Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 1, 5:35 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 1, 2:58 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
With the above in hand it can be seen
that Foucault current generates a field that elevates particles that
have attained a weak magnetic field by entering the earths system
which provides for their rejection or ejection. Per Newtons Law the
weak forces
involved (Fermi) create an oscillation of the radiator which is a
mirror image of arriving impulses upon a radiuator with the same
natural resonance.
Hi Art -
You have a unique way of making simple notions seem utterly
ridiculous. :-)
ac6xg
Jim
You are now doing your job as a teacher and a ham not a physicist.
I don't have a job on the internet, Art. I was just speaking plainly
and honestly.

ac6xg

But you supplied no substanc! You did not share what you were talking
about
or a point of contention just a use of free speech as in graphitty If
you had
knowledge of what I was speaking off then you could have delved in and
explain your comments
but you are deficient. I don't have time to teach a parrot another
line
Art

Art, you are sooooo amusing. You are one of the reasons I read this group.

You make statements that haven't a shred of connection with reality, are
not testable, make statements about what you yourself have said or
"published" that aren't accurate, not even a little, and then you have
the unmitigated gaul to tell people they have said nothing.

You are wonderful!

tom
K0TAR

John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

...
May I offer a rebuttal to your use of "size:" with respect to
radiators?
The addition of radiators and a time varying field to a Gaussian field
shows that a radiator can be any size,shape or elevation as long as it
is in equilibrium.
This is because the result of additions to Gauss's static law results
in the same law of Maxwell.
It can also be seen that any deviation from a straight line format
which creats lumped loading must be neutralized since
radiation is related to distributed loads L and C. Thus shape or size
is a determination of the neutralisation of lumped loads
while attaining equilibrium. With the above in hand it can be seen
that Foucault current generates a field that elevates particles that
have attained a weak magnetic field by entering the earths system
which provides for their rejection or ejection. Per Newtons Law the
weak forces
involved (Fermi) create an oscillation of the radiator which is a
mirror image of arriving impulses upon a radiuator with the same
natural resonance.
It is only convention that calls for an radiator to be straight of
which a helix antenna is an excellent example ,where a continuation of
rotation back to the originating point provides for a full circuit in
equilibrium si9nce added lumped loads are cancelled. Examples of the
foucault current was provided earlier on this forum when describing
the separation of scrap metal by Foucault current rejection. As with
Newton, Faraday Gauss etc all laws depend on the theme of equilibrium
within a boundary of a balanced universe and not on minute sections
thereof.
Have a great week end
Art

Art:

This mysterious "equilibrium" (which I seem to have a bit of problem
getting my mind wrapped about), although you, seemingly, sum up a group
of properties with a single word, isn't this just "resonance"--with
respect to conductor length/width, capacitance to surrounding objects
and the shape/form of the magnetic field produced by antenna currents, etc?

However, a thought did come to my mind ... with the new technique of
"taking pictures" of light waves/particles--if a super-strong
electromagnet was pulsed in an enclosure of excitable gas(es), perhaps
we could see some unknown/yet-unseen phenomenon ...

However, you are speaking of resonance, aren't you? still-scratching-head

Regards,
JS


John, my grandfather used to have some old radio books. One of them
talked about equilibriun as tunning the antenna feedlines so as to
have equal current in both lines. I can only guess that this is what
Art means.


Jimmie

On Jul 1, 7:16 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

On Jul 1, 4:37 pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
the use of free speech
without content
Regards
Art

Exactly what art is best at!

David ,you have never won a debate on this newsgroup and you never
will.
You are just another Andy Cap waving hands espousing various
falsehoods.
You have never come up with anything of cosequence that was factual in
the face of disagreement. Never!
And it is too late in life for you to correct it You can still live
happilly ever after if you stop pretending you are what you are not
Your sparcity of knoweledge becomes evident as you exercise the
priviledge of free speech which is why I am a supporter of free
speech ., If you were knowledgable in the art and mathematics you
would have shown the World how a relationship between Gauss and
Maxwell could never be. If you were knowledgable in the arts you would
have explained the eddy current but again you can't. If you were
knoweledgable in antenna programs you would be aware of arrays in
equilibrium but you can't. If you were aware that radiators do not
have to be straight under Maxwellian law you would have but you cant.
If you were aware of magnetic fields that something in air you would
have mentioned it but you didn't. Fact is you do not have the
mathematics knowledge to disprove these things or the get up and go to
make an antenna in equilibrium to prove anything and the measuring of
its oscillations with respect to SWR is certainly beyond your
capability.Carry on with your free speech as I find it so
representitive of what you actually are without further investigation.
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 1, 7:16 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

On Jul 1, 4:37 pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
the use of free speech
without content
Regards
Art
Exactly what art is best at!

David ,you have never won a debate on this newsgroup and you never
will.

Hmmm, who else here hasn't?

happilly ever after if you stop pretending you are what you are not
Your sparcity of knoweledge becomes evident as you exercise the

Spellchecker needed.

priviledge of free speech which is why I am a supporter of free
speech ., If you were knowledgable in the art and mathematics you

The "art". So this is witchcraft? Because that is roughly what you
have been espousing your whole career on this NG.

Maxwell could never be. If you were knowledgable in the arts you would

Spelling again. YUou must be a fast "typer".

have explained the eddy current but again you can't. If you were
knoweledgable in antenna programs you would be aware of arrays in

Oops, it's consistent.

equilibrium but you can't. If you were aware that radiators do not
have to be straight under Maxwellian law you would have but you cant.

Gee, not straight. Hmmmm. Maybe you mean like a circular thing, maybe
a wavelength in circumference?. Oh, it's a LOOP! Wow, someone ought
to investigate this possibility! It might work!

And let's see, what would happen if one folded a half wave dipole around
until it became almost a square? I think I'll call it a "Squalo"!!!

You know a guy might make a buck off these ideas, but it's just too
crazy for the ham or professional radio engineering crowd, so it'll
never get made. After all, we conventional types only believe in
"straight" antennas.

Art, yuh gotta luv 'im.

tom
K0TAR

On Jul 1, 8:09 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 1, 5:35 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 1, 2:58 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
With the above in hand it can be seen
that Foucault current generates a field that elevates particles that
have attained a weak magnetic field by entering the earths system
which provides for their rejection or ejection. Per Newtons Law the
weak forces
involved (Fermi) create an oscillation of the radiator which is a
mirror image of arriving impulses upon a radiuator with the same
natural resonance.
Hi Art -
You have a unique way of making simple notions seem utterly
ridiculous. :-)
ac6xg
Jim
You are now doing your job as a teacher and a ham not a physicist.
I don't have a job on the internet, Art. I was just speaking plainly
and honestly.

ac6xg

But you supplied no substanc! You did not share what you were talking
about
or a point of contention just a use of free speech as in graphitty If
you had
knowledge of what I was speaking off then you could have delved in and
explain your comments
but you are deficient. I don't have time to teach a parrot another
line
Art

Art, you are sooooo amusing. You are one of the reasons I read this group.

You make statements that haven't a shred of connection with reality, are
not testable, make statements about what you yourself have said or
"published" that aren't accurate, not even a little, and then you have
the unmitigated gaul to tell people they have said nothing.

You are wonderful!

tom
K0TAR

David I have said many technical things as I see it. Nobody has given
me good reason why it cannot be so
Every day false hoods are given without corroberating facts. Nobody
but nobody has supplied reasonable doubt.
Now many people on this newsgroup make up stories or just lie. David a
little while ago described an antenna that I made of high gain
which was a result of an optimiser. One big lie! I can't model my
antenna since it is made of pre twisted wire.The fact is that I am
beginning to believe that many posters are not educated as they
pretend they are. Computer programs abound but nobody has taken me up
regarding antenna programs that I have made. Is everybody incapable or
just lazy. Another point the denial of the mathematics in the dispute
with respect to Gauss and Maxwell. Why was this a point of contention
when no facts were supplied to deny it. Then we come to eddy
curfrents and a particle rejection field. Levitation is very well
known.Eddy currents are also well known and is the reason for
laminations in transformers,. Why is it that such things are unknown
to educated posters? Every day there is a post that suggest of an old
wives tale but posters accept it without rebuttal. Why? Don,t you care
about the spreading of such things? Why not a rebuttal from anybody.
Why did your post stick a finger in my eye with out needed substance
that pushed you to post?
Fact is that some suggest that they have an educqation without stating
that it is 50 years old and they have forgotten most.
This is why many threads exceed 1000 posts. The posts have no
substance in relation to the discussion at hand or attempts to change
the subject. If I remember correctly Tom you were one of those who
could not accept the mathematics supplied by Davis but without
offering to identify errors of mathematics and still haven't.
Thank goodness for free speech so one can quickly see who they are and
what they are.
Art

Free speech.
Yes Art, you have the right to say almost anything you want. You do
not have the 'right' to think people are going to believe/listen to
you, especially after some of your previous 'speeches'. (Lump me in
that 'Al Cap' category. Do we get registration numbers?)
Before I'm reminded not to encourage 'trolls', I'll quit.
- 'Doc

Art Unwin wrote:

...

You will forgive me for forgoing including the full context of your
post, I trust ...

I will continue to listen, brother ...

Regards,
JS

Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 1, 5:35 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 1, 2:58 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
With the above in hand it can be seen
that Foucault current generates a field that elevates particles that
have attained a weak magnetic field by entering the earths system
which provides for their rejection or ejection. Per Newtons Law the
weak forces
involved (Fermi) create an oscillation of the radiator which is a
mirror image of arriving impulses upon a radiuator with the same
natural resonance.
Hi Art -
You have a unique way of making simple notions seem utterly
ridiculous. :-)
ac6xg
Jim
You are now doing your job as a teacher and a ham not a physicist.
I don't have a job on the internet, Art. I was just speaking plainly
and honestly.

ac6xg

But you supplied no substanc! You did not share what you were talking
about
or a point of contention just a use of free speech as in graphitty If
you had
knowledge of what I was speaking off then you could have delved in and
explain your comments
but you are deficient. I don't have time to teach a parrot another
line
Art

Art, you are sooooo amusing. You are one of the reasons I read this group.

You make statements that haven't a shred of connection with reality, are
not testable, make statements about what you yourself have said or
"published" that aren't accurate, not even a little, and then you have
the unmitigated gaul to tell people they have said nothing.

You are wonderful!

tom
K0TAR

I like the term "unmitigated gaul." It reminds me, somehow, of the
present leader of France.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 1, 7:16 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

On Jul 1, 4:37 pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
the use of free speech
without content
Regards
Art

Exactly what art is best at!

David ,you have never won a debate on this newsgroup and you never
will.

i didn't know it was a competition.

You are just another Andy Cap waving hands espousing various
falsehoods.

if i remember right Andy Cap stated truisms in odd situations, but its been
a while since i have read comics... that where you glean your wisdom from
art?

You have never come up with anything of cosequence that was factual in
the face of disagreement. Never!

thats because you don't believe the proven facts, only your distorted little
view of it.

If you were knowledgable in the art and mathematics you
would have shown the World how a relationship between Gauss and
Maxwell could never be.

Gauss's law is part of Maxwell's equations, they all work together and are
part of all the modeling programs that you used to like, but now claim can't
model your latest creation. and what happened to your half wave equilibrium
elements, they gone now?

If you were knowledgable in the arts you would
have explained the eddy current but again you can't.

as one of my past lives i wrote software for simulating eddy currents in
copper or aluminum sheets for magnetic shielding of transformer vaults in
hospitals. if your antennas utilize or depend on eddy currents then i
understand completely why they should be classed as air cooled dummy loads.


If you were
knoweledgable in antenna programs you would be aware of arrays in
equilibrium but you can't.

my arrays are very well in 'equilibrium'... except right now some of the
elements are a bit bent from the winter ice so i have to go up and replace
them to get the 4/4/4/4 stack on 20m back in equilibrium... right now i can
hear the imbalance and it is very annoying.

If you were aware that radiators do not
have to be straight under Maxwellian law you would have but you cant.

right, and i have some folded and bent and circular radiators, but straight
is so much easier to build.

If you were aware of magnetic fields that something in air you would
have mentioned it but you didn't.

say what? magnetic fields do something in the air??

Fact is you do not have the
mathematics knowledge to disprove these things or the get up and go to
make an antenna in equilibrium to prove anything and the measuring of
its oscillations with respect to SWR is certainly beyond your
capability.

fact is, you have presented nothing to prove what you claim besides
handwaving. you can't even mathematically define equilibrium. and like the
ancients you have to rely on a mysterious aether to make your warped view of
the world work.

Carry on with your free speech as I find it so
representitive of what you actually are without further investigation.
Art

same with you, i need a good laugh now and then.

Art Unwin wrote:

...
John if you have no comprehension of equilibrium you will never be
able to define aether
...
Art

Hmmm ... before we define "the great equilibrium", I would like to first
demonstrate the properties of that "elusive ether"--but I see, a bit
better now, your stand on "equilibrium."

Thanks Art,
regards,
JS