Jim Kelley wrote:
Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Another prediction
Blah blah blah....
And it goes on and on and..
Art

WTF?

tom
K0TAR

Tom

It's somewhat like this I think:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80462773187994

73, ac6xg


Do you think maybe he wrote that?

tom
K0TAR

Frank wrote:
snip

Computation of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of a
conductor involve manipulation of the "Vector magnetic potential";
as in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential

Frank

Please no! Now he'll add gauge invariance to the mix!

You fool.

tom
K0TAR

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:20:18 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Another prediction

WTF?

It's somewhat like this I think:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80462773187994

Do you think maybe he wrote that?

It makes too much sense.

Now, if someone could dredge up the last stockholder's meeting with
the board of Lehman Brothers, it might come closer to Art's style.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. net...
Frank wrote:
snip

Computation of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of a
conductor involve manipulation of the "Vector magnetic potential";
as in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential

Frank

Please no! Now he'll add gauge invariance to the mix!

You fool.

when he starts quoting gauge's laws and how they describe the weak force
equilibrium in Maxwell's equations it should add another level of laugh
potential.

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. net...
Frank wrote:
snip

Computation of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of a
conductor involve manipulation of the "Vector magnetic potential";
as in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential

Frank

Please no! Now he'll add gauge invariance to the mix!

You fool.

tom
K0TAR


here is the best description of art's equilibrium i have found:

Perturbative string theory may be used to show that massless particles can
only have spins 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2. This conclusion follows from an analysis
of the energy of various harmonic oscillators included in the string that
contribute to the mass of the resulting particle. This conclusion
beautifully agrees with facts about gauge invariance that may be derived
using spacetime arguments.

If you consider any semirealistic physical system, it reduces to quantum
fields at long distances - fields that are able to create particles. Because
of the rotational symmetry, these particles may be classified according to
their spin. For spins equal to 0 or 1/2, one only creates states of positive
norms (think about the Klein-Gordon and Dirac fields). However, for spin 1
and higher, there are inevitably negative-norm states in the Hilbert space
created by the simplest version of these quantum fields. For example, the
time-like component of a 4-vector field creates states whose norm has the
opposite (negative) sign than the space-like components of the same field.
Such a decoupling implies an infinite amount of accidents that are
equivalent to a symmetry.

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:49:04 +0000, Dave wrote:

Why don't you two get a room? This bull**** has nothing to do with ham
radio. However, maybe if we ionized your hot air we could bounce some
70 cm off the cloud.

I've always suspected that some hams hated math and other technical
subjects. While it is conceivable that you could build a ham antenna
without using math, I don't think the results would be optimal. There
are also those that advocate converting ham radio from a technical
hobby, to a sport, where the technical aspects are diminished to the
point of extinction, and the operational exercises of contesting, DX,
CW, and rag chewing are predominant. No math required. Perhaps the
FCC could balkanize the ham bands into technical and non-technical
sub-bands, where the clueless and those that still design, calculate,
and build their own equipment can be seperated for their own safety.

What equipment do you build for the amateur bands? Where does one
employ that much theoretical physics?

I have software and analyzers to help me; I don't need to throw
general theory around on a bulletin board that is over the head of 95%
of the people whose curiosity might be piqued by the name of the group.
Perhaps if you applied your quantoid lunacy to making a suitcase
quadrifilar helix for HF or something, I'd be less hurt.

Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued
complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out.
I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. Most of the "new hams" these
days are former CB'ers. With a few notable exceptions, most are quite
nice, but also technically lacking.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Like this?

http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/pic...nas/index.html

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:08:52 +0000, Dave wrote:


Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued
complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out.
I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. Most of the "new hams" these
days are former CB'ers. With a few notable exceptions, most are quite
nice, but also technically lacking.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

I'm serious. It's kinda like the red light districts in many cities.
If you can't supress prostitution, at least you can control it in a
confined space. Give the lunatics room to jam each other, and they
won't be tempted to land on licensed frequencies.

It's also great for contesting. The art of rudeness, jamming, and
tuning up on other peoples conversations have been sufficiently
optimized on the ham bands. Time for a new challenge, which will be
contesting in a band full of hostile interference. I was running
PSK31 on CB for a while, much to the irritation of the channel
"owners". Worked nicely and there was little intererence. I consider
this advancing the state of the art in communications effectiveness.

Surely the FCC and Congress will recognize the value of ham radio to
global harmony, where international cooperation is enhanced by the
wireless exchange of a signal report, call letter, and contact number,
with foreign operators sufficiently politically connected to obtain a
ham radio license in their country. Perhaps ham radio should be
nominated for the Nobel peace price.

I dread to think what such hams might do with their spare time if ham
radio were to disappear. Give them a sandbox in which to play and get
out of the way.

Like this?
http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/pic...nas/index.html

Ugh. That's my "old" site, where I've been playing with JAlbum
formatting. I haven't updated it in a while. Go unto:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/
for the latest version. The coffee can antenna is in there with
better 4NEC2 output.

Ooops. The NEC model files seem to have evaporated. I'll fix later
tonite.

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

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:02:06 +0000, Dave wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:49:04 +0000, Dave wrote:

Why don't you two get a room? This bull**** has nothing to do with ham
radio. However, maybe if we ionized your hot air we could bounce some
70 cm off the cloud.

I've always suspected that some hams hated math and other technical
subjects. While it is conceivable that you could build a ham antenna
without using math, I don't think the results would be optimal. There
are also those that advocate converting ham radio from a technical
hobby, to a sport, where the technical aspects are diminished to the
point of extinction, and the operational exercises of contesting, DX,
CW, and rag chewing are predominant. No math required. Perhaps the
FCC could balkanize the ham bands into technical and non-technical
sub-bands, where the clueless and those that still design, calculate,
and build their own equipment can be seperated for their own safety.

What equipment do you build for the amateur bands? Where does one
employ that much theoretical physics?

I spent about 15 year repairing commercial 2way radios, designing
accessories, working for several radio manufacturers, and playing RF
consultant. Methinks I can count about 15 independent products I
helped design during this time. None of them were specific to ham
radio, but could be adapted for ham use. At no time did I ever resort
to theoretical fizzix, quantum theory, or other occult arts. However,
I did employ a few magical incantations, especially when things did
not work as expected.

I never even suggested that theoretical fizzix was involved in the
design of amateur radio and antennas. Please re-read what you quoted
from my previous posting. Do you see any fizzix in there? What are
you suggesting?

Incidentally, since quantum theory violates every rule of logic,
causality, rationality, common sense, conventional wisdom, and
intuition, I've always suspected that it was a refuge of such
thinkers.

I have software and analyzers to help me;

Same here. However, my analyst charges far too much money per hour
and is used sparingly.

I don't need to throw
general theory around on a bulletin board that is over the head of 95%
of the people whose curiosity might be piqued by the name of the group.

Then don't throw general theory around. Nobody will learn anything
new. Ham radio will remain exactly as it is now and has been since
the invention of radio. Progress will cease and life will be easy for
all involved.

Perhaps if you applied your quantoid lunacy to making a suitcase
quadrifilar helix for HF or something, I'd be less hurt.

Umm... I think I see a problem here. Please check your attribution. I
think your question is for Art, not me. I don't think either of us
intentend to hurt you, but now that you mention it, a little temporary
pain might revive you from your sleep typing.

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

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. net...
Frank wrote:
snip

Computation of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of a
conductor involve manipulation of the "Vector magnetic potential";
as in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential

Frank

Please no! Now he'll add gauge invariance to the mix!

You fool.

tom
K0TAR

Heck, I never noticed that reference. Just wanted to show
Art how vectors are used in reality!

73, Frank