AI4QJ wrote:
"art" wrote in message
...
All the laws of the universe are directly a reflection of the action
that Newtons laws
pertain to. All Newtons laws pertain to relative movement of mass
which is comprised of time, mass and relative distance to form a state
of equilibrium.
We all know how mechanical laws are conneted to Newton but how is
electricity essentially the same? We all know that magnetism is a
reflection of the smallest dipole
relative angle at any point in time. We also know that this dipole can
also turn during a period of time such that the magnetic field of
force at any point in time is reflected by the angle that the dipole
takes. This dipole in electrical terms is a microsom of the large
mechanical forces in relative movement.
For electricity the dipole takes up an alignment that reflect the
current flow at any point and place in time. Thus with a dc current
all the dipoles aligne with each other with respect to the current
flow in a two dimensional form. When applying an alternating current
we are also really applying a DC current but with a rotational or
three degrees of freedom such that at any point in time all dipole
alignment reflect the torque angle at that particular point which is
NOT the same as any other dipole point alignment.
Thus when current is not applied the molecular dipole arrangement fall
back to the directions it had prior to the onset of current to provide
a stated of equilibrium.
In the case of a DC current supplied the microscopic dipoles ALL have
the same alignement and when the current ceases to be applied the
dipoles still stay in alignment with each other. So in effect ,the
movement of the micro dipole in electricity is exactly the same as a
mechanical element where all the forces of the electrical dipoles are
summated. There are difference with mechanical elements which can be
determined by its mass and structural make up such as how they perform
in a magnetic field. Earlier we expressed the strength of a magnetic
field is measured in part by the angular position of its resident
dipoles.For a true magnet formed with a ferrous material the
atmosphere can permeate all of the material as it changing its
composition, but in the initial state the total mass is a reflection
of the number of inherrent dipoles which in summation is a measure of
the potential energy contained. With a current carrying
element such as aluminum when it is exposed to the atmoshere it
immediately forms a barrier to prevent the ongoing penetration of
oxidtion. Thus when a current is applied
it can only affect the dipoles in the protective skin depth of the
pattina and not affect the internal unoxidizes material where it can
oxidize and decay as with a ferrous material.
Thus the pattina can only hold a smaller number of dipoles which
reflects a smaller potential energy for generating a magnetic field.
Thus both electrical and mechanical
formats surround the facts of potential energy and kinetic energy when
in a state of equilibrium as espoused by Newtons laws.
Have a happy day
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG (uk)


The casual reader of the ng should realize that this insane posting is not
representative of the technical background of ham radio operators.



Art is entitled to his opinions which are no more crazy than, say,
Christian dominionism, or "creation science." They may be wrong and
hard to make sense of, but at least they're honest and
original.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

"Tom Donaly" wrote in
:

Art is entitled to his opinions which are no more crazy than, say,
Christian dominionism, or "creation science." They may be wrong and
hard to make sense of, but at least they're honest and
original.

Art's ideas are no more crazy than those you compared them to, but those
ideas are a whole lot crazier than Art's!

- 73 d eMike N3LI -

Mike Coslo wrote:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in
:

Art is entitled to his opinions which are no more crazy than, say,
Christian dominionism, or "creation science." They may be wrong and
hard to make sense of, but at least they're honest and
original.

Art's ideas are no more crazy than those you compared them to, but those
ideas are a whole lot crazier than Art's!

- 73 d eMike N3LI -


Oh yeah, the premise(s) you state are self evident! Rocks turning into
biological organisms. Krist, mundane really--for the "wackos way of
thinking." Everyone else realizes it take a mind to "create/make
something." You damn bizarre idiot! ROFLOL

Gawd, and you think it would be easy for someone to follow logic ...

JS

John Smith wrote:

...
Gawd, and you think it would be easy for someone to follow logic ...

JS

And then, these damn kooks have the sheer gall to poke fun at Art?
Geesh, they must not have mirrors to look in!

JS

Tom Donaly wrote:
AI4QJ wrote:
"art" wrote in message

Thus the pattina can only hold a smaller number of dipoles which
reflects a smaller potential energy for generating a magnetic field.
Thus both electrical and mechanical
formats surround the facts of potential energy and kinetic energy when
in a state of equilibrium as espoused by Newtons laws.
Have a happy day
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG (uk)


The casual reader of the ng should realize that this insane posting is
not representative of the technical background of ham radio operators.


Art is entitled to his opinions which are no more crazy than, say,
Christian dominionism, or "creation science." They may be wrong and
hard to make sense of, but at least they're honest and
original.

If they are wrong, they aren't honest. They're simply bad science and
not worthy of our time. One of Art's biggest problems is that he writes
in kooky generalities and never ever provides specifics. I've asked him
three times for information on his 18 foot 160m antenna. All I've
gotten in response is a bad tap dance.

I have no choice but to put him down as a lonely old eccentric, a few
degrees off level.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote in message

(snip) I have no choice but to put him down as a lonely
old eccentric, a few
degrees off level.

Dave K8MN


-------------


"Judge not lest ye be judged"

I come here to learn and converse with others of similar
interests. Unfortunately, the atmosphere here is very
hostile and uninviting. Who the hell wants to argue all of
the time? Not me.

Many of you are far more educated than I, but many of you
demonstrate precisely why I chose not to be brainwashed with
a formal education. Many cannot see past the end of their
noses, yet they insist upon laying down the law regarding
what is acceptable science and what is not. As though anyone
actually knows anything at all.

Each and every day there are new announcements that reshape
our scientific paradigm. Who can keep up? It was while I was
trying to keep up that I finally realized that the more we
learn, the more we should realize that nothing is certain.
Yet the same young/old coots are in here argueing day after
day that what they learned in the 1940's and 50's, 60's,
70's, 80's, 90's and now the 20's, is the Gospel Truth. I
wish you could see just how silly you appear to others. I'm
not pointing the finger at anyone in particular.

Let's not forget that one's educational level has nothing to
do with native IQ.


Ed, NM2K

On Jan 18, 3:36 am, "Ed Cregger" wrote:

Yet the same young/old coots are in here argueing day after
day that what they learned in the 1940's and 50's, 60's,
70's, 80's, 90's and now the 20's, is the Gospel Truth. I
wish you could see just how silly you appear to others. I'm
not pointing the finger at anyone in particular.

But on the other hand many of those theories have been tested
over and over again in all those years. If they pass the continued
test of time, I trust them more than I do bafflegab that usually
breaks these fairly well proven theories with no prior testing done
of the new theories.
I have nothing against trying new ideas, but they should at
least be tested and proven in the real world before they are
unleashed as "fact", or that I need to "recognize" something
that is obviously not the case, already proven through years of
repeated testing.
I've told Art many times... If you build it and it works, they will
come. He refuses.
When a person proclaims that they have a new theory which will
likely break the laws of older proven theory, it's that persons
obligation to prove his case, not the other way around.
And to do that requires getting off ones rear to build and test
the real deal, in the real world and letting the chips fall where
they may.
Art claims to have an 18 ft antenna for 160m on his tower,
but on the other hand he says he does not operate.
So how is he going to test it?
And if it's going to be a fair test, he needs a reference antenna.
If I claimed to have a small antenna that was equal in efficiency
to a full size antenna, I would A/B compare it to a full size
antenna.
If the chips fell in an undesirable manner, I would scrap the
thing, and move on to something else.
It's not like it would be the end of the world.
Art never gets this far. So due to a lack of actual testing, it's
like a dog chasing it's tail, while barking at the moon at the
same time.
I'm all for new ideas, and I surely know that in the history of
the world, people will likely see things much differently 200
years from now, than they do today.
That's a given..
All I'm saying is... Don't feed me a turd and call it steak,
without tasting it first. I can smell the difference in most
cases just from my own prior experiences.
If I thought a 18 ft element could equal a full size element
on 160m, you can bet I would already have one in the air.
But I know just from prior testing with just half size dipoles
using efficient Hi-Q loading coils at optimum locations, that
even they couldn't quite match up. I had to go to a "Z" dipole
to get close to full size efficiency.
So when I hear stories of small radiators wound with thin
22 gauge wire in a "to me" perverted contra wound method,
and this is supposed to be the answer to all our prayers,
please excuse me if I don't rush out to nominate Art for the
Nobel prize in physics without a little real world
demonstration. Using a real full size antenna to compare
it with would be nice.
I would expect no less from even an alien if he promised a
free lunch deal like that. Or myself for that matter.
MK

On Jan 18, 3:36 am, "Ed Cregger" wrote:
snip

Many of you are far more educated than I, but many of you
demonstrate precisely why I chose not to be brainwashed with
a formal education. Many cannot see past the end of their
noses, yet they insist upon laying down the law regarding
what is acceptable science and what is not. As though anyone
actually knows anything at all.

snip

Let's not forget that one's educational level has nothing to
do with native IQ.

Ed, NM2K

You are correct to say that education has nothing to do with IQ.
Faraday had little formal training, yet his arduous work is now
exalted by naming one of the basic electromagnetic laws after him. But
I take issue with the idea that you can't actually know anything at
all. For instance, electrodynamic theory was developed 150 years ago,
and the KNOWN successful results of that are numerous.

Newtonian mechanics held up well for hundreds of years. A whole
industrial revolution was built on it. Yet some pesky observations by
Michelson and Morley regarding the invariant speed of light found it
wanting. Relativistic mechanics subsumed Newtonian mechanics, but
Einstein didn't invalidate Newton. I believe the mathematical term
"embedding" applies.

I am currently re-studying the original theory of Maxwell, et. al.,
with the intent of finding some chink in the armor. Tesla reported
longitudinal electromagnetic wave phenomena, which contradicts the now-
standard theory that EM waves can ONLY be transversal. Using Maxwell's
original quaternion equations, before Heviside simplified them into
the now-standard vector form, one can derive longitudinal wave
components. If those exist, does that prove you don't know how to
operate a ham radio? No, it just means you're radiating something in
addition to what you expect.

You CAN know something and apply it. You just need to realize that
what you know isn't complete, and never can be.

wrote:

I am currently re-studying the original theory of Maxwell, et.
al., with the intent of finding some chink in the armor. Tesla
reported longitudinal electromagnetic wave phenomena, which
contradicts the now-standard theory that EM waves can ONLY be
transversal. Using Maxwell's original quaternion equations, before
Heviside simplified them into the now-standard vector form, one
can derive longitudinal wave components. If those exist, does that
prove you don't know how to operate a ham radio? No, it just means
you're radiating something in addition to what you expect.

Tesla made a lot of claims to try to get money from investors. There
is no evidence to support his claims of longitudinal electromagnetic
waves. What kind of detector did he use? In the century or so since
then, why has nobody re-discovered these waves?

You can determine the probability these waves exist with very simple
logic.

The range equations for radar and deep space communication are very
well established, and the radiated energy is well understood. In
order to make progress on discovering longitudinal waves, you have
to find some anomaly. If you could show some error in the equations
where power was missing, you might be on to something. But first you
have to show there really is an anomaly.

If these waves exist, where does the power come from and where does
it go? What mechanism determines how the power is split between
normal EM waves and longitudinal waves?

You can measure power very accurately. Signal to noise ratio is one
of the most crucial parameters in satellite communication. If there
were any anomalies in the range equations, someone would have
discovered them long ago. And Roy would have updated his code.

You can bet on that!

Regards,

Mike Monett

On 18 Jan, 09:17, Mike Monett wrote:
* wrote:

* I am *currently *re-studying the original theory *of *Maxwell, et.
* al., with *the *intent of finding some chink in *the *armor. Tesla
* reported *longitudinal * electromagnetic * wave * phenomena, which
* contradicts the *now-standard *theory that EM *waves *can *ONLY be
* transversal. Using Maxwell's original quaternion equations, before
* Heviside simplified *them into the now-standard *vector *form, one
* can derive longitudinal wave components. If those exist, does that
* prove you don't know how to operate a ham radio? No, it just means
* you're radiating something in addition to what you expect.

* Tesla made a lot of claims to try to get money from investors. There
* is no evidence to support his claims of longitudinal electromagnetic
* waves. What kind of detector did he use? In the century or *so since
* then, why has nobody re-discovered these waves?

* You can determine the probability these waves exist with very simple
* logic.

* The range equations for radar and deep space communication *are very
* well established, *and *the radiated energy is *well *understood. In
* order to *make progress on discovering longitudinal waves, *you have
* to find some anomaly. If you could show some error in *the equations
* where power was missing, you might be on to something. But first you
* have to show there really is an anomaly.

* If these waves exist, where does the power come from and *where does
* it go? *What *mechanism determines how the *power *is *split between
* normal EM waves and longitudinal waves?

* You can measure power very accurately. Signal to noise ratio *is one
* of the most crucial parameters in satellite communication. *If there
* were any *anomalies *in *the *range *equations, *someone *would have
* discovered them long ago. And Roy would have updated his code.

* You can bet on that!

* Regards,

* Mike Monett

Roy's program is nothing more than a calculator.
It is not equipped with computor analytical skills such as an
optimizer where the computor searches for possible changes to the
imput to determine maximum required results .
As a calculator you insert the math question and the calculator
provides the result
A computor optimizer does exactly what the title suggests, it works
for you in search of a better arrangement that you supplied so you may
determine an optimum solution for the inputted request. None tell you
that thematerial used must be diamagnetic so just use aluminum or
copper
and you will be O.K. As far as purchasing a computor program there are
choices out there that are not so basic.
Art
Art