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