Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
For exponents (HTML superscripts) some browsers convert

c^2 to csup2/sup HTML.

:-) That was c ^ 2 without the spaces. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Dave wrote:
This bull**** has nothing to do with ham radio.

Exponents used in such terms as P = I^2R have
nothing to do with ham radio?

That's a really sad statement about the present
technical level of amateur radio.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Rectifier wrote:
I am asking you: What if the sun put out nothing except
EM waves. Would comets still have a tail or not?

Are you talking about the ion tail or the dust tail? The dust tail is
affected by EM; but the ion tail is affected only by magnetic forces.

So a large part of the visible tail of the comet would
still point away from the sun even if the sun emitted
nothing but EM waves. EM waves possess momentum, apply
radiation pressure to dust particles (matter), and have
relativistic mass.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

That is correct.

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Rectifier wrote:
The word was not misspelled. According to dictionary.com, which quotes
the American Heritage Dictionary, "traveling" and "travelling" are both
accepted ways of spelling the word.

Sorry, Thunderbird said it was misspelled. Guess I
should add "travelling" to Thunderbird's dictionary.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Rectifier wrote:
... so I may get some
terminology wrong or not be able to explain it as well as I could
before. However, discussions like these are interesting and stimulate
thought and a desire to go back and review the subject.

Yes, that is the important thing. I don't mind my spelling corrected,
and I may mention the misspelling of another ... however, you have it right.

To error is human ...

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Tom Ring wrote:

...
To understand the situation, I would suggest that you start down the
calculus road. The internet has to have tutorials on it. Differential
equations look terribly obtuse, but they are an obtainable destination
down that road if you choose to follow it.

tom
K0TAR

My take on that is a bit different ... on "AMATEUR Radio" that is.

In building antennas, tank ciruits, etc., I very seldom whip out a
programmable scientific calculator and delve into the depths of the
maths which allow them to preform/function/"work."

A few times, I have just grabbed up some tubing/wire a variable
condenser or two, and "eyeballed" the construction--past experience
provided "ballpark" figures/placements/wiring, testing, trimming and
adjusting got me the final result ...

Mainly, I point this out so as not to "obsfucate" that layman, or
discourage him ... the men who first started/awakened my interest in
such things never gave any indication, to me, they had an understanding
of calculus, only basic-math/algebra, and of course, geometry!

Indeed, at least one passed away without ever expressing any real
interest in learning it!

However, in Arts pursuits, an understanding would be a real advantage ...

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 07:42:55 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Try again...would you believe light as 38 miles per hour?

38 miles per hour is the speed of light in that medium
but not in a vacuum.

You're still using vacuum tubes? Most of my equipment runs in a
medium, not in a vacuum.

Quiz: How fast do the electrons flow in a copper conductor?
Hint: It's not the speed of light.

Of course not, compared to photons, electrons are massive,
capable of absorbing photons with ease.

Well, to split hairs, electrons don't emit or absorb photons. The
energy or momentum from or to a photon is absorbed or emitted and
photons are either destroyed or created in the interaction in descrete
quanta levels. However, unless I heat my copper wire to
incandescence, it's is not going to emit or absorb any photons. I
just wanted to point out that the speed of propagation through a
medium is not the same as the speed of the particles involved in
conduction.




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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Is there a standard notation or style for arithmetic and
exponentiation for usenet posting? I've been switching around using
different styles almost at random over the years.

For exponents (HTML superscripts) some browsers convert

c^2 to csup2/sup HTML.

That's the convention I use for exponents.

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.

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

I know books say a lot of things but do they explain WHY current
cannot flow thru the center?
snip
Art
If you do the differential equations, it doesn't say why the center
can't so much as why the skin does. Similar to gravitation and water
flowing downhill vs uphill.

My understanding was about molecular alignment and that the flow of
electrons would be there first. Notice that stranded wire is often
preferred for it's current handling ability even though solid is easier to
terminate to and doesn't have the problem of discontinuities due to
corrosion on many surfaces that rub together.

This doesn't mean that eddy currents aren't there in hollow elements. Solid
or stranded or hollow tubing, the eddy currents contribute to loss but don't
contribute to radiation.

Ejection of particles should lead to deterioration of the metal but if you
were to coat the elements (with non-conductive and non-reactive coating)
there would be no deterioration. It would also prevent rain static.

I don't burden myself with paradigms to explain electromagnetic wave
propagation in free space. It and Gravity do very well without my
explanation. We know that the AC current in the antenna induces an
electromagnetic wave is sufficient for my purpose. Unless I can find
funding for renewed efforts... (wink nudge)

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Well, to split hairs, electrons don't emit or absorb photons.

I was just quoting "QED", by Richard Feynman:

"-Action #1: A photon goes from place to place."
"-Action #2: An electron goes from place to place."
"-Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon."

I'm sorry that Feynman was not precise enough for you. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
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.

10-4 Gud Buddy! Didn't that already happen back in
the 60's when they took 11m away from hams?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 1:08*am, "JB" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 17, 2:26 pm, "JB" wrote:



OK So nobody wants to talk about equilibrium or current flow on a
radiator.
Thats fine by me. Took a lot of posts to get to that point. JB I
apologize
I have been nailed to the cross so many times I tend to bundle things
together.
When I started I zeroed on equilibrium as a start because existing
laws state that if a charge is moving on the outside of a radiator
then there is movement on the inside of a radiator Now that is not in
the books. Why is that? However discussion went away from the intent
of the thread. equilibrium with respect to radiation. O well another
try later
Regards
Art

Consider that there is little difference in the performance of a solid
radiator and hollow radiator.

There are things about Electromagnetic Radiation that aren't discussed by
Newton. Study classical antenna theory, then you will be on common ground
with others that study antennas. The danger of concentrating on your own
line of study so much is that you wind up out on a limb. I see this often
when dealing with different terminology spawned of different paradigms,
where similar circuits are redrawn and renamed by different engineering
teams. This is nowhere more evident in Psychology and Philosophy, where
insight springs from the conclusions derived from the limited experiences
of
an isolated group or individual. It is like the blind men describing an
elephant when they have only one part in front of them. They each call the
elephant something else based on their singular experience and arrive at
logical conclusions that are false. The fact that we only have one
lifetime
to devote to all the pieces is indeed a limitation.

Could well be but I have no alternative and am going my own way. Why
should this disturb others?
They could easily show me the error of my ways instead of taking up
the cause against change
We all know Newtons Laws ( some interprete in different ways) So we
have a radiator upon which a charge rests
there for ethere is no need for a opposing vector inside the radiator.
Then we have a radiator that is not in equilibrium and thus we have a
vector
which according to the laws of Newton or equilibrium or what ever
requires a responding vector inside the conductor. Inside the
conductor there is no magnetic field nor the Foucalt current thus it
is not radiating just spending copper losses. Put the apparatus in a
vacuum and the current will take a less resistive route by producing
an arc at the ends AWAY from the radiator. To me that sounds as
perfect logic but there is no book that states it or the presence of
the Foucalt current. That is not to say there are not a lot of
explanations all of which are different so I go back to first
principles and people get angry at the idea of change. Now the tide on
this post has turned around on Cecil. Let me warn you that Cecil has
outlasted this group several times to the tune of threads extending
more than a thousand more than a few times over the last 20 years. One
person who harasses him tries a lot of tactics on him including
pointing out that his only difference he has with a dog is lipstickl
but only the newbies respond to him unnowingly. Cecil will out last
them all.
Art * * *Back to the mowing

--Well Art, there are some people out there that tend to boasting and jump
on any opportunity.

No, there is no arcing at the end of the elements. *The ends of a center fed
dipole are a high impedance so there is high voltage there but as long as
there are clean decent insulators there should be no trouble with that. With
VERY HIGH power, *ionization may take place and there will be a glow off the
ends. *The cubical Quad antenna was developed to combat that problem. *It
utilizes a full wave loop fed directly. *Look also to the folded dipole..
Find out though that the current in the loop is the same in that there will
be a high voltage node at the points 1/4 wave away from the feedpoint even
though the wire goes continuously around and back. Certainly if you touched
it there, you would fry yourself by being a path to ground just as you would
with a classic dipole.

These things are known and proven, unlike the quantum physics tangent the
thread went off on. *It is possible that Quantum Physics is all true. But it
is really just a construct to explain certain realities that aren't fully
explained with other theories. *This should tell you that there is a better
explanation out there but we don't have all the pieces. *It is certainly an
avenue of research. * *It could just as well be something else entirely
where all the questions are answered even better. Quantum physics isn't
needed to build antennas. *Good luck in your studies. *There is a lot of
misunderstanding about antennas. And you might have confusion about parts
that the writer considered evident. Concepts that I have found burdensome, I
tend to place into a box for later, more in-depth study and chose not to
trust them or myself with hard conclusions, especially if practical
experience won't support them.

Well I disagree with you Quito was using a radiator that was not in a
state of equilibriun ie a half wave
format. As I have said earlier without equilibrium shows the charge in
movement which requires a complimentary movement
With the higher altitude Quito provided an alternative to placing the
vector inside the conductor and the circuit took a different route.
This was solved by using a full wave circuit in equilibrium that
removed the arcing choice by suppling a continous route on the outside
of the radiator.
If the quad was divided into two bent dipoles it would still arc at
the extremities because of the lower external pressure.
Really this is a good example of the necessity of equilibrium in
vector form where for equilibrium the circuit must be long enough or
multiples there of to provide the allowance of repeatability of
current flow ie. equal to the PERIOD length of the time varient
frequency . I stated multiples because it reflects the movement of a
pendulum where the occillation calcullation( formular) is the same as
the oscillation applied to a radiator when in resonance.
Thus the logic has evolved back to the starting point ala the
arbitrary border used by Gauss.
I slept to 11 oc this morning but it was not because of you I did to
much mowing and there is still some left. If I just used the tractor I
would surely die
Best regards
Art

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:59:35 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

In building antennas, tank ciruits, etc., I very seldom whip out a
programmable scientific calculator and delve into the depths of the
maths which allow them to preform/function/"work."

And what do you do when they don't work? Cut-n-try is a rather
expensive way to build something that works. Given infinite time and
materials, it will eventually result in a functional antenna. You
could probably do that at HF frequencies where construction errors are
about equal to calculation errors. However, don't try it at microwave
frequencies. While it's possible to cut-n-try various microwave
structures, it's messy, difficult, prone to error, and not very
effective. The techniques used to build a coat hanger ground plane at
VHF just are not going to work at X-band.

The only way to get it close to right the first time is to calculate
first, calculate again, have someone check the calculations, drink
some wine, and check your calcs again. Then build it.

A few times, I have just grabbed up some tubing/wire a variable
condenser or two, and "eyeballed" the construction--past experience
provided "ballpark" figures/placements/wiring, testing, trimming and
adjusting got me the final result ...

Yep. That will work at HF because the lower frequencies allow for
much larger construction errors. Your antenna lengths could be off
many cm and still work. Your xmitter can also tolerate a substantial
VSWR and still be considered functional and useful. You match box
could be grossly inefficient trying to match your constructed antenna,
and work well enough. Now, try that at microwave frequencies, where
every milliwatt is precious, where VSWR is too crude and reflection
coefficient comes close to describing the ultimate goal of a perfect
match, and where cm errors are disastrous. Some broadband antennas
(helix and horn) are very forgiving and can be build fairly crudely.
Others (stripline, phased arrays, cavity backed antennas, etc) have a
higher Q and require more accuracy than the eyeball can provide.

Mainly, I point this out so as not to "obsfucate" that layman, or
discourage him ... the men who first started/awakened my interest in
such things never gave any indication, to me, they had an understanding
of calculus, only basic-math/algebra, and of course, geometry!

Same here. My original mentors were operators first and technical
types last. However, I saw the light (and the distinction) between
amateur and professional when I went to college and saw that radio
things were easier and better if they were calculated (and understood)
first. I have several humorous examples of hams operating in a
professional environment (engineering lab at a radio manufactory) and
failing miserably using cut-n-try methods popularized by ham radio.

Indeed, at least one passed away without ever expressing any real
interest in learning it!

There are suspicions that math may hasten one's demise. Perhaps he
tried to do a calculation before he died?

However, in Arts pursuits, an understanding would be a real advantage ...

Agreed. Once he gets that understanding, he can work on the
communications problem. Perhaps publish his works. After solving all
that, he can possibly consider the applications and implementations.
The twisted road towards technical nirvana is littered with the
wreckage of failed great ideas.

Incidentally, I was also going to bash your suggestion of ignoring
patents. Might as well add that to my rant.

Patent are confusing. Many of them are totally bogus. It's difficult
to recognize the difference. However, at the bottom of every garbage
dumpster lies a diamond. You have to sift through a huge amount of
garbage in order to find the gem, but it's worth it. Just because a
typical patent search returns bogus patents, doesn't mean you should
ignore them. Most technical patents are legitimate and worth
inspecting. If you want to know exactly how something works, the
patents are the place to start. I haven't had time to look at the
quantum comb filter antenna thing, but plan to do so eventually.

During the dot.com heyday, I was doing sanity checks and technological
assessments for a venture capitalist. Many business plans had
technical problems. Some were based on bogus patents. Some held
conflicting patents. Identifying these was more than the VC's staff
could handle. I did fairly well, but still managed to miss a few.
Anyway, sifting through patents was part of the exercise and a great
learning experience. Often, a patent looks legitimate, but has a
fatal flaw or omission in the middle of the claims. It's not easy. If
you have the patience, it's possible to find these.

Also, I assembled a small list of tech patents that appear to be
bogus. I was going to post the list on the web but my attorney
advised against it. Even holders of bogus patents can sue for
damages. Oh well.

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:34:23 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
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.

10-4 Gud Buddy! Didn't that already happen back in
the 60's when they took 11m away from hams?

Yep. Also the bottom of the 1296MHz band went to GPS because hams
couldn't do anything useful with it. Also most of the 220MHz band
went to ACSSB and inland waterways because it was under-utilized and
because the ARRL couldn't get it together on no-code licensing. We
almost lost the 2.4GHz band because the ARRL was going to demand
priority over unlicensed wi-fi operation, but that was averted when
the ARRL directors received a rare dose of common sense from unknown
sources.

Unfortunately, the common justification these days is that ham radio
is a service hobby. When was the last time that ham radio advanced
the state of the art? I have some examples, but they're sufficiently
obscure that none would be sufficient to justify ham radios continued
existence. There is some logic in using the ham bands as a proving
ground for new technologies. Metricom did exactly that, but rapidly
switched to commerical operation. It seems that such advanced
experimentation is discouraged by Part 97. Most of the progress today
is in HF digital modes. These have their own sub-bands by convention.
Also QRP operation, spacecom, CW, and weak signal sub-bands. Various
nets also operate on specific frequencies. It wouldn't be much of a
stretch to unofficially allocate a sub-band to the technically
challenged, such as the old Novice class sub-bands.

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.



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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 7:48*am, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 17, 8:52 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
I know books say a lot of things but do they explain WHY current
cannot flow thru the center?
snip
Art
If you do the differential equations, it doesn't say why the center
can't so much as why the skin does. *Similar to gravitation and water
flowing downhill vs uphill. *I'll go into detail if you can't figure it
out. *Or not.

tom
K0TAR

Please do. I would love to see your take on it. I am gratified that
somebody is tackling the problem
hopefully in laymans language so all can benefit. Possibly you could
start another thread as this one is greatly contaminated
I can then respond on my take of the matter and hopefully the flaw
will be exposed.
Regards
Art

I did not mean to imply I would explain the diff eqs. *That would
currently be a lost cause on you, because I am sure that I couldn't put
it in "layman's terms" - you need the math to understand it. *I meant
that I would explain why the 2 situations were similar, or not explain,
depending upon my mood.

To understand the situation, I would suggest that you start down the
calculus road. *The internet has to have tutorials on it. *Differential
equations look terribly obtuse, but they are an obtainable destination
down that road if you choose to follow it.

tom
K0TAR

Tom but I have put in terms of the layman so that should be paradise
to those skilled in mathematicWhen the good Doctor
frm MIT provided the mathemartic showing the correctness of logic I
proposed with respect to Gauss and Maxwellk
mathematics as a route of viability was rejected by all. That really
needs exposure to the group as it is the foundation of radiation.
The computor is a wonderful thing but if an arrow is pointed in the
wrong direction it then becmes useless.
Nearly finished the mowing
Art

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:26:18 GMT, "JB" wrote:

We know that the AC current in the antenna induces an
electromagnetic wave is sufficient for my purpose. Unless I can find
funding for renewed efforts... (wink nudge)

Funding is easy these days. All you need is an anti-terrorism or
disaster link. For example:
- Use of HF antennas for airport security.
- Antenna design optimized for disaster services.
- Survivable antenna design and construction.
While these topics are contrived, there has been considerable
rethinking of the basics in order to enhance survivability, tampering,
security, terrorist activities, general mayhem, and other post-911
buzzwords. I'm not sure this extends to basic concepts, but it's
possible. Something like:
- Re-evaluating E-M concepts in a post 911 world.
- Survey of antenna technology for optimum disaster communications.

You will need to use your imagination because all the obvious studies
have already been taken. Perhaps combining everything into:
- The effects of global warming, terrorism, economic collapse, and
natural disasters on antenna technology.
Try to emphasize the positive aspects such as the improved HF antenna
grounding provided by rising sea levels.

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Yep. Also the bottom of the 1296MHz band went to GPS because hams
couldn't do anything useful with it. Also most of the 220MHz band
went to ACSSB and inland waterways because it was under-utilized and
because the ARRL couldn't get it together on no-code licensing. We
almost lost the 2.4GHz band because the ARRL was going to demand
priority over unlicensed wi-fi operation, but that was averted when
the ARRL directors received a rare dose of common sense from unknown
sources.

Yer crocked! 1296 is fully utilized here and so was 220. People like YOU
who underutilized it and TOLD everyone it was underutilized are to blame for
US losing it!! Did you get a Ham license just so you could use 802.11/g on
channel 13?

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.

Bendict Arnold! Anarchist!! Anti-Ham!! Your web domain says it all!!
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 12:58*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:26:18 GMT, "JB" wrote:
We know that the AC current in the antenna induces an
electromagnetic wave is sufficient for my purpose. *Unless I can find
funding for renewed efforts... *(wink nudge)

Funding is easy these days. *All you need is an anti-terrorism or
disaster link. *For example:
- Use of HF antennas for airport security.
- Antenna design optimized for disaster services.
- Survivable antenna design and construction.
While these topics are contrived, there has been considerable
rethinking of the basics in order to enhance survivability, tampering,
security, terrorist activities, general mayhem, and other post-911
buzzwords. *I'm not sure this extends to basic concepts, but it's
possible. *Something like:
- Re-evaluating E-M concepts in a post 911 world.
- Survey of antenna technology for optimum disaster communications.

You will need to use your imagination because all the obvious studies
have already been taken. *Perhaps combining everything into:
- The effects of global warming, terrorism, economic collapse, and
* natural disasters on antenna technology.
Try to emphasize the positive aspects such as the improved HF antenna
grounding provided by rising sea levels.

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

Jeff you are a man after my own heart in your phillosophy . If I had
you
exposure of mathematics to replace what I have lost I would instantly
do what the good doctor did
and show the correllation of Maxwells laws to those of Gaussian static
laws when made dynamic
ie the addition of a radiator and a time varying field inside the
existing arbitrary boundary.
What the doctor showed has been totally rejected by this group without
I might had evidence to the contrary
Just....well....because. This is a throw back to the initiation of
mathematics where the Universe is founded on Equilibrium.
A pendulum when made long enough becomes sensative to changes in
equilibrium in a similar way to the action of a super conductor
Mathematics started with a balance exhib iting the ultimate of
equilibrium and the mathematician invented "nothing" by placing both
weights on one side
of a fulcrum. The long pendulum shows that sdame point when an eclipse
occurrs where the equilibrium is momentarily disturbed as its
boundaries are momentarily severed. Now we are pushing those same
limits with superconductivity where laws such as V =IR become
unmathomabble.
It is the same with antennas where all can realize that equilibrium
tho fragile with respect to the term stable will provide maximum
radiation but without resistance it is an imaginary term. Quadratics
shows two terms show up where one is imaginary ala zero resistance so
one moves to the other answer
anti resonance which is high knowing at the same time one can extend
the length of the wire( number of periods) to produce the sensitivity
of the extra
long pendulum which in mathematics follows the same laws. I use that
same thinking because it is part of a universal laws. Thus I extend
the length of wire used and at the same time balance the winding
directions such that lumped loads are added such that the impedance
and thus resonance goes down
as the number of wavelength goes up. Now I apply that same arrangement
to antenna programs that have free reign to modify the arrangement
according to the laws of Maxell based on equilibrium and the final
version of the four forces plus the particles ala the standard model.
The computor program which is designed around the standard model which
was modified to suit the present planar antenna of today is overjoyed
for being used for its initial use confirmes the arrangement produces
above. As a check the same arrangement is supplied to a nec4 set up
controlled by a academic and it againl passed the check.
Equilibrium cannot be discarded and all of the masters stipulate that
as the founding condition, yet the present world has rejected it in
favour of a computor
Shame Shame Shame. Now I finish off the mowing
Art Unwin ...KB9MZ...........xg
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote:


And what do you do when they don't work? Cut-n-try is a rather
expensive way to build something that works. Given infinite time and
materials, it will eventually result in a functional antenna. You
could probably do that at HF frequencies where construction errors are
about equal to calculation errors. However, don't try it at microwave
frequencies. While it's possible to cut-n-try various microwave
structures, it's messy, difficult, prone to error, and not very
effective. The techniques used to build a coat hanger ground plane at
VHF just are not going to work at X-band.


Well, ya', an adjustable whip(s) is good, especially with the cost of
copper and the pain in "resoldering your prunings." LOL

The only way to get it close to right the first time is to calculate
first, calculate again, have someone check the calculations, drink
some wine, and check your calcs again. Then build it.


You have wine? Why didn't you say so, that changes everything:

1) Put antennas away.

2) Have a glass of wine and contemplate the design/construction.

3) Repeat 2) until ALL wine is gone.

4) Take a nap.

5) Now get the antenna(s) back out and begin work ... LOL

A few times, I have just grabbed up some tubing/wire a variable
condenser or two, and "eyeballed" the construction--past experience
provided "ballpark" figures/placements/wiring, testing, trimming and
adjusting got me the final result ...

Yep. That will work at HF because the lower frequencies allow for
much larger construction errors. Your antenna lengths could be off
many cm and still work. Your xmitter can also tolerate a substantial
VSWR and still be considered functional and useful. You match box
could be grossly inefficient trying to match your constructed antenna,
and work well enough. Now, try that at microwave frequencies, where
every milliwatt is precious, where VSWR is too crude and reflection
coefficient comes close to describing the ultimate goal of a perfect
match, and where cm errors are disastrous. Some broadband antennas
(helix and horn) are very forgiving and can be build fairly crudely.
Others (stripline, phased arrays, cavity backed antennas, etc) have a
higher Q and require more accuracy than the eyeball can provide.


Or, to summarize, the more complex the antenna, the more meters you are
going to need ... LOL

Mainly, I point this out so as not to "obsfucate" that layman, or
discourage him ... the men who first started/awakened my interest in
such things never gave any indication, to me, they had an understanding
of calculus, only basic-math/algebra, and of course, geometry!

Same here. My original mentors were operators first and technical
types last. However, I saw the light (and the distinction) between
amateur and professional when I went to college and saw that radio
things were easier and better if they were calculated (and understood)
first. I have several humorous examples of hams operating in a
professional environment (engineering lab at a radio manufactory) and
failing miserably using cut-n-try methods popularized by ham radio.


Indeed, mine drank beer too! grin

Indeed, at least one passed away without ever expressing any real
interest in learning it!

There are suspicions that math may hasten one's demise. Perhaps he
tried to do a calculation before he died?


If away from my laptop, the programmable calculator is always in my
pocket! (I mean, my gawd man, I have space invaders on it!) straight-face

...

Also, I assembled a small list of tech patents that appear to be
bogus. I was going to post the list on the web but my attorney
advised against it. Even holders of bogus patents can sue for
damages. Oh well.


.... some patents are NOT what they used to be ... but then, there has
always been some suspicion about the politics involved, not to mention
courts ...

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Art Unwin wrote:

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.

Hi Art,

Which one was Newton's Law of Parity again? I'm drawing a blank.

Google had this:

Your search - "Newton's law of parity" - did not match any documents.

73, ac6xg

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 2:14*pm, John Smith wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

And what do you do when they don't work? *Cut-n-try is a rather
expensive way to build something that works. *Given infinite time and
materials, it will eventually result in a functional antenna. *You
could probably do that at HF frequencies where construction errors are
about equal to calculation errors. *However, don't try it at microwave
frequencies. *While it's possible to cut-n-try various microwave
structures, it's messy, difficult, prone to error, and not very
effective. *The techniques used to build a coat hanger ground plane at
VHF just are not going to work at X-band.

Well, ya', an adjustable whip(s) is good, especially with the cost of
copper and the pain in "resoldering your prunings." *LOL

The only way to get it close to right the first time is to calculate
first, calculate again, have someone check the calculations, drink
some wine, and check your calcs again. *Then build it.

You have wine? *Why didn't you say so, that changes everything:

1) Put antennas away.

2) Have a glass of wine and contemplate the design/construction.

3) Repeat 2) until ALL wine is gone.

4) Take a nap.

5) Now get the antenna(s) back out and begin work ... LOL



A few times, I have just grabbed up some tubing/wire a variable
condenser or two, and "eyeballed" the construction--past experience
provided "ballpark" figures/placements/wiring, testing, trimming and
adjusting got me the final result ...

Yep. *That will work at HF because the lower frequencies allow for
much larger construction errors. *Your antenna lengths could be off
many cm and still work. *Your xmitter can also tolerate a substantial
VSWR and still be considered functional and useful. *You match box
could be grossly inefficient trying to match your constructed antenna,
and work well enough. *Now, try that at microwave frequencies, where
every milliwatt is precious, where VSWR is too crude and reflection
coefficient comes close to describing the ultimate goal of a perfect
match, and where cm errors are disastrous. *Some broadband antennas
(helix and horn) are very forgiving and can be build fairly crudely.
Others (stripline, phased arrays, cavity backed antennas, etc) have a
higher Q and require more accuracy than the eyeball can provide.

Or, to summarize, the more complex the antenna, the more meters you are
going to need ... LOL

Mainly, I point this out so as not to "obsfucate" that layman, or
discourage him ... the men who first started/awakened my interest in
such things never gave any indication, to me, they had an understanding
of calculus, only basic-math/algebra, and of course, geometry!

Same here. *My original mentors were operators first and technical
types last. *However, I saw the light (and the distinction) between
amateur and professional when I went to college and saw that radio
things were easier and better if they were calculated (and understood)
first. *I have several humorous examples of hams operating in a
professional environment (engineering lab at a radio manufactory) and
failing miserably using cut-n-try methods popularized by ham radio.

Indeed, mine drank beer too! *grin

Indeed, at least one passed away without ever expressing any real
interest in learning it!

There are suspicions that math may hasten one's demise. *Perhaps he
tried to do a calculation before he died?

If away from my laptop, the programmable calculator is always in my
pocket! (I mean, my gawd man, I have space invaders on it!) *straight-face

* ...

Also, I assembled a small list of tech patents that appear to be
bogus. *I was going to post the list on the web but my attorney
advised against it. *Even holders of bogus patents can sue for
damages. *Oh well.

... some patents are NOT what they used to be ... but then, there has
always been some suspicion about the politics involved, not to mention
courts ...

Regards,
JS

JS
Mathematics is founded on the proposition of zero means nothing ONLY
if you ignore the presence of the weak force.
Thus mathematic has contaminated that which is the "equal" sign which
then is misused without the assumption of the underlying condition
You can cancell the effects of gravity but it is a lot different to
canceling the weak force.
Put scales on a bench to oppose gravity does nothing to neutralise the
weak force
Thus in mathematics you can obtain negative answers which is the
measure of the weak force which is contradictory
to the "term" nothing in celestial terms but possibly is O.K. in
polotics
The CERN project is based on the collision of particles of the same
polarity but without the constraints of sideways movement
but the electron is much smaller than the area taken by an electron so
to my mind there is no collision only contra or lamina
flow UNLESs the particles are of different polarities which some
theorise as equating to the big bang.!
Art
Have fun
Art

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
[stuff]

Forgot to mention, on those "real complex antennas", you are going to
need more wine too! ;-)

Just one more of those laws that Murphy forgot to mention.

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 2:25*pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
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.

Hi Art,

Which one was Newton's Law of Parity again? *I'm drawing a blank.

Google had this:

Your search - "Newton's law of parity" - did not match any documents.

73, ac6xg

I have been accused often in the using of the wrong term
In the case of Newtons law as action creates reaction or similar.
Then somebody mentioned the law of parity which I considered as being
on par with what Newton said
Now another poster mentioned that parity described a farming practice
which also featured the pursuit of balance and parity
with respect to prices. Thus when the term parity was used I thought
that was a regrinding of the english language which I am now exposed
to.
I now remove the association of parity in the Laws as stated by Newton
who lived in the UK and not in the USA.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......xg

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 2:47*pm, John Smith wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

[stuff]

Forgot to mention, on those "real complex antennas", you are going to
need more wine too! *;-)

Just one more of those laws that Murphy forgot to mention.

Regards,
JS

JS You know the saying that when one door closes another opens.
In my case starvation of oxogen to the brain was momentary such that
only the lines of communication
withered. Thus nothing was left to provide communication between the
different store houses of knowledge.
Due to experience the lines of communication of most people reflect
the motorways of New youk where the accumulation of intersections
allow misdirection of communication or the memory of where one was
originally going! Over a period of years where I concentrated on
antennas
as a method of rehab those missing communication lines were re
generated in reflection of my new experience as one would measure the
power of the growth of a babies brain. Thus my concentration on a
niche form of study is not impaired by the traffic jams of the past
which are now just decaying wreckage. Maybe the same is happening with
Hawkings. Ofcouse that leaves an opening for Dave that the decay
extended to the store houses of knowledge! My goodness isn't this
thread getting deep?
Best regards
Art

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Art Unwin wrote:

...
JS You know the saying that when one door closes another opens.
In my case starvation of oxogen to the brain was momentary such that
only the lines of communication
withered. Thus nothing was left to provide communication between the
different store houses of knowledge.
Due to experience the lines of communication of most people reflect
the motorways of New youk where the accumulation of intersections
allow misdirection of communication or the memory of where one was
originally going! Over a period of years where I concentrated on
antennas
as a method of rehab those missing communication lines were re
generated in reflection of my new experience as one would measure the
power of the growth of a babies brain. Thus my concentration on a
niche form of study is not impaired by the traffic jams of the past
which are now just decaying wreckage. Maybe the same is happening with
Hawkings. Ofcouse that leaves an opening for Dave that the decay
extended to the store houses of knowledge! My goodness isn't this
thread getting deep?
Best regards
Art

Yes Art, it is getting deep ...
sound-of-hip-waders-being-pulled-on ;-)

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:55:59 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I now remove the association of parity in the Laws as stated by Newton
who lived in the UK and not in the USA.

Yep. Newton's Laws of Motion are different on this side of the pond.

1. A particle will stay at rest or continue at a constant velocity
unless acted upon by revisionist politics, traffic laws, zoning
restrictions, local ordinances, or erroneous navigation information.

2. The net force on anything is equal to size of the politically
motivated masses multiplied by the sum total their campaign
contributions.

3. Every action has an equally reactionary opposition.

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 12:58*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:26:18 GMT, "JB" wrote:
We know that the AC current in the antenna induces an
electromagnetic wave is sufficient for my purpose. *Unless I can find
funding for renewed efforts... *(wink nudge)

Funding is easy these days. *All you need is an anti-terrorism or
disaster link. *For example:
- Use of HF antennas for airport security.
- Antenna design optimized for disaster services.
- Survivable antenna design and construction.
While these topics are contrived, there has been considerable
rethinking of the basics in order to enhance survivability, tampering,
security, terrorist activities, general mayhem, and other post-911
buzzwords. *I'm not sure this extends to basic concepts, but it's
possible. *Something like:
- Re-evaluating E-M concepts in a post 911 world.
- Survey of antenna technology for optimum disaster communications.

You will need to use your imagination because all the obvious studies
have already been taken. *Perhaps combining everything into:
- The effects of global warming, terrorism, economic collapse, and
* natural disasters on antenna technology.
Try to emphasize the positive aspects such as the improved HF antenna
grounding provided by rising sea levels.

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

Jeff if you have everything placed before you your enthuseasm will
wain.
There is nothing wrong in exactly following in MY footsteps you have
your own
bag of choices by not being a follower which enables you to challenge
each step of logic.
Fortunately in my case it was the foundation on which I built that was
the subject of
challengr despite evidence opresented to the contrary The foundation
upon which everything rest
is that the supposition of making Gaussian law of statics equal to the
dynamic field of Maxwell only requires the addition of a radiator
and a time varying field such that both are equal in physical and
mathematical form, from which point the details offered provide all
the relavent points of logic.
This group mainly of electrical engineers have been brought up on the
idea that statics are totally divorced from the mechanics of the
electrical curriculum
to the rejection of particle mechanics and towards the idea that
sciences all have diifferent laws to each other. Scientists understand
this but authors
have not got to the stage of placing those findings in books which are
initially provided by followers of science in the hope that some will
carry the flag forward instead of concentration on the accumulation of
wealth. If they can't read it in a book then it is not believable the
same way as a scientific paper will not be accepted that do not
prevail on previous thoughts. Initial thought is thus rejected by the
education of today. Academia will never accept anything
that is not received approval from their peers.
Thus without dragging them forcibly into the acception of change no
change will occur., where as, your expertise in mathematics can test
the logic to its limits which defy opposition
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.........xg

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:09:57 GMT, "JB" wrote:

Yep. Also the bottom of the 1296MHz band went to GPS because hams
couldn't do anything useful with it. Also most of the 220MHz band
went to ACSSB and inland waterways because it was under-utilized and
because the ARRL couldn't get it together on no-code licensing. We
almost lost the 2.4GHz band because the ARRL was going to demand
priority over unlicensed wi-fi operation, but that was averted when
the ARRL directors received a rare dose of common sense from unknown
sources.

Yer crocked! 1296 is fully utilized here and so was 220. People like YOU
who underutilized it and TOLD everyone it was underutilized are to blame for
US losing it!! Did you get a Ham license just so you could use 802.11/g on
channel 13?

Been licensed since about 1964. There was about a 7 year period where
I let my license lapse. Hmmm... I should probably let it lapse again
as I was profitable, happy, and optimistic during those 7 years.

About 8 ago, I setup several scanners and a computah to run long term
statistics on channel utiliziation for a variety of services. For
fun, I threw in some local VHF and UHF repeaters. For 14 daytime
hours (I used 6am to 8pm) median utilization on public safety
frequencies ran about 20%. Somewhat less for various shared
commerical repeaters. However, of the 5 or so ham repeaters I
monitored, utilization was well below 1% (less than 1.5hrs per day). I
didn't bother to do any 1.2GHz repeaters, but I'll guess from one that
I have in my scanner, it's probably even lower. I had no way to count
users per channel per day, but if I did it manually, I suspect ham
radio would also be scraping bottom. Many ham repeaters have only one
user.

For what it's worth, I consider myself party responsible for educating
at least one ARRL director on the realities of the FCC balancing the
300 million wi-fi users against perhaps a handfull of hams on 2.4GHz.

I don't use Channel 13 for Wi-Fi. It's an unlucky number (and not
legal in the US).

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.

Bendict Arnold! Anarchist!! Anti-Ham!! Your web domain says it all!!

Guilty as charged. If I can't be a part of the solution, I'll become
part of the problem.

Incidentally, the LearnByDestroying.com has nothing to do with ham
radio. A college I attended has the motto "Learn by Doing".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Polytechnic_State_University
That morphed into "Learn By Destroying" which seemed to be the
practice in the engineering department. Since graduating with a
rather substantial damage fee, I have adopted it as my personal motto.
If you haven't destroyed and later repaired it, you don't understand
how it works.


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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:14:31 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Well, ya', an adjustable whip(s) is good, especially with the cost of
copper and the pain in "resoldering your prunings." LOL

Incidentally, one of the tricks I learned (the hard way) was to
replace the mobile whip antenna with a piece of copper electrical
wire. Then cut it to length, tune, optimize, test and whatever. Once
the optimum length is established, replace the copper wire antenna
with the real stainless whip, cut to the exact same length.

You have wine? Why didn't you say so, that changes everything:

The antenna transfer function of wine is highly exponential and very
non-linear. A little wine will produce a superior antenna. However,
incremental increases in wine dosage will tend to have lesser effects.
At some threshold, additional can cause a substantial drop in
performance. It may even go negative. Think equilibrium.

Or, to summarize, the more complex the antenna, the more meters you are
going to need ... LOL

Kinda reminds me of a former tech. All day, he would spend his time
working with the latest state of the art test equipment in the lab.
After hours, he would drag out his ham radio, and tune the xmitter to
maximum using a light bulb dummy load. Attempts to convince him that
the company test equipment might be useful for dealing with his radios
were futile.

If away from my laptop, the programmable calculator is always in my
pocket! (I mean, my gawd man, I have space invaders on it!) straight-face

That doesn't leave much room for the pocket protector. I collect HP
calculators. There are numerous calculators scattered around the
office and house. No need to drag a calculator around.

... some patents are NOT what they used to be ... but then, there has
always been some suspicion about the politics involved, not to mention
courts ...

There's plenty wrong with patents that I don't wanna get into. Suffice
to say that it's very helpful to understand something about patents
before trying to create one. I'm just suggesting that you make the
effort to read patents.

Groan. I decide to stay home today to recover from my home cooking.
Outside, PG&E (the power company) and the local tree service just
arrived. There goes my power...





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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

"joe" wrote in message ...
Many antennas are built using tubing for light weight. So, if there is a
current flowing in the middle, it is good that the ends of the tubes are
crimped, or plugged. I wouldn't want the flowing electrons spilling out
onto my lawn.

thats why they put those plastic plugs on elements, to keep the magical
mystery dielectric particles from falling off instead of going back up the
middle... if you ever lose the plastic caps you will notice the antenna
starts leaking and the particles pileup in your yard making a real mess.

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...

Good luck. Let me know when you produce some logic, equations, or
numbers.

don't hold your breath, he hasn't produced anything logical and definitely
no equations for anything he has said.

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:04:25 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .

Good luck. Let me know when you produce some logic, equations, or
numbers.

don't hold your breath, he hasn't produced anything logical and definitely
no equations for anything he has said.

Not a problem. Neither have I.


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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 4:51*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:14:31 -0700, John Smith

wrote:
Well, ya', an adjustable whip(s) is good, especially with the cost of
copper and the pain in "resoldering your prunings." *LOL

Incidentally, one of the tricks I learned (the hard way) was to
replace the mobile whip antenna with a piece of copper electrical
wire. *Then cut it to length, tune, optimize, test and whatever. *Once
the optimum length is established, replace the copper wire antenna
with the real stainless whip, cut to the exact same length.

You have wine? *Why didn't you say so, that changes everything:

The antenna transfer function of wine is highly exponential and very
non-linear. *A little wine will produce a superior antenna. *However,
incremental increases in wine dosage will tend to have lesser effects.
At some threshold, additional can cause a substantial drop in
performance. *It may even go negative. *Think equilibrium.

Or, to summarize, the more complex the antenna, the more meters you are
going to need ... LOL

Kinda reminds me of a former tech. *All day, he would spend his time
working with the latest state of the art test equipment in the lab.
After hours, he would drag out his ham radio, and tune the xmitter to
maximum using a light bulb dummy load. *Attempts to convince him that
the company test equipment might be useful for dealing with his radios
were futile.

If away from my laptop, the programmable calculator is always in my
pocket! (I mean, my gawd man, I have space invaders on it!) *straight-face

That doesn't leave much room for the pocket protector. *I collect HP
calculators. *There are numerous calculators scattered around the
office and house. *No need to drag a calculator around.

... some patents are NOT what they used to be ... but then, there has
always been some suspicion about the politics involved, not to mention
courts ...

There's plenty wrong with patents that I don't wanna get into. Suffice
to say that it's very helpful to understand something about patents
before trying to create one. *I'm just suggesting that you make the
effort to read patents.

Groan. *I decide to stay home today to recover from my home cooking.
Outside, PG&E (the power company) and the local tree service just
arrived. *There goes my power...

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

Jeff we all make mistakes by over estimating ones ability
In making one of my antennas I made a last minuit change just in time
before I finished the antenna
It was some weeks before that antenna was tested on the air in
Australia
That test proved that reprocity with respect to radiation is not a
given!.
I had neutralised the weak force such that particles could arrive but
not depart!
Yes it was an error on my part but it didn't rule out the value of
experimentationj.
Has anybody got a use for such an antenna?. This error in many ways
provided
proof that the trail I followed was coirrect. This is why I have
delayed the sending of a antenna to AC6XG
as the correction took over some of my free time. But Jim understands
what happened not necessarily why.
as he does have trust and an open mind as well as my respect.
When I supplied an antenna to the U of I I gave them a sample of the
same antenna in Australia
because of their treatment towards me and comments made in advance of
getting the antenna.
Thus I gave them exactly what they expected to get based on pre
examine comments similar to those of this group
He who laughs last laughs longer and forever. Something like getting a
bunch of wire with lip stick all over it
Best regards
Art Unwin....KB9MZ.......xg

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 4:58*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"joe" wrote in ...
Many antennas are built using tubing for light weight. So, if there is a
current flowing in the middle, it is good that the ends of the tubes are
crimped, or plugged. I wouldn't want the flowing electrons spilling out
onto my lawn.

thats why they put those plastic plugs on elements, to keep the magical
mystery dielectric particles from falling off instead of going back up the
middle... if you ever lose the plastic caps you will notice the antenna
starts leaking and the particles pileup in your yard making a real mess.

If the inside is covered with an eddy current field the particle
cannot get to the aluminum
which debunks the idea that the electron can penetrate evreything.
Forgeting the fact that it is searching for a
diamagnetic surface to rest upon. The same situyation is repeated
inside a wave guide.
Do you think I could put "Doc' with my name to impress people?
Art Unwin...KB9MZ

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Dave wrote:

...
don't hold your breath, he hasn't produced anything logical and definitely
no equations for anything he has said.

Now let me analyze this and see ...

1) He is dealing with matters/effects/theories/speculations which
universities/physicists/scholars/mathematician/theorists/amateurs/etc.
are working/speculating/experimenting on.

2) Usually actions/effects/affects/phenomenon are observed before it
even occurs to anyone to design an equation or formula about it.

3) Some speculations will, obviously, be incorrect or partially correct
and need rethinking, or scraped and new ones advanced.

4) Etc., etc.

Nope, you are quite correct ... he hasn't. However, to some, the
reason(s) will be quite obvious; for others, it may take a bit longer ...

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 5:04*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message

...

Good luck. *Let me know when you produce some logic, equations, or
numbers.

don't hold your breath, he hasn't produced anything logical and definitely
no equations for anything he has said.

Oh David emotion has got such a hold on you that you can't think
straight.
In one of the management classes I took they said if an employee can
not be calmed
always protect the path to exit. Medics say that anger or emotion can
shut down the route
to the house of logic in the human brain such that logic cannot come
into being.
Seams like the human brain is subdivided into physical block of
knoweledge
This explains why a baby learnes to walk quicker than a grown man with
experience
and tangled information routes.. You need a 2 by 4 to shake things up
Think about that Dave
Still your friend
Art

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:35:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Incidentally, the LearnByDestroying.com has nothing to do with ham
radio. A college I attended has the motto "Learn by Doing".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Polytechnic_State_University
That morphed into "Learn By Destroying" which seemed to be the
practice in the engineering department. Since graduating with a
rather substantial damage fee, I have adopted it as my personal motto.
If you haven't destroyed and later repaired it, you don't understand
how it works.

Oops. Wrong Cal Poly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Polytechnic_University,_Pomona
The San Luis Obispo motto of "Discere Faciendo" which is Latin for "To
Learn by Doing" was once the motto for both skools. The motto and
seal for Pomona changed when the skools split in the 1960's to
"Instrumentum Disciplinae" which is Latin for "Application of
Knowledge". This was often incorrectly interpreted as "Instrument of
Discipline" as indicated by the hammer and mace like weapons in the
logos.


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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:28:18 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

...where as, your expertise in mathematics can test
the logic to its limits which defy opposition

Ok, let's test your logic. So far, I've seen exactly one prediction
of yours worth testing. It's you claim that current flows primarily
in the center of a conductor. Avoiding the math for now, let's do the
necessary thought experiments. If this were a court of law, the judge
would prepare a set of rhetorical questions, all of which must be true
if the plaintiffs claims were true. I'll do the same.

1. If current flows along the inside of a wire, and not on the
outside, how does the field radiate through the alleged non-conducting
outer part of the wires? The radiation would be trapped inside the
conductor, only to perhaps emerge at ends.

2. If current flow along the inside of a wire, then it would seem
that increasing the effective diameter of the conductor would have no
effect on its impedance. Measurements of the Q of large diameter
conductors versus small diameter conductors have show that impedance
goes down with an increase in wire diameter.

3. How does a cage antenna work? The effective diameter is huge, but
there's a giant hole in the middle, through which no current is
conducted. If most of the RF current flowed through the center, and
there is no center, then a cage antenna can't work.

I can conjur a few more rhetorical questions, but these should be
sufficient to illustrate the problem. Your antenna current
distribution model does not fit very well with tested reality.

Got any more prediction? I need the target practice.

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 7:02*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:28:18 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
...where as, your expertise in mathematics can test
the logic to its limits which defy opposition


I am having a go at this before I read the questions!!!!


Ok, let's test your logic. *So far, I've seen exactly one prediction
of yours worth testing. *It's you claim that current flows primarily
in the center of a conductor. *Avoiding the math for now, let's do the
necessary thought experiments. *If this were a court of law, the judge
would prepare a set of rhetorical questions, all of which must be true
if the plaintiffs claims were true. *I'll do the same.


1. *If current flows along the inside of a wire, and not on the
outside, how does the field radiate through the alleged non-conducting
outer part of the wires? *The radiation would be trapped inside the
conductor, only to perhaps emerge at end
Answer
Not so a length of radiator which is a fractional wavelenth will have
charges in motion on the outside creating radiation
the rest of the charge length will be inside the radiator where a
magnetic field cannot be created and particles if they were present
cannot pierce the eddy current on the surface. For radiation at all
times the radiator must be a wavelength or multiple thereof or a
period of the frequency in use for radiation to not disappear from the
surface where the levitating force is present to eject particles



2. *If current flow along the inside of a wire, then it would seem
that increasing the effective diameter of the conductor would have no
effect on its impedance. *Measurements of the Q of large diameter
conductors versus small diameter conductors have show that impedance
goes down with an increase in wire diameter.

Answer
Not so. the increase in diameter does not affect conditions that are
exposed to air
thus the progression of skin depth is the same. Thus copper losses on
the inside circuit
will be reduced as well as lost radiation resistance in the circuit. I
previously stated that
copper losses on the inside of a fractional wavelength antenna must be
considered separately from the groundplain resistance
which is required i.e. they are two separate resistances in series.

Answer



3. *How does a cage antenna work? *The effective diameter is huge, but
there's a giant hole in the middle, through which no current is
conducted. *If most of the RF current flowed through the center, and
there is no center, then a cage antenna can't work.

I am not familiar with a cage antenna but from the above description
is
that it is transformed into a Farady cage

Answer

I can conjur a few more rhetorical questions, but these should be
sufficient to illustrate the problem. *Your antenna current
distribution model does not fit very well with tested reality.

Hmm why not?

Got any more prediction? *I need the target practice.
Yes
Earlier I pointed to the fact that eddy current can be neutralised
such that particles canot be ejected from the surface
Indeependent testing showed there was nothing to prevent particles
from settling on a diamagnetic substance thereby inducing
an oscillation . At the same time on the transmitting side the
particles were still present on the diamagnetic surface because the
ejection force
was neutralised thus preventing ejection otherwise seen as
transmission.

Another one
The computor on the first example disapointed me as I expected a
higher gain (stated on this net)When I corrected the nullification of
the foucault current by separation the computor program gave the gain
I initiall expected in gun shot form which migrates in a way to a
lazer ray which is oif a similar science
thus HF does not necessarily have to diverge such that gain is
nullified.



If you want more target to aim at listen for the BIG BANG and then aim
at the resulting BLACK HOLE

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

Art

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 8:52*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 18, 7:02*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:28:18 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
...where as, your expertise in mathematics can test
the logic to its limits which defy opposition

I am having a go at this before I read the questions!!!!



Ok, let's test your logic. *So far, I've seen exactly one prediction
of yours worth testing. *It's you claim that current flows primarily
in the center of a conductor. *Avoiding the math for now, let's do the
necessary thought experiments. *If this were a court of law, the judge
would prepare a set of rhetorical questions, all of which must be true
if the plaintiffs claims were true. *I'll do the same.

1. *If current flows along the inside of a wire, and not on the
outside, how does the field radiate through the alleged non-conducting
outer part of the wires? *The radiation would be trapped inside the
conductor, only to perhaps emerge at end

Answer
Not so a length of radiator which is a fractional wavelenth will have
charges in motion on the outside creating radiation
the rest of the charge length will be inside the radiator where a
magnetic field cannot be created and particles if they were present
cannot pierce the eddy current on the surface. For radiation at all
times the radiator must be a wavelength or multiple thereof or a
period of the frequency in use for radiation to not disappear from the
surface where the levitating force is present to eject particles



2. *If current flow along the inside of a wire, then it would seem
that increasing the effective diameter of the conductor would have no
effect on its impedance. *Measurements of the Q of large diameter
conductors versus small diameter conductors have show that impedance
goes down with an increase in wire diameter.

Answer
Not so. the increase in diameter does not affect conditions *that are
exposed to air
thus the progression of skin depth is the same. Thus copper losses on
the inside circuit
will be reduced as well as lost radiation resistance in the circuit. I
previously stated that
copper losses on the inside of a fractional wavelength antenna must be
considered separately from the groundplain resistance
which is required i.e. they are two separate resistances in series.

Answer



3. *How does a cage antenna work? *The effective diameter is huge, but
there's a giant hole in the middle, through which no current is
conducted. *If most of the RF current flowed through the center, and
there is no center, then a cage antenna can't work.

I am not familiar with a cage antenna but from the above description
is
*that it is transformed into a Farady cage

Answer



I can conjur a few more rhetorical questions, but these should be
sufficient to illustrate the problem. *Your antenna current
distribution model does not fit very well with tested reality.

Hmm why not?

Got any more prediction? *I need the target practice.

Yes
Earlier I pointed to the fact that eddy current can be neutralised
such that particles canot be ejected from the surface
Indeependent testing showed there was nothing to prevent particles
from settling on a diamagnetic substance thereby inducing
an oscillation . At the same time on the transmitting side the
particles were still present on the diamagnetic surface because the
ejection force
was neutralised thus preventing ejection otherwise seen as
transmission.

Another one
The computor on the first example disapointed me as I expected a
higher gain (stated on this net)When I corrected the nullification of
the foucault current by separation the computor program gave the gain
I initiall expected in gun shot form which migrates in a way to a
lazer ray which is oif a similar science
thus HF does not necessarily have to diverge such that gain is
nullified.

If you want more target to aim at listen for the BIG BANG and then aim
at the resulting BLACK HOLE



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

Art

Here is another on per Newton for stabalization ech action has an
opposite
reaction. I have pointed to the construct to represent these two
forces where the
rotators are at right angles to each other as with the Foucault
current.
On a terrstial scale tidal forces must also produce eddy currents of
circulating water.
Such large areas have beem found lately of the coast of Spain which is
now widening the search
rather than relying on idle reports from shipping. Since weather is
also in terrestial form a storm force
by definition requires the same force for stabalisation thus the whirl
pool and the tornado. Note the reaction force is sometimes swamped by
the
providing force by paramagnetic effects tho with respect to tornadoes
droplets of water as well as the particles at rest are drawn up into
the sky where water as a diamagnetic material provides a shift in
energy of a static form. Jeff everything seems to mesh with what I am
disclosing In addition when the droplets of water gets colder and
turns to ice the resident particles are forced to find a new home and
gyrate towards water which trees and humans consist of. The contained
energy of such particles is so small that it is inconseivable that
serch for a new resting place would contain energy of stellar size
but the movement of such particles at a high speed would provide
harmonic motion to the particles to generate a swarth of different
frequencies.
And it gos on and on
Art