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?

There is obviously a lot of confusion between some of the posters that
need to be corrected
Mention has been made of a bosun' and higgs field as something as
being factual.
In fact it is very contraversal an d is only a theory that has not
been confirmed™
CERN experiments are trying to put something substantial behind this
theory but
nobody really knows the extent of a Higg field and nobody has caught a
bosun'
Feynman with his vectors took the notion that a additional particle
combination
provided mass, this at a time that neutrons were considered without
mass.
Feymans assumption lingers on inspite of the fact that it is now
proven that
neutrinos really do have mass. All of this talk is based around
something
that is not present on this earth, not seen thus not counted just
names
searching for a subject to be tagged upon.
Now we come to the subject of "wave length" as in radiation , the
subject of this post.
Wavelength only has meaning if a radiator only has two degrees of
freedom which means "straight".
But a wavelength can move in many directions and elevations such that
it has a shape of a sphere or worse.
To talk of something of" such and such" a wavelength does not pertain
to a straight line or a three
dimensional shape such as a cube or sphere so the idea of refering to
a wavelength as a linear length
is absolutely meaningles because one is using a three dimensional
object to describe a two dimensional linear dimention.
And for the last one I refer to Newtons law of action and reaction. On
this earth of ours there is no such thing as a single force
which is why Newton refers to "action": If one tries to pull a piece
of caramel apart there is not just one force at play but four fources
since one must include the right angle forces that is "necking" the
caramel at the center. Thus a force cannot exist in a straight line
but must include a rotational force for equilibrium. It is that action
which Newton is referring to and not a single straight vector
The confusion comes about when Newtons laws are paraphrased as a
"force" when it must state an "action"
My posting is clearly placed within the Earth's boundary so talk of
Quarks ,Bosun" Higgs field etc is clearly irrevalent to the subject
of radiation
unless it is a attempt to bait me or to create confusion about the
subject of radiation when its aim should be education and debate.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

Art Unwin wrote:
There is obviously a lot of confusion between some of the posters that
need to be corrected

Only one that I've seen.

Mention has been made of a bosun' and higgs field as something as

Bosun?

Are we in the Navy now?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
My posting is clearly placed within the Earth's boundary so talk of
Quarks ,Bosun" Higgs field etc is clearly irrevalent to the subject
of radiation
unless it is a attempt to bait me or to create confusion about the
subject of radiation when its aim should be education and debate.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

well, art, how dare you think we could be trying to bait you or create more
confusion. i hardly think we could possibly create more confusion than you
have right now. try to explain these for instance... if it takes that
magical mystery particle settling on diamagnetics to create an
electromagnetic wave, how does the sun which is all plasma create
electromagnetic waves? and if the weak force is so much stronger than
gravity, and it interacts with the multitude of these magical mystery
particles that spew forth from the sun how come we haven't collapsed into a
weak force black hole? it takes lots of mass to create a black hole because
gravity is so weak, but if the weak force is stronger than it should
collapse us even easier. and if the neutrino's well measured interaction
with matter is so weak it must take a huge number of them to be your magical
mystery particle so we should really have collapsed under their weak force a
long time ago! oh wait, maybe their weak force is what does spin so we are
really talking about a spindizzy effect that if captured would allow remote
manipulation of matter, i always wondered where Blish came up with that
device, maybe you have hit on the secret! come on art, the wx is going to
be bad across much of the country here this weekend and we need some good
entertainment!

On Sep 12, 6:18*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

David, what I have stated is based on known laws and phenomina and
started with the recognision
that applying a time varying field and radiators to a Gaussian field
equates to Maxwell's laws.
Right from the start you could not concentrate on proving or
disproving that statement !
Until you can determine whether that is correct or not you cannot
move forward.
As yet, nobody has disproved that statement with counter facts. If you
cannot explain that simple fact
you surely cannot understand Newtons laws and how the use of such laws
provide the presence
of eddy current which provides a skin depth of mechanical resistance.
I use the term mechanic
because I recognise the importance of the four forces in the standard
model and the Grand Universal Theory.
So until you are able to concentrate and tackle the Gauss and Maxwell
connection that I started with
there is no hope for you to procede in a scientific matter, and that
goes for every body, not just you.
Best regards
Art

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:14:56 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Try reading the two again. =A0They are identical. =A0The only difference
is you don't know the magnitudes of those forces (the length of their
vectors) like Jim obviously does.

I don't know what you are talking about

Two identical statements, one is yours. How is it that you don't
understand?

The electromagnetic vector for a 1V field imparts 100 Billion times
more force than the "weak force." This is why they call it "Weak."

The Gravity vector is weaker than that by far.

All of this has been known for years. The experiments at CERN are
merely adding precision to that number of 100 Billion to say it may
actually be 100.015 Billion instead (or perhaps 99.8992 Billion times
more force). This goal too, has been reported for years. One day in
the future they will know it to that higher precision which will allow
them to discern the finer degree of weaker Gravity's disturbance,
which, after all, is the whole point of this.

No one gives a **** about the Weak force. It is merely the universe's
S9+50dB noise from a 5th dimensional neighbor's aquarium heater that
is blanking out the S1 DX signal from a graviton.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC