Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Art Unwin wrote:


OK So nobody wants to talk about equilibrium or current flow on a
radiator.
Thats fine by me. Took a lot of posts to get to that point. JB I
apologize
I have been nailed to the cross so many times I tend to bundle things
together.
When I started I zeroed on equilibrium as a start because existing
laws state that if a charge is moving on the outside of a radiator
then there is movement on the inside of a radiator Now that is not in
the books. Why is that? However discussion went away from the intent
of the thread. equilibrium with respect to radiation. O well another
try later
Regards
Art

WTF?

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 17, 12:30*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:38:29 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
Truth is stranger than fiction and what I am saying is the truth or
factual.

Assertion does not constitute proof. *Speaking strictly for myself, I
really don't care what you think, advocate, imply, or suggest. *What I
do care is the reasoning behind your thinking, your advocacy, etc.
Simply stating that something is right, wrong, or works in some manner
is insufficient. *Unless you're an established authority on the topic
of antenna design, I have no intention of accepting your rants at face
value.

In all the years that I have been on this group nobody has proved me
wrong
with respect to radiation.

That's easy to understand. *You haven't said anything. *There's no
substance to your "explanations". *I can't argue against an
insubstantial fog or cloud, and neither can anyone else. *No models,
no measurements, no tests, no numbers, no nothing. *Besides, it's not
my position to prove that you are wrong. *It's your job to convince us
that you're correct. *We pass judgement on your ideas, you do not. *Of
course, you're always welcome to pass judgements on my qualifications
to make such a judgement.

If they had I would have apologized for the
record.

I should hope so. *I've been wrong a few times. *It happens.
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=bLQuYRAAAACBvd...
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=tWGMphwAAAAGTj...
Hmmm.... 24,000 postings. *Maybe I should find something more
productive to do.

For myself I can run all of these people out of town on antennas as
they are all self perceived experts
bestowing glory on them selves in retirement to supply the recognition
they feel they earned in the past.

Wow. *I'm not retired yet, but I'm not worried. *You would have no
trouble running me out of town with your expertise on antennas. *I'm
still learning and probably will never be an expert. *I read the NEC
mailing list. *I dabble with EzNEC and 4NEC2. *I designm model, and
build some rather odd microwave antennas. *I have two antenna related
products to my name from about 20 years ago. *Not quite an expert but
sufficiently functional to hold my own:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/
Note: I did *NOT* design the commercial antennas shown.

Find an expert for yourself and ask him the same questions that you
ask of me.

I only asked one question. *What do you mean by equalibrium and what
is being balanced against what else. *No expert or beginner could
answer that. *Only you can.

My statements are nothing special and nor am I

Actually, your statements initially appeared quite special to me. *I
was serious when I asked what program you used to generate your rant.
I couldn't believe that anyone intentionally wrote such a word salad.
I suspected there was some software behind it. *I even attempted to
duplicate the feat by hand (and failed). *Your statements are special
to me for no better reason than I failed to mimick the style.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 * * * * *
#http://802.11junk.com* * * * * * *
#http://www.LearnByDestroying.com* * * * * * * AE6KS

Jeff
Let us straighten out a few things about me that most know
I am nowhere as clever or versatile in all the subjects that you
mentioned.
Frankly my present knoweledge is very limited.
I had a heart attack, 5 bypasses plus a loss in memory.So that I could
continue to live I chose radiation as a niche
study for recovery. Ofcourse I will never recover fully. So basically
I have tunnel vision built around the niche of radiation and antennas
where I went back to first principles and started with Newton
This process has lasted for several years, very slow progress but I
have got to a point that my thoughts on antennas and radiation is so
different from the books that I have to go back to the beginning with
respect tp Newton and re evaluate with my peers. Yes I am seen as an
idiot, very understandable but I am persistent in talking and
discussing the initial point in radiation .From Newtons laws I deduce
that current flow on a fractional wavelength antenna includes current
flow thru the centre of a radiator. I am going right back to my new
beginnings but the books do not say that! Soi I can't participate in
the many diversions from the niche I have taken and thus ask for a
similar focus from others. No sympathy or crying desired as I am
comfortable and living a good life but even with tunnel vision I am
determined to continue and participate in the route I have chosen as
there is no alternative.
Sooooo after more than a thousand posts based on the initial radiator
and equilibrium I have been unable to make one step forward in a re
evaluation of my journey. But I will never give up so you will have to
live with that. All of this is old hat to most of the posters who give
me hell and sometimes I respond in kind to new posters in a like
manner which is wrong but it happens. So to sum up I am a simple man
with tunnel vision in a single subject and no where as knoweledgable
as other posters outside my field of choice.
My very best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:33:07 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Just waiting for Cecileo to sign in for the last of the Three Stoogz.

How would you ever know since you ploinked me?

You misspelled plonk, but baby makes three. That makes the last one
who can't do the math.

73's
Richard, KB7QHC

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:08:04 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Just waiting for Cecileo to sign in for the last of the Three Stoogz.

Three?

All have been accounted for in muster. It wasn't that hard to find
them in the wading pool.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

"Rectifier" wrote in message
om...

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 4:32 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Rectifier wrote:
You are applying laws that apply to objects with mass to
electromagnetic radiation, which has no mass.

Photons have zero rest mass. Otherwise, they couldn't travel
at the speed of light. But photons traveling at the speed
of light certainly have mass. Where in the world did you
get such irrational ideas?

I have an Engineering Physics degree from a university program that is
an ABET certified engineering program.

After your latest posting, they may de-certify your university's
program. Exactly what university was it that taught you that
photons traveling at the speed of light have zero mass?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, this sounds like a regular poster David.Perhaps he is pulling
your leg with his nonsence
Art

-

No. I'm not David; and I just started posting here. I'm not trying to
pull anyone's leg with nonsense. I'm trying to participate in a
discussion where people have different perceptions and understanding of
physics. Isn't that what causes us all to learn and/or change our
perceptions on occassion? It seems that the last vestage of a lack of
answers to a point is to mount a personal attack. Your refusal to answer
the salient point and instead mount a personal attack means your ability
to listen is totally stopped. Discussion over.

Hmm. Seems to move that the old wave/particle duality thing comes into play
in this instance. A wave has no mass, agreed? So, if we collapse the wave
function, the photon (a particle by popular concensus) loses its velocity,
which means, you guessed it, no mass.

Ed, NM2K

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Richard Clark wrote:
You misspelled plonk, but baby makes three. That makes the last one
who can't do the math.

The photon mass math is trivial.

E= mc^2 = hf

m = hf/c^2 = h/(c)lamda

If I remember correctly, a photon cannot travel slower
than the speed of light.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Ed Cregger wrote:
A wave has no mass, agreed?

Not agreed. An EM wave possesses momentum per unit volume
from which the mass of the wave can be calculated.

A container of light has more mass than a similar
container that does not contain light.

EM waves certainly have mass that can bend a comet's
tail away from the sun.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Cecil Moore wrote:


m = hf/c^2 = h/(c)lamda


Uh, you over simplify there, a bit, don't you?

Where is motion? Where is time? etc. However, on "energy at rest",
that might come very close ...

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:18:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Ummm... that wasn't Newton. No quantum effects in Newton's work.

Hi Jeff,

167,770 miles/s is hardly quantum speed but it is achievable in
electrons and photons.

At last report
F = M · A
was Newton's work among two other laws (something the trio can't
manage to compute). Art can't even manage parity here.

If the prospects of error due to Quantum effects appear to be ugly,
then any could have named a lower figure that is tolerable.
Unfortunately it would still require computation, and the outcome
would be those Newtonian Philosopherz would shy from an honest
scribbling on the blackboard as taking their precious gaze away from
their navels.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 3:39 pm, "Wayne" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...I
consider it a real shame that equilibrium is not a part of
examinations since equilibrium
is a basic in the electrical circuit of all antennas No where do I see
antennas explained other than the showing of capacitive coupling to
ground of antennas as a perceived circuit of an antenna?. Until this
is corrected we will never have continium of discussion between hams
on antennas.It is not a mystery anymore so why do the ARRL avoid it
like a plague?
Art

-
My engineering training is many years old now, but I haven't seen
equilibrium in the context of antennas discussed anywhere except by you,
in
this newsgroup. Do you have any references to papers that have been peer
reviewed and published?

Oh I suppose a search on google re antennas and equilibrium will get
you something to read
but difficult if you are starting from Zero.
-
-
I'm not starting from zero, but it has been a number of years since I did
theoretical analysis.

When I google "equilibrium" and then start trying to filter the responses
down to things that are potentially "on topic", the references lead back to
you on this newsgroup.

The point where you begin
is Newtons laws, if they are in error then so am I
I doubt if you will find anything that definitely proves that he is
wrong.If a professor does not know what I have stated he should be
nfired
which goes for some of the people at University of Illinois in the
electrical engineering area.
-
I'm not saying that you are wrong. But your claims would hve much more
credibility if they were explained somewhere in addition to r.r.a.a.

.EVERYTHING in science revolves around equilibrium. If a posting denys
that or does not respond to that Law
i will not respond and that includes Richard whose sole aim in life if
to divert the crowd with off topic nothings as he does not ahve any
engineering degree from any accredited college and thus is a pretender
looking for a date with any poster.
Art