On Sep 10, 10:05*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 10, 8:45?pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
What is the main factor that prevents HF radiation from focussing
for extra gain?

Money.

If you can afford to build a 20m parabola about 2,000 feet in diameter
and the place to mount it, you'll get lots of gain.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Then are you saying it is the antenna size that is the main factor?.

Of course.

Everyone knows the gain of a parabola is directly proportional to
the size in wavelengths, or:

Not so!,

That is totally depended on the conditions assumed or assumptions made
such as the shape and size of the emmitter from which scattering of
radiation
can be calculated i.e. the shape of the cone if the scattering is
confined to a specific angle.
If radiation is determined from all four forces of the standard model
then the radiator can
be any size, shape or elevation as long as it is in equilibrium, thus
the "weak" force
must be taken into consideration. Period .
This also means one must think beyond the books
where radiation is a mystery and not fully understood by the masses.
Progress can only be made by following the Universal laws via first
principles
and not by selected extractions of formula from reading matter.
Don't they parrot that in the Universities of the U.S.A.?
Best regards unless you are in a nasty mood
Art Unwin KB9MZ..........xg






G=10*log k(pi*D/L)^2

Where G= gain in DB over an isotropic, k ~ .55 for most real parabolas,
D is the diameter, and L is the wavelength (wavelength and diameter
in the same units.

So a 2,000 foot parabola on 20m would have just about 58db gain.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 10, 10:05?pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 10, 8:45?pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
What is the main factor that prevents HF radiation from focussing
for extra gain?

Money.

If you can afford to build a 20m parabola about 2,000 feet in diameter
and the place to mount it, you'll get lots of gain.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Then are you saying it is the antenna size that is the main factor?.

Of course.

Everyone knows the gain of a parabola is directly proportional to
the size in wavelengths, or:

Not so!,

Well, yes, I guess that's true as only those with an education in
electromagnetics would know that.

So I doubt many participants in rec.folk-dancing would know that, but
this isn't rec.folk-dancing, though some posters here do seem to dance
around a lot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 11, 2:05*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 10, 10:05?pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 10, 8:45?pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
What is the main factor that prevents HF radiation from focussing
for extra gain?

Money.

If you can afford to build a 20m parabola about 2,000 feet in diameter
and the place to mount it, you'll get lots of gain.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Then are you saying it is the antenna size that is the main factor?.

Of course.

Everyone knows the gain of a parabola is directly proportional to
the size in wavelengths, or:

Not so!,

Well, yes, I guess that's true as only those with an education in
electromagnetics would know that.

So I doubt many participants in rec.folk-dancing would know that, but
this isn't rec.folk-dancing, though some posters here do seem to dance
around a lot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Yes Jim. Unless one accepts the weak force for what it is, what
creaates it
and what it does for overall vector angles discussion is moot. For
instance
the emmitter cannot be parallel to the axis of the reflector, it must
be tilted
per the recognition of the weak force otherwise the mathematic and
symbols such as
equal or zero are meaningless. You must begin with symetry or
equilibrium.
You surely must know Jim that many hams do not have an understanding
of
electromagnetics only on how a microphone is used or a particular part
of ham
radio where their interests are,
The hobby is all inclusive and where one expertise does not
necessarilly spill over to the other
except only in the eyes of the speaker

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 11, 2:05?pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 10, 10:05?pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 10, 8:45?pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
What is the main factor that prevents HF radiation from focussing
for extra gain?

Money.

If you can afford to build a 20m parabola about 2,000 feet in diameter
and the place to mount it, you'll get lots of gain.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Then are you saying it is the antenna size that is the main factor?.

Of course.

Everyone knows the gain of a parabola is directly proportional to
the size in wavelengths, or:

Not so!,

Well, yes, I guess that's true as only those with an education in
electromagnetics would know that.

So I doubt many participants in rec.folk-dancing would know that, but
this isn't rec.folk-dancing, though some posters here do seem to dance
around a lot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Yes Jim. Unless one accepts the weak force for what it is, what
creaates it

You mean the weak interaction which is often called the weak force or
sometimes the weak nuclear force which is due to the exchange of
W and Z bosons and which affects all left-handed leptons and quarks
and whose typical field strength is 10^11 times less than that of
the electromagnetic force?

What about it?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 11, 4:05*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 11, 2:05?pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 10, 10:05?pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 10, 8:45?pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
What is the main factor that prevents HF radiation from focussing
for extra gain?

Money.

If you can afford to build a 20m parabola about 2,000 feet in diameter
and the place to mount it, you'll get lots of gain.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Then are you saying it is the antenna size that is the main factor?.

Of course.

Everyone knows the gain of a parabola is directly proportional to
the size in wavelengths, or:

Not so!,

Well, yes, I guess that's true as only those with an education in
electromagnetics would know that.

So I doubt many participants in rec.folk-dancing would know that, but
this isn't rec.folk-dancing, though some posters here do seem to dance
around a lot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Yes Jim. Unless one accepts the weak force for what it is, what
creaates it

You mean the weak interaction which is often called the weak force or
sometimes the weak nuclear force which is due to the exchange of
W and Z bosons and which affects all left-handed leptons and quarks
and whose typical field strength is 10^11 times less than that of
the electromagnetic force?

What about it?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

No. You are referring to what Feynman brought about with his vector
scheme which analyses the progression of partical format.
The standard model of our Universe has four forces.
Gravity which is the weakest
The weak force a misnomer is the second weakest
The electromagnetic force and the strong force.
For a state of equilibrium all of these vectors must sum to zero.
The weak force can be ascertained from the sum of the other vectors
From Newtons law on action and reaction both the weak force and that
which produces it
is a combination of two forces that evolves from a single force.
Thus when you apply a time varying current to a non magnetic radiator
you also produce the weak force which is the Newton reaction force
which
is a rotating surface current which amateurs refer to as "skin depth"
which is not a homogenous
resistive skin but the Newton opposing current which is a requirment
for equilibrium.
When Yagi used a planar arrangement of parallel conductors parallel to
the ground surface he does
not include this weak force and just assumes that the arrangement is
one opposing the gravitational pull.
This is a good approximation but not totaly accurrate since the
arrangement is not in equilibrium which
is a requirement with respect to all the laws of the Masters including
Maxwell.
The inclusion of the weak force is the rotating force at right angles
ie the Foucault current ala skin depth
which is what a helicopter has at the rear to provide stabalization.
Thus when this force vector is added
to the gravitational force it tips the radiator as opposed to being
equal and opposite to the gravitational force
as is often surmised by physiscists. I t is this weak force that is
directed away from a radiator which also produces a magnet field
when in contact with a resting particle which has its own magnetic
field which was imposed on entry to Earth
and thus in conflict with the initial time varying field results in
the parting of the ways in the form of levitation.
When levitation is shown in experiments in high school you may
remember the difficulty of achieving stabalization
since the article levitated always want;'s to turn ala the circulating
field.
The above is How I see as the weak force in action with radiation tho
you will not see it in books as the weak
force has not been presented as I have above. Important note the two
vectors of the magnetic fields imp[osed upon the partical
creates a spinning motion as well as a elevating motion and it is this
combination applied to a static particle that profides a straight
line
ejection to the particle which is straight like the bullet of a rifle
and where the spin makes it impervious to gravity which is why some
tem it as a anti gravity force All the above is a result of my work
over the last few years and has not as yet been acknowledged as b eing
correct in the scientific world
unless an academic comes along with the same thinking for examination
an impossibility based on the not invented here syndrome.
A long answer to your question but a simple yes or no would not
involve sharing which is what I alway strive for despite the loose
mouths of naysayers

Because of my above findings I am comfortable calling the particles
neutrinos as nearly spent nuclear particals ejected from the suns
border
without spin which do arrive to alight on a diamagnetic material in
the Universe with varying intensity according to the suns 11 year
cycle
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

...the weak nuclear force which is due to the exchange of
W and Z bosons and which affects all left-handed leptons and quarks
and whose typical field strength is 10^11 times less than that of
the electromagnetic force?

The standard model of our Universe has four forces.
Gravity which is the weakest
The weak force a misnomer is the second weakest
The electromagnetic force and the strong force.

Try reading the two again. They are identical. The only difference
is you don't know the magnitudes of those forces (the length of their
vectors) like Jim obviously does.

Gravity is abysmally pathetic where it needs several trillion tons of
earth's mass to keep us glued to the surface. If you were an electron
and earth was a proton, you couldn't survive being on the surface
without being crushed by the staggering electromagnetic force.

The Weak force, as Jim carefully explained, is only slightly more
powerful than gravity - which is to say feeble to 11 decimal places.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sep 11, 5:33*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
...the weak nuclear force which is due to the exchange of
W and Z bosons and which affects all left-handed leptons and quarks
and whose typical field strength is 10^11 times less than that of
the electromagnetic force?
The standard model of our Universe has four forces.
Gravity which is the weakest
The weak force a misnomer is the second weakest
The electromagnetic force and the strong force.

Try reading the two again. *They are identical. *The only difference
is you don't know the magnitudes of those forces (the length of their
vectors) like Jim obviously does.

Gravity is abysmally pathetic where it needs several trillion tons of
earth's mass to keep us glued to the surface. *If you were an electron
and earth was a proton, you couldn't survive being on the surface
without being crushed by the staggering electromagnetic force.

The Weak force, as Jim carefully explained, is only slightly more
powerful than gravity - which is to say feeble to 11 decimal places.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I don't know what you are talking about
At the top I stated Gravity was the weakest force .At the bottom of
your post
you state gravity was the weakest force and the weak force was a bit
stronger,
again what I said.
So what are you talking about, a bunch of IFs. What exactly do you
want me to confirm or deny?