On Jul 1, 2:39 pm, John Smith wrote:
Dave wrote:
...
no, he's not... its the cosmic equilibrium between his fictitious particles
and the attraction of them the diamagnetic materials that makes antennas
work... of course he can't explain why ferromagnetic materials also work as
antennas, but that hasn't stopped him from spewing his garbage all over this
group. if you keep scratching your head while you try to figure out what he
is talking about you will run out of hair before you even get to first base.

Actually, there is only one alternative--the ether ... something which I
wish they will explore with new techniques ... Something (ether) which
even Einstein acknowledged. However, why Art would "waltz" around
something which is already being explored/argued, and cloak that
"waltzing" in an unfamiliar term(s) is simply beyond me ... unless ones'
point is obsfucation.

Regards,
JS

I have no knoweledge of that but I would like to follow up. Can you
give me some pointers on the subject so I may obtain some further
knowledge
For my part everything that I have stated can be proven and known to
exist
It is the hands of most hams who are interest in antenna programs to
follow
the trail that I point to with respect to arrays in equilibrium for
which the programs
are made from, instead of direction to planar arrays which I suspect
that Maxwell
and others new nothing about

Art Unwin wrote:

...
I have no knoweledge of that but I would like to follow up. Can you
give me some pointers on the subject so I may obtain some further
knowledge

What part the ether being acknowledged by Einstein? Colleges, papers,
physicists exploring the existence/properties of the ether? What? You
can't read? You can't use Google? You missed my posts quoting
Einsteins last mention of the ether? Help me out here ...

For my part everything that I have stated can be proven and known to
exist

I would even accept the arrls' material is what "really exists" (this
material will only need to be revised if and when the existence of the
ether can be known for certain and its' properties exploited though new
designs--mostly.) And, is in line with all presently accepted
theory--up to the point where the discussions begin of whether light
(and therefore rf) is composed of waves and/or particles or some
phenomenon which exhibits both of these characteristics but is separate
in existence, in some way. AND, whether rf/light "shoots" across a true
"nothing" or "strikes the chords of the ether" and transverses a media
which we can not see and know its properties, yet?"

What? You are introducing a "third theory" which does not deal with
shooting photons and nothing (well, you can shoot light waves through
gases and glass, obviously!), or waves and a media?

It would seem to me your "equilibrium" must either deal with a "nothing"
or an ether ...

In my mind, all antenna theory revolves around a few simple truths:

1) The antennas ELECTRICAL length relates DIRECTLY to what frequencies
it is efficient at.

2) Antennas are subject to laws of ac resistance.

3) Antennas are subject to knows laws of inductance.

4) Antennas are subject to know laws of capacitance.

5) All of the above, in one form or another, contribute to and define an
antenna impedance.

Some of us just wonder if the ether exists, and whether knowing its'
properties, if so, might give one a break through into antenna designs
not yet even though of ...

It is the hands of most hams who are interest in antenna programs to
follow
the trail that I point to with respect to arrays in equilibrium for
which the programs
are made from, instead of direction to planar arrays which I suspect
that Maxwell
and others new nothing about

Except for a few hams, most notable Cecil, Richard Clark, Walter
Maxwell, etc., most are the "appliance users" and/or "brass pounders of
yesteryear." What remains is ill suited to find anything other than a
rare contact on contest/field-day, or perhaps a new keying device
capable of creating one more character per minute ...

You will forgive me if I examine your motives, if pure of heart, I am
sure they will stand as fitting ...

No Art, I think you are confused and using an "equilibrium" to keep from
coming to terms with that, or you are "obsfucating us, with intent!"

But then, I could just be confused myself ...

Regards,
JS

On Jul 1, 4:37 pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

...

I have no knoweledge of that but I would like to follow up. Can you
give me some pointers on the subject so I may obtain some further
knowledge

What part the ether being acknowledged by Einstein? Colleges, papers,
physicists exploring the existence/properties of the ether? What? You
can't read? You can't use Google? You missed my posts quoting
Einsteins last mention of the ether? Help me out here ...

For my part everything that I have stated can be proven and known to
exist

I would even accept the arrls' material is what "really exists" (this
material will only need to be revised if and when the existence of the
ether can be known for certain and its' properties exploited though new
designs--mostly.) And, is in line with all presently accepted
theory--up to the point where the discussions begin of whether light
(and therefore rf) is composed of waves and/or particles or some
phenomenon which exhibits both of these characteristics but is separate
in existence, in some way. AND, whether rf/light "shoots" across a true
"nothing" or "strikes the chords of the ether" and transverses a media
which we can not see and know its properties, yet?"

What? You are introducing a "third theory" which does not deal with
shooting photons and nothing (well, you can shoot light waves through
gases and glass, obviously!), or waves and a media?

It would seem to me your "equilibrium" must either deal with a "nothing"
or an ether ...

In my mind, all antenna theory revolves around a few simple truths:

1) The antennas ELECTRICAL length relates DIRECTLY to what frequencies
it is efficient at.

2) Antennas are subject to laws of ac resistance.

3) Antennas are subject to knows laws of inductance.

4) Antennas are subject to know laws of capacitance.

5) All of the above, in one form or another, contribute to and define an
antenna impedance.

Some of us just wonder if the ether exists, and whether knowing its'
properties, if so, might give one a break through into antenna designs
not yet even though of ...

It is the hands of most hams who are interest in antenna programs to
follow
the trail that I point to with respect to arrays in equilibrium for
which the programs
are made from, instead of direction to planar arrays which I suspect
that Maxwell
and others new nothing about

Except for a few hams, most notable Cecil, Richard Clark, Walter
Maxwell, etc., most are the "appliance users" and/or "brass pounders of
yesteryear." What remains is ill suited to find anything other than a
rare contact on contest/field-day, or perhaps a new keying device
capable of creating one more character per minute ...

You will forgive me if I examine your motives, if pure of heart, I am
sure they will stand as fitting ...

No Art, I think you are confused and using an "equilibrium" to keep from
coming to terms with that, or you are "obsfucating us, with intent!"

But then, I could just be confused myself ...

Regards,
JS

John if you have no comprehension of equilibrium you will never be
able to define aether
Equilibrium is the essence of the universe confined to an arbitary
boundary where all forces about a point equals zero.
If they were not equal zero then the boundary breaks and we break from
equilibrium untill all forces equal zero
This is what Newton means when he made the statement Every action has
an equal and opposite reaction.
Before you can even think of the so called aether then the confining
boundary of all boundaries must be determined which is where some say
GOD sits. The sun sits in its own arbitary boundary where heat
byproducts exist with the sun itself. When the position of the sun
shifts within its boundary then equilibrium is lost and equilibrium is
only then retained by removal of excess forces that detract from
equilibrium. It is commonly understood that it is nuclear byproduct
that upset equilibrium until the p-roduct is removed from within the
arbitary boundary. These are known as Neutrinos which are displaced
particles with nuclear content such that they have not fully decayed.
These particles when released from the arbitary border have next to
zero orbital spin such that their exit is of scattered form
but their numbers are in the billions per square metre. But they do
have an affinity to diamagnetic materials which appears to be the most
common mass of our universe. since as a substance it does not absorb
free electons to rotate with said mass i.e. it rests upon the
surfaces.It is these very same particles illustrated in Gaussian law
of statics where the arbitary field is in equilibrium..
See. you cannot escape from the term equilibrium while in our universe
but you can ignore it until equilibrium is broken and where your
future is unknown. Hopefully the earths pole will move back from
Siberia so that all do not have to worry.We have no people skilled in
physics so there will be no debate other than the use of free speech
without content
Regards
Art
Art

"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!

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

"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:

...

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

I will continue to listen, brother ...

Regards,
JS

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

On Jul 2, 9:50 am, John Smith wrote:
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

Great. Just made an antenna whip for somebody to play with but my
effort to build the variometer was a total flopCoupling was just not
close
enough but at least the guy can have fun over the holidays
Regards
Art