| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
Tom Donaly wrote:
Is this test going to be written up somewhere? What is the test protocol? - 73 de Mike N3LI - Easier said than done, Mike. Any way we look at it, Tom! ;^) - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
Derek wrote:
On Mar 7, 3:45 am, Roy Lewallen wrote: snippage Even that might not be adequate, depending on the design of the transmitter. Any power or other wires connected to the transmitter could easily become part of the radiator, so they'd have to be decoupled. A small, battery-powered transmitter with no connected wires would avoid this potential problem. Roy Lewallen, W7EL You still don't understand! you are talking bull**** you have no idea of the design of Art's antenna or of how it works or it's needs yet you put up your remedies for old style antenna's. And yet, all we are given is "This is my design, it works, accept it!" This whole thing smacks of alternative science, where everyone is required to suspend disbelief, maximize credulousity (is that a word? ;^) ). Everyone has to accept it as true, and if you don't you are subject to attacks. Somehow it becomes the job of the establishment to prove it correct, and if they don't, it is discounted as conspiracy, professional jealousy, incompetence, or in some of the more amazing examples, not enough people believing in it.. Copper bracelets, magnetic water and bedsheets, super duper gas mileage enhancers that Detroit doesn't want you to have, pyramids, crystals, thought amplifiers, cold fusion, and on and on and on. http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...ics/signs.html It's all there. Perhaps this is real, perhaps a new day is dawning in antenna design. I would never dream of pronouncing the antenna a non-starter with the paucity of information given. But a whole lot of what is in that guide is here too. Not the least impressive is that this revolution is starting in rraa..... ;^) Another possibility... since this whole 'tenna thing is working outside of the mainstream, maybe they'll take it on over at "Mythbusters". You'd have top admit that Kari would be a lot more pleasant to verify these claims with than most of us here...... - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
Michael Coslo wrote:
Everyone has to accept it as true, and if you don't you are subject to attacks. Mike, exactly the same thing is true for a 3 ns delay through a 75m bugcatcher loading coil perpetuated by gurus on this newsgroup. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... (snip) You'd have top admit that Kari would be a lot more pleasant to verify these claims with than most of us here...... - 73 de Mike N3LI - ----------------- If we could only get Kari Byron to do the show wearing a thong bikini. In fact, all of the shows could be improved in a similar manner. I would think that lots of new approaches in science began as "alternative science/pseudo science" ideas. No, I can't name one instance off the top of my head. Those instances are missing along with most of my hair, a good portion of my previous superior cognitive abilities and short term memories. Some of the younger folks' minds have been prepared for the acceptance of dimensional additions to our present paradym of physical reality. I agree (or hope) that soon, other quantifiable aspects of additional dimensions will pop into our reality. It would be interesting to play with the effects of hyperdimensional physics in regard to our antennas. But, at the moment, at least for we old fogies, we are stuck with playing within the current four dimensions. Ed, NM2K |
'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
On Mar 5, 6:11 am, Denny wrote:
Art did ship me one of his antennas a week or two back... I have it in my shop... I will indeed put this interesting antenna to an objective and thorough testing with a full report here... I am always excited to learn something new... It is 19F outside this morning and blowing hard, with wind and snow forecast through the week and into the weekend, and I am unlikely to climb the big tower in this... I will attempt within a week to put it on a small 50' tower I have attached to my shop and get some baseline impedence and field strength measurements... Then as soon as the weather allows I will move it to the big tower for a good test against my full size antennas... I am sorry to have to put this off a bit, but given the weather and that my family is hurting at the moment my free time is limited... denny / k8do Denny, Don,t rush things, you have all the time in the world.Listened to my present antenna yesterday and listened for a while on 20 M where hawaii was working all Europe where all were nbig signals. So I have got back to another antenna that will be all frequency as well as all band and hopefully in a day or so we can put it on the tower. Shame I didn't put the finishing touches to the antenna that I sent but then your interest is 160 M so you are covered. If you need anything drop me a line and I will get right on it. Now have a new server so all old mail is lost and is not being forwarded! Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ |
'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
Ed Cregger wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... (snip) You'd have top admit that Kari would be a lot more pleasant to verify these claims with than most of us here...... - 73 de Mike N3LI - ----------------- If we could only get Kari Byron to do the show wearing a thong bikini. In fact, all of the shows could be improved in a similar manner. No you have me all distracted, Ed. She's so darn cute in jeans and a T-shirt (and no make up to boot) that the idea of.... never mind... let's get back to the subject at hand. I would think that lots of new approaches in science began as "alternative science/pseudo science" ideas. No, I can't name one instance off the top of my head. Those instances are missing along with most of my hair, a good portion of my previous superior cognitive abilities and short term memories. Some of the younger folks' minds have been prepared for the acceptance of dimensional additions to our present paradym of physical reality. I agree (or hope) that soon, other quantifiable aspects of additional dimensions will pop into our reality. It would be interesting to play with the effects of hyperdimensional physics in regard to our antennas. But, at the moment, at least for we old fogies, we are stuck with playing within the current four dimensions. I think that we would be stupid indeed to believe that "Its all known". I personally believe that we'll be bending space and zipping off to the galaxies(will that get us away from reality tv?) at superluminal "speed" in the future. Who knows, we may even become immortal some day. The skeptics have been wrong in the past. History is littered with them. But, and this is very important, to pop that old chestnut in the campfire as some sort of invalidation of the skeptics is not only a non-sequitar, but really bad logic. It does not follow that Art's antenna works because the Catholic church persecuted Galileo, and was proven wrong. His works have to stand on their own merit, not Galileo's. I have great difficulty following what he writes. It is possible that I am hopelessly dull, but I don't have that trouble with very many people. Attempts at getting clarity have usually been met with his belief that if you don't get it right away, you have to "go back to school, or remarks similar. What I have been able to garner of his theory of operation seems to be that electrons, or particles or something, is jumping off the antenna into the "aether", or something like that (zero point energy? quantum matter pops? dark matter? cosmic Vicks Vap-O-Rub?) I dunno for sure - as I is a dull boy sometimes... - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Ed Cregger wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... (snip) You'd have top admit that Kari would be a lot more pleasant to verify these claims with than most of us here...... - 73 de Mike N3LI - ----------------- If we could only get Kari Byron to do the show wearing a thong bikini. In fact, all of the shows could be improved in a similar manner. No you have me all distracted, Ed. She's so darn cute in jeans and a T-shirt (and no make up to boot) that the idea of.... never mind... let's get back to the subject at hand. I would think that lots of new approaches in science began as "alternative science/pseudo science" ideas. No, I can't name one instance off the top of my head. Those instances are missing along with most of my hair, a good portion of my previous superior cognitive abilities and short term memories. Some of the younger folks' minds have been prepared for the acceptance of dimensional additions to our present paradym of physical reality. I agree (or hope) that soon, other quantifiable aspects of additional dimensions will pop into our reality. It would be interesting to play with the effects of hyperdimensional physics in regard to our antennas. But, at the moment, at least for we old fogies, we are stuck with playing within the current four dimensions. I think that we would be stupid indeed to believe that "Its all known". I personally believe that we'll be bending space and zipping off to the galaxies(will that get us away from reality tv?) at superluminal "speed" in the future. Who knows, we may even become immortal some day. The skeptics have been wrong in the past. History is littered with them. But, and this is very important, to pop that old chestnut in the campfire as some sort of invalidation of the skeptics is not only a non-sequitar, but really bad logic. It does not follow that Art's antenna works because the Catholic church persecuted Galileo, and was proven wrong. His works have to stand on their own merit, not Galileo's. I have great difficulty following what he writes. It is possible that I am hopelessly dull, but I don't have that trouble with very many people. Attempts at getting clarity have usually been met with his belief that if you don't get it right away, you have to "go back to school, or remarks similar. What I have been able to garner of his theory of operation seems to be that electrons, or particles or something, is jumping off the antenna into the "aether", or something like that (zero point energy? quantum matter pops? dark matter? cosmic Vicks Vap-O-Rub?) I dunno for sure - as I is a dull boy sometimes... - 73 de Mike N3LI - ---------- I cannot argue with your point of view, Mike. We must stick with real science and what has been proven when it comes to performing professionally. However, being somewhat of a conjurer/writer of fiction, I like to permit myself to venture from the accepted path from time to time. I suspect that many scientific breakthroughs have been seeded and brought to fruition over the centuries in much the same way. I am not defending the OP's position. That is his job, not mine. Ed, NM2K |
'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
In article ,
Ed Cregger wrote: I would think that lots of new approaches in science began as "alternative science/pseudo science" ideas. No, I can't name one instance off the top of my head. Those instances are missing along with most of my hair, a good portion of my previous superior cognitive abilities and short term memories. One good example, I think, is the theory of continental drift - originally viewed by the mainstream as being pseudoscience (or at least unproven), now adopted as "plate tectonics" and acknowledged as a critically important process in the evolution of our planet. In order for any "alternative science" theory to achieve mainstream acceptance, I believe that it has to demonstrate the sort of characteristics that other (mainstream) scientific theories do. Specifically: - It has to be falsifiable. The proponents of it have to be able to say "OK, if it's wrong, here's how we could tell". - It has to make testable predictions. - It has to do a better job with those predictions, than the theories against which it is competing. It must either (accurately) predict things that other theories cannot predict, or (in some cases) it must predict the same things as other theories predict, but do so in a more "elegant" way. Testability and falsifiability are the key issues, I believe. Art has been talking about nontraditional antenna design ideas for years. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time he's ever actually provided a sample for an independent party to test. I think it's only fair for the parties doing the testing, to be allowed to perform whatever sorts of tests they feel are appropriate, and report accurately on the test conditions and the results. If Art or his proponents feel that some of these tests are invalid (due perhaps to new, nontraditional theories about how the antennas are supposed to function), then it's up to them to express these new theories in some testable, falsifiable form, so that the theories can be fairly evaluated by others. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
Dave Platt wrote:
One good example, I think, is the theory of continental drift - Another is that global warming is caused by the sun, not by Al Gore's species. Show me a guru who thinks he knows everything and I will show you a very ignorant person. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Platt wrote: One good example, I think, is the theory of continental drift - Another is that global warming is caused by the sun, not by Al Gore's species. Global warming - or cooling, due to solar flux and independent of internal mechanisms (like us) has been the mainstream knowledge for a long, long time. Interesting that you chose this one, Cecil. Mention Al Gore's name, and you can bet that the more neoconservative among us will start the ridicule bandwagon going. They say it is a political thing. It is for them. Heat retention by the group of gases collectively know as "greenhouse gases" is a fact. Proven time and again in experiments that a high school kid can do. There is a direct correlation between human activities that release CO2 into the atmosphere, and the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. This increase should have an effect on the heat retained by the atmosphere. Doesn't matter what the CO2 source was. Global warming is just as much a fact as evolution, and opposed by many of the same folks as that one. Now it is time for those who would debunk it to come up with solid scientific reasons why the effect is not happening, not political ones. Here are some possibilities: Humans really aren't putting CO2 in the atmosphere. That CO2 is different. The earth wants to maintain a constant temperature, so it somehow ignores that CO2. Temperature measurements are actually wrong. That kind of stuff. Give how's and whys. Not political verbiage. Show me a guru who thinks he knows everything and I will show you a very ignorant person. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
Michael Coslo wrote:
Give how's and whys. Not political verbiage. OK, how about this? Global warming has always run in cycles of 100K+/- years. Man obviously had no effect on the previous cycles. The temperature 130,000 ago averaged 4 degrees higher than any temperature during the present cycle. The maximum temperature during the present cycle occurred 8000 years ago when man obviously had no effect. We are now 8000 years into the next ice age. Any global warming effect provided by man's greenhouse gases will tend to delay the plunging temperatures associated with the presently approaching ice age and save tens of millions of people from starving to death due to the farmlands being overrun by glaciers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png Mars undergoes global warming at the same time as the earth does. Are the Martians emitting greenhouse gases? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320431,00.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...NTARY/10575140 -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Platt wrote: One good example, I think, is the theory of continental drift - Another is that global warming is caused by the sun, not by Al Gore's species. Global warming - or cooling, due to solar flux and independent of internal mechanisms (like us) has been the mainstream knowledge for a long, long time. Correct. I believe that Cecil (like a very great many other people) is falling victim to a classic logical error, commonly referred to as "the fallacy of the excluded middle" or "false dilemma". In this instance, Cecil's statement carries with it an implied assumption: that global warming (assuming that it exists) is due *either* entirely to the effects of the sun, *or* entirely to the effects of mankind. Cecil's statement implicitly denies the possibility that *both* of these factors (as well as others) may in fact be contributing to whatever warming, cooling, or other climate change is occurring. Taking such an exclusionist position can certainly be convenient. If you can define the terms of the debate in this way, then all you have to do is prove *some* truth to your own side of the argument (e.g. demonstrate that solar changes do have effects on Earth's temperature), and by exclusion you have "proved" the falsity of all of your opponent's arguments and evidence. I've seen this tactic used by those arguing both sides of the global-warming debate. I don't believe that the real world is as simple as this. Measurable effects can have many contributing causes. My own conclusion is that global climate change has both external (e.g. solar and earth-orbital) and internal (greenhouse-gas) origins, and that at least some of the latter are heavily influenced by human activities. As to the relative contributions of these internal and external forcing functions to the final climate on this planet... we have to depend on theory, modelling, and experience to figure that out. To me, the really scary possibility is that the combined effect of internal and external stimuli will push the system out of one mostly-stable state, and into another, through a difficult-to-reverse toggle point. Warming and drying up the Amazon far enough to make it flip over from rainforest to savanna might be one such toggle. Warming up the deep ocean enough to start melting a large quantity of methane hydrates would be another. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Platt wrote: One good example, I think, is the theory of continental drift - Another is that global warming is caused by the sun, not by Al Gore's species. Show me a guru who thinks he knows everything and I will show you a very ignorant person. Cecil; Those that think they know everything annoy those of us who do. Dave N |
'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:04:36 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: Give how's and whys. Not political verbiage. OK, how about this? Global warming has always run in cycles of 100K+/- years. Man obviously had no effect on the previous cycles. Obviously. The 4004 BC crowd has some issues with even that! 8^) The temperature 130,000 ago averaged 4 degrees higher than any temperature during the present cycle. The maximum temperature during the present cycle occurred 8000 years ago when man obviously had no effect. Cyclic variation is not the issue. Many things can cause average global temperature to vary. Insolation, the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by other sources, volcanism, possible methane clathrate releases are all modifiers. During earlier days in our solar system, the sun was a good deal dimmer, like 30 percent, 4 billion years ago. And yet, during much of the time, average global temperatures were higher than today. While creation science argues otherwise: http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...ciences10.html http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/faintsun.asp it is quite likely that CO2 from volcanism could take care of that issue. We are now 8000 years into the next ice age. And a fascinating ice age it is! 8^) Looking at the timelines of recent ice ages, it is beyond my ability to tell just where we are. If we are in a glaciation period, the interglacial was the shortest one known. By your statement, the interglacial was around 2000 years. But your data and mine are radically different. Any global warming effect provided by man's greenhouse gases will tend to delay the plunging temperatures associated with the presently approaching ice age and save tens of millions of people from starving to death due to the farmlands being overrun by glaciers. What I see here is the old either/or problem. You can't have it both ways. Because there are natural fluctuations in global average temperature does not mean that adding our own contribution is negligent. IOW, it isn't a choice between the two. Wherever we are in the cycle of global average temperature, and for whatever reasons we are there, what we are doing is either having an effect because of physics, or it isn't because of mitigating physics that we don't understand yet. -- -73 de Mike N3LI - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com