Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

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

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

Oh I suppose a search on google re antennas and equilibrium will get
you something to read
but difficult if you are starting from Zero. The point where you begin
is Newtons laws, if they are in error then so am I
I doubt if you will find anything that definitely proves that he is
wrong.If a professor does not know what I have stated he should be
nfired
which goes for some of the people at University of Illinois in the
electrical engineering area.
EVERYTHING in science revolves around equilibrium. If a posting denys
that or does not respond to that Law
i will not respond and that includes Richard whose sole aim in life if
to divert the crowd with off topic nothings as he does not ahve any
engineering degree from any accredited college and thus is a pretender
looking for a date with any poster.
Art

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 16, 2:49*pm, "Rectifier" wrote:
"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.

Mike
Einstein changed course in study because he could not solve the
description of the weak force
which I see as foucalt current. Knowing this Einstein would be proud
to stand up as state his
thoughts on Universal law has now been proved forget. You cannot
parcel laws based on a particular subject.
Universl laws are just that. UNIVERSAL. What on earth does parity mean
in the U.S.?
Art

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Rectifier wrote:

...
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.
...

Actually, we only wish things were/are that simplistic. There is then
"the other story" (hey, did I just see Paul Harvey in here?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

Time and movement are very much in play, as are "kinetic energy factors"
.... in a nutshell, mass to energy is much "easier" process than energy
to mass -- and, certainly, much easier to compute/define/determine.

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

but difficult if you are starting from Zero. The point where you begin
is Newtons laws, if they are in error then so am I

Newtons laws are not in error. But your application of them is in error.
You are applying laws that apply to objects with mass to electromagnetic
radiation, which has no mass.

engineering degree from any accredited college and thus is a pretender
looking for a date with any poster.

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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. The pressure of photons from
the sun can actually be used to propel a sail boat
through space.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sm...l_feature.html
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Art Unwin wrote:
... The point where you begin
is Newtons laws, if they are in error then so am I
I doubt if you will find anything that definitely proves that he is
wrong.If a professor does not know what I have stated he should be
nfired ...

Art

Well, I certainly don't know about all that ...

But, if my understanding is correct, newtons laws begin to "fall apart"
with very small particles ... and indeed, the ether (eather, aether --
sometimes I make a typo and type it as "either") is composed of such ...

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

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Rectifier wrote:
You are applying laws that apply to objects with mass to
electromagnetic radiation, which has no mass.

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

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

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 16, 4:23*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
... The point where you begin
is Newtons laws, if they are in error then so am I
I doubt if you will find anything that definitely proves that he is
wrong.If a professor does not know what I have stated he should be
nfired ...
Art

Well, I certainly don't know about all that ...

But, if my understanding is correct, newtons laws begin to "fall apart"
with very small particles ... and indeed, the ether (eather, aether --
sometimes I make a typo and type it as "either") is composed of such ...

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

Regards,
JS

That was ruled out when it was determined that Neutrons were not
without mass !

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Art Unwin wrote:

...
That was ruled out when it was determined that Neutrons were not
without mass !

Hmmm ... actually, how can anything "really" be without "mass", isn't
energy just a "form of mass" and "vice versa?" I mean, the equations
certainly imply this ...

I mean really, when we deal with particles the size of photons and below
.... aren't they "melding" into the same "thingys" grin ... and,
perhaps my data is old ... I don't think "newton does quantum", but he
might have a brother by the same name ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

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

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

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

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