Radiation and dummy loads
 

I am trying to understand why a low swr repetitive over a band of
frequencies is considered by hams to be a dummy load.! This
consistently shows up in statements by the itelligensia of this
newsgroup. Following up on the logic of that idea it would suggest
that if swr was totally constant ( not sure how that could be) then
all radiation must be zero or self cancelling.?
This thus suggests that if a log periodic antenna was unlimitted in
the number of elements used would in the limit drop down to zero
radiation!. So following the thinking of this group the oscillations
that I show on my page

unwinantennas.com/

as a progression towards zero radiation since Q eventually is going to
equal zero.
Is this why the decreasing oscillation is defined as a dummy load on
this newsgroup?
The term comes up so often that I am compelled to look for what I am
missing, especially since carbon
is conductive and thus in the minds of many must therefore be
radiative!
Ofcourse the statement bandied around that if a material is
condunctive then it must radiatiate
could become fact instead of an old wives tales if stated enough
times.
Art

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 3, 11:08 am, Art Unwin wrote:
I am trying to understand why a low swr repetitive over a band of
frequencies is considered by hams to be a dummy load.!

Has nothing to do with it. SWR and antenna efficiency are
not related. Also SWR and common mode currents, or
the lack of are not related.

This
consistently shows up in statements by the itelligensia of this
newsgroup.

Not by me. But I can't hardly spell itelligensia without help,
much less be one..
A man has to know his limitations.

Following up on the logic of that idea it would suggest
that if swr was totally constant ( not sure how that could be) then
all radiation must be zero or self cancelling.?

That is Art logic...

This thus suggests that if a log periodic antenna was unlimitted in
the number of elements used would in the limit drop down to zero
radiation!. So following the thinking of this group the oscillations
that I show on my page

unwinantennas.com/

as a progression towards zero radiation since Q eventually is going to
equal zero.

Could I interest your cat in a pair of fuzzy mittens?

Is this why the decreasing oscillation is defined as a dummy load on
this newsgroup?

No.

The term comes up so often that I am compelled to look for what I am
missing, especially since carbon
is conductive and thus in the minds of many must therefore be
radiative!

If Star Trek is to be believed, you are a carbon unit.
Tie a shielded feed line to your big toe and get back to
us on the amount of DX worked.
I'll even grant you the benefit of a doubt, and let you ground
your other toe to a suitable ground rod, radials, etc if needed
for proper operation of the carbon unit miracle whip.

Ofcourse the statement bandied around that if a material is
condunctive then it must radiatiate
could become fact instead of an old wives tales if stated enough
times.

I think it would hurt to see that statement repeated too many
times regardless if true or not.

The problem with your antenna will not be explained using fairy
tales and perceptions of what you think other hams might think.
All you need is regular old proven textbook theory which is available
to most anyone. If you have burned all your books in a past
fit of intellectual rage, maybe you should consider stocking up on
a few new ones. You can buy them online and have them delivered
via UPS, USPS, and other freight carriers. So you don't even have
to step outside the front door to gain this new perspective on the
"Unwin" antenna.

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 3, 12:25 pm, wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:08 am, Art Unwin wrote:

I am trying to understand why a low swr repetitive over a band of
frequencies is considered by hams to be a dummy load.!

Has nothing to do with it. SWR and antenna efficiency are
not related. Also SWR and common mode currents, or
the lack of are not related.

This
consistently shows up in statements by the itelligensia of this
newsgroup.

Not by me. But I can't hardly spell itelligensia without help,
much less be one..
A man has to know his limitations.

Following up on the logic of that idea it would suggest
that if swr was totally constant ( not sure how that could be) then
all radiation must be zero or self cancelling.?

That is Art logic...

This thus suggests that if a log periodic antenna was unlimitted in
the number of elements used would in the limit drop down to zero
radiation!. So following the thinking of this group the oscillations
that I show on my page

unwinantennas.com/

as a progression towards zero radiation since Q eventually is going to
equal zero.

Could I interest your cat in a pair of fuzzy mittens?

Is this why the decreasing oscillation is defined as a dummy load on
this newsgroup?

No.

The term comes up so often that I am compelled to look for what I am
missing, especially since carbon
is conductive and thus in the minds of many must therefore be
radiative!

If Star Trek is to be believed, you are a carbon unit.
Tie a shielded feed line to your big toe and get back to
us on the amount of DX worked.
I'll even grant you the benefit of a doubt, and let you ground
your other toe to a suitable ground rod, radials, etc if needed
for proper operation of the carbon unit miracle whip.

Ofcourse the statement bandied around that if a material is
condunctive then it must radiatiate
could become fact instead of an old wives tales if stated enough
times.

I think it would hurt to see that statement repeated too many
times regardless if true or not.

The problem with your antenna will not be explained using fairy
tales and perceptions of what you think other hams might think.
All you need is regular old proven textbook theory which is available
to most anyone. If you have burned all your books in a past
fit of intellectual rage, maybe you should consider stocking up on
a few new ones. You can buy them online and have them delivered
via UPS, USPS, and other freight carriers. So you don't even have
to step outside the front door to gain this new perspective on the
"Unwin" antenna.

You did not present any logical thiknking on the subjet
Following the logic of my posting it shows a clear conflict between
normal thinking and mine. On on side we have the standard statement
that if it is conductive then it is radiative a pretty common
statement on this news group
Yet a dummy load is conductive ie carbon but is not considered
radiative, a clear conflict
My point of view which is objected to is that radiation is a measure
of the resistivity of the
current carrying material because that alone creates eddy current
depth sometimes refer to skin depth
dependent on the depth of current flow. Now eddy currents varies in
all current carrying members
where as carbon eddy production properties are minimal to zero even
tho it curries current, which is why it
it is chosen for a dummy load ie carbon does not produce a skin depth
of eddy current.
Thus the common thinking of a dummy load does not radiate or a current
carrying member always radiates
presents a problem In my thinking as neutrinos particle which is a
type of carbon because it is a side product of fusion
Thus by my definition a carbon byproduct will never rest on a carbon
product as a "free" electron
thus radiation cannot occur! The conclusion of the above logic is that
a superconducting member
cannot radiate because resistivity is zero. On the other side of the
coin copper has resistivity thus must be able to radiate
regardless of its resistivity contentand the swr figure represents the
deviating frequency of the oscillating radiation which is in a direct
opposition to the general thinking of today.Now your logic is a direct
representation of the level of education you have attained
i.e.did not complete hight school. Since there are members who have
exceeded this level on the group I assume there will be a
stepped ascention in the level of logic where both you and I will
benefit.
Art

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Art Unwin wrote:
...
Yet a dummy load is conductive ie carbon but is not considered
radiative, a clear conflict
...
Art

Naaa ... NOT even close!

Dummy Load = A man carrying a BIG round rock downhill. grin

Regards,
JS

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 3, 1:13 pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
...
Yet a dummy load is conductive ie carbon but is not considered
radiative, a clear conflict
...
Art

Naaa ... NOT even close!

Dummy Load = A man carrying a BIG round rock downhill. grin

Regards,
JS

John
I wanted a succession of logic starting from the bottom with respect
to education
and finishing on some hight lights and intuition with respect to
antennas and radiation
which is what this forum is for. You are entering much to early since
we all know that
the level of education and achievements with subsequent promotions
come with a rush
ONLY after a ham person retires from a mundane working life. You have
been to college and are still working
so there are many posters awaiting their rightfull positioin to post
and should not be pushed aside
at this early point.. Shame for shame hi hi Go back to the prior
posting to check and see whether the logic presented if any
is a close match to yours and then retreat until later. Note with
respect to logic I placed myself at the bottom to see if my logic will
survive by the time we get to the self perceived experts and who
amoungst them spoke out of turn!
Regards
Art

Radiation and dummy loads
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 3, 12:25 pm, wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:08 am, Art Unwin wrote:

I am trying to understand why a low swr repetitive over a band of
frequencies is considered by hams to be a dummy load.!

Has nothing to do with it. SWR and antenna efficiency are
not related. Also SWR and common mode currents, or
the lack of are not related.

This
consistently shows up in statements by the itelligensia of this
newsgroup.

Not by me. But I can't hardly spell itelligensia without help,
much less be one..
A man has to know his limitations.

Following up on the logic of that idea it would suggest
that if swr was totally constant ( not sure how that could be) then
all radiation must be zero or self cancelling.?

That is Art logic...

This thus suggests that if a log periodic antenna was unlimitted in
the number of elements used would in the limit drop down to zero
radiation!. So following the thinking of this group the oscillations
that I show on my page

unwinantennas.com/

as a progression towards zero radiation since Q eventually is going to
equal zero.

Could I interest your cat in a pair of fuzzy mittens?

Is this why the decreasing oscillation is defined as a dummy load on
this newsgroup?

No.

The term comes up so often that I am compelled to look for what I am
missing, especially since carbon
is conductive and thus in the minds of many must therefore be
radiative!

If Star Trek is to be believed, you are a carbon unit.
Tie a shielded feed line to your big toe and get back to
us on the amount of DX worked.
I'll even grant you the benefit of a doubt, and let you ground
your other toe to a suitable ground rod, radials, etc if needed
for proper operation of the carbon unit miracle whip.

Ofcourse the statement bandied around that if a material is
condunctive then it must radiatiate
could become fact instead of an old wives tales if stated enough
times.

I think it would hurt to see that statement repeated too many
times regardless if true or not.

The problem with your antenna will not be explained using fairy
tales and perceptions of what you think other hams might think.
All you need is regular old proven textbook theory which is available
to most anyone. If you have burned all your books in a past
fit of intellectual rage, maybe you should consider stocking up on
a few new ones. You can buy them online and have them delivered
via UPS, USPS, and other freight carriers. So you don't even have
to step outside the front door to gain this new perspective on the
"Unwin" antenna.

You did not present any logical thiknking on the subjet

just following your lead i guess.

Following the logic of my posting it shows a clear conflict between
normal thinking and mine.

ah, so that is it. your logic is not normal thinking.

In my thinking as neutrinos particle which is a
type of carbon because it is a side product of fusion

is this an example of your abnormal thinking? seems pretty strange that a
small uncharged particle that passes through most matter as if it weren't
there could be a type of carbon which is an atom.

Thus by my definition a carbon byproduct will never rest on a carbon
product as a "free" electron
thus radiation cannot occur!

i just loaded up some graphite from a pencil (another form of carbon) and it
did indeed radiate.

The conclusion of the above logic is that
a superconducting member
cannot radiate because resistivity is zero.

Whoa! then what about the guy that has patented a superconductive
antenna??? you aren't going to tell me now that they issue patents for
things that don't work????

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Art Unwin wrote:

...
Regards
Art

Sorry Art. Just couldn't resist. That was one of my great Elmers'
favorite jokes ... as a younger man, I failed to find as much humor in
it as I do today--strange, huh? Maybe Alzheimer Disease is that way ...
grin

Regards,
JS

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 3, 3:02 pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

...

Regards
Art

Sorry Art. Just couldn't resist. That was one of my great Elmers'
favorite jokes ... as a younger man, I failed to find as much humor in
it as I do today--strange, huh? Maybe Alzheimer Disease is that way ...
grin

Regards,
JS

thats o.k. john. we quickly got back on track in terms of succession

Radiation and dummy loads
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 3, 12:25 pm, wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:08 am, Art Unwin wrote:

Following the logic of my posting it shows a clear conflict between
normal thinking and mine.

The operative words being "normal thinking and mine (Art's)"

That about sums it up.

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Dale Parfitt wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 3, 12:25 pm, wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:08 am, Art Unwin wrote:

Following the logic of my posting it shows a clear conflict between
normal thinking and mine.

The operative words being "normal thinking and mine (Art's)"

That about sums it up.

Well, yes and no ...

When you consider that the "normal IQ" is between 100-110 for the USA,
as a whole, and depending on the area in question (a survey onboard a
quality campus would blow that out of the water--and an IQ of 120+ used
to automatically qualify you for OTS (other qualifications
pending/applying) ... one could come up with a scenario(s) where
"normal" is not, necessarily, all that desirable ...

Regards,
JS

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 3, 4:58 pm, John Smith wrote:
Dale Parfitt wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 3, 12:25 pm, wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:08 am, Art Unwin wrote:

Following the logic of my posting it shows a clear conflict between
normal thinking and mine.

The operative words being "normal thinking and mine (Art's)"

That about sums it up.

Well, yes and no ...

When you consider that the "normal IQ" is between 100-110 for the USA,
as a whole, and depending on the area in question (a survey onboard a
quality campus would blow that out of the water--and an IQ of 120+ used
to automatically qualify you for OTS (other qualifications
pending/applying) ... one could come up with a scenario(s) where
"normal" is not, necessarily, all that desirable ...

Regards,
JS

Correct........ Normal in America is to strive to be a lemming
I can't be normal as it takes me more than one try to discern the
characters in the picture
which is needed before one can post

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 3, 5:16 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 3, 4:58 pm, John Smith wrote:



Dale Parfitt wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 3, 12:25 pm, wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:08 am, Art Unwin wrote:

Following the logic of my posting it shows a clear conflict between
normal thinking and mine.

The operative words being "normal thinking and mine (Art's)"

That about sums it up.

Well, yes and no ...

When you consider that the "normal IQ" is between 100-110 for the USA,
as a whole, and depending on the area in question (a survey onboard a
quality campus would blow that out of the water--and an IQ of 120+ used
to automatically qualify you for OTS (other qualifications
pending/applying) ... one could come up with a scenario(s) where
"normal" is not, necessarily, all that desirable ...

Regards,
JS

Correct........ Normal in America is to strive to be a lemming
I can't be normal as it takes me more than one try to discern the
characters in the picture
which is needed before one can post
'
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.
Straight line trajectory is also a property of radiation, so we not
only have to eject particles at rest
from a radiator surface but we also have to apply 'twist' to the
ejected particle otherwise the particles will scatter!
Again the foucault or eddy currents come to the fore where their
circulatory action apply torgue to the ejected particle
Why is it so hard for Americans to understand that radiation is a
result of radial ejection of particles via a rejective rotary magnetic
field ?. Especially when particles in equilibrium is part and parcel
of Gaussian law which when extended to the same environment as the
Maxwellian law? Today we have total resistance to this evidence and
instead prefer to act like lemmings rather than face change.
Regards
Art
I haven't purchased a ARRL publication for years but I suspect they
are still talking of radiation as being wave form.

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Art,
I think you had better stick to antennas, leave firearms alone,
don't go there. One of your earlier
statements covers all this very well. There's nothing wrong with
being normal, you know.
- 'Doc

(Also, don't run with scissors!)

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Art Unwin wrote:

'
You know John, since America gives the 'right to bear arms' you would
think that the population would understand
...

Hmmm, got rid of my .357 ... just have an old, but in excellent shape,
..45 ... I am not sure, but I suspect this would stop a "home
invader"--even if you missed and hit him in the hand ...

...
Why is it so hard for Americans to understand that radiation is a
result of radial ejection of particles via a rejective rotary magnetic
field ?. Especially when particles in equilibrium is part and parcel
of Gaussian law which when extended to the same environment as the
Maxwellian law? Today we have total resistance to this evidence and
instead prefer to act like lemmings rather than face change.
Regards
Art
I haven't purchased a ARRL publication for years but I suspect they
are still talking of radiation as being wave form.

Hmmm ... I am still holding out a bit longer before calling the jury in
.... the new developments of being able to take "pictures" of light
waves/particles needs completely explored and given time for the
technology to improve/mature.

But, it certainly looks the absolute proof of what light "is", is a LOT
closer at hand. :-)

Regards,
JS

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 3, 7:19 pm, wrote:
Art,
I think you had better stick to antennas, leave firearms alone,
don't go there. One of your earlier
statements covers all this very well. There's nothing wrong with
being normal, you know.
- 'Doc

(Also, don't run with scissors!)

Great, more free speech which provides more understanding as who and
what you are.
I encourage all to exercise free speech so all can see and understand
what motivates you
and why you spend so much time on the couch! By the way you don't have
a doctorate so you have no
such education for which we should acknowledge or respect!
Speak up, love to hear from you.
Art]

Radiation and dummy loads
 

John Smith wrote:

...
But, it certainly looks the absolute proof of what light "is", is a LOT
closer at hand. :-)

Regards,
JS

Yanno, they have NOT even taken a "picture" of a HIGH POWER RF wave
though an excitable gas (MASER), yet. Let's see that first ...

Regards,
JS

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 3, 7:43 pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
'
You know John, since America gives the 'right to bear arms' you would
think that the population would understand

...

Hmmm, got rid of my .357 ... just have an old, but in excellent shape,
.45 ... I am not sure, but I suspect this would stop a "home
invader"--even if you missed and hit him in the hand ...

...
Why is it so hard for Americans to understand that radiation is a
result of radial ejection of particles via a rejective rotary magnetic
field ?. Especially when particles in equilibrium is part and parcel
of Gaussian law which when extended to the same environment as the
Maxwellian law? Today we have total resistance to this evidence and
instead prefer to act like lemmings rather than face change.
Regards
Art
I haven't purchased a ARRL publication for years but I suspect they
are still talking of radiation as being wave form.

Hmmm ... I am still holding out a bit longer before calling the jury in
... the new developments of being able to take "pictures" of light
waves/particles needs completely explored and given time for the
technology to improve/mature.

But, it certainly looks the absolute proof of what light "is", is a LOT
closer at hand. :-)

Regards,
JS

John , nothing wrong in having a weapon to protect your home and
rights.
It is when those same weapons are used to threaten and scare the
populace
that things go wrong especially when they suggests such threats to
repell free speech
and for all to read before hand! So a projectile must have rotation to
travel in a straight line
but you must not mention that as it is tyrinical. But he did come in
on time as I anticipated
and applied logic to antennas as he sees it. Soon others will take
their turn since logic
applied is getting closer to the norm
When the President was on a train aproaching my town a porter cried
out "ten minuits to Normal"
with respect to the upcoming rail road station
That is how the book by the presidents adviser from Texas was named
i.e. Ten minuits from Normal
so I am very familiar with Normal people
Regards
Art

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Art Unwin wrote:
I am trying to understand why a low swr repetitive over a band of
frequencies is considered by hams to be a dummy load.! This

That is NOT what was stated. As usual you aren't paying attention.

tom
K0TAR

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Art Unwin wrote:

...
so I am very familiar with Normal people
Regards
Art

OK, enough said; and this final comment of mine ends this "normal"
thread ... at least for myself.

You know as well as I, normal is much over-rated. Normal people are
just not that interesting. While violent nuts are a drag; and, nuts
which live in true "La La Land" cannot be tolerated for long periods of
time--the most interesting people lie in between these and "normal" ...

Regards,
JS

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Art Unwin wrote:
presents a problem In my thinking as neutrinos particle which is a
type of carbon because it is a side product of fusion

Well, that will sure cause heartburn for a lot of physicists, who
believe it is a lepton, while carbon is an atom. Also the neutrino is
massless as far as we know, and carbon very definitely has mass.

Now why do I think you will now tell me I, and the whole world of
physics, is wrong?

tom
K0TAR

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 3, 1:13 pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
John
I wanted a succession of logic starting from the bottom with respect
to education
and finishing on some hight lights and intuition with respect to
antennas and radiation
which is what this forum is for. You are entering much to early since
we all know that
the level of education and achievements with subsequent promotions
come with a rush
ONLY after a ham person retires from a mundane working life. You have

Which is why professionals like (names that came to mind first that I
could also spell, nothing else intended) Uda, Reisert, and Cebik have
had no effect whatsoever on the antennas that surround you.

tom
K0TAR

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 3, 8:49 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 3, 1:13 pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
John
I wanted a succession of logic starting from the bottom with respect
to education
and finishing on some hight lights and intuition with respect to
antennas and radiation
which is what this forum is for. You are entering much to early since
we all know that
the level of education and achievements with subsequent promotions
come with a rush
ONLY after a ham person retires from a mundane working life. You have

Which is why professionals like (names that came to mind first that I
could also spell, nothing else intended) Uda, Reisert, and Cebik have
had no effect whatsoever on the antennas that surround you.

tom
K0TAR

Exactly. When they retired curiosity stayed with them and we learned
from their findings
There is little curiousity here which only gives people the past to
sieze upon with antenna bashing.
So they promote themselves as something they are not to prevent
learning from what I am sharing.
Nobody, but nobody has found fault with my findings because curiousity
left when they retired such
that they have nothing left to debate. Ofcourse that is not all bad,
no strain occures in bashing the messenger !.
I would be happy if somebody could find a fault in my findings to put
my mind at rest and I can move on
but trying to put fear in my mind by the bashing just plants my feet
more firmly in the ground
I find it so wiered that men of education denied the education
provided by the extension of Gauss when the mathematics are placed
before them to which they could find no fault. Probably because of
lack of knowledge in books behind which they could find safety.
We have a book writer here whose work was taken to task by another. If
he manages to get that same book published will you take shelter
behind what is written regardless of its quality? I find no shame in
what I am sharing and I will never be silenced so my feet turn to lead
in the face of wrong doing applied to others who have done no
wrong.That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Art Unwin wrote:

what I am sharing and I will never be silenced so my feet turn to lead
in the face of wrong doing applied to others who have done no
wrong.That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art

You are a very sick person. Get help.

tom
K0TAR

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 3, 10:00 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
what I am sharing and I will never be silenced so my feet turn to lead
in the face of wrong doing applied to others who have done no
wrong.That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art

You are a very sick person. Get help.

tom
K0TAR

Make your point by proving it. Many will stand behind you
with that comment but first prove the mathematics presented are in
error.
That would certainly separate you from others who are not educated to
determine same
other than sharing with others what and who you are.
When those mathematics are proved to be in error my whole findings
fall apart .
.. Where I would lose credence where you would gain without the need
for
insult which gains nothing. Is there not anybody in this world can
prove that the extended law of Gauss
when subject to the addition of radiators and a time varying field is
not the equal of Maxwells law?
Anybody from any country of any color or religeon willing to present
to Americans that indeed the
laws become the same? Or do you find the possibility of insults from
americans to daunting to speak up?
Be strong
Regards
Art

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:00 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
what I am sharing and I will never be silenced so my feet turn to lead
in the face of wrong doing applied to others who have done no
wrong.That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art
You are a very sick person. Get help.

tom
K0TAR

Make your point by proving it. Many will stand behind you
with that comment but first prove the mathematics presented are in
error.
That would certainly separate you from others who are not educated to
determine same
other than sharing with others what and who you are.
When those mathematics are proved to be in error my whole findings
fall apart .
. Where I would lose credence where you would gain without the need
for
insult which gains nothing. Is there not anybody in this world can
prove that the extended law of Gauss
when subject to the addition of radiators and a time varying field is
not the equal of Maxwells law?
Anybody from any country of any color or religeon willing to present
to Americans that indeed the
laws become the same? Or do you find the possibility of insults from
americans to daunting to speak up?
Be strong
Regards
Art

This was not an insult Art, this was in reference to the last sentence
in your statement which follows -

That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art

Sounds like a lightly veiled threat to me.

tom
K0TAR

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Tom Ring wrote:


That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art

Sounds like a lightly veiled threat to me.

tom
K0TAR

You need to study your history.

Sounds like this to me:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945


Sick is attempting to "point" everything at ones' self. Sick is
thinking everyone in the world is "out to get you" ... be careful ... it
WAS about Hitler, and what those who do nothing deserve.

Regards,
JS

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 3, 11:06 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:00 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
what I am sharing and I will never be silenced so my feet turn to lead
in the face of wrong doing applied to others who have done no
wrong.That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art
You are a very sick person. Get help.

tom
K0TAR

Make your point by proving it. Many will stand behind you
with that comment but first prove the mathematics presented are in
error.
That would certainly separate you from others who are not educated to
determine same
other than sharing with others what and who you are.
When those mathematics are proved to be in error my whole findings
fall apart .
. Where I would lose credence where you would gain without the need
for
insult which gains nothing. Is there not anybody in this world can
prove that the extended law of Gauss
when subject to the addition of radiators and a time varying field is
not the equal of Maxwells law?
Anybody from any country of any color or religeon willing to present
to Americans that indeed the
laws become the same? Or do you find the possibility of insults from
americans to daunting to speak up?
Be strong
Regards
Art

This was not an insult Art, this was in reference to the last sentence
in your statement which follows -

That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art

Sounds like a lightly veiled threat to me.

tom
K0TAR

Gee, I have no idea why you say that.
I want somebody, probably from outside America who knows something
about mathematics, communist, muslim or otherwise
who can inform the american ham where the similarity lies between
Gauss and Maxwell . This is mainly an american forum
and they are determined to deny any mathematics that supplies a
similarity between these two gentlemen from Europe. Mathematics shown
up to now showed that Gaussian law of statics when extended to include
a radiator and a time varying field cannot, and does not,equal
Maxwell's law despite the mathematic manouvaring that show that they
are the same. They also bring in to question antenna programs with
optimizer that produce arrays where all is in equilibrium, or programs
that show radiators tipped with respect to ground
as a response to Foucault current ala the weak field, required by the
masters prior to Maxwell. We all know the statement regarding garbage
in means garbage out and that is the label they are determined to
foist upon all. The equality of these laws leads to the fact that a
radiator may be of 'any shape, size or elevation as long as it is in
equilibrium and is capable of producing eddy currents'.
This suggests to me that some members are full bent on preventing this
knowledge being shared with all, for why I do not know
Even tho it was an american with a doctorate working for the space
department who supplied confirming mathematics.
There is a need for efficient electrically full wave antennas
contained within a smaller volume hitherto known and nobody can stop
the advance of science where curiousity abounds. Somebody some where
will produce one and then the race will be on but it disappoints me
that it will not be America where the fall of the dollar will continue
world wide.
Why american antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna I do not know when the above presents the means of
point radiation which leads to more efficient radiators of a smaller
volume. I need a mathematician to come forward to blow this scheming
apart for the benefit of all including those on the other side of the
pond.
Happy fourth of July to all Americans and hopefully change is near.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......Personal page...."unwinantennas.com/"

Radiation and dummy loads
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 3, 11:06 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:00 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
what I am sharing and I will never be silenced so my feet turn to
lead
in the face of wrong doing applied to others who have done no
wrong.That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art
You are a very sick person. Get help.

tom
K0TAR

Make your point by proving it. Many will stand behind you
with that comment but first prove the mathematics presented are in
error.
That would certainly separate you from others who are not educated to
determine same
other than sharing with others what and who you are.
When those mathematics are proved to be in error my whole findings
fall apart .
. Where I would lose credence where you would gain without the need
for
insult which gains nothing. Is there not anybody in this world can
prove that the extended law of Gauss
when subject to the addition of radiators and a time varying field is
not the equal of Maxwells law?
Anybody from any country of any color or religeon willing to present
to Americans that indeed the
laws become the same? Or do you find the possibility of insults from
americans to daunting to speak up?
Be strong
Regards
Art

This was not an insult Art, this was in reference to the last sentence
in your statement which follows -

That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art

Sounds like a lightly veiled threat to me.

tom
K0TAR

Gee, I have no idea why you say that.
I want somebody, probably from outside America who knows something
about mathematics, communist, muslim or otherwise
who can inform the american ham where the similarity lies between
Gauss and Maxwell . This is mainly an american forum
and they are determined to deny any mathematics that supplies a
similarity between these two gentlemen from Europe. Mathematics shown
up to now showed that Gaussian law of statics when extended to include
a radiator and a time varying field cannot, and does not,equal
Maxwell's law despite the mathematic manouvaring that show that they
are the same. They also bring in to question antenna programs with
optimizer that produce arrays where all is in equilibrium, or programs
that show radiators tipped with respect to ground
as a response to Foucault current ala the weak field, required by the
masters prior to Maxwell. We all know the statement regarding garbage
in means garbage out and that is the label they are determined to
foist upon all. The equality of these laws leads to the fact that a
radiator may be of 'any shape, size or elevation as long as it is in
equilibrium and is capable of producing eddy currents'.
This suggests to me that some members are full bent on preventing this
knowledge being shared with all, for why I do not know
Even tho it was an american with a doctorate working for the space
department who supplied confirming mathematics.
There is a need for efficient electrically full wave antennas
contained within a smaller volume hitherto known and nobody can stop
the advance of science where curiousity abounds. Somebody some where
will produce one and then the race will be on but it disappoints me
that it will not be America where the fall of the dollar will continue
world wide.
Why american antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna I do not know when the above presents the means of
point radiation which leads to more efficient radiators of a smaller
volume. I need a mathematician to come forward to blow this scheming
apart for the benefit of all including those on the other side of the
pond.
Happy fourth of July to all Americans and hopefully change is near.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......Personal page...."unwinantennas.com/"


art never has understood that one of maxwell's 4 laws is really gauss' law
in disguise... sometimes written with a D instead of E to confuse the
clueless, its an important part of electrostatics.

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Great misdirection Art. Get those shields up, stuff'll just bounce
off.
- 'Doc

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 4, 6:50 am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Jul 3, 11:06 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:00 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
what I am sharing and I will never be silenced so my feet turn to
lead
in the face of wrong doing applied to others who have done no
wrong.That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art
You are a very sick person. Get help.

tom
K0TAR

Make your point by proving it. Many will stand behind you
with that comment but first prove the mathematics presented are in
error.
That would certainly separate you from others who are not educated to
determine same
other than sharing with others what and who you are.
When those mathematics are proved to be in error my whole findings
fall apart .
. Where I would lose credence where you would gain without the need
for
insult which gains nothing. Is there not anybody in this world can
prove that the extended law of Gauss
when subject to the addition of radiators and a time varying field is
not the equal of Maxwells law?
Anybody from any country of any color or religeon willing to present
to Americans that indeed the
laws become the same? Or do you find the possibility of insults from
americans to daunting to speak up?
Be strong
Regards
Art

This was not an insult Art, this was in reference to the last sentence
in your statement which follows -

That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art

Sounds like a lightly veiled threat to me.

tom
K0TAR

Gee, I have no idea why you say that.
I want somebody, probably from outside America who knows something
about mathematics, communist, muslim or otherwise
who can inform the american ham where the similarity lies between
Gauss and Maxwell . This is mainly an american forum
and they are determined to deny any mathematics that supplies a
similarity between these two gentlemen from Europe. Mathematics shown
up to now showed that Gaussian law of statics when extended to include
a radiator and a time varying field cannot, and does not,equal
Maxwell's law despite the mathematic manouvaring that show that they
are the same. They also bring in to question antenna programs with
optimizer that produce arrays where all is in equilibrium, or programs
that show radiators tipped with respect to ground
as a response to Foucault current ala the weak field, required by the
masters prior to Maxwell. We all know the statement regarding garbage
in means garbage out and that is the label they are determined to
foist upon all. The equality of these laws leads to the fact that a
radiator may be of 'any shape, size or elevation as long as it is in
equilibrium and is capable of producing eddy currents'.
This suggests to me that some members are full bent on preventing this
knowledge being shared with all, for why I do not know
Even tho it was an american with a doctorate working for the space
department who supplied confirming mathematics.
There is a need for efficient electrically full wave antennas
contained within a smaller volume hitherto known and nobody can stop
the advance of science where curiousity abounds. Somebody some where
will produce one and then the race will be on but it disappoints me
that it will not be America where the fall of the dollar will continue
world wide.
Why american antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna I do not know when the above presents the means of
point radiation which leads to more efficient radiators of a smaller
volume. I need a mathematician to come forward to blow this scheming
apart for the benefit of all including those on the other side of the
pond.
Happy fourth of July to all Americans and hopefully change is near.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......Personal page...."unwinantennas.com/"

art never has understood that one of maxwell's 4 laws is really gauss' law
in disguise... sometimes written with a D instead of E to confuse the
clueless, its an important part of electrostatics.

But David you made a career of saying that you cannot add radiators
and a time varying field to
Gaussian law of statics.!
You are repeating the same method that Richard took by quietly
submitting to the fact that you were wrong during the last year and
now finally can see the light. Better late than never! Now you are
in position of that fact, get yourself an optimizer antenna program
and with one line where all dimensions are different i.e not planar.
Then come back and explain to the rest of America why the radiator is
tipped with respect to earth
(Tip review the combination of Foucault currents on diamagnetic
materials)

David I am so pleased that you have finally moved back into physics
Even learning to change the units of onbe law (SI ) to the units of
another. Maybe other americans on the newsgroup will now follow you
without bashing other believers that it cannot be so.

Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg

Radiation and dummy loads
 

Art wrote:
"Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin Antenna)
presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
radiators of smaller volume."

Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
facts".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 3, 11:58 pm, Art Unwin wrote:


This was not an insult Art, this was in reference to the last sentence
in your statement which follows -

That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art

Sounds like a lightly veiled threat to me.

tom
K0TAR

Gee, I have no idea why you say that.
I want somebody, probably from outside America who knows something
about mathematics, communist, muslim or otherwise
who can inform the american ham where the similarity lies between
Gauss and Maxwell .

What? Are you telling us that you don't know math, and
request help to "inform" the American ham about Gauss
and Maxwell?

Let me get this right.. We all want to be clear on this.
You don't know or understand math very well, but you
want someone who does know math to "prove" a theory
cooked up by a person who doesn't use or know math
very well.
So, obviously if you don't know math very well, you must
not have used any to come to your conclusions.

What makes you so sure that the arrival of such a person
with credible math skills will verify and prove your
claims?
That doktor from MIT sure didn't do you any good.
I assume he at least knows a little math...

Sure seems like a stretch to me. We all know how you
came to your conclusions. And math didn't have anything
to do with it. Your antenna was spawned by twiddling
with an antenna modeling and optimization program.

I am sure that there are plenty here who do have the
math skills to calculate most any problem you were to
pose to them.

People can't check the math if no math is given for
them to check.
So what is your excuse for this gross omission?
And don't mention that doktor from MIT.
He didn't provide any math to check either.
What was his excuse for this gross omission?
Oh yea, I remember.. He ducked out and ran off
before giving his excuse.

Of course, you could greatly speed up your quest for
validation if you installed the antenna and ran tests
against known reference antennas.
You would know very quickly if your antenna lives
up to your hype or not.
You would not need any mathematicians to see
if your theory holds water. You would *KNOW*
without all the whiny histrionics.
Your ****ing and moaning about peoples levels of
education strikes me as hilarious when you write
and spell on the level of the average 4th grader.

I don't know who your teachers were, but I feel
certain they must have been incompetent.
Either that, or in your advancing old fartism, you
have gradually lost most everything you were once
taught.
Either that or you just want to be different.
Which is it?

When are you going to get off your ass and actually
try one of these antennas in the real world?
If you won't do it, how can you expect anyone else
to want to mess with it?
The "normal" person will pretty much know it doesn't
work even before trying it. So there is not much
incentive to break a sweat is there?
If you want to prove that your air cooled dummy load
can be an effective radiator, it's all up to you.
Not us.
If you want me to break a sweat to disprove your
antenna, I expect to be well paid for my trouble.
You will also pay for expenses. IE: the hundreds of
feet of 22 gauge wire, two shoe boxes, etc..
If you wish, I will do your work for you for $6,150.00
$6k going to me, the $150 to cover parts and other
expenses.
You can send the check to my listed QRZ address.
After receiving said funds, I will provide detailed
test results within a week.
Note that I require payment before doing the test
just to ensure I actually get paid.
I'm fairly sure that the results of the test will be
unfavorable to your cause, which will likely lead
you to decide not to pay your bill.

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 4, 11:04 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin Antenna)
presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
radiators of smaller volume."

Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
facts".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard after all your denials regarding tipped antennas which you say
is a myth we are now getting close
to showing same via a computor program with optimizer which will show
it is not a myth. You will soon have to decide whether computor
programs with respect to antennas are complete garbage i.e. garbage in
garbage out or....... that antennas must be tipped for max vertical
gain. My guess that this will be shown first by a European since they
have a need for smaller antennas and still are willing to experiment
with antennas rather than declaring "all is known" Slowly the
correllation between static particles and Maxwell is being understood.
I never thought David would finally acknowledge the mathematics even
tho there are many who reject the fact. Now we have Richard ,not you,
David and myself on one side banded together against the antenna
bashers. The next move showing a tipped vertical generated by an
optimizer will bring another one over to my side. We then will see
that the static particles that is part of Gauss is ejected from a
radiator like an elevated frog, used for novelty reasons, show that
radiatiation is by particles and not a wave will bring another antenna
basher over to the Gaussian side. Then people will see how an eddy
current applies spin to a departing
particle such that it will attain a straight line trajectory for
communication and the change over will become a flood and you will be
left alone as an old man who cannot accept change While others are
making small antennas now that it can be seen that a radiator can be
any size shape or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium
This being the start of this journey connecting a gaussian field in
equilibrium to the mechanics of communication
Art
KB9MZ
unwinantennas.com/

Radiation and dummy loads
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 6:50 am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Jul 3, 11:06 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:00 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
what I am sharing and I will never be silenced so my feet turn to
lead
in the face of wrong doing applied to others who have done no
wrong.That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art
You are a very sick person. Get help.

tom
K0TAR

Make your point by proving it. Many will stand behind you
with that comment but first prove the mathematics presented are in
error.
That would certainly separate you from others who are not educated
to
determine same
other than sharing with others what and who you are.
When those mathematics are proved to be in error my whole findings
fall apart .
. Where I would lose credence where you would gain without the need
for
insult which gains nothing. Is there not anybody in this world can
prove that the extended law of Gauss
when subject to the addition of radiators and a time varying field
is
not the equal of Maxwells law?
Anybody from any country of any color or religeon willing to present
to Americans that indeed the
laws become the same? Or do you find the possibility of insults
from
americans to daunting to speak up?
Be strong
Regards
Art

This was not an insult Art, this was in reference to the last sentence
in your statement which follows -

That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art

Sounds like a lightly veiled threat to me.

tom
K0TAR

Gee, I have no idea why you say that.
I want somebody, probably from outside America who knows something
about mathematics, communist, muslim or otherwise
who can inform the american ham where the similarity lies between
Gauss and Maxwell . This is mainly an american forum
and they are determined to deny any mathematics that supplies a
similarity between these two gentlemen from Europe. Mathematics shown
up to now showed that Gaussian law of statics when extended to include
a radiator and a time varying field cannot, and does not,equal
Maxwell's law despite the mathematic manouvaring that show that they
are the same. They also bring in to question antenna programs with
optimizer that produce arrays where all is in equilibrium, or programs
that show radiators tipped with respect to ground
as a response to Foucault current ala the weak field, required by the
masters prior to Maxwell. We all know the statement regarding garbage
in means garbage out and that is the label they are determined to
foist upon all. The equality of these laws leads to the fact that a
radiator may be of 'any shape, size or elevation as long as it is in
equilibrium and is capable of producing eddy currents'.
This suggests to me that some members are full bent on preventing this
knowledge being shared with all, for why I do not know
Even tho it was an american with a doctorate working for the space
department who supplied confirming mathematics.
There is a need for efficient electrically full wave antennas
contained within a smaller volume hitherto known and nobody can stop
the advance of science where curiousity abounds. Somebody some where
will produce one and then the race will be on but it disappoints me
that it will not be America where the fall of the dollar will continue
world wide.
Why american antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna I do not know when the above presents the means of
point radiation which leads to more efficient radiators of a smaller
volume. I need a mathematician to come forward to blow this scheming
apart for the benefit of all including those on the other side of the
pond.
Happy fourth of July to all Americans and hopefully change is near.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......Personal page...."unwinantennas.com/"

art never has understood that one of maxwell's 4 laws is really gauss'
law
in disguise... sometimes written with a D instead of E to confuse the
clueless, its an important part of electrostatics.

But David you made a career of saying that you cannot add radiators
and a time varying field to
Gaussian law of statics.!

Gauss' law is a statics law... always was and always will be. And i have
pointed out to you repeatedly that it was already sufficiently integrated
into maxwell's laws without you trying to muck around with them.

Then come back and explain to the rest of America why the radiator is
tipped with respect to earth

its tipped because you are a bit off of vertical, and have been for a long
time from the sounds of it.

Maybe other americans on the newsgroup will now follow you
without bashing other believers that it cannot be so.

i hope not, this is our independence day from the idiocy that you have been
spewing.

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 3, 11:35 pm, John Smith wrote:
Tom Ring wrote:

That is exactly how Hitler came to power where those who did
nothing got their just deserts.
Art

Sounds like a lightly veiled threat to me.

tom
K0TAR

You need to study your history.

Sounds like this to me:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

Sick is attempting to "point" everything at ones' self. Sick is
thinking everyone in the world is "out to get you" ... be careful ... it
WAS about Hitler, and what those who do nothing deserve.

Regards,
JS

Very well put. It why I am so proud of the UK as a Londoner for that
descision when all alone
on SEPTEMBER THREE 1939
We got hit pretty hard after that but it was the right thing to do

Art an XG

Radiation and dummy loads
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 11:04 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin Antenna)
presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
radiators of smaller volume."

Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
facts".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard after all your denials regarding tipped antennas which you say
is a myth we are now getting close
to showing same via a computor program with optimizer which will show
it is not a myth.

what is the myth? they will do something different than a true vertical
antenna, but probably nothing really useful.

that antennas must be tipped for max vertical
gain.

if you want gain straight up then yes, you must tip the radiator, preferably
by 90 degrees off vertical.


I never thought David would finally acknowledge the mathematics even

You haven't shown any mathematics to acknowledge... only bafflegab and hand
waving.

We then will see
that the static particles that is part of Gauss is ejected from a
radiator like an elevated frog, used for novelty reasons, show that
radiatiation is by particles and not a wave will bring another antenna
basher over to the Gaussian side. Then people will see how an eddy
current applies spin to a departing
particle such that it will attain a straight line trajectory for
communication and the change over will become a flood and you will be
left alone as an old man who cannot accept change While others are
making small antennas now that it can be seen that a radiator can be
any size shape or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium
This being the start of this journey connecting a gaussian field in
equilibrium to the mechanics of communication
Art

a perfect example of bafflegab, doubletalk, and downright nonsense... art
can't really believe this and still be functional enough to type, so he must
be still trying to pull our collective legs.

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 4, 12:54 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Jul 4, 11:04 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin Antenna)
presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
radiators of smaller volume."

Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
facts".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard after all your denials regarding tipped antennas which you say
is a myth we are now getting close
to showing same via a computor program with optimizer which will show
it is not a myth.

what is the myth? they will do something different than a true vertical
antenna, but probably nothing really useful.

that antennas must be tipped for max vertical
gain.

if you want gain straight up then yes, you must tip the radiator, preferably
by 90 degrees off vertical.

I never thought David would finally acknowledge the mathematics even

You haven't shown any mathematics to acknowledge... only bafflegab and hand
waving.

We then will see
that the static particles that is part of Gauss is ejected from a
radiator like an elevated frog, used for novelty reasons, show that
radiatiation is by particles and not a wave will bring another antenna
basher over to the Gaussian side. Then people will see how an eddy
current applies spin to a departing
particle such that it will attain a straight line trajectory for
communication and the change over will become a flood and you will be
left alone as an old man who cannot accept change While others are
making small antennas now that it can be seen that a radiator can be
any size shape or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium
This being the start of this journey connecting a gaussian field in
equilibrium to the mechanics of communication
Art

a perfect example of bafflegab, doubletalk, and downright nonsense... art
can't really believe this and still be functional enough to type, so he must
be still trying to pull our collective legs.

David check it out to show the World why it is bafflegab,
The same thing was stated when the Gaussian/Maxwell
mathematics was given on this newsgroup. Be a hero and show the World
why America is correct and I am in error
Your chance to make the July 4 a day to remember for American hams
Ofcourse you can make an antenna where all lumped loads are cancelled
to form an antenna in equilibrium but that would mean getting up from
your
couch and putting your six pack down. Not very likely
Art

Radiation and dummy loads
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 12:54 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Jul 4, 11:04 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin Antenna)
presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
radiators of smaller volume."

Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
facts".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard after all your denials regarding tipped antennas which you say
is a myth we are now getting close
to showing same via a computor program with optimizer which will show
it is not a myth.

what is the myth? they will do something different than a true vertical
antenna, but probably nothing really useful.

that antennas must be tipped for max vertical
gain.

if you want gain straight up then yes, you must tip the radiator,
preferably
by 90 degrees off vertical.

I never thought David would finally acknowledge the mathematics even

You haven't shown any mathematics to acknowledge... only bafflegab and
hand
waving.

We then will see
that the static particles that is part of Gauss is ejected from a
radiator like an elevated frog, used for novelty reasons, show that
radiatiation is by particles and not a wave will bring another antenna
basher over to the Gaussian side. Then people will see how an eddy
current applies spin to a departing
particle such that it will attain a straight line trajectory for
communication and the change over will become a flood and you will be
left alone as an old man who cannot accept change While others are
making small antennas now that it can be seen that a radiator can be
any size shape or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium
This being the start of this journey connecting a gaussian field in
equilibrium to the mechanics of communication
Art

a perfect example of bafflegab, doubletalk, and downright nonsense... art
can't really believe this and still be functional enough to type, so he
must
be still trying to pull our collective legs.

David check it out to show the World why it is bafflegab,
The same thing was stated when the Gaussian/Maxwell
mathematics was given on this newsgroup. Be a hero and show the World
why America is correct and I am in error

From "Fields And Waves In Communication Electronics" Ramo, Whinnery, and Van
Duzer, 2nd printing 1967... ppg 237 they have just stated the 4 classical
Maxwell's equations in integral form and are explaining them in words.
equation (1) is the surface integral of the vector displacement = the
volume integral of the charge density.... which they explain as "Equation
(1) is seen to be the familiar form of Gauss's law utilized so much in
Chapter 2. Now that we are concerned with fields which are a function of
time, the interpretation is that the electric flux flowing out of any closed
surface _at a given instant_ is equal to the charge enclosed by the surface
_at that instant_" (emphasis shown by _ x_ is THEIRS not mine). Now note
art, that this shows that the classical Gauss's law that you are trying to
add into the Maxwell equations is indeed already there. Also, as they point
out it implicitly accounts for time variation without the need to add a
specific time term to the equations.

Your chance to make the July 4 a day to remember for American hams
Ofcourse you can make an antenna where all lumped loads are cancelled
to form an antenna in equilibrium but that would mean getting up from
your
couch and putting your six pack down. Not very likely
Art

six pack! ugh, i haven't touched a six pack in years, i much prefer real
beer. is that your problem art, too many cheap six packs??

Radiation and dummy loads
 

On Jul 4, 1:27 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Jul 4, 12:54 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

On Jul 4, 11:04 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin Antenna)
presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
radiators of smaller volume."

Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
facts".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard after all your denials regarding tipped antennas which you say
is a myth we are now getting close
to showing same via a computor program with optimizer which will show
it is not a myth.

what is the myth? they will do something different than a true vertical
antenna, but probably nothing really useful.

that antennas must be tipped for max vertical
gain.

if you want gain straight up then yes, you must tip the radiator,
preferably
by 90 degrees off vertical.

I never thought David would finally acknowledge the mathematics even

You haven't shown any mathematics to acknowledge... only bafflegab and
hand
waving.

We then will see
that the static particles that is part of Gauss is ejected from a
radiator like an elevated frog, used for novelty reasons, show that
radiatiation is by particles and not a wave will bring another antenna
basher over to the Gaussian side. Then people will see how an eddy
current applies spin to a departing
particle such that it will attain a straight line trajectory for
communication and the change over will become a flood and you will be
left alone as an old man who cannot accept change While others are
making small antennas now that it can be seen that a radiator can be
any size shape or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium
This being the start of this journey connecting a gaussian field in
equilibrium to the mechanics of communication
Art

a perfect example of bafflegab, doubletalk, and downright nonsense... art
can't really believe this and still be functional enough to type, so he
must
be still trying to pull our collective legs.

David check it out to show the World why it is bafflegab,
The same thing was stated when the Gaussian/Maxwell
mathematics was given on this newsgroup. Be a hero and show the World
why America is correct and I am in error

From "Fields And Waves In Communication Electronics" Ramo, Whinnery, and Van
Duzer, 2nd printing 1967... ppg 237 they have just stated the 4 classical
Maxwell's equations in integral form and are explaining them in words.
equation (1) is the surface integral of the vector displacement = the
volume integral of the charge density.... which they explain as "Equation
(1) is seen to be the familiar form of Gauss's law utilized so much in
Chapter 2. Now that we are concerned with fields which are a function of
time, the interpretation is that the electric flux flowing out of any closed
surface _at a given instant_ is equal to the charge enclosed by the surface
_at that instant_" (emphasis shown by _ x_ is THEIRS not mine). Now note
art, that this shows that the classical Gauss's law that you are trying to
add into the Maxwell equations is indeed already there. Also, as they point
out it implicitly accounts for time variation without the need to add a
specific time term to the equations.

Your chance to make the July 4 a day to remember for American hams
Ofcourse you can make an antenna where all lumped loads are cancelled
to form an antenna in equilibrium but that would mean getting up from
your
couch and putting your six pack down. Not very likely
Art

six pack! ugh, i haven't touched a six pack in years, i much prefer real
beer. is that your problem art, too many cheap six packs??

Wrong.
The chapter gives NO mention of the role of static particles in
radiation. Gauss never did apply an extension to his law of statics to
reveal that a radiator can be any size , shape or elevation as long as
the laws of equilibrium is in effect to make a dynamic field. This is
clear indication that a radiator must be of a wavelength or more that
is radiating which does not include the addition of a ground plane as
part of the radiator.
In addition, all laws only refer to distributed loads as a function
of radiation and equilibrium and where lumped loads have no part in
the equations. Equilibrium is also the datum proof where the charge
within a conductor must be zero so that the law of Newton can be
preserved ( action and reaction)
By using the law of statics you find the importance of ":equilibrium"
that
Maxwell purloined as well as a new aproach to the sequences involved
in radiation
There is no question that the laws of Maxwell are not correct because
each law he purloined
included this stipulation as well as the extension to the gaussian law
of statics which
supplies the picture that Maxwell's laws are lacking. It is these same
particles alluded in Gaussian law
that are the true carriers of communication in radio where they are
ejected from the radiator surface with spin provided by the opresence
of eddy currents. Without the applied spin you cannot have a straight
line trajectory.
Ofcourse you can supply another reason why nature included particles
in communication which would really thrill me to bits.
But I am very pleased you are returning to written laws for proof even
tho you misinterprete them. On the other hand you can verify that the
requirement of equilibrium is preserved within Maxwells laws and thus
antenna computer programs such that the tilted vertical
is not removed from the subject of antennas. It was me that
speculated that these same particles were neutrinos that are radio
active and thus subject to decay that obtain a weak magnetic field
from entry to the earth's magnetic field which are present in the
billions per square metre on our native earth. It is also the
wavelength data that supplies the information regarding the parallel
tank circuit which is a pertinent part of all radiation. All these
items I have found to intersect like a jigsaw puzzle that adequately
describes the mechanics of radiation which hither to was unknown.
Unless ofcourse you have studies that are contrary to the above. If
you have, take them to the International conference on small antennas
organised in San Diego U.S.next week by the American IEEE where you
can drink in the applause of the World's experts
Regards
unwinantennas.com/

Radiation and dummy loads
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 1:27 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Jul 4, 12:54 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

On Jul 4, 11:04 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin
Antenna)
presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
radiators of smaller volume."

Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
facts".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard after all your denials regarding tipped antennas which you
say
is a myth we are now getting close
to showing same via a computor program with optimizer which will
show
it is not a myth.

what is the myth? they will do something different than a true
vertical
antenna, but probably nothing really useful.

that antennas must be tipped for max vertical
gain.

if you want gain straight up then yes, you must tip the radiator,
preferably
by 90 degrees off vertical.

I never thought David would finally acknowledge the mathematics even

You haven't shown any mathematics to acknowledge... only bafflegab and
hand
waving.

We then will see
that the static particles that is part of Gauss is ejected from a
radiator like an elevated frog, used for novelty reasons, show that
radiatiation is by particles and not a wave will bring another
antenna
basher over to the Gaussian side. Then people will see how an eddy
current applies spin to a departing
particle such that it will attain a straight line trajectory for
communication and the change over will become a flood and you will
be
left alone as an old man who cannot accept change While others are
making small antennas now that it can be seen that a radiator can be
any size shape or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium
This being the start of this journey connecting a gaussian field in
equilibrium to the mechanics of communication
Art

a perfect example of bafflegab, doubletalk, and downright nonsense...
art
can't really believe this and still be functional enough to type, so
he
must
be still trying to pull our collective legs.

David check it out to show the World why it is bafflegab,
The same thing was stated when the Gaussian/Maxwell
mathematics was given on this newsgroup. Be a hero and show the World
why America is correct and I am in error

From "Fields And Waves In Communication Electronics" Ramo, Whinnery, and
Van
Duzer, 2nd printing 1967... ppg 237 they have just stated the 4 classical
Maxwell's equations in integral form and are explaining them in words.
equation (1) is the surface integral of the vector displacement = the
volume integral of the charge density.... which they explain as "Equation
(1) is seen to be the familiar form of Gauss's law utilized so much in
Chapter 2. Now that we are concerned with fields which are a function of
time, the interpretation is that the electric flux flowing out of any
closed
surface _at a given instant_ is equal to the charge enclosed by the
surface
_at that instant_" (emphasis shown by _ x_ is THEIRS not mine). Now
note
art, that this shows that the classical Gauss's law that you are trying
to
add into the Maxwell equations is indeed already there. Also, as they
point
out it implicitly accounts for time variation without the need to add a
specific time term to the equations.

Your chance to make the July 4 a day to remember for American hams
Ofcourse you can make an antenna where all lumped loads are cancelled
to form an antenna in equilibrium but that would mean getting up from
your
couch and putting your six pack down. Not very likely
Art

six pack! ugh, i haven't touched a six pack in years, i much prefer real
beer. is that your problem art, too many cheap six packs??

Wrong.
The chapter gives NO mention of the role of static particles in
radiation.

of course not, the aether was firmly debunked before they wrote that.

Gauss never did apply an extension to his law of statics to
reveal that a radiator can be any size , shape or elevation as long as
the laws of equilibrium is in effect to make a dynamic field.

of course not, his law is a static law, it was maxwell that brought together
the 6 equations necessary to describe waves and dynamics.

This is
clear indication that a radiator must be of a wavelength or more that
is radiating which does not include the addition of a ground plane as
part of the radiator.

bull. half wave radiators are just fine, and you can get any size conductor
to radiate.

rest of bull snipped... enough for today, i'm going to enjoy some nice old
scotch and enjoy the rest of the holiday.