Radiation and dummy loads
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 6, 11:30 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"If this is so, why do not Maxwell`s laws provide the role of particles
in radiation?"

Maxwell`s equarions adequately describe electrical behavior without
resort to particles.

Art should read "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B.
Whitfield Griffith, Jr. Its first chapter is: "A Brief History of
Electrical Knowledge". Maxwell`s equations are covered in Chapter 38,
"The Mechanism of Radiation".

On page 9, Griffirh wrote:
"Maxwell studied deeply the equations he had written and noted that they
were similar in form to equations which were used to express the motion
of waves in water. This made it clear to him that electromagnetic waves
could exist, and he was able to calculate the speed at which they would
travel.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

And did he mention the role of stati
cs or particles in radiation?

particles are not necessary, so of course not.

I keep on reading that radiation is not fully understood
in present day books!

which books? quotes please, not hand waving. i have given you quotes, now
you provide the ones that your theory is based on.

Give me a book that does understand and provide
the role of particles and then make us all happy

go back to one of the aetherist's and you can have all the particles
propagating waves that you want... but they still won't work like your
neutrino/carbon things hopping off diamagnetic materials.

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 5, 11:47 am, "Dave" wrote:

David,
at this stage in life it would very difficult for me to go thru the
math from the start
in the exercise of adding a a radiator and a time varying field to a
Gaussian field
to show it is the same asMaxwell equation, very few of us are.

At this stage of my life, Arthur, it has become very difficult for me to
take you seriously.

Dave K8MN

Radiation and dummy loads
 

derek wrote:
On Jul 6, 7:14 pm, wrote:


Doc
most posters who disagree with Art on this thread at least put
up an alternative to Art's claim's, you on the other hand have nothing
to offer as usual, so instead you attack the man as you did in times
past to no effect. The fellow ******* who used to follow are no longer
around, you are on your own!.
In my neck of the woods Doc's who are not on top of their subjects
are known as quack's, so I suggest before you post again you bone up
on the subject in question, or are you so far out of your depth that
you are only able to attack the man?.

Arthur doesn't provide specifics. He doesn't provide the math. He is
short on fact and long on misspelled pontification. Excuse me if I
don't accept his wild claims at face value. If he can't explain them
(and the burden of proof is on him), why should any of us be bothered?

Dave K8MN

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 6, 12:49 pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"I keep reading that radiatiation is not fully understood in present day
books!"

Maybe so, but it is good enough for near perfect design of practical
antennas.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

But it does not lead to a path of small antennas!
I think it is really odd that hams defy or disbelieve what a antenna
optimizer supplies
Why are they not attacking computor programs? Or describe where they
are wrong
Yup, they believe sll is known and THEY are the masters

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 6, 1:57 pm, Dave Heil wrote:
derek wrote:
On Jul 6, 7:14 pm, wrote:

Doc
most posters who disagree with Art on this thread at least put
up an alternative to Art's claim's, you on the other hand have nothing
to offer as usual, so instead you attack the man as you did in times
past to no effect. The fellow ******* who used to follow are no longer
around, you are on your own!.
In my neck of the woods Doc's who are not on top of their subjects
are known as quack's, so I suggest before you post again you bone up
on the subject in question, or are you so far out of your depth that
you are only able to attack the man?.

Arthur doesn't provide specifics. He doesn't provide the math. He is
short on fact and long on misspelled pontification. Excuse me if I
don't accept his wild claims at face value. If he can't explain them
(and the burden of proof is on him), why should any of us be bothered?

Dave K8MN

Everything that I have done has been shared on this newsgroup.
The mathematics have been shown. A array in equilibrium has been shown
and over
checked independently on this newsgroup An antenna was sent
to a member of this newsgroup for verification A page has been
supplied with how to make it.
David ,you are just another lemming that has arrived apon the scene

Radiation and dummy loads
 

derek,
I would suggest that my post was not a personal attack (unlike yours),
instead, it was an attempt to try to show Art an aspect of his
behavior that he probably doesn't realize is showing up. And as has
already been pointed out, how can anyone prove or disprove 'proof'
that has not been presented? To this point, all I have seen is
opinions, and in some cases, some fairly imaginative opinions.
About the "Doc", it's a user name, and nickname. Doesn't mean that
I'm a doctor of anything. And I have never claimed to be. I didn't
pick it, it was given to me. If I can learn to 'live' with it, you
can too. And if you can't, then that's too bad.
'Nuff of that.
- 'Doc

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 6, 2:24 pm, Art Unwin wrote:


Everything that I have done has been shared on this newsgroup.
=0.0543
Not enough content to be usable.

The mathematics have been shown.
=0

A array in equilibrium has been shown
and over

You won't even define how you apply the term equilibrium, much
less show an example of it.

checked independently on this newsgroup

I assume you refer to the skewed element antenna.
IE: the one I called the cluster@#$%... :(
You know, the one with six skewed elements that
gave less gain than a well tuned 3 el yagi?

An antenna was sent
to a member of this newsgroup for verification

And the report on it's performance has not been received.
Where's the beef?
You are not even supplying a textured vegetable patty
as a substitute.. :/

A page has been
supplied with how to make it.

I sure don't see one shown at:
http://unwinantennas.com/

David ,you are just another lemming that has arrived apon the scene

Kinda like Doktor MIT? I guess he drowned in the last migration..
He seems to have disappeared from the scene.
Chortle... :/ But can't say I blame him really.

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 3, 5:16 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

You know John, since America gives the 'right to bear arms' you would
think that the population would understand
that a projectile must have rotation to follow a straight line
trajectory.

Hi Art,

The American Constitution does not "give" rights. It simply attempts
to prevent government from eliminating them.

Under the influence of gravity, sub-orbital ballistic projectiles
generally follow a parabolic trajectory. Isssac Newton's laws of
motion apply without caveat.

ac6xg

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

...
Hi Art,

The American Constitution does not "give" rights. It simply attempts to
prevent government from eliminating them.

Under the influence of gravity, sub-orbital ballistic projectiles
generally follow a parabolic trajectory. Isssac Newton's laws of motion
apply without caveat.

ac6xg


No constitution or law can EVER give rights ...

You are born with all the rights possible. Unless you are under a
constitution or law(s) which remove some (or all) of your rights--you
have every damn one of them! And unless there is a clear majority of a
govt's citizens which support that constitution/laws, you are witness to
an unjust constitution/law(s) ...

As our constitution notes, these are God given rights--no man may ever
take them away--you CAN agree to a contract NOT to exercise some of your
rights to the betterment of all.

Men get together and form govt's and agree to create laws which limit
their rights--FOR THE GOOD OF ALL. When that no longer is happening, it
is time to reform, re-elect or even go as far as a revolution to restore
just rights ... our constitution makes that a duty for Americans, and
requires us to remain ever vigilant in the protection of our rights.

If you believe laws give or protect your rights--you already have lost
them to a guy on the street playing craps ...

Regards,
JS

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 7, 3:22 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 3, 5:16 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
You know John, since America gives the 'right to bear arms' you would
think that the population would understand
that a projectile must have rotation to follow a straight line
trajectory.

Hi Art,

The American Constitution does not "give" rights. It simply attempts
to prevent government from eliminating them.

Under the influence of gravity, sub-orbital ballistic projectiles
generally follow a parabolic trajectory. Isssac Newton's laws of
motion apply without caveat.

ac6xg

It followsa straight line trajectory in two dimensions out of three
The weak force othewise known as the magnetic field of the eddy
current
overcpmes or neutralises gravity while applying spin such gravitation
has little or no
effect on the trajectory as it is projected with spin. This can be
seen with
elevation experiments