Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:19:14 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:47:54 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Sep 16, 4:32*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Photons have zero rest mass.
a photon at rest, how droll.
Cecil, this sounds like a regular poster David.Perhaps he is pulling
your leg with his nonsence

We know that we can accelerate an electron to 90% of the speed of
light - it happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt
displays still glowing in the world. Some of us know its mass at this
speed. A question for the Newtonian philosopherz:
"What is the mass of a photon traveling at 90% of the speed of
light?"

Ah, yes!

No Newtonians in this crowd. Perhaps it was the relativistic term
"speed of light" that confused this group so much. Let's restate it
in units that Newton could have appreciated.

We know that we can accelerate an electron to 167,770 miles/s - it
happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt
displays still glowing in the world. Some of us know its mass at this
speed. A question for the Newtonian philosopherz:
"What is the mass of a photon traveling at 167,770 miles/s?"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 16, 7:38*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 16, 6:53*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:43:56 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
... and Newtons law of parity demands
that charges are moving thru the *CENTER of the radiator thus
encoundering just copper losses.

Google fails to find anything under Newton's Law of Parity.
Which one of these is what you're talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physics_topics_M-Q#P
http://neohumanism.org/p/pa/parity.html

Equilibrium is nothing more than the enforcement of Newtons law of
parity.

It's hard to enforce a law that doesn't exist.

Drivel: *I tried to write a spoof of your postings mimicking your
style of technical word salad. *I built the necessary framework, and
added copious amounts of buzzwords and technobabble. *However, the
result was unimpressive and not even close to the quality of your
pseudo technological rants. *I'm truly impressed at your ability to
fabricate such rubbish and would greatly appreciate some clues as to
how it is done.

Truth is stranger than fiction and what I am saying is the truth or
factual.
In all the years that I have been on this group nobody has proved me
wrong
with respect to radiation. If they had I would have apologized for the
record.
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.
Find an expert for yourself and ask him the same questions that you
ask of me.
*My statements are nothing special and nor am I
Art

Hint: *Numbers, formulas, references, URL's, and specifics. *Lacking
those, you would be a philosopher.

Incidentally, equilibrium is implied in the various FCC exams. *If you
lack sufficient equilibrium to take the exams due to intoxication, the
FCC (or VE) will refuse to administer the exam.

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

I think I have to take a bash at the term equilibrium since it apears
to be latin this side of the pond.
Equilibrium means balance using a minimumn of words. If there was not
balance then there would be movement.
Scientists revert to an arbitrary field where the outside forces equal
the inside forces as in Gauss's law of statics.
If movement is to be considered then the field will be termed dynamic.
Adding a time varying field and radiators to the static field
it is then the same format as Maxwells laws ie. derivative mathematics
of one is exactly the same as the other i.e. they are the same thing

If you look at a sinosoidal curve you have balance between the stating
point and another point that is repeatable.
With a pendulum it is two swings ,forward and backwards which is then
repeatable. In the case of a radiator the length of one point to a
similar point
that is repeatable is a point of equilibrium. True the curve crosses
zero at the half way point but the areas enclosed either side of the
half way point
are not in repeatable terms unless the curve does not cross the zero
point that is resonant but not in equilibrium. When it gets to the
point of repeatebility
or at the end of a period a term used in frequency then that point is
both in equilibrium and resonant.
As an aside when changing from a static field to a dynamic field the
term equilibrium still holds which leads to the term
A radiator can be any shape, form or elevation as long as it is in
equilibrium. This rules out the idea that a radiator must be straight
and planar.
I think I have said to much Nuf said class dismissed.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg
So guys look at the intent of what I am saying without crusifying the
terminology.

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 16, 7:58*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:19:14 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:47:54 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Sep 16, 4:32*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Photons have zero rest mass.
a photon at rest, how droll.
Cecil, this sounds like a regular poster David.Perhaps he is pulling
your leg with his nonsence

We know that we can accelerate an electron to 90% of the speed of
light - it happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt
displays still glowing in the world. *Some of us know its mass at this
speed. *A question for the Newtonian philosopherz:
* *"What is the mass of a photon traveling at 90% of the speed of
* *light?"

Ah, yes!

No Newtonians in this crowd. *Perhaps it was the relativistic term
"speed of light" that confused this group so much. *Let's restate it
in units that Newton could have appreciated.

We know that we can accelerate an electron to *167,770 miles/s - it
happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt
displays still glowing in the world. *Some of us know its mass at this
speed. *A question for the Newtonian philosopherz:
* * * * "What is the mass of a photon traveling at 167,770 miles/s?"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Irrelavent.. No respionse

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
... You can have one, or the other, not both.

73, ac6xg


Yanno', when I run that "equation" backwards, and then again forwards, I
have a real hard time telling the difference ... you suppose it is just
our "perceptions" which create the difference(s)? LOL

Indeed, this may be a plausible avenue to explore ... in that, our radio
signals are neither photons nor waves ... well, at least during their
"complete journey." Perhaps they "wink into mass" and then "wink into
energy", we are just too slow to notice the changes! LOL

Remember, there are/is those exceptions where the, final, truth may be
stranger than fiction ...

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Art Unwin wrote:
...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Irrelavent.. No respionse

Ahh, you noticed! Finally! ROFLOL!

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

What, this is not the "Pulling Your Leg Festival?"

Damn, it appears I have caught the wrong door again! Last time this
happened, it was a womens restroom, at walmart, no less :-( -- at least
this is less embarrassing ... grin

ROFLOL
I did that at a technical seminar in a hotel once. I was pondering the
ramifications of the training and didn't even look at the door. It wasn't
until the only woman there rushed in (probably preoccupied as well) and
plopped down and peed that it dawned on me that there was something very
very wrong!

In any case, Art seems to have trouble articulating and I have completely
lost touch with any sense he might have made somewhere in the great pile of
this thread.

I get that even though a resonant dipole can be treated as if it were a
lumped constant at times, it really isn't that. Do electrons fly back and
forth down the pole and induce a magnetic field? Without flying off the
ends? Yes but that is hard to make sense of because there should be no
current flow in an open wire. A loop element maybe, but the resonant loop
has the same current as the center fed dipole. Perhaps looking at the
re-entrant cavity makes more sense.

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 16, 4:06*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
...
Radiation has no mass? You just made that up

Yes, that would seem to break the law of "'E' equals mc squared", and
its' opposite, counterpart ... I mean, if you really think about it ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

John, the danger in using mc squared is that it has not stood the test
of time. I have difficulty with it as the motion of an observer
acheiving the speed of light seems like standing on a sand spar
waiting for the tide to come in. Same goes with Feynman diagrams
as it just replaces an unknown with another unknown! Are these both
emporers with no clothes surrounded by Lemmings?
Art

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 16, 5:07*pm, "Rectifier" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 16, 3:08 pm, "Rectifier" wrote:





"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....
On Sep 16, 2:10 pm, "Rectifier" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....
On Sep 16, 12:52 pm, "Frank" wrote:

Art:
You have written 2,947 posts to RRAA, and at least 2/3 of them
contain a reference to " equilibrium". Numerous people have asked
you to define or at least explain your usage of the term. So far,
you
have not done so.Actually, you have either diverted the question, or
told questioners to do their own research. Your posts show that you
know nothing about how antennas work, and suspect very little.Why
would ARRL correct something that's perfectly fine as is???

Mike W5CHR
Memphis Tenn

Also, I would be very interested in identifying where the "weak force"
is indicated in, for example, the following point form expression of
Ampere's Law:

DEL cross H = J+ dD/dt

Frank

Frank
I am not a servant of this newsgroup. All I am doing is trying to
educate those that are willing do be educated
with respect to antennas. You for your self can read the history of
the masters and Newton to determine how they were aware of the weak
force,
its angle and size and yet cannot describe it. Even so it is included
in all calculations involved in the Universe because equilibrium is a
staple.
The fact that members of this group need to be shown that the weak
force is not fictitious is pityful . I have in the prior posting
descibed the action of radiation where previously I have stated that
the weak force is the rotary current flow which as well as the rest of
the details given are preordained by Newtons law. Prove Newton is
wrong and you have my attention.
Nothing personal
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ............xg

-

Oh yeah! Newton was also wrong that light needed a medium through which
to
travel (which he called, "aether").

We are talking ab out radiation not the eather.

The law I am referring to is every action has an opposite reaction.
It is a very short law that has not been disproven.
Application of that law states that for a radiator not in equilibrium
a charge is moving on the outside of the radiator THEREFORE
there is a charge moving in the centre of the radiator in the opposite
direction.
So simple Why do hams reject it? No, the charge at the centre is not
and cannot radiate
You don't need a lot of posts, sneers insults e.t.c. to respond just
go to your nearest University
and provide the statement to the Dean and then bring his response back
to all of us
Art

-

First off, I did not intend to have my post interpretd as a sneer. I'm
sorry if you took it that way. I said, "Oh yeah!" because I thought of the
point after I submitted a previous post.

The equal and opposite reaction law only applies when there is mass.
Electromagnetic radiation has no mass. Therefore, the law does not apply.

Radiation has no mass? You just made that up

-

No, actually, a little fella named Albert Einstein made it up. *An electron
and a positron have mass. *When they come together and annihilate, they turn
into pure energy (two 511 KeV photons travelling in opposite directions if I
remember right), which has no mass. *That's what E=MC^2 predicted; and
that's what happens in certain radioactive decays all the time. *Positrons
get produced by the deceleration of neutrons which come too close to the
nucleus of an atom with large mass. *They then annihilate when coming close
to an electron. *This is just one example.

Radiation has no mass and is, therefore, not subject to Newton's laws. *A
link to a simple explanation at a physics department of a university is:

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritt.../energy/nature...

From that site (and also what I learned in college physics) is: *". . . a
bundle of energy called a "photon" is released. However, particles of light
differ from particles of matter: they have no mass, occupy no space, and
travel at the speed of light. . ."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Correction: Photons have no rest mass. "radiated" photons have the
properties of mass because they are affected by gravitation. Light can
be bent by large bodies of mass.

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Art Unwin wrote:
I think I have to take a bash at the term equilibrium since it apears
to be latin this side of the pond.
Equilibrium means balance using a minimumn of words. If there was not
balance then there would be movement.
Scientists revert to an arbitrary field where the outside forces equal
the inside forces as in Gauss's law of statics.
If movement is to be considered then the field will be termed dynamic.
Adding a time varying field and radiators to the static field
it is then the same format as Maxwells laws ie. derivative mathematics
of one is exactly the same as the other i.e. they are the same thing

If you look at a sinosoidal curve you have balance between the stating
point and another point that is repeatable.
With a pendulum it is two swings ,forward and backwards which is then
repeatable. In the case of a radiator the length of one point to a
similar point
that is repeatable is a point of equilibrium. True the curve crosses
zero at the half way point but the areas enclosed either side of the
half way point
are not in repeatable terms unless the curve does not cross the zero
point that is resonant but not in equilibrium. When it gets to the
point of repeatebility
or at the end of a period a term used in frequency then that point is
both in equilibrium and resonant.
As an aside when changing from a static field to a dynamic field the
term equilibrium still holds which leads to the term
A radiator can be any shape, form or elevation as long as it is in
equilibrium. This rules out the idea that a radiator must be straight
and planar.
I think I have said to much Nuf said class dismissed.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg
So guys look at the intent of what I am saying without crusifying the
terminology.

Amazing. So many words, so little information pertaining to the
subject. And meanwhile smoothly changing the focus while still saying
nothing. He really is awesome.

tom
K0TAR

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

JB wrote:

...
ROFLOL
I did that at a technical seminar in a hotel once. I was pondering the
ramifications of the training and didn't even look at the door. It wasn't
until the only woman there rushed in (probably preoccupied as well) and
plopped down and peed that it dawned on me that there was something very
very wrong!


Thanks, I needed that ... always wondered if I was "the only one?" LOL

In any case, Art seems to have trouble articulating and I have completely
lost touch with any sense he might have made somewhere in the great pile of
this thread.


Ahhh, Art is Art, he does provide good exercise in thinking ... IMHO ...

I get that even though a resonant dipole can be treated as if it were a
lumped constant at times, it really isn't that. Do electrons fly back and
forth down the pole and induce a magnetic field? Without flying off the
ends? Yes but that is hard to make sense of because there should be no
current flow in an open wire. A loop element maybe, but the resonant loop
has the same current as the center fed dipole. Perhaps looking at the
re-entrant cavity makes more sense.


Now see, there ya' go, ya' got me wonderin' again ... yet-another
straight-face :-|

Warm regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Art Unwin wrote:

John, the danger in using mc squared is that it has not stood the test
of time.

Next thing he'll claim is that nuclear fission doesn't release energy.

tom
K0TAR

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Art Unwin wrote:

...
John, the danger in using mc squared is that it has not stood the test
of time. I have difficulty with it as the motion of an observer
acheiving the speed of light seems like standing on a sand spar
waiting for the tide to come in. Same goes with Feynman diagrams
as it just replaces an unknown with another unknown! Are these both
emporers with no clothes surrounded by Lemmings?
Art

Well, darn Art, those nuclear explosions, yanno', like the ones "we"
used to do in Nevada ... those flying particles, the heat, the light,
the radiation, the sand blast, the wind!, etc., it is hard enough to
keep track of all that c*rp flying about, at those speeds (not to
mention the amount of sun screen a guy needs just to be in vicinity!),
it is hard to arrive at an exact tally when, it is all over--yanno' what
I mean, Vern? ;-)

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 16, 8:05*pm, John Smith wrote:

So, look on the bright-side! *Once you have proven Art wrong, you have
really done nothing at all!

Now how about that? WISDOM! I have to give credit where credit is due.

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 16, 7:48*pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Rectifier wrote:
Radiation has no mass ...

On the contrary, radiation is photons which indeed
do have mass when traveling at the speed of light,
which radiation does.

According to Einstein, anything with energy has mass equivalence -
especially photons. *But other than that, nothing with mass can travel
at the speed of light. *You can have one, or the other, not both.

73, ac6xg

True, travel is something less than the speed of light
Art

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 16, 9:57*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
...
Correction: Photons have no rest mass. "radiated" photons have the
properties of mass because they are affected by gravitation. Light can
be bent by large bodies of mass.

Oh sure, they have a "perceived mass", don't they?; I mean, we seem to
be able to measure it, don't we? *How do you know it "exists ALL ITS
TRAVEL TIME", what makes you think it is not constantly oscillating for
energy to mass ... and it is ONLY the average of that which we are
REALLY measuring ... can you prove that, well, CAN YOU? *Can you provide
any relevant data here to prove it? *Any URLs? *Any quotes from famous
physicists? *Any psychics? *Have you consulted Art? *again-innocent-smile

But then, you ever try to run along side of one of those photons and
measure it? *I mean, this is how you really gain a critics respect
(heck, you'd even gain acknowledgment from the arrl, well,
most-likely--well, I think you would--IMHO anyway, etc.) -- now, the
question to separate the men from the boys -- now, have you?
pleasant-innocent-smile

Geesh! *looks-out-window

Regards,
JS

I should have used black holes as my example. One only needs to accept
that black holes exist in order to believe that gravity affects the
property of mass inerent in light ;-)

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 16, 8:32*pm, "JB" wrote:
What, this is not the "Pulling Your Leg Festival?"

Damn, it appears I have caught the wrong door again! *Last time this
happened, it was a womens restroom, at walmart, no less :-( -- at least
this is less embarrassing ... grin

ROFLOL
I did that at a technical seminar in a hotel once. *I was pondering the
ramifications of the training and didn't even look at the door. *It wasn't
until the only woman there rushed in (probably preoccupied as well) and
plopped down and peed that it dawned on me that there was something very
very wrong!

In any case, Art seems to have trouble articulating and I have completely
lost touch with any sense he might have made somewhere in the great pile of
this thread.

I get that even though a resonant dipole can be treated as if it were a
lumped constant at times, it really isn't that. *Do electrons fly back and
forth down the pole and induce a magnetic field? *
No, they are generating a magnetic field when the current is at the
surface
which means eddy currents are also there. neither of these appear when
the current is enclosed

Without flying off the
ends? Yes but that is hard to make sense of because there should be no
current flow in an open wire.
The wire may be open but the current flow IS closed

*A loop element maybe, but the resonant loop
has the same current as the center fed dipole. *Perhaps looking at the
re-entrant cavity makes more sense.

John you are equating resonance with equilibrium, a dipole in antenna
terms is a half wavelength
resonant but not in a state of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a staple in
this Universe. First comes equilibrium
after which you may consider resonance.......but not the reverse. Both
of the samples are of a half wave length thus it is not in
equilibrium.
Equilibrium comes first in the satisfaction analysis, if it fails all
falls apart.
Best regards
Art

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 16, 8:44*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

John, the danger in using mc squared is that it has not stood the test
of time.

Next thing he'll claim is that nuclear fission doesn't release energy.

tom
K0TAR

Oh Tom! bound particles means a LARGE force binding particles
together.
Break them apart and you release a large amount of energy which you
cannot destroy.
With heavy water you have two bound particles, the particles
themselves are weak in energy.
But then you are trying to get away from the subject at hand in this
thread.
Want to start atomic stuff then start a thread and attract those who
are interested in that.
Think antennas and radiation
Art

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:15:07 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

No respionse

Well that comes as no surprise that you can't do a Newtonian
calculation. OK, that is one down.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 16, 9:17*pm, wrote:
On Sep 16, 9:57*pm, John Smith wrote:



wrote:
...
Correction: Photons have no rest mass. "radiated" photons have the
properties of mass because they are affected by gravitation. Light can
be bent by large bodies of mass.

Oh sure, they have a "perceived mass", don't they?; I mean, we seem to
be able to measure it, don't we? *How do you know it "exists ALL ITS
TRAVEL TIME", what makes you think it is not constantly oscillating for
energy to mass ... and it is ONLY the average of that which we are
REALLY measuring ... can you prove that, well, CAN YOU? *Can you provide
any relevant data here to prove it? *Any URLs? *Any quotes from famous
physicists? *Any psychics? *Have you consulted Art? *again-innocent-smile

But then, you ever try to run along side of one of those photons and
measure it? *I mean, this is how you really gain a critics respect
(heck, you'd even gain acknowledgment from the arrl, well,
most-likely--well, I think you would--IMHO anyway, etc.) -- now, the
question to separate the men from the boys -- now, have you?
pleasant-innocent-smile

Geesh! *looks-out-window

Regards,
JS

I should have used black holes as my example. One only needs to accept
that black holes exist in order to believe that gravity affects the
property of mass inerent in light ;-) Partly correct The big bang was an explosion
thus Newton states there must be an implosion. The law is Universal

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:18:15 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Irrelavent.. No respionse

Ahh, you noticed! Finally! ROFLOL!

And now we have Brett rolling on the floor with Art as two down.

That pretty much closes down the mutual admiration society of
Newtonian Philosopherz.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Art Unwin wrote:

...
John you are equating resonance with equilibrium, a dipole in antenna
terms is a half wavelength
resonant but not in a state of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a staple in
this Universe. First comes equilibrium
after which you may consider resonance.......but not the reverse. Both
of the samples are of a half wave length thus it is not in
equilibrium.
Equilibrium comes first in the satisfaction analysis, if it fails all
falls apart.
Best regards
Art

Uhhh Art, you "were" actually responding to "JB", you are lucky I read
your posts, and that this one prompted me to respond (or, unlucky, I
guess it depends on how "you view it" grin ) ...

I realize "something IS wrong" with the basic platform all "antenna
theory/equations/formulas/maths/truths/etc." is/are built upon ... but
what that "something" is? ... all I can say, I am looking and wondering
.... but then, so are many -- and, if you are one of that "many", you
already have foot on the right path ... need I include, IMHO?

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
And now we have Brett rolling on the floor with Art as two down.

That pretty much closes down the mutual admiration society of
Newtonian Philosopherz.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

Thanks!

I really thought you forgot about me, yanno'? frown

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:43:35 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
And now we have Brett rolling on the floor with Art as two down.

That pretty much closes down the mutual admiration society of
Newtonian Philosopherz.
I really thought you forgot about me, yanno'? frown

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

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

A very simple observation:

Give us one question you would expect to see.

Give us the answer that would be marked as passing.

Without both, this sappy sentiment of yours is nothing more than a
late night exercise of crying bitter tears into the pillow - and
leaving the window open so the neighbors can hear the sobs of regret.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 16, 9:40*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

* ...

John you are equating resonance with equilibrium, a dipole in antenna
terms is a half wavelength
resonant but not in a state of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a staple in
this Universe. First comes equilibrium
after which you may consider resonance.......but not the reverse. Both
of the samples are of a half wave length thus it is not in
equilibrium.
Equilibrium comes first in the satisfaction analysis, if it fails all
falls apart.
Best regards
Art

Uhhh Art, you "were" actually responding to "JB", you are lucky I read
your posts, and that this one prompted me to respond (or, unlucky, I
guess it depends on how "you view it" grin ) ...

I realize "something IS wrong" with the basic platform all "antenna
theory/equations/formulas/maths/truths/etc." is/are built upon ... but
what that "something" is? ... all I can say, I am looking and wondering
... but then, so are many -- and, if you are one of that "many", you
already have foot on the right path ... need I include, IMHO?

Regards,
JS

Sorry about that. Don't you think it is odd that all computer programs
based on Maxwells laws reflect every thing I have stated? I am not a
computer freak
How I could make all this up and several computer programs made by
different
people both sides of the pond can reproduce without conivance a
computer program
that provides the details of every thing that I have stated?
None of this is in the antenna books or relavent books on science and
do you know why?
My generation has been taken over by computers where prior generations
resorted to origanal thought from first principles.
They accept that the computer will spill out a lot of inaplicable
information but feel the sorting problem
is so much easier for the lazy. Problem is that books on the sciences
have not had critical analysis by the following generation which
always call for revisions. The books used for supplying questions to
the computer are those taken from the books that never received the
normal generational
revisions. Sorting computer answers requires common sense but with the
absence of required revisions what one calls common sense is one that
needs revision ala garbage in garbage out. Now we get statements that
if more gain came from tipping antennas the world would have tipped
the towers
years ago. To me that is totally absent of common sence but for people
who rely on unrevised books it is perfectly understandable. If people
have discarded Universal laws then the computers will not reflect same
based on input. We have to many academics churning out physics papers
which reflects direction of past papers as a way of getting them
accepted and published and a path to a higher station. What we need is
design by first principles which other countries still have by not yet
smitten by computers and who are capable of original thought.
Universities in the industrial world state the books that must be
followedand the student realizes that the answer in the books are the
datum used by professors so.......... follow the same path formed by
those that proceded you as the primary for getting a job is that piece
of paper without original thought. There are many of past generations
that have
generalized about point radiation alas this generations belittles it
and successfully resist change. Sad Sad Sad
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 17, 12:18*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 16, 9:40*pm, John Smith wrote:



Art Unwin wrote:

* ...

John you are equating resonance with equilibrium, a dipole in antenna
terms is a half wavelength
resonant but not in a state of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a staple in
this Universe. First comes equilibrium
after which you may consider resonance.......but not the reverse. Both
of the samples are of a half wave length thus it is not in
equilibrium.
Equilibrium comes first in the satisfaction analysis, if it fails all
falls apart.
Best regards
Art

Uhhh Art, you "were" actually responding to "JB", you are lucky I read
your posts, and that this one prompted me to respond (or, unlucky, I
guess it depends on how "you view it" grin ) ...

I realize "something IS wrong" with the basic platform all "antenna
theory/equations/formulas/maths/truths/etc." is/are built upon ... but
what that "something" is? ... all I can say, I am looking and wondering
... but then, so are many -- and, if you are one of that "many", you
already have foot on the right path ... need I include, IMHO?

Regards,
JS

Sorry about that. Don't you think it is odd that all computer programs
based on Maxwells laws reflect every thing I have stated? I am not a
computer freak
How I could make all this up and several computer programs made by
different
*people *both sides of the pond can reproduce without conivance a
computer program
that provides the details of every thing that I have stated?
None of this is in the antenna books or relavent books on science and
do you know why?
My generation has been taken over by computers where prior generations
resorted to origanal thought from first principles.
They accept that the computer will spill out a lot of inaplicable
information but feel the sorting problem
is so much easier for the lazy. Problem is that books on the sciences
have not had critical analysis by the following generation which
always call for revisions. The books used for supplying questions to
the computer are those taken from the books that never received the
normal generational
revisions. Sorting computer answers requires common sense but with the
absence of required revisions what one calls common sense is one that
needs revision ala garbage in garbage out. Now we get statements that
if more gain came from tipping antennas the world would have tipped
the towers
years ago. To me that is totally absent of common sence but for people
who rely on unrevised books it is perfectly understandable. If people
have discarded Universal laws then the computers will not reflect same
based on input. We have to many academics churning out physics papers
which reflects direction of past papers as a way of getting them
accepted and published and a path to a higher station. What we need is
design by first principles which other countries still have by not yet
smitten by computers and who are capable of original thought.
Universities in the industrial world state the books that must be
followedand the student realizes that the answer in the books are the
datum used by professors so.......... follow the same path formed by
those that proceded you as the primary for getting a job is that piece
of paper without original thought. There are many of past generations
that have
generalized about point radiation alas this generations belittles it
and successfully resist change. Sad * Sad * Sad
Art Unwin * * * KB9MZ........xg

If you really want us "lesser mortals" to appreciate your thoughts ,
why don't you just put down your formulations in terms of concrete
mathematical equations and post it to a website or some place as a
document or something. That way we can see what you mean. In all of
these I assume that your thoughts are at least expressible in terms of
the known mathematics.
We would appreciate your endeavor and who knows it can lead to a new
form of mathematics with your pure and powerful thoughts.
And don't think that I am saying you are wrong outright because what
you have said as reaction forces, are involved in a local neighborhood
of the electron and the field associated with it. But they don't quite
manifest in a way that you say they does to the best of my knowledge.
Moreover it is not quite a practical idea to think of individual
electrons and the reaction associated with them when they are in all
probable states and with well practically innumerable number of
electrons.

In case you don't like to quantify your thoughts and put them into
practical formulations which can be solved in finite number of
steps.... well I am sorry we will never be enlightened. And prefer to
look at an antenna the more conventional way. All these neglecting the
fact that mechanics of particles at microscopic level deviates
considerably from the macroscopic world formulations, the inclusion of
which might make this thread more bitter.
--DB

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:29:08 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Well you may have hit on it. I am an englishman still in the learning
of American.

Except for a few odd terms, the kings English still works on this side
of the pond.

The law I am refering to is that every action has an opposite
reaction, not quite the words Newtons
used but the reaction is on par with the initial action. If you are in
doubt look up Newtons actual words.

You could lookup the exact quote for Newton's 3rd law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."
Please note that the words "parity" and "on par" are not used anywhere
in the explanation and discussion. If you want to introduce new
physical principles, it would probably be best if you used more
conventional terminology suitable for the GUM (great unwashed masses).

Parity is what I picked up on this newsgroup so when in Rome........
Parity means the maintainance of balance
still sounds O.K. but I will not use it any more!
Art

Well, there are also online dictionaries. Try:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+parity
None of the definitions for parity resemble whatever it is you're
trying to do, explain, or complain about.

Incidentally, the way you use Google as a dictionary is to inscribe:
define: parity
in the search box.

You also use the term equilibrium in a similar manner. Your use is
correct (to mean a type of balance) but you consistently fail to
adequately describe what is balancing against what else. Some people
may prefer your technobabble description, but if there's a balance,
there's also a corresponding equation which equates whatever it is
you're balancing. I like equations and numbers.

If you genuinely want to understand how antennas work based on first
principles, you might consider that all an antenna does is provide an
optimum transfer (match) of power between a transmitting device at
some impedance (usually 50 ohms) and the impedance of free space (377
ohms). Everything else in antenna design is controlling the direction
and efficiency of this power transfer.


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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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=bLQuYRAAAACBvdjA7WBXQw3w3fq wxHRj
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=tWGMphwAAAAGTj9X4k0U7wKkGyU 8QhaBhaxMG2M1PWkMtCZAt5tdxQ
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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:33:04 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

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

A very simple observation:

Give us one question you would expect to see.

Give us the answer that would be marked as passing.

Without both, this sappy sentiment of yours is nothing more than a
late night exercise of crying bitter tears into the pillow - and
leaving the window open so the neighbors can hear the sobs of regret.

It appears that sentimentality rules the thread. Lacking any steps
taken by Art towards providing a question with its corresponding
answer must mean he couldn't pass the same test it might be placed in.

Barring Art's hesitancy to supply his own solution, I can only rummage
up a similar instance from him where we might make this a quality of
test a CBer might tackle that is drawn from patented (5,625,367)
technology:

Q. reflector element is usually tuned to a frequency slightly
higher than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE or FALSE?

Q. director elements are usually tuned to frequencies slightly
lower than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE or FALSE?

Thankfully, the PTO does not test nor issue licenses based upon this
technology source used as reference material.

I can well imagine how "equilibrium" would similarly pollute the
question pool and the lack of follow-up leaves us with the soap opera
it was always meant to be.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:18:45 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Consider the following as rhetorical questions. I don't expect you to
answer. My purpose is to demonstrate what you have left out of your
rants.

Sorry about that. Don't you think it is odd that all computer programs
based on Maxwells laws reflect every thing I have stated?

Name one or more of these computer programs based on Maxwell's
Equations (not laws).

How I could make all this up and several computer programs made by
different
people both sides of the pond can reproduce without conivance a
computer program
that provides the details of every thing that I have stated?

Who are these people and what programs are they using?
What results did they obtain?
Which NEC models were they using (NEC2, NEC4, etc)?

None of this is in the antenna books or relavent books on science and
do you know why?

Which antenna books are lacking? I have about 5 linear feet of
printed antenna books, several boxes of IEEE Antenna and Propagation
SIG proceedings, and much of my hard disk stuffed with free and
commercial modeling and design software. Which antenna books are you
suggesting are lacking and why?

My generation has been taken over by computers where prior generations
resorted to origanal thought from first principles.

Nice topic switch. I'm 60.8 years old and am also in the computer
business.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/office/
I've never had an original thought in my life. I base everything I do
on what myself and others have done before. Short of divine
revelations, I suspect that much of the scientific and engineering
world works the same way. Everything is based somewhat on past
experience and history.

They accept that the computer will spill out a lot of inaplicable
information but feel the sorting problem
is so much easier for the lazy.

I can see you've never actually used a computah to solve problems. I
have. Computers are difficult to deal with for solving an individual
problem. They are truly wonderful for solving repetitive and
interactive problems. Simulations and emulations are fantastic for
uncovering bugs and problems before they become too difficult or too
expensive to fix. There are many companies that go directly from a
computah model to manufacturing without a prototype because they are
confident their computah models will work. If saving huge amounts of
time and effort constitutes being lazy, you have a warped perspective
of what computahs can do for you.

Problem is that books on the sciences
have not had critical analysis by the following generation which
always call for revisions.

Nice topic switch again. Books tend to be several years behind.

Which technical antenna books are you suggesting have failed to obtain
a peer review? I played tech editor on one Unix book (never again!)
and have a fair idea of the process. There are many books published
under various vanity press labels which are solely the responsibility
of the author. Some of those, I will agree have not been extensively
peer reviewed. I know of several in the ham radio market that have
not been properly reviewed, but which are generally accurate.

Which antenna books do you find inadequate due to lack of a "critical
analysis"?

The books used for supplying questions to
the computer are those taken from the books that never received the
normal generational
revisions.

My computer does not accept questions. We're not there yet. I have
to frame the problem in a language that the computer can understand.
The questions are implied in the framing of the problem.

There are books which only survive the first printing. Those will
never survive a "normal generational revision" because there will be
no 2nd generation.

Which antenna books do you find inadequate due to the lack of a 2nd
printing?

Sorting computer answers requires common sense

My computer does the sorting, not me. I do the interpretation of the
results produced by the computer. My computer also lacks common
sense. We're not there yet. It's also possible that I lack common
sense, but I won't admit to that.

but with the
absence of required revisions what one calls common sense is one that
needs revision ala garbage in garbage out.

Who or what organization requires a revision?

Where does common sense come into the design of an antenna? What
equations govern the application of common sense in an antenna design?
What are the units of measure of common sense?

Now we get statements that
if more gain came from tipping antennas the world would have tipped
the towers
years ago.

That's not common sense. It's designing within the limitations of the
technology and within conventional construction practices. If you've
ever had to deal with populating a tower full of assorted antennas and
trying to optimize the arrangement for maximum revenue (more
antennas), versus minimum interaction and intermod, you'll understand
what practical limitations are all about. Anyone can design an
antenna that works in free space. It takes some skill and experience
to design it to meet regulatory and practical limitations.

To me that is totally absent of common sence but for people
who rely on unrevised books it is perfectly understandable.

Most authors include an email address to which you can send
corrections and objections. Some of mine have appeared in the errata
pages for at least one book. What antenna book is in need of revision
because it discusses tilting antennas?

If people
have discarded Universal laws then the computers will not reflect same
based on input.

What universal law? I don't recall seeing a Universal Law in my
computer or software.

We have to many academics churning out physics papers
which reflects direction of past papers as a way of getting them
accepted and published and a path to a higher station.

Well, yes... that's the way it works. You learn from the past and you
build on it. Most of those papers consist of a summary of existing
technology and understanding. They then add their own research. You
can see that on everything from traffic laws to patents. Have you
ever even read a single issue of IEEE Antennas and Propagation SIG
proceedings?

What we need is
design by first principles which other countries still have by not yet
smitten by computers and who are capable of original thought.

No need to go looking outside the industrialized world. I sometimes
help at the local skool on senior projects. The students are required
to build something to graduate. I have a difficult time keeping the
ideas down to something that can be built in a few weeks of class.
However, the imagination and creativity of some of these students is
well beyond what I would expect to see from a seasoned professional.
If you want originality, get it before it's squashed by the
responsibilities and realities of life.

Universities in the industrial world state the books that must be
followedand the student realizes that the answer in the books are the
datum used by professors so..........

Really? Skool textbooks are rotated almost constantly. That's
allegedly to keep up to date, but really to squash the used book
market. I spent much of college career arguing with the professors,
much of which was over reality versus what's in the books. When the
instructors have a political agenda added to the mix, things get
really interesting. Incidentally, one has to understand the books,
before one can argue against them.

follow the same path formed by
those that proceded you as the primary for getting a job is that piece
of paper without original thought.

There are those that are capable of original thinking and those that
simply become cogs in the system. I don't have time to expound on the
relative merits of each. If you want to see a small riot, get all the
independent thinkers together. They can never agree on anything. Are
you sure you want everyone to be an original thinker? I shudder at
what methinks will happen to something like the traffic laws.

There are many of past generations
that have
generalized about point radiation alas this generations belittles it
and successfully resist change.

Nice topic switch again. How many and which generations generalized
about point radiation? How have these generations "belittled" point
radiation? Do you know that it's actually called zero-point energy?
What does zero-point energy have to do with antennas? How are you
going to deal with the infinite energy density required to obtain
zero-point energy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Sad Sad Sad
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg

Ah... The servers are finally done backing up and updating. Thanks
for the diversion.

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:23:55 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

I am sure, I am least correct at the quantum level ... wink
Regards,
JS

There are quantum mechanics in antennas:
http://www.amazon.com/24775-Quantum-Indoor-HDTV-Antenna/dp/B000W8XQJC
It's even amplified.

More realistically:
"Superconducting quantum antenna"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=rM2pAAAAEBAJ&dq=7369093
Apparently it uses a quantum screen to generate fringing. That's
common at infrared but I haven't seen it used to focus RF. I can't
tell if it's for real. I'll get brain damage from trying to read this
stuff after midnight. Tomorrow...

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:58:35 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

No Newtonians in this crowd. Perhaps it was the relativistic term
"speed of light" that confused this group so much. Let's restate it
in units that Newton could have appreciated.

We know that we can accelerate an electron to 167,770 miles/s - it
happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt
displays still glowing in the world. Some of us know its mass at this
speed. A question for the Newtonian philosopherz:
"What is the mass of a photon traveling at 167,770 miles/s?"

Google to the rescue:
http://asistm.duit.uwa.edu.au/synchrotron/downloads/pdfs/chapter11_7.pdf

mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5

whe
mr = relativistic mass
mo = mass at rest
v = velocity of particle
c = speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec

For v = 167,700 miles/sec
mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5
mr/mo = 1/ 1 - 0.813^0.5 = 1/ (1 - 0.902) = 1/ 0.0984 = 10.2

So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 10 times that
of the particle at rest. It doesn't matter what particle. Do I get a
gold star?

(Somebody please check my arithmetic as I forgot to eat dinner, it's
after midnight, my brain is mush, and my calculator battery is fading
fast).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:37:27 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:15:07 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

No respionse

Well that comes as no surprise that you can't do a Newtonian
calculation. OK, that is one down.

Ummm... that wasn't Newton. No quantum effects in Newton's work. That
was Einstein's theory of special relativity. See gamma.
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html


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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:13:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:58:35 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

No Newtonians in this crowd. Perhaps it was the relativistic term
"speed of light" that confused this group so much. Let's restate it
in units that Newton could have appreciated.

We know that we can accelerate an electron to 167,770 miles/s - it
happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt
displays still glowing in the world. Some of us know its mass at this
speed. A question for the Newtonian philosopherz:
"What is the mass of a photon traveling at 167,770 miles/s?"

Google to the rescue:
http://asistm.duit.uwa.edu.au/synchrotron/downloads/pdfs/chapter11_7.pdf

mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5

whe
mr = relativistic mass
mo = mass at rest
v = velocity of particle
c = speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec

For v = 167,700 miles/sec
mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5
mr/mo = 1/ 1 - 0.813^0.5 = 1/ (1 - 0.902) = 1/ 0.0984 = 10.2

So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 10 times that
of the particle at rest. It doesn't matter what particle. Do I get a
gold star?

(Somebody please check my arithmetic as I forgot to eat dinner, it's
after midnight, my brain is mush, and my calculator battery is fading
fast).

All wrong. No gold star for that mess. I just hate it when I click
"send" and only then discover my arithmetic error. Rev 1.0 follows:

mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5

whe
mr = relativistic mass
mo = mass at rest
v = velocity of particle
c = speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec

For v = 167,700 miles/sec
mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5
mr/mo = 1/ (1 - 0.813)^0.5 = 1/ (0.187)^0.5 = 1/ 0.432 = 2.31

So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 2.3 times
that of the particle at rest. It doesn't matter what particle. Maybe
a silver star?



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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Richard Clark wrote:

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

Can't go with you there; he is asking some of the same questions as
myself, just in a different way. I am just weird enough to understand
him and his questions.

Three? LOL How about Forty-Three? And those are constantly changing,
depends on the umpires, I guess ...

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
According to Einstein, anything with energy has mass equivalence -
especially photons. But other than that, nothing with mass can travel
at the speed of light.

Make that "nothing with *rest* mass can travel at the
speed of light". From an earlier posting of mine:

"Photons have zero rest mass. Otherwise, they couldn't
travel at the speed of light."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Jeff:

I am top posting here, just because your post is so damn long, and I
could NOT bring myself to cut any of it ...

Thanks for being candid with us. Yep, you are one of us alright. Yep,
we have to use others past books, thoughts, knowledge, computer apps,
papers, etc. ... it is just too much, it is inundating ... I mean, my
home office here looks like yours! And, the wife is a "neat-freak" ...
I tell you, I spend all my time looking for materials she has
"organized" for me ... smirk

I hope you didn't come here for answers, I mean I can't speak for
everyone here, but all I have is questions! And, if I ask something
that doesn't have a black and white answer, I get slapped in the face!
blank-look

Demands for answers, demands for open discussions, demands we look at
even the quantum world in "explorations into antennas", especially from
some of the STRONG personalities you find here, can be intimidating ...
but, welcome aboard.

However, if you thought you would find peace of mind, bliss and
enlightenment here ... think again. ROFLOL

You are just about to find out "how deep this Rabbit-Hole goes!"

Warm regards,
JS

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:18:45 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Consider the following as rhetorical questions. I don't expect you to
answer. My purpose is to demonstrate what you have left out of your
rants.

Sorry about that. Don't you think it is odd that all computer programs
based on Maxwells laws reflect every thing I have stated?

Name one or more of these computer programs based on Maxwell's
Equations (not laws).

How I could make all this up and several computer programs made by
different
people both sides of the pond can reproduce without conivance a
computer program
that provides the details of every thing that I have stated?

Who are these people and what programs are they using?
What results did they obtain?
Which NEC models were they using (NEC2, NEC4, etc)?

None of this is in the antenna books or relavent books on science and
do you know why?

Which antenna books are lacking? I have about 5 linear feet of
printed antenna books, several boxes of IEEE Antenna and Propagation
SIG proceedings, and much of my hard disk stuffed with free and
commercial modeling and design software. Which antenna books are you
suggesting are lacking and why?

My generation has been taken over by computers where prior generations
resorted to origanal thought from first principles.

Nice topic switch. I'm 60.8 years old and am also in the computer
business.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/office/
I've never had an original thought in my life. I base everything I do
on what myself and others have done before. Short of divine
revelations, I suspect that much of the scientific and engineering
world works the same way. Everything is based somewhat on past
experience and history.

They accept that the computer will spill out a lot of inaplicable
information but feel the sorting problem
is so much easier for the lazy.

I can see you've never actually used a computah to solve problems. I
have. Computers are difficult to deal with for solving an individual
problem. They are truly wonderful for solving repetitive and
interactive problems. Simulations and emulations are fantastic for
uncovering bugs and problems before they become too difficult or too
expensive to fix. There are many companies that go directly from a
computah model to manufacturing without a prototype because they are
confident their computah models will work. If saving huge amounts of
time and effort constitutes being lazy, you have a warped perspective
of what computahs can do for you.

Problem is that books on the sciences
have not had critical analysis by the following generation which
always call for revisions.

Nice topic switch again. Books tend to be several years behind.

Which technical antenna books are you suggesting have failed to obtain
a peer review? I played tech editor on one Unix book (never again!)
and have a fair idea of the process. There are many books published
under various vanity press labels which are solely the responsibility
of the author. Some of those, I will agree have not been extensively
peer reviewed. I know of several in the ham radio market that have
not been properly reviewed, but which are generally accurate.

Which antenna books do you find inadequate due to lack of a "critical
analysis"?

The books used for supplying questions to
the computer are those taken from the books that never received the
normal generational
revisions.

My computer does not accept questions. We're not there yet. I have
to frame the problem in a language that the computer can understand.
The questions are implied in the framing of the problem.

There are books which only survive the first printing. Those will
never survive a "normal generational revision" because there will be
no 2nd generation.

Which antenna books do you find inadequate due to the lack of a 2nd
printing?

Sorting computer answers requires common sense

My computer does the sorting, not me. I do the interpretation of the
results produced by the computer. My computer also lacks common
sense. We're not there yet. It's also possible that I lack common
sense, but I won't admit to that.

but with the
absence of required revisions what one calls common sense is one that
needs revision ala garbage in garbage out.

Who or what organization requires a revision?

Where does common sense come into the design of an antenna? What
equations govern the application of common sense in an antenna design?
What are the units of measure of common sense?

Now we get statements that
if more gain came from tipping antennas the world would have tipped
the towers
years ago.

That's not common sense. It's designing within the limitations of the
technology and within conventional construction practices. If you've
ever had to deal with populating a tower full of assorted antennas and
trying to optimize the arrangement for maximum revenue (more
antennas), versus minimum interaction and intermod, you'll understand
what practical limitations are all about. Anyone can design an
antenna that works in free space. It takes some skill and experience
to design it to meet regulatory and practical limitations.

To me that is totally absent of common sence but for people
who rely on unrevised books it is perfectly understandable.

Most authors include an email address to which you can send
corrections and objections. Some of mine have appeared in the errata
pages for at least one book. What antenna book is in need of revision
because it discusses tilting antennas?

If people
have discarded Universal laws then the computers will not reflect same
based on input.

What universal law? I don't recall seeing a Universal Law in my
computer or software.

We have to many academics churning out physics papers
which reflects direction of past papers as a way of getting them
accepted and published and a path to a higher station.

Well, yes... that's the way it works. You learn from the past and you
build on it. Most of those papers consist of a summary of existing
technology and understanding. They then add their own research. You
can see that on everything from traffic laws to patents. Have you
ever even read a single issue of IEEE Antennas and Propagation SIG
proceedings?

What we need is
design by first principles which other countries still have by not yet
smitten by computers and who are capable of original thought.

No need to go looking outside the industrialized world. I sometimes
help at the local skool on senior projects. The students are required
to build something to graduate. I have a difficult time keeping the
ideas down to something that can be built in a few weeks of class.
However, the imagination and creativity of some of these students is
well beyond what I would expect to see from a seasoned professional.
If you want originality, get it before it's squashed by the
responsibilities and realities of life.

Universities in the industrial world state the books that must be
followedand the student realizes that the answer in the books are the
datum used by professors so..........

Really? Skool textbooks are rotated almost constantly. That's
allegedly to keep up to date, but really to squash the used book
market. I spent much of college career arguing with the professors,
much of which was over reality versus what's in the books. When the
instructors have a political agenda added to the mix, things get
really interesting. Incidentally, one has to understand the books,
before one can argue against them.

follow the same path formed by
those that proceded you as the primary for getting a job is that piece
of paper without original thought.

There are those that are capable of original thinking and those that
simply become cogs in the system. I don't have time to expound on the
relative merits of each. If you want to see a small riot, get all the
independent thinkers together. They can never agree on anything. Are
you sure you want everyone to be an original thinker? I shudder at
what methinks will happen to something like the traffic laws.

There are many of past generations
that have
generalized about point radiation alas this generations belittles it
and successfully resist change.

Nice topic switch again. How many and which generations generalized
about point radiation? How have these generations "belittled" point
radiation? Do you know that it's actually called zero-point energy?
What does zero-point energy have to do with antennas? How are you
going to deal with the infinite energy density required to obtain
zero-point energy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Sad Sad Sad
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg

Ah... The servers are finally done backing up and updating. Thanks
for the diversion.

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:23:55 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

I am sure, I am least correct at the quantum level ... wink
Regards,
JS

There are quantum mechanics in antennas:
http://www.amazon.com/24775-Quantum-Indoor-HDTV-Antenna/dp/B000W8XQJC
It's even amplified.

More realistically:
"Superconducting quantum antenna"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=rM2pAAAAEBAJ&dq=7369093
Apparently it uses a quantum screen to generate fringing. That's
common at infrared but I haven't seen it used to focus RF. I can't
tell if it's for real. I'll get brain damage from trying to read this
stuff after midnight. Tomorrow...


Jeff:

Another good point, I avoid patents in my searches!

In the google search box, I always include the search terms "-patents"
and "-patent" (minus the double quotes) ... that is the type of stuff
(silly patents) which just accelerates my insane questions to
unfathomable limits!

Heck, I can't even tell the "silly" ones (patents) from the "real" ones
.... indeed, I strongly suspect I am a poor one to judge!

LOL!

Regards,
JS