes to change despite the obvious. If you haven't got a computor or unwilling to address computor programs then ask a friend to check it out for you. Adding this to Terman could possibly allow you to leapfrog the world with respect to radiation.Or you can ignore it and pass on restfully and without concern to your final destiny. Your choice Art Art Vertical polarization is the way to launch groundwaves and it will be so 100 years from today. Modern technology is unlikely to improve the FCC approved antenna and grounding systems used in AM broadcasting, thanks to RCA`s B., L., & E. (1927). The coil argument has persisted a long time but it has provoked some searching into the behavior of inductance. W8JI may be on to something but he may not have it exactly right. Terman and Lenkurt have the TWT down, as invented in England (1943) but its coil is stretched out so that a foot long coil only has a dozen turns and lacks tight coupling which might work as W8JI describes. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
Derek wrote in news:7437a21d-524e-43c8-95b1-
: On Dec 6, 11:43 am, Roy Lewallen wrote: Hi Roy You have the program, do as Art say's and tell us what it comes up with. Doesn't work that way, sir. If I say that antennas work by shooting little turds off the ends of the wires, it isn't Roy's job to prove it, it's mine. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
On Dec 6, 7:13 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Derek wrote in news:7437a21d-524e-43c8-95b1- : On Dec 6, 11:43 am, Roy Lewallen wrote: Hi Roy You have the program, do as Art say's and tell us what it comes up with. Doesn't work that way, sir. If I say that antennas work by shooting little turds off the ends of the wires, it isn't Roy's job to prove it, it's mine. - 73 de Mike N3LI - Post of the week. You win a free Britney Spears oven mitt! MK |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
"AI4QJ" wrote in message ... "art" wrote in message ... Gauss's theory of statics evolves around equilibrium with respect to a group of static particles held within the limits of a gravitational force What is the mass of 1 Volt/meter? art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he got in his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double! |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
On Dec 7, 10:13 am, Mike Coslo wrote
Doesn't work that way, sir. If I say that antennas work by shooting little turds off the ends of the wires, it isn't Roy's job to prove it, it's mine. - 73 de Mike N3LI - Hi Mike What you say is very true, but, Art is not looking for confirmation he has already stated that he is not going to hand his findings to this group on a plate. What he is trying to do is guide others to find for themselves what he already knows. Derek |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
On 6 Dec, 17:50, "Dave" wrote:
"AI4QJ" wrote in message ... "art" wrote in message ... Gauss's theory of statics evolves around equilibrium with respect to a group of static particles held within the limits of a gravitational force What is the mass of 1 Volt/meter? art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he got in his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double! David Go to your books and read the basics on Gauss with respect to a arbitary field. I am beginning to belief that you have lost everything that you learned in college. Have you had a heart attack or a stroke sometime in the past which would explane that? Art |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
On 6 Dec, 18:07, Derek wrote:
On Dec 7, 10:13 am, Mike Coslo wrote Doesn't work that way, sir. If I say that antennas work by shooting little turds off the ends of the wires, it isn't Roy's job to prove it, it's mine. - 73 de Mike N3LI - Hi Mike What you say is very true, but, Art is not looking for confirmation he has already stated that he is not going to hand his findings to this group on a plate. What he is trying to do is guide others to find for themselves what he already knows. Derek Impossible to do that if they don't understand the basics of physics! I was hoping an inquisitive educated person would come along and read but we rarely have such a visitor as the groups reputation procedes us. I will put the subject away for a more suitable time where it can be properly debated.On top of that none are able to operate a antenna computor program or even want to which bring things to a dead end. Enuf for now. For the present I will call it a day and move on. Art |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
Derek wrote in
: On Dec 7, 10:13 am, Mike Coslo wrote Doesn't work that way, sir. If I say that antennas work by shooting little turds off the ends of the wires, it isn't Roy's job to prove it, it's mine. - 73 de Mike N3LI - Hi Mike What you say is very true, but, Art is not looking for confirmation he has already stated that he is not going to hand his findings to this group on a plate. What he is trying to do is guide others to find for themselves what he already knows. In my attempts to engage art, he's rebuffed my knowledge (more like lack of it) I'm supposed to come back after I learn more. But learn what? Theory that he declares is incorrect, or his theories which he won't serve up? The others will share with me. I'm just not much of a fan of faith based engineering! ;^) To convince others of a new and radical departure from what exists and what apparently works, one nust offer good proofs. The old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" chestnut applies. And especially for people such as Roy, who has often been decried by Art. He is under no obligation to prove Art either right or wrong. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote:
"AI4QJ" wrote in message art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he got in his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double! Dave "It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant buy. Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?. Derek. |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
On Dec 6, 8:07 pm, Derek wrote:
Hi Mike What you say is very true, but, Art is not looking for confirmation He wants RRAA validation.. :/ he has already stated that he is not going to hand his findings to this group on a plate. After the 3496 miles of fairly incoherant jibber jabber I've read of his, I'm so confused I don't even know what his "findings" would be. :/ They seem to change from week to week anyway. He was touting maximum horizontal polarization, but in his latest post claims vertical is the only way to fly. He'll claim all elements are fed in phase, but then claim only one element is fed. He claims that if you are not using a full wavelength element, you are not living, and just don't get it. Like the old codger with too many dogs in "Moonstruck", I'm confused.. :/ But if you talk to Art, he is the only sane one in the group, and we are all the confused ones. Everyone, including the electronic engineers of the group are all living in the past, brain dead, or just don't get it. But Art, the mechanical engineer who is dabbling in an area he is not really trained for, has all the answers, and is ready to rewrite all the books. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for this vast overhaul of gaussian equalibriated gobblygook into the future textbooks.. I have no problem at all with anyone trying new ideas, but they should test and prove them before proclaiming as fact, rather than the other way around. Art talks a great storm, but I see little indication he actually builds and tests what he is talking about. As I've muttered before, that is no way to live. Want to know what the real deal is? I can tell you. Delusions of grandeur brought on by his various computer modeling programs he tinkers with. He stumbles into something he finds interesting when modeling, and then he tries to use gaussian bafflegab to explain it as some new invention. I'm serious. I can see no other explanation for this behavior. What he is trying to do is guide others to find for themselves what he already knows. How does he know I want to find what he already thinks he knows? He seems to want to gravitate towards small overly lossy antennas designed using fairly perverted theories of operation. I'll have none of that mess around this household. I want big manly ultra efficient antennas that brown the food in all directions at once. :) MK |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
"Derek" wrote in message ... On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote: "AI4QJ" wrote in message art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he got in his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double! Dave "It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant buy. Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?. Derek. Gauss's law is a law of 'electrostatics' as art so frequently states. STATICS is static, ie NO current which would be implied by adding a time component to the charge or field predicted by Gauss's law. If you have a time variable charge you have a current, if you have a current then you have to include the magnetic fields, and the curl of the electric field, and hence end up needing all 4 of Maxwell's equations to define the complete solution. So yes, i say you can not add time variations to Gauss's law as it stands alone and completely describe the solution to the fields produced. i.e. simple proof. define any shape surface with no charge enclosed in it. by Gauss's law the net field through that surface must be zero. you can have charges sitting just outside of it, lets say a single electron is just outside of one side of the surface. if you integrate the field from that one electron it goes in one side of the surface and out the other and all still adds up to zero net field as require by Gauss's law. now for the hard part.... move the charge a little bit closer to the surface without going through it. we must all agree that while you are moving it the electric field strength through the surface closest to the charge is increasing, so in order for the total flux through the surface to remain zero the flux moving out on the other side must also increase. BUT because of the effects of the other 3 Maxwell equations that limit the speed of propagation of that field to c it can't happen instantaneously. so for some period of time the net flux through the surface is not zero as would be require by Gauss alone. reductio ad absurdum, QED, take your new theory and.... |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
|
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
On 7 Dec, 04:16, "Dave" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ... On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote: "AI4QJ" wrote in message art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he got in his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double! Dave "It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant buy. Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?. Derek. Gauss's law is a law of 'electrostatics' as art so frequently states. STATICS is static, ie NO current which would be implied by adding a time component to the charge or field predicted by Gauss's law. If you have a time variable charge you have a current, if you have a current then you have to include the magnetic fields, and the curl of the electric field, and hence end up needing all 4 of Maxwell's equations to define the complete solution. So yes, i say you can not add time variations to Gauss's law as it stands alone and completely describe the solution to the fields produced. i.e. simple proof. define any shape surface with no charge enclosed in it. by Gauss's law the net field through that surface must be zero. you can have charges sitting just outside of it, lets say a single electron is just outside of one side of the surface. if you integrate the field from that one electron it goes in one side of the surface and out the other and all still adds up to zero net field as require by Gauss's law. now for the hard part.... move the charge a little bit closer to the surface without going through it. we must all agree that while you are moving it the electric field strength through the surface closest to the charge is increasing, so in order for the total flux through the surface to remain zero the flux moving out on the other side must also increase. BUT because of the effects of the other 3 Maxwell equations that limit the speed of propagation of that field to c it can't happen instantaneously. so for some period of time the net flux through the surface is not zero as would be require by Gauss alone. reductio ad absurdum, QED, take your new theory and....- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Regarding Dr Davis's mathematics. Richard stated the other week that of course it is correct. If you feel that he also is in error why not contact him? I am sure he can comminicate why much more clearer than I You are now left with the troll KB9... in your efforts to argue that point I personaly recognise that I will never be able your mental state up to par with respect to Gauss or your troubles with the word equilibrium. There is hope for you however , Roy now states that NEWTON of all people is wrong so you do have company in a strange way. But then it may be company that you wouldn't wish for! He personally attacked Cecil some timeago. Last week his personal attack on me was really venomous so you certainly should not disagree with him in any way. I think you would be better off asking guidance from Richard, why not try it? Art |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
"Dave" wrote in message news:uQa6j.10850$3W.8630@trndny04... "Derek" wrote in message ... On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote: "AI4QJ" wrote in message art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he got in his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double! Dave "It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant buy. Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?. Derek. Gauss's law is a law of 'electrostatics' as art so frequently states. STATICS is static, ie NO current which would be implied by adding a time component to the charge or field predicted by Gauss's law. If you have a time variable charge you have a current, if you have a current then you have to include the magnetic fields, and the curl of the electric field, and hence end up needing all 4 of Maxwell's equations to define the complete solution. So yes, i say you can not add time variations to Gauss's law as it stands alone and completely describe the solution to the fields produced. i.e. simple proof. define any shape surface with no charge enclosed in it. by Gauss's law the net field through that surface must be zero. you can have charges sitting just outside of it, lets say a single electron is just outside of one side of the surface. if you integrate the field from that one electron it goes in one side of the surface and out the other and all still adds up to zero net field as require by Gauss's law. now for the hard part.... move the charge a little bit closer to the surface without going through it. we must all agree that while you are moving it the electric field strength through the surface closest to the charge is increasing, so in order for the total flux through the surface to remain zero the flux moving out on the other side must also increase. BUT because of the effects of the other 3 Maxwell equations that limit the speed of propagation of that field to c it can't happen instantaneously. so for some period of time the net flux through the surface is not zero as would be require by Gauss alone. reductio ad absurdum, QED, take your new theory and.... hmmmm, 24 hours and no rebuttal? come on, some of you art suckups that i haven't plonked yet must surely have a logical reason why this isn't correct? maybe the new non-newtonian static electrons get magically pushed through the integration surface and make up for the extra field? oh wait, then they wouldn't be static any more would they? and where it the diamagnetic surface that they levitate from?? oh well, back to the 10m contest, thats even more fun than pinging this group. |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
"Dave" wrote in message news:oov6j.253$va7.168@trndny08... "Dave" wrote in message news:uQa6j.10850$3W.8630@trndny04... "Derek" wrote in message ... On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote: "AI4QJ" wrote in message art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he got in his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double! Dave "It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant buy. Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?. Derek. Gauss's law is a law of 'electrostatics' as art so frequently states. STATICS is static, ie NO current which would be implied by adding a time component to the charge or field predicted by Gauss's law. If you have a time variable charge you have a current, if you have a current then you have to include the magnetic fields, and the curl of the electric field, and hence end up needing all 4 of Maxwell's equations to define the complete solution. So yes, i say you can not add time variations to Gauss's law as it stands alone and completely describe the solution to the fields produced. i.e. simple proof. define any shape surface with no charge enclosed in it. by Gauss's law the net field through that surface must be zero. you can have charges sitting just outside of it, lets say a single electron is just outside of one side of the surface. if you integrate the field from that one electron it goes in one side of the surface and out the other and all still adds up to zero net field as require by Gauss's law. now for the hard part.... move the charge a little bit closer to the surface without going through it. we must all agree that while you are moving it the electric field strength through the surface closest to the charge is increasing, so in order for the total flux through the surface to remain zero the flux moving out on the other side must also increase. BUT because of the effects of the other 3 Maxwell equations that limit the speed of propagation of that field to c it can't happen instantaneously. so for some period of time the net flux through the surface is not zero as would be require by Gauss alone. reductio ad absurdum, QED, take your new theory and.... hmmmm, 24 hours and no rebuttal? come on, some of you art suckups that i haven't plonked yet must surely have a logical reason why this isn't correct? maybe the new non-newtonian static electrons get magically pushed through the integration surface and make up for the extra field? oh wait, then they wouldn't be static any more would they? and where it the diamagnetic surface that they levitate from?? oh well, back to the 10m contest, thats even more fun than pinging this group. Should be easy enough to check the claims. If as Art suggests there is a constant interchange of particles in the surface element of a radiator, then some detectable physical changes should take place. Construct an antenna using anodised aluminium (aluminum for US readers) for the radiating element. Take some smaller (non resonant pieces) and mount them some distance away from the antenna but exposed to similar environmental conditions. Leave for a year or so and then examine the radiating element surface and compare with the samples. Is there any difference in the surface structure? The samples should be non resonant, of the same batch material as the antenna and arranged so that they are not likely to radiate or absorb RF energy from the test antenna, while still being exposed to the same weathering and other factors as the test antenna. Mike G0ULI Using anodised al |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
On 8 Dec, 07:30, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message news:oov6j.253$va7.168@trndny08... "Dave" wrote in message news:uQa6j.10850$3W.8630@trndny04... "Derek" wrote in message ... On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote: "AI4QJ" wrote in message art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he got in his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double! Dave "It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant buy. Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?. Derek. Gauss's law is a law of 'electrostatics' as art so frequently states. STATICS is static, ie NO current which would be implied by adding a time component to the charge or field predicted by Gauss's law. If you have a time variable charge you have a current, if you have a current then you have to include the magnetic fields, and the curl of the electric field, and hence end up needing all 4 of Maxwell's equations to define the complete solution. So yes, i say you can not add time variations to Gauss's law as it stands alone and completely describe the solution to the fields produced. i.e. simple proof. define any shape surface with no charge enclosed in it. by Gauss's law the net field through that surface must be zero. you can have charges sitting just outside of it, lets say a single electron is just outside of one side of the surface. if you integrate the field from that one electron it goes in one side of the surface and out the other and all still adds up to zero net field as require by Gauss's law. now for the hard part.... move the charge a little bit closer to the surface without going through it. we must all agree that while you are moving it the electric field strength through the surface closest to the charge is increasing, so in order for the total flux through the surface to remain zero the flux moving out on the other side must also increase. BUT because of the effects of the other 3 Maxwell equations that limit the speed of propagation of that field to c it can't happen instantaneously. so for some period of time the net flux through the surface is not zero as would be require by Gauss alone. reductio ad absurdum, QED, take your new theory and.... hmmmm, 24 hours and no rebuttal? come on, some of you art suckups that i haven't plonked yet must surely have a logical reason why this isn't correct? maybe the new non-newtonian static electrons get magically pushed through the integration surface and make up for the extra field? oh wait, then they wouldn't be static any more would they? and where it the diamagnetic surface that they levitate from?? oh well, back to the 10m contest, thats even more fun than pinging this group. Should be easy enough to check the claims. If as Art suggests there is a constant interchange of particles in the surface element of a radiator, then some detectable physical changes should take place. Construct an antenna using anodised aluminium (aluminum for US readers) for the radiating element. Take some smaller (non resonant pieces) and mount them some distance away from the antenna but exposed to similar environmental conditions. Leave for a year or so and then examine the radiating element surface and compare with the samples. Is there any difference in the surface structure? The samples should be non resonant, of the same batch material as the antenna and arranged so that they are not likely to radiate or absorb RF energy from the test antenna, while still being exposed to the same weathering and other factors as the test antenna. Mike G0ULI Using anodised al- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Mike that is a novel aproach but it does appear that exposure to the antmosphere of any element cnnot be prevented i.e. pin hole propargation which is evidenced by my mercedes plating processes. However the guts of GUT is the unification of mechanical laws ( revolving around equilibrium) with electro magnetic laws. There is no simpler way to verify that cvonnection than to verify the required angle for a radiator to produced a uniform radiation such as horizontal polarization. This is a direct connection that can now be resolved by the use of computor programs that follow Maxwell and not the equilibrium dictates of the mechanical world. That is the test for finality in this quest, an acceptable unity between the sciences.I am beginning to believe that most of the participants do nor have a computor program or even a trust in the results when it shown that is formed around empirical evalution and not solely on Maxwells laws without suspect additional conditions.To my mind anybody who is antenna computor savvy would leap at the chance of determining the structure of a particular radiator to become a leader in this debate, but unfortunately there are none. When the programmer involved with Eznec refutes the validity of accepted mechanical laws or dismisses the notion of non frictional environments there would appear to be some merit in questioning their "corrective" actions which for a viable law such as Maxwell's is somewhat fraudulent. For the same person to descend into personal attacks in defence of his posture certainly suggests that his limits of viability. have been some what strained Like Cecil he has a large amount of knoweledge which in itself is not enough when the quest in total victory and elimination to all oponents What a waste of such valuable brain power. Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk) has been some what strained |
GUT ( Grand unification theory)
"art" wrote in message ... On 8 Dec, 07:30, "Mike Kaliski" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message news:oov6j.253$va7.168@trndny08... "Dave" wrote in message news:uQa6j.10850$3W.8630@trndny04... "Derek" wrote in message ... On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote: "AI4QJ" wrote in message art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he got in his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double! Dave "It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant buy. Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?. Derek. Gauss's law is a law of 'electrostatics' as art so frequently states. STATICS is static, ie NO current which would be implied by adding a time component to the charge or field predicted by Gauss's law. If you have a time variable charge you have a current, if you have a current then you have to include the magnetic fields, and the curl of the electric field, and hence end up needing all 4 of Maxwell's equations to define the complete solution. So yes, i say you can not add time variations to Gauss's law as it stands alone and completely describe the solution to the fields produced. i.e. simple proof. define any shape surface with no charge enclosed in it. by Gauss's law the net field through that surface must be zero. you can have charges sitting just outside of it, lets say a single electron is just outside of one side of the surface. if you integrate the field from that one electron it goes in one side of the surface and out the other and all still adds up to zero net field as require by Gauss's law. now for the hard part.... move the charge a little bit closer to the surface without going through it. we must all agree that while you are moving it the electric field strength through the surface closest to the charge is increasing, so in order for the total flux through the surface to remain zero the flux moving out on the other side must also increase. BUT because of the effects of the other 3 Maxwell equations that limit the speed of propagation of that field to c it can't happen instantaneously. so for some period of time the net flux through the surface is not zero as would be require by Gauss alone. reductio ad absurdum, QED, take your new theory and.... hmmmm, 24 hours and no rebuttal? come on, some of you art suckups that i haven't plonked yet must surely have a logical reason why this isn't correct? maybe the new non-newtonian static electrons get magically pushed through the integration surface and make up for the extra field? oh wait, then they wouldn't be static any more would they? and where it the diamagnetic surface that they levitate from?? oh well, back to the 10m contest, thats even more fun than pinging this group. Should be easy enough to check the claims. If as Art suggests there is a constant interchange of particles in the surface element of a radiator, then some detectable physical changes should take place. Construct an antenna using anodised aluminium (aluminum for US readers) for the radiating element. Take some smaller (non resonant pieces) and mount them some distance away from the antenna but exposed to similar environmental conditions. Leave for a year or so and then examine the radiating element surface and compare with the samples. Is there any difference in the surface structure? The samples should be non resonant, of the same batch material as the antenna and arranged so that they are not likely to radiate or absorb RF energy from the test antenna, while still being exposed to the same weathering and other factors as the test antenna. Mike G0ULI Using anodised al- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Mike that is a novel aproach but it does appear that exposure to the antmosphere of any element cnnot be prevented i.e. pin hole propargation which is evidenced by my mercedes plating processes. However the guts of GUT is the unification of mechanical laws ( revolving around equilibrium) with electro magnetic laws. There is no simpler way to verify that cvonnection than to verify the required angle for a radiator to produced a uniform radiation such as horizontal polarization. This is a direct connection that can now be resolved by the use of computor programs that follow Maxwell and not the equilibrium dictates of the mechanical world. That is the test for finality in this quest, an acceptable unity between the sciences.I am beginning to believe that most of the participants do nor have a computor program or even a trust in the results when it shown that is formed around empirical evalution and not solely on Maxwells laws without suspect additional conditions.To my mind anybody who is antenna computor savvy would leap at the chance of determining the structure of a particular radiator to become a leader in this debate, but unfortunately there are none. When the programmer involved with Eznec refutes the validity of accepted mechanical laws or dismisses the notion of non frictional environments there would appear to be some merit in questioning their "corrective" actions which for a viable law such as Maxwell's is somewhat fraudulent. For the same person to descend into personal attacks in defence of his posture certainly suggests that his limits of viability. have been some what strained Like Cecil he has a large amount of knoweledge which in itself is not enough when the quest in total victory and elimination to all oponents What a waste of such valuable brain power. Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk) has been some what strained Hi Art, Provided that the antenna and sample pieces are exposed to the same atmospheric effects, gross damage such as random pinholing to the surface will be identical in all pieces. However I believe that the antenna element should additionally show a regular pattern of disturbance caused by standing waves which might be identified using electron microscopy or just possibly a high power visual microscope. Computer modelling has its place, but all computer models are constrained by the constants and formulae used to calculate the final results. When the computer model does not agree with physical measurements in the real world, then one of three conclusions may be drawn. The wrong data has been entered, the real world measurement is in error, or a previously unknown variable needs to be taken into account and added to the computer model. Of the three possibilities, the last is the most unlikely if the model is mature and correctly predicts the behaviour of known, experimentally proven systems. In order to successfuly add a new calculating method to a computer model, it must correctly match the existing results while also correctly predicting the new previously unknown behaviour. This is not a trivial task and it is insufficient to just add a correction factor as this just demonstrates that the true nature of the problem is not understood. NEC based programs follow well proven principles, but are not the holy grail in being able to predict the performance of all antenna types or configurations. They can accurately predict 'established' antenna design performance in most circumstances and give a useful insight into what properties a new and previously untried design might have. The programs are, of necessity, constrained by the accuracy of the physical measurements and formulae used in writing the original program. I do not consider the challenge to Newton's Laws to be valid. Just because there is no true vacuum anywhere in the universe, as far as can be established, then all objects will eventually come to rest due to friction. This does not invalidate the premis that in the absence of friction or any other external influence, an object would continue in motion along a straight path forever. Ultimately whatever predictions are made by computer modelling programs or theory, the only measure of success is by physical measurement in the real world. Mike G0ULI |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:49 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com