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

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 11:56 am, "Mike Lucas" wrote:
"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 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

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

Mike
I know more about antennas and radiation than you think !
For instance, equilibrium demands that charges do not move laterally
along an antenna when in equilibrium
Without equilibrium charges do move along the surface of a radiator
and Newtons law of parity demands
that charges are moving thru the CENTER of the radiator thus
encoundering just copper losses.
Thus for a radiator that is not in equilibrium has three resistance
1 Radiation resistance
2 outer resistance
3 Inner copper resistance.

Equilibrium is nothing more than the enforcement of Newtons law of
parity.
This is so simple to those who work from first principles for
themselves instead of being lemmings.
Correctness is not always determined from a poll
Regards
Art

-

I've heard of Newton's laws of motion, but not Newton's law of parity.
Newton dealt primarily with motion, mass, and such. Electromagnetic
radiation hadn't even been discovered when Newton was alive.
Electromagnetic radiation does not behave the same way as matter, which is
described in terms such as momentum, inertia, accceleration and such.

wrote:

...
I think your term for equilibrium is the term the exams use for
"resonant". An antenna with "equilibrium" is your name for an antenna
upon which a TEM standing wave is present with a standing wave ratio
of 1:1, correct? That would be your point of maximum effciency of
ejection of galactic particles from the end points of the antenna
which is optimized by sloping it relative to to the earth plane.

Some months ago, I made this exact mistake, made, almost, that
exact-same statement.

Although I did not leave with a complete and clear understanding of
"Arts' Equilibrium", I did leave with an understanding it was NOT
resonance ... so ???

Regards,
JS

"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.

"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?

On Sep 16, 2:53*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
...
I think your term for equilibrium is the term the exams use for
"resonant". An antenna with "equilibrium" is your name for an antenna
upon which a TEM standing wave is present with a standing wave ratio
of 1:1, correct? That would be your point of maximum effciency of
ejection of galactic particles from the end points of the antenna
which is optimized by sloping it relative to to the earth plane.

Some months ago, I made this exact mistake, made, almost, that
exact-same statement.

Although I did not leave with a complete and clear understanding of
"Arts' Equilibrium", I did leave with an understanding it was NOT
resonance ... so ???

Regards,
JS

Thank you
I am very pleased that you adressed the subject directly and you are
quite correct

resonace can be but not necessarily equate to equilibrium.
Don't go away JS help these people out when you can. I they do not
stay on subject there is no need for me to respond
Art

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

Art Unwin wrote:

...
resonace can be but not necessarily equate to equilibrium.
Don't go away JS help these people out when you can. I they do not
stay on subject there is no need for me to respond
Art

Well, I got that part "right" too (I think), as demonstrated by a 5/8
wave antenna, etc., they are NOT resonate but exist in the "confines" of
your equilibrium ... but Art, they will have to take their lessons from
"The Master", you! wink

Regards,
JS

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

"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...radiation.html

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. . ."