|
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 18, 9:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
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 Added observation In the UK it is not unusual after a storm to find isolated patches of frogs etc far from their normal habitat A frog consists mainly of water upon which the surface is covered with particles such that the frog is drawn up in the Newton cycle. Unfortunately the frog does not freeze such that the particles need to move away. Unfortunately the frog falls a long way back to the ground again. The same thing has happened with fish and frogspawn after a storm Art |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 18, 9:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
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 Another prediction Particles are known to collect in bunches where the bunch contains three basic electrons bound together by the force of colour which is known to be very strong Ofcourse not all of the particles bunch together as previously stated. When the color bound bunch of electrons come into contact with a strong magnetic field, the strongest being at the poles the electons are torn apart releasing the binding energy in a aurora that spreads for thousands of miles. In the case of a lazer on can imagine that that same particle is similar to others but with the vestiges of color and we know that the energy emmitted dose not fan out giving strength to my antenna which also gravitate to a non spreading relation ship. And it goes on and on and.. Art |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 18, 9:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
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 It is argued that emmisission from the Sun consist of Leptons which have different flavours I submit that what you are seing is neutrinos which by virture of the coupling forces with other neutrinos which generate different "flavours" Some bunches provide a coupling force and thus produces what is termed a coupling force of three primary colors Tho arora is a result of separation there is noo reason to believe that only single particles make it to earth even tho colour is distincly ly a part of polar aurora. In the case of light or lazer ejection the final color depends on the coupling between neutros and the primary color binding thst they posses Thus lepton are nothing but smoke equivalentsin single or different bunching form which while the sun is burning will continue to be emitted by the sun as the arbitrary boundary expands and release particles to re attain equilibrium. When a eruption occurrs within the sun occurrs the escaping particles also include particles of a 100 percent energy with respect to life of the particle. It is when such erruptions occur local networks are in danger with the settling of particles with a high degree of energy which can over load the network and create failure. At the sam etime such an erruption is a reflection of the number of short life particles which are suitable for particle ejection because they aproach the static level of energy such that they can be ejected or levitated. All of this can be deduced by the use of an arbtrary field as used by Gauss with the addition of observations seen in his future to which he was not privy to. Maxwell did not use the arbritary border system as he was a mathematician combining number combinations for simplification. Fortunately all the laws of others with which he played with included a vevtor required to fill the gap in the vector arrangement so it would conform with Newtons law even tho they could not explain what the missing vector represented. If other scientists did not include this vector which was absent in their observations then Maxwells laws would eventually prove to be useless. And it goes on and on and Goodnight Art Unwin KB9MZ.......xg Tomorrow honey dooo's |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 18, 10:44*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 18, 9:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote: 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 It is argued that emmisission from the Sun consist of Leptons which have different flavours I submit that what you are seing is neutrinos which by virture of the coupling forces with other neutrinos which generate different "flavours" Some bunches provide a coupling force and thus produces what is termed a coupling force of three primary colors Tho arora is a result of separation there is noo reason to believe that only single particles make it to earth even tho colour is distincly ly a part of polar aurora. In the case of light or lazer ejection the final color depends on the coupling between neutros and the primary color binding thst they posses Thus lepton are nothing but smoke equivalentsin single or different bunching form which while the sun is burning will continue to be emitted by the sun as the arbitrary boundary expands and release particles to re attain equilibrium. When a eruption occurrs within the sun occurrs the escaping particles also include particles of a 100 percent energy with respect to life of the particle. It is when such erruptions occur local networks are in danger *with the settling of particles with a high degree of energy which can over load the network and create failure. At the sam etime such an erruption is a reflection of the number of short life particles which are suitable for particle ejection because they aproach the static level of energy such that they can be ejected or levitated. All of this can be deduced by the use of an arbtrary field as used by Gauss with the addition of observations seen in his future to which he was not privy to. Maxwell did not use the arbritary border system as he was a mathematician combining number combinations for simplification. Fortunately all the laws of others with which he played with included a vevtor required to fill the gap in the vector arrangement so it would conform with Newtons law even tho they could not explain what the missing vector represented. If other scientists did not include this vector which was absent in their observations then Maxwells laws would eventually prove to be useless. And it goes on and on and Goodnight Art Unwin KB9MZ.......xg Tomorrow honey dooo's Yuno I am not fully convinced that Gauss did not provide the extension to the law of Statics as circumstances point to unsatisfactory performance by his assistant. Gauss primarily a mathematician interested in astomanry. visited a friend in Italy whose interest was in magnetics so it was natural during his stay that Gauss would cooperate in the work even tho it was far from his choice of interest. It was at that time that the law of statics evolved which is some distance from magnetism so I see no reason why he would not have added my extension. Unfortunatelly his mathematical talents was not producing enough money to live and it is believed by some that this was due to his assistant not putting Gauss's notes in order for publishing. Gauss was offered a job in a Itallian observatory and his dabbling in magnetism and associated areas came to a halt or abandoned. After Gaus died his former assistant appeared on the scientific scene with discoveries that many considered beyond his interlect which then produced rumors that finally faded away. So in away what I am relating is a detective story of the fraudulent happenings of yesteryear where the penalty of fraud was never enacted because of death. I know science blabber with no proof but it would make for a good detective story or sci fi. Maybe I found those very notes and is now claiming them as solely mine and possibly a distant relative of the fraudulent nature. David now is your chance, redirect your energies so justice comes about Art |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:52:26 -0700 (PDT), 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!!!! A go at what? That was your statement that I quoted. 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 Due to the length of your extended sentences, I have to edit them in sections to extract individual concepts. a length of radiator which is a fractional wavelenth will have charges in motion on the outside I thought you said that fractional wavelength antennas have maximum current on the inside of the conductor. (I'm lazy and don't want to search for the specific quote). Please decide if it's inside or 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. Particles? Where do I get a bottle of RF? Eddy currents only occur when there is an opposing magnetic field restricting the flow of electrons. You might have such a problem in a transformer design, but nobody designs match boxes, xformers, and antennas that way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_current RF current flows on the outside of a conductor whether it's shorter or longer than one wavelength long. Show me a formula where there's a break point at 1 wavelength. 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 Particles? Where do I get a bottle of RF? My 80 meter antenna is considerably shorter than one wavelength. No loading coils but a suitable match box. Are you telling me that my antenna does not radiate? 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. the increase in diameter does not affect conditions that are exposed to air thus the progression of skin depth is the same. My antennas are not affected by air. The dielectric constant of air and a vacuum are sufficiently close to be considered identical. How does the Q or impedance of an antenna change when exposed to air? Thus copper losses on the inside circuit will be reduced as well as lost radiation resistance in the circuit. What inside circuit? Do you mean the inside of the conductor? Radiation resistance is increased or decreased, not lost. It's not a quantity that can be bottled or sold. 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. Why must they be considered separately? My radiation resistance calculations are the vector sum of the antenna impedance and any resistive losses that present in the conductors. The radiation resistance is not a resistance that can be added. It's an impedance that has a phase angle that must be added as a vector. 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 Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cage_antenna http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2001/05/03/2/ http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=144503 (see drawing) It's usually an HF dipole with insulating spreaders at each end. One wire per spreader. This creates an effective wire diameter equal to the spreader diameter without the necessity of using a huge piece of tubing. The large effective conductor diameter increases the operating bandwidth of the antenna. No effect on the gain or pattern. No, I don't mean an elephant cage antenna: http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/an-flr-9.htm http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:%2F%2Fbbs.keyhole.com%2Fubb%2Fdownload .php%3FNumber%3D112921&t=k&om=1&ie=UTF8&ll=61.2645 8,-149.847829&spn=0.00654,0.01914&z=16 I want one... 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? Because I don't have infinite amounts of time to continue doing this. I supplied 3 examples of common measurements and constructs that do not fit into your model of current being maximum at the center of a conductor. That will have to suffice for now, or at least until I need some more entertainment. 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 That's fine. Now, how do I measure those eddy currents? How are they calculated? What affects their value. Where do I get a bottle of RF particles? Indeependent testing showed there was nothing to prevent particles from settling on a diamagnetic substance thereby inducing an oscillation . An antenna by itself cannot oscillate (except maybe in the wind). If particles "settled" on the antenna, its weight would increase. How much? Are you familiar with the definition of diamagnetic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism Copper is non-magnetic. None of my antennas levitate themselves. Diamagnetism will not create oscillations. 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. Huh? What ejection force. If there were an ejecting or levitation force on a copper antenna, it would be measurable. How? Another one The computor on the first example disapointed me as I expected a higher gain (stated on this net) Here we agree. Measured gain always seems to be less than calculated gain. That's due to the myriad of minor factors left out of the calculations. When I corrected the nullification of the foucault current by separation the computor program gave the gain Separation from what? Foucault current is exactly the same as eddy current. Since your separate computer program generated numbers, could I trouble you for the results? Incidentally, eddy currents are always losses, not gains. 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. Brain overload. Cannot compute. Error....error....error... imminent meltdown predicted.... abort... abort... pfffffffzt! If you want more target to aim at listen for the BIG BANG and then aim at the resulting BLACK HOLE Too late. My brain just collapsed into a black hole and will soon go super nova. -- 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
A vector diagram that shows a charge at rest on the surface of a
radiator which shows that there is no opposing vector at the center. Then we have a radiator that is not in equilibrium. In that case i would place a vector on the surface and another vector at the center. Thus charges are in motion both on the outside and the inside of the radiator.I base this on the reasoning that the inner resistance is less than 377 where an arc is produced at the ends. the idea that the leading edge of current flow will reverse at the radiator ends and oppose the trailing current is just beyond my thinking as you do not have a closed circuit. I have not seen an illustration that shows current that reverses upon itself in a open circuit. Regards Art Art, I am totally confused. I don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you explain what you mean by the term "Vector"? For something to be called a vector it must meet a number of precise mathematical criteria. Note the "Formal definition" at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space 73, Frank |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... 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! Now that is worth a nobel prize! publish that and get it peer reviewed in a respectable physics journal and i will personally nominate you for a nobel! |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... In one of the management classes I took Oh, so that is what is wrong with you... sorry I didn't know you had a serious handicap, I'll go easier on you from now on. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... It is argued that emmisission from the Sun consist of Leptons which have different flavours do they come in cherry? Some bunches provide a coupling force and thus produces what is termed a coupling force of three primary colors I prefer puce, or maybe mauve... do they come in those colors? Tho arora is a result of separation there is noo reason to believe that only single particles make it to earth even tho colour is distincly ly a part of polar aurora. now thats an interesting theory... aurora represents the quark colors! why didn't i think of that one! unfortunately art, this one IS well known and studied and is obviously the excitation of oxygen and nitrogen by the highly charged particles in the solar wind captured in the earth's magnetic field..... sorry, too technical? i forgot you had the management handicap and couldn't read that many technical words in a row... i'll try to be more careful in the future. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... David now is your chance, redirect your energies so justice comes about yep, now it makes much more sense. art's management background now explains much of his behavior perfectly... this is the final necessary step, reassigning the underling to a worthless project to remove them from the productive project. It also explains the endless flow of technobabble, the grabbing on to recent events that have neat new buzzwords to add into his vocabulary, and the utter lack of understanding of basic principles. yes art, I'm glad you finally revealed the management background, it makes this all come into perfect focus. now we can all help you to continue your rise up the ladder to your maximum level of incompetence, or is that incontinence?? no, must be incompetence since everyone knows managers have a high bladder to brain ratio so can outlast everyone else at meetings... that must carry over to newsgroup posting also, you can sit at the keyboard and babble on longer than any of us that have a much lower bladder to brain ratio. come to think of it... gotta run... nice wx coming this weekend so I won't be around much, please go easy on the rest of the audience, they may not understand the management handicap as well. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 18, 11:23*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:52:26 -0700 (PDT), 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!!!! A go at what? *That was your statement that I quoted. 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 Due to the length of your extended sentences, I have to edit them in sections to extract individual concepts. a length of radiator which is a fractional wavelenth will have charges in motion on the outside I thought you said that fractional wavelength antennas have maximum current on the inside of the conductor. *(I'm lazy and don't want to search for the specific quote). *Please decide if it's inside or 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. Particles? *Where do I get a bottle of RF? Eddy currents only occur when there is an opposing magnetic field restricting the flow of electrons. *You might have such a problem in a transformer design, but nobody designs match boxes, xformers, and antennas that way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_current RF current flows on the outside of a conductor whether it's shorter or longer than one wavelength long. *Show me a formula where there's a break point at 1 wavelength. 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 Particles? *Where do I get a bottle of RF? My 80 meter antenna is considerably shorter than one wavelength. *No loading coils but a suitable match box. *Are you telling me that my antenna does not radiate? 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. the increase in diameter does not affect conditions *that are exposed to air thus the progression of skin depth is the same. My antennas are not affected by air. *The dielectric constant of air and a vacuum are sufficiently close to be considered identical. *How does the Q or impedance of an antenna change when exposed to air? Thus copper losses on the inside circuit will be reduced as well as lost radiation resistance in the circuit. What inside circuit? *Do you mean the inside of the conductor? Radiation resistance is increased or decreased, not lost. *It's not a quantity that can be bottled or sold. 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. Why must they be considered separately? *My radiation resistance calculations are the vector sum of the antenna impedance and any resistive losses that present in the conductors. *The radiation resistance is not a resistance that can be added. *It's an impedance that has a phase angle that must be added as a vector. 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 Nope. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cage_antenna http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2001/05/03/2/ http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=144503 (see drawing) It's usually an HF dipole with insulating spreaders at each end. *One wire per spreader. *This creates an effective wire diameter equal to the spreader diameter without the necessity of using a huge piece of tubing. *The large effective conductor diameter increases the operating bandwidth of the antenna. *No effect on the gain or pattern. No, I don't mean an elephant cage antenna: http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/an-flr-9.htm http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:%2F%2Fbbs.keyhole.com%2Fubb%2Fdown.... I want one... 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? Because I don't have infinite amounts of time to continue doing this. I supplied 3 examples of common measurements and constructs that do not fit into your model of current being maximum at the center of a conductor. *That will have to suffice for now, or at least until I need some more entertainment. 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 That's fine. *Now, how do I measure those eddy currents? *How are they calculated? *What affects their value. *Where do I get a bottle of RF particles? Indeependent testing showed there was nothing to prevent particles from settling on a diamagnetic substance thereby inducing an oscillation . An antenna by itself cannot oscillate (except maybe in the wind). *If particles "settled" on the antenna, its weight would increase. *How much? Are you familiar with the definition of diamagnetic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism Copper is non-magnetic. *None of my antennas levitate themselves. Diamagnetism will not create oscillations. 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. Huh? *What ejection force. *If there were an ejecting or levitation force on a copper antenna, it would be measurable. *How? * Another one The computor on the first example disapointed me as I expected a higher gain (stated on this net) Here we agree. *Measured gain always seems to be less than calculated gain. *That's due to the myriad of minor factors left out of the calculations. When I corrected the nullification of the foucault current by separation the computor program gave the gain Separation from what? *Foucault current is exactly the same as eddy current. *Since your separate computer program generated numbers, could I trouble you for the results? *Incidentally, eddy currents are always losses, not gains. 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. Brain overload. *Cannot compute. *Error....error....error... imminent meltdown predicted.... abort... abort... pfffffffzt! If you want more target to aim at listen for the BIG BANG and then aim at the resulting BLACK HOLE Too late. *My brain just collapsed into a black hole and will soon go super nova. -- Jeff Liebermann * * 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558 So I made a mistake with you I can move on Art |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 19, 12:17*am, "Frank" wrote:
A vector diagram that shows a charge at rest on the surface of a radiator which shows that there is no opposing vector at the center. Then we have a radiator that is not in equilibrium. In that case i would place a vector on the surface and another vector at the center. Thus charges are in motion both on the outside and the inside of the radiator.I base this on the reasoning that the inner resistance is less than 377 where an arc is produced at the ends. the idea that the leading edge of current flow will reverse at the radiator ends and oppose the trailing current is just beyond my thinking as you do not have a closed circuit. I have not seen an illustration that shows current that reverses upon itself in a open circuit. Regards Art Art, I am totally confused. *I don't understand what you are trying to say. *Can you explain what you mean by the term "Vector"? *For something to be called a vector it must meet a number of precise mathematical criteria. *Note the "Formal definition" at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space 73, *Frank A vetor diagram in my mind evolves around Newtons laws All forces (vectors) forces when summed must equal zero. Whether their is a triange or a polygon of forces it always leaves a gap whuch thus provides a vector required to make he arrangement equal zero and in a state of equilibrium. The masters always followed this aproach to determine if equilibrium was present by vectorizing all the forces known within a arbitrary border. They always came up with an unclosed vector arrangement even tho it met the requirements of equilibrium. So all filled in the gap o arrive at the starting point and labelled this unknown vector that they were forced to provide as the weak force required for equilibrium to satisfy Newtons law. Regards Art |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:12:03 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: So I made a mistake with you Jeff, from Hero to Zero in 211 posts. It was funny the first time, now its boring and Art still can't originate a single question with its answer to prepare an examination that contains "equilibrium." This is all one very elaborate Troll. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:45:13 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote: On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:12:03 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: So I made a mistake with you Jeff, from Hero to Zero in 211 posts. It was funny the first time, now its boring and Art still can't originate a single question with its answer to prepare an examination that contains "equilibrium." Yep. That's what I get for trying to be helpful, an ever increasing and more elaborate word salad of technobabble. My contributions certainly didn't help. Now I know how Victor Frankenstein felt when he intended to create life, and ended up instead creating a monster. This is all one very elaborate Troll. Yeah, but I'm still jealous. I can't juggle technical terms as well as Art has demonstrated. It didn't take much effort to see how the smooth transition between multiple topics was implemented. No sentence has a single subject or action. By splicing two disconnected subjects or actions into a single sentence, each sentence can seamlessly transition from one topic to another. The next sentence picks up the 2nd subject from the previous sentence, and then adds a 3rd subject, ad infinitum. That has the benefit of it being very difficult to refute or even discuss two subject simultaneously, without first surgically dissecting each sentence into at least two parts. I attempted to do that in my previous posting, with only marginal effectiveness. I think I now have enough material to effectively study the technique. It should be quite useful for writing business plans, patent applications, and research reports. I would like to thank Art for the material and apologize to the other readers for becoming part of the problem. -- 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
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote: I think I now have enough material to effectively study the technique. It should be quite useful for writing business plans, patent applications, and research reports. I would like to thank Art for the material and apologize to the other readers for becoming part of the problem. Jeff: I wonder what the bafflegab would be like if Art had an IEEE dictionary!!!!! Mike W5CHR Memphis Tenn |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 18, 1:40*pm, Jeff Liebermann
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. I could go along with that. Let them use amateur power amps as well; at least that would legalize their power amp hardware. Also, I think CBers do have something to contribute in the construction of some of those antennas those guys use; some are trash but others are fairly imaginative at maximizing output power at that frequency. Also those cheap Galaxy amps. Ise use one myself when I put 10m in my car. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
A vetor diagram in my mind evolves around Newtons laws
All forces (vectors) forces when summed must equal zero. Whether their is a triange or a polygon of forces it always leaves a gap whuch thus provides a vector required to make he arrangement equal zero and in a state of equilibrium. The masters always followed this aproach to determine if equilibrium was present by vectorizing all the forces known within a arbitrary border. They always came up with an unclosed vector arrangement even tho it met the requirements of equilibrium. So all filled in the gap o arrive at the starting point and labelled this unknown vector that they were forced to provide as the weak force required for equilibrium to satisfy Newtons law. Regards Art I think you are confusing the "Weak force", resposible for "Beta decay" in radio-active materials. The following web site explains the work of Enrico Fermi in this area: http://atomic-molecular-optical-phys...the_weak_force While it is not unreasonable to consider Newtonian mechanics in an explanation of what hapens within a conductor, there is no missing force involved. Computation of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of a conductor involve manipulation of the "Vector magnetic potential"; as in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential Frank |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
|
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: Another prediction Particles are known to collect in bunches where the bunch contains three basic electrons bound together by the force of colour which is known to be very strong Ofcourse not all of the particles bunch together as previously stated. When the color bound bunch of electrons come into contact with a strong magnetic field, the strongest being at the poles the electons are torn apart releasing the binding energy in a aurora that spreads for thousands of miles. In the case of a lazer on can imagine that that same particle is similar to others but with the vestiges of color and we know that the energy emmitted dose not fan out giving strength to my antenna which also gravitate to a non spreading relation ship. And it goes on and on and.. Art WTF? tom K0TAR Tom It's somewhat like this I think: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80462773187994 73, ac6xg |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Art Unwin wrote:
Another prediction Particles are known to collect in bunches where the bunch contains three basic electrons bound together by the force of colour which is known to be very strong Ofcourse not all of the particles bunch together as previously stated. When the color bound bunch of electrons come into contact with a strong magnetic field, the strongest being at the poles the electons are torn apart releasing the binding energy in a aurora that spreads for thousands of miles. In the case of a lazer on can imagine that that same particle is similar to others but with the vestiges of color and we know that the energy emmitted dose not fan out giving strength to my antenna which also gravitate to a non spreading relation ship. And it goes on and on and.. Art WTF? tom K0TAR |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Jim Kelley wrote:
Tom Ring wrote: Art Unwin wrote: Another prediction Blah blah blah.... And it goes on and on and.. Art WTF? tom K0TAR Tom It's somewhat like this I think: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80462773187994 73, ac6xg Do you think maybe he wrote that? tom K0TAR |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Frank wrote:
snip Computation of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of a conductor involve manipulation of the "Vector magnetic potential"; as in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential Frank Please no! Now he'll add gauge invariance to the mix! You fool. tom K0TAR |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:20:18 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: Tom Ring wrote: Art Unwin wrote: Another prediction WTF? It's somewhat like this I think: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80462773187994 Do you think maybe he wrote that? It makes too much sense. Now, if someone could dredge up the last stockholder's meeting with the board of Lehman Brothers, it might come closer to Art's style. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Tom Ring" wrote in message . net... Frank wrote: snip Computation of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of a conductor involve manipulation of the "Vector magnetic potential"; as in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential Frank Please no! Now he'll add gauge invariance to the mix! You fool. when he starts quoting gauge's laws and how they describe the weak force equilibrium in Maxwell's equations it should add another level of laugh potential. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Tom Ring" wrote in message . net... Frank wrote: snip Computation of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of a conductor involve manipulation of the "Vector magnetic potential"; as in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential Frank Please no! Now he'll add gauge invariance to the mix! You fool. tom K0TAR here is the best description of art's equilibrium i have found: Perturbative string theory may be used to show that massless particles can only have spins 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2. This conclusion follows from an analysis of the energy of various harmonic oscillators included in the string that contribute to the mass of the resulting particle. This conclusion beautifully agrees with facts about gauge invariance that may be derived using spacetime arguments. If you consider any semirealistic physical system, it reduces to quantum fields at long distances - fields that are able to create particles. Because of the rotational symmetry, these particles may be classified according to their spin. For spins equal to 0 or 1/2, one only creates states of positive norms (think about the Klein-Gordon and Dirac fields). However, for spin 1 and higher, there are inevitably negative-norm states in the Hilbert space created by the simplest version of these quantum fields. For example, the time-like component of a 4-vector field creates states whose norm has the opposite (negative) sign than the space-like components of the same field. Such a decoupling implies an infinite amount of accidents that are equivalent to a symmetry. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:49:04 +0000, Dave wrote: Why don't you two get a room? This bull**** has nothing to do with ham radio. However, maybe if we ionized your hot air we could bounce some 70 cm off the cloud. I've always suspected that some hams hated math and other technical subjects. While it is conceivable that you could build a ham antenna without using math, I don't think the results would be optimal. There are also those that advocate converting ham radio from a technical hobby, to a sport, where the technical aspects are diminished to the point of extinction, and the operational exercises of contesting, DX, CW, and rag chewing are predominant. No math required. Perhaps the FCC could balkanize the ham bands into technical and non-technical sub-bands, where the clueless and those that still design, calculate, and build their own equipment can be seperated for their own safety. What equipment do you build for the amateur bands? Where does one employ that much theoretical physics? I have software and analyzers to help me; I don't need to throw general theory around on a bulletin board that is over the head of 95% of the people whose curiosity might be piqued by the name of the group. Perhaps if you applied your quantoid lunacy to making a suitcase quadrifilar helix for HF or something, I'd be less hurt. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out. I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. Most of the "new hams" these days are former CB'ers. With a few notable exceptions, most are quite nice, but also technically lacking. Hahahahahahahahahaha! Like this? http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/pic...nas/index.html |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:08:52 +0000, Dave wrote:
Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out. I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. Most of the "new hams" these days are former CB'ers. With a few notable exceptions, most are quite nice, but also technically lacking. Hahahahahahahahahaha! I'm serious. It's kinda like the red light districts in many cities. If you can't supress prostitution, at least you can control it in a confined space. Give the lunatics room to jam each other, and they won't be tempted to land on licensed frequencies. It's also great for contesting. The art of rudeness, jamming, and tuning up on other peoples conversations have been sufficiently optimized on the ham bands. Time for a new challenge, which will be contesting in a band full of hostile interference. I was running PSK31 on CB for a while, much to the irritation of the channel "owners". Worked nicely and there was little intererence. I consider this advancing the state of the art in communications effectiveness. Surely the FCC and Congress will recognize the value of ham radio to global harmony, where international cooperation is enhanced by the wireless exchange of a signal report, call letter, and contact number, with foreign operators sufficiently politically connected to obtain a ham radio license in their country. Perhaps ham radio should be nominated for the Nobel peace price. I dread to think what such hams might do with their spare time if ham radio were to disappear. Give them a sandbox in which to play and get out of the way. Like this? http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/pic...nas/index.html Ugh. That's my "old" site, where I've been playing with JAlbum formatting. I haven't updated it in a while. Go unto: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/ for the latest version. The coffee can antenna is in there with better 4NEC2 output. Ooops. The NEC model files seem to have evaporated. I'll fix later tonite. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:02:06 +0000, Dave wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:49:04 +0000, Dave wrote: Why don't you two get a room? This bull**** has nothing to do with ham radio. However, maybe if we ionized your hot air we could bounce some 70 cm off the cloud. I've always suspected that some hams hated math and other technical subjects. While it is conceivable that you could build a ham antenna without using math, I don't think the results would be optimal. There are also those that advocate converting ham radio from a technical hobby, to a sport, where the technical aspects are diminished to the point of extinction, and the operational exercises of contesting, DX, CW, and rag chewing are predominant. No math required. Perhaps the FCC could balkanize the ham bands into technical and non-technical sub-bands, where the clueless and those that still design, calculate, and build their own equipment can be seperated for their own safety. What equipment do you build for the amateur bands? Where does one employ that much theoretical physics? I spent about 15 year repairing commercial 2way radios, designing accessories, working for several radio manufacturers, and playing RF consultant. Methinks I can count about 15 independent products I helped design during this time. None of them were specific to ham radio, but could be adapted for ham use. At no time did I ever resort to theoretical fizzix, quantum theory, or other occult arts. However, I did employ a few magical incantations, especially when things did not work as expected. I never even suggested that theoretical fizzix was involved in the design of amateur radio and antennas. Please re-read what you quoted from my previous posting. Do you see any fizzix in there? What are you suggesting? Incidentally, since quantum theory violates every rule of logic, causality, rationality, common sense, conventional wisdom, and intuition, I've always suspected that it was a refuge of such thinkers. I have software and analyzers to help me; Same here. However, my analyst charges far too much money per hour and is used sparingly. I don't need to throw general theory around on a bulletin board that is over the head of 95% of the people whose curiosity might be piqued by the name of the group. Then don't throw general theory around. Nobody will learn anything new. Ham radio will remain exactly as it is now and has been since the invention of radio. Progress will cease and life will be easy for all involved. Perhaps if you applied your quantoid lunacy to making a suitcase quadrifilar helix for HF or something, I'd be less hurt. Umm... I think I see a problem here. Please check your attribution. I think your question is for Art, not me. I don't think either of us intentend to hurt you, but now that you mention it, a little temporary pain might revive you from your sleep typing. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Tom Ring" wrote in message . net... Frank wrote: snip Computation of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of a conductor involve manipulation of the "Vector magnetic potential"; as in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential Frank Please no! Now he'll add gauge invariance to the mix! You fool. tom K0TAR Heck, I never noticed that reference. Just wanted to show Art how vectors are used in reality! 73, Frank |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:04:47 GMT, "Frank"
wrote: Heck, I never noticed that reference. Just wanted to show Art how vectors are used in reality! Frank - from Hero to Zero with that last sentence's observation. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 17, 4:37*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Could well be but I have no alternative and am going my own way. Why should this disturb others? Because you insist what you say is true without any proof given. Not to mention that you refuse to even define how you apply equilibrium to your "new science" antenna theory. And now you think you should rewrite perfectly good antenna theory as it has been known for quite a few years. Again, without any real proof, or even coherent logic applied. But even worse, you think you have all the answers, and that everyone else here is either brain dead, senile, fell off a turnip truck last night, or they bark at the moon while chasing spiders across the lawn of the Glendale assisted living center, which BTW is how I often envision you after reading about 492 lines of your equilibribric/neutrino theory. But otherwise, disturb not do you. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
wrote in message ... On Sep 17, 4:37 pm, Art Unwin wrote: Could well be but I have no alternative and am going my own way. Why should this disturb others? Because you insist what you say is true without any proof given. Not to mention that you refuse to even define how you apply equilibrium to your "new science" antenna theory. And now you think you should rewrite perfectly good antenna theory as it has been known for quite a few years. Again, without any real proof, or even coherent logic applied. But even worse, you think you have all the answers, and that everyone else here is either brain dead, senile, fell off a turnip truck last night, or they bark at the moon while chasing spiders across the lawn of the Glendale assisted living center, which BTW is how I often envision you after reading about 492 lines of your equilibribric/neutrino theory. But otherwise, disturb not do you. ------------- All you have said so far about Art is that he is opinionated and that he has a personality. G Ed, NM2K |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Ed Cregger" wrote in message ... All you have said so far about Art is that he is opinionated and that he has a personality. G and those are his good traits. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com