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