On Jul 9, 3:30 pm, wrote:
On Jul 8, 5:27 am, Art Unwin wrote:



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

And it's completely motionless in one dimension out of the three. So
what?

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.

The weak force is NOT otherwise known as a magnetic field. It relates
to radioactive decay and is only relevant at distances less than 10
e-8 nanometers and has nothing to do with electromagnetism.

ac6xg

Wrong again!
You are following the errors of the past again. Yes, the particle that
is
projected away from the radiator is radio active in terms of a
fraction of its life.
And yes the distance that the madnetic field resulting from the eddy
current is limited
as seen with the common elevation style experiments. The distanbce
required for the
velocity of the partical is NOT a determination of distance travelled
according to
Newtons laws of motion. I hope you are not teaching this stuff so
people can get a degree.!

Art Unwin wrote:
It followsa straight line trajectory in two dimensions out of three

And it's completely motionless in one dimension out of the three. So
what?

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.

The weak force is NOT otherwise known as a magnetic field. It relates
to radioactive decay and is only relevant at distances less than 10
e-8 nanometers and has nothing to do with electromagnetism.

ac6xg

Wrong again!
You are following the errors of the past again.

Evidently nobody's gotten around to correcting the physics texts to
better reflect your point of view yet.

Yes, the particle that
is
projected away from the radiator is radio active in terms of a
fraction of its life.

What particle?

And yes the distance that the madnetic field resulting from the eddy
current is limited
as seen with the common elevation style experiments. The distanbce
required for the
velocity of the partical is NOT a determination of distance travelled
according to
Newtons laws of motion. I hope you are not teaching this stuff so
people can get a degree.!

Of course not. No one is teaching this stuff, Art. If someone
mentioned B.S. they weren't referring to a degree.

ac6xg

On Jul 9, 5:41 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
It followsa straight line trajectory in two dimensions out of three

And it's completely motionless in one dimension out of the three. So
what?

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.

The weak force is NOT otherwise known as a magnetic field. It relates
to radioactive decay and is only relevant at distances less than 10
e-8 nanometers and has nothing to do with electromagnetism.

ac6xg

Wrong again!
You are following the errors of the past again.

Evidently nobody's gotten around to correcting the physics texts to
better reflect your point of view yet.

Yes, the particle that
is
projected away from the radiator is radio active in terms of a
fraction of its life.

What particle?

And yes the distance that the madnetic field resulting from the eddy
current is limited
as seen with the common elevation style experiments. The distanbce
required for the
velocity of the partical is NOT a determination of distance travelled
according to
Newtons laws of motion. I hope you are not teaching this stuff so
people can get a degree.!

Of course not. No one is teaching this stuff, Art. If someone
mentioned B.S. they weren't referring to a degree.

ac6xg

Believe me they will. To follow theories as being correct without
your own personal study is to become a lemming
I suspect you are still holding on to the Quark and "W" theory
of Feynman but as yet I don't believe one iota of evidence has been
found
that declares their presence or the actions that he predicted.
Theories really
depend on your academic stature and the power of perswation. Remember
people such as Green had little education but achieved fame without
being a lemming.
Same goes for others in the radio field whose work was purloined by
others.
When the corrected books are published will you leave college in anger
or do what all
instructures do and tell the students to buy new books every year at
high cost
and pretend you knew all along? Not once have you successfully evoked
the laws of the masters
to bring my logic to a halt. Everything you have stated has been
incorrect or faulty us of known laws

Art Unwin wrote:
Everything you have stated has been
incorrect or faulty us of known laws

So basically it's your contention is that everything I say is wrong.
Ok, you're right, Art. :-)

ac6xg

On Jul 9, 7:53 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Everything you have stated has been
incorrect or faulty us of known laws

So basically it's your contention is that everything I say is wrong.
Ok, you're right, Art. :-)

ac6xg

So far I have been right!. You are excercising free speech without
scientific underpinnings.
You like others did not come forward and prove scientifically that
Gauss law CANNOT be extended.
You dont accept the idea of a partical with nuclear life. In fact you
don't even accept eddy currents.
If you are teaching kindegarten then such free speech is in order as
they will not challenge you.
But you must expect challenges from grown ups unless you supply
underlying data for claims made
or refuted. I will now give you a chance to show what expertise you
have.
Professionals in antenna design work mainly in the higher frequencies
where they show circular
eddy currents on the internal wave guide walls. So why on the lower
frequences do amateurs deny
the existance of surface carried eddy currents? This same scientific
fact is used in detecting material flaws without destruction
as fissures in metal alters the eddy current. So where in the hell are
you comming from and where does your main expertise dwell?

On Jul 9, 7:27*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
So where in the hell are
you comming from *and where does your main expertise dwell?

Hi Art -

Where am I coming from...well, a cab driver in London sent me a note a
year or two ago after I came to your defense in this newsgroup. He
confided to me about something that I had already suspected regarding
your condition. Since then, I have advised some of your antagonists
in the group by email that it might be the better part of valor to
take it easy on you and just let you have your say. Mostly, I just
wished for you pursue your interest and to avoid embarassing yourself.

Not that it matters, but my main expertise as it pertains to this
discussion is in the design and construction of electronic equipment
and scientific apparatus used for the measurement of various physical
phenomena. e.g. US Pats 5,018,382 and 7,119,588. In the '70's and
80's I was in the business manufacturing guitar amplifiers. Among
other things, I am an amateur radio operator and a musician.

For the record, although I have disagreed with you, I have never been
personally disrespectful to you. I believe gentleman should be able
to disagree without being disagreeable (or insulting).

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

...
Hi Art -

Where am I coming from...well, a cab driver in London sent me a note a
year or two ago after I came to your defense in this newsgroup. He
confided to me about something that I had already suspected regarding
your condition. Since then, I have advised some of your antagonists
in the group by email that it might be the better part of valor to
take it easy on you and just let you have your say. Mostly, I just
wished for you pursue your interest and to avoid embarassing yourself.

Not that it matters, but my main expertise as it pertains to this
discussion is in the design and construction of electronic equipment
and scientific apparatus used for the measurement of various physical
phenomena. e.g. US Pats 5,018,382 and 7,119,588. In the '70's and
80's I was in the business manufacturing guitar amplifiers. Among
other things, I am an amateur radio operator and a musician.

For the record, although I have disagreed with you, I have never been
personally disrespectful to you. I believe gentleman should be able
to disagree without being disagreeable (or insulting).

ac6xg

You are disgusting.

Your manner(s) and depths you would stoop to are below a minimum level
to engage in human dialog/relations.

I find it a shame you would even be granted a license to engage in
communications with decent human beings--it certainly is to the
detriment of amateurs worldwide ... you sir are a NUT of the most
despicable kind--and, clear proof the bar should be raised!

However, I can only wish that you remain within the ignorant confines of
the prison of your mind; to awake to the reality of what you really are
could prove fatal and the undoing of your insane ego ...

PLONK!

JS

On Jul 10, 11:32 am, Jim Kelley wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:27 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

So where in the hell are
you comming from and where does your main expertise dwell?

Hi Art -

Where am I coming from...well, a cab driver in London sent me a note a
year or two ago after I came to your defense in this newsgroup. He
confided to me about something that I had already suspected regarding
your condition. Since then, I have advised some of your antagonists
in the group by email that it might be the better part of valor to
take it easy on you and just let you have your say. Mostly, I just
wished for you pursue your interest and to avoid embarassing yourself.

Not that it matters, but my main expertise as it pertains to this
discussion is in the design and construction of electronic equipment
and scientific apparatus used for the measurement of various physical
phenomena. e.g. US Pats 5,018,382 and 7,119,588. In the '70's and
80's I was in the business manufacturing guitar amplifiers. Among
other things, I am an amateur radio operator and a musician.

For the record, although I have disagreed with you, I have never been
personally disrespectful to you. I believe gentleman should be able
to disagree without being disagreeable (or insulting).

ac6xg

Please accept my apologies because I have disrespected you
Regarding my findings they have been partially checked over by
qualified people
and it has taken a long while to get to this point.
If you will accept it I would like to send you an antenna as a gift
but I do not want personal favors of any kind.
Frankly it is the responders that need thought as they do not present
any scientific underpinnings for their statements
that I can respond to in kind Unfortunately I do sometime get caught
up in the hate and respond in kind which I should not do
Believe me Jim all those that poo hoo what I am sharing will rethink
their motives when it is recognised by academia which is really the
only road for acceptance available to any lay person with respect to
ham radio. As the numbers of silent keys mount the majority in ham
radio will not be comprised of people with open minds and curiousity
and changes will reflect the change in demeanor as has already
happened on this newsgroup. I don't think the days will ever come back
where antenna science can be discussed civilly and logically anymore
per the intentions of the formation of this newsgroup founders since
lack of civility is truly a virus that can over take us all
Regards
Art

On Jul 11, 12:32 am, Jim Kelley wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:27 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

So where in the hell are
you comming from and where does your main expertise dwell?

Hi Art -

Where am I coming from...well, a cab driver in London sent me a note a
year or two ago after I came to your defense in this newsgroup. He
confided to me about something that I had already suspected regarding
your condition.

Hi Jim

Sir
You are a gentleman toff and a scholar.
This was a compliment paid by east enders of london in years past to
a person who stooped to give a helping hand to some one of a lower
class.
Thank you.

That is as I remember the above is verbatim the email that was sent
to you, I think it is despicable of you to use something sent in
confidence and twist what was written and use to attack.
An enquiry was made as to the meaning of a post you had made and the
above was the reply in totality.

Art Unwin wrote:

...

Art:

Geesh ...

I'd hoped I'd not have to mention this ...

You know that earlier joke I made? The one about the dummy carrying the
round HEAVY rock downhill? (They guy my old Elmer made fun of?)

Well, dude, that WAS Jim Kelly ... need I say more? Give it up man--if
you argue with complete idiots, "IT" destroys what tattered argument you
have ... but them, you could have guessed that ...

Regards,
JS