Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 16, 9:17*pm, wrote:
On Sep 16, 9:57*pm, John Smith wrote:



wrote:
...
Correction: Photons have no rest mass. "radiated" photons have the
properties of mass because they are affected by gravitation. Light can
be bent by large bodies of mass.

Oh sure, they have a "perceived mass", don't they?; I mean, we seem to
be able to measure it, don't we? *How do you know it "exists ALL ITS
TRAVEL TIME", what makes you think it is not constantly oscillating for
energy to mass ... and it is ONLY the average of that which we are
REALLY measuring ... can you prove that, well, CAN YOU? *Can you provide
any relevant data here to prove it? *Any URLs? *Any quotes from famous
physicists? *Any psychics? *Have you consulted Art? *again-innocent-smile

But then, you ever try to run along side of one of those photons and
measure it? *I mean, this is how you really gain a critics respect
(heck, you'd even gain acknowledgment from the arrl, well,
most-likely--well, I think you would--IMHO anyway, etc.) -- now, the
question to separate the men from the boys -- now, have you?
pleasant-innocent-smile

Geesh! *looks-out-window

Regards,
JS

I should have used black holes as my example. One only needs to accept
that black holes exist in order to believe that gravity affects the
property of mass inerent in light ;-) Partly correct The big bang was an explosion
thus Newton states there must be an implosion. The law is Universal

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:18:15 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Irrelavent.. No respionse

Ahh, you noticed! Finally! ROFLOL!

And now we have Brett rolling on the floor with Art as two down.

That pretty much closes down the mutual admiration society of
Newtonian Philosopherz.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Art Unwin wrote:

...
John you are equating resonance with equilibrium, a dipole in antenna
terms is a half wavelength
resonant but not in a state of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a staple in
this Universe. First comes equilibrium
after which you may consider resonance.......but not the reverse. Both
of the samples are of a half wave length thus it is not in
equilibrium.
Equilibrium comes first in the satisfaction analysis, if it fails all
falls apart.
Best regards
Art

Uhhh Art, you "were" actually responding to "JB", you are lucky I read
your posts, and that this one prompted me to respond (or, unlucky, I
guess it depends on how "you view it" grin ) ...

I realize "something IS wrong" with the basic platform all "antenna
theory/equations/formulas/maths/truths/etc." is/are built upon ... but
what that "something" is? ... all I can say, I am looking and wondering
.... but then, so are many -- and, if you are one of that "many", you
already have foot on the right path ... need I include, IMHO?

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
And now we have Brett rolling on the floor with Art as two down.

That pretty much closes down the mutual admiration society of
Newtonian Philosopherz.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

Thanks!

I really thought you forgot about me, yanno'? frown

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:43:35 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
And now we have Brett rolling on the floor with Art as two down.

That pretty much closes down the mutual admiration society of
Newtonian Philosopherz.
I really thought you forgot about me, yanno'? frown

Just waiting for Cecileo to sign in for the last of the Three Stoogz.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I consider it a real shame that equilibrium is not a part of
examinations since equilibrium
is a basic in the electrical circuit of all antennas

A very simple observation:

Give us one question you would expect to see.

Give us the answer that would be marked as passing.

Without both, this sappy sentiment of yours is nothing more than a
late night exercise of crying bitter tears into the pillow - and
leaving the window open so the neighbors can hear the sobs of regret.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 16, 9:40*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

* ...

John you are equating resonance with equilibrium, a dipole in antenna
terms is a half wavelength
resonant but not in a state of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a staple in
this Universe. First comes equilibrium
after which you may consider resonance.......but not the reverse. Both
of the samples are of a half wave length thus it is not in
equilibrium.
Equilibrium comes first in the satisfaction analysis, if it fails all
falls apart.
Best regards
Art

Uhhh Art, you "were" actually responding to "JB", you are lucky I read
your posts, and that this one prompted me to respond (or, unlucky, I
guess it depends on how "you view it" grin ) ...

I realize "something IS wrong" with the basic platform all "antenna
theory/equations/formulas/maths/truths/etc." is/are built upon ... but
what that "something" is? ... all I can say, I am looking and wondering
... but then, so are many -- and, if you are one of that "many", you
already have foot on the right path ... need I include, IMHO?

Regards,
JS

Sorry about that. Don't you think it is odd that all computer programs
based on Maxwells laws reflect every thing I have stated? I am not a
computer freak
How I could make all this up and several computer programs made by
different
people both sides of the pond can reproduce without conivance a
computer program
that provides the details of every thing that I have stated?
None of this is in the antenna books or relavent books on science and
do you know why?
My generation has been taken over by computers where prior generations
resorted to origanal thought from first principles.
They accept that the computer will spill out a lot of inaplicable
information but feel the sorting problem
is so much easier for the lazy. Problem is that books on the sciences
have not had critical analysis by the following generation which
always call for revisions. The books used for supplying questions to
the computer are those taken from the books that never received the
normal generational
revisions. Sorting computer answers requires common sense but with the
absence of required revisions what one calls common sense is one that
needs revision ala garbage in garbage out. Now we get statements that
if more gain came from tipping antennas the world would have tipped
the towers
years ago. To me that is totally absent of common sence but for people
who rely on unrevised books it is perfectly understandable. If people
have discarded Universal laws then the computers will not reflect same
based on input. We have to many academics churning out physics papers
which reflects direction of past papers as a way of getting them
accepted and published and a path to a higher station. What we need is
design by first principles which other countries still have by not yet
smitten by computers and who are capable of original thought.
Universities in the industrial world state the books that must be
followedand the student realizes that the answer in the books are the
datum used by professors so.......... follow the same path formed by
those that proceded you as the primary for getting a job is that piece
of paper without original thought. There are many of past generations
that have
generalized about point radiation alas this generations belittles it
and successfully resist change. Sad Sad Sad
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 17, 12:18*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 16, 9:40*pm, John Smith wrote:



Art Unwin wrote:

* ...

John you are equating resonance with equilibrium, a dipole in antenna
terms is a half wavelength
resonant but not in a state of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a staple in
this Universe. First comes equilibrium
after which you may consider resonance.......but not the reverse. Both
of the samples are of a half wave length thus it is not in
equilibrium.
Equilibrium comes first in the satisfaction analysis, if it fails all
falls apart.
Best regards
Art

Uhhh Art, you "were" actually responding to "JB", you are lucky I read
your posts, and that this one prompted me to respond (or, unlucky, I
guess it depends on how "you view it" grin ) ...

I realize "something IS wrong" with the basic platform all "antenna
theory/equations/formulas/maths/truths/etc." is/are built upon ... but
what that "something" is? ... all I can say, I am looking and wondering
... but then, so are many -- and, if you are one of that "many", you
already have foot on the right path ... need I include, IMHO?

Regards,
JS

Sorry about that. Don't you think it is odd that all computer programs
based on Maxwells laws reflect every thing I have stated? I am not a
computer freak
How I could make all this up and several computer programs made by
different
*people *both sides of the pond can reproduce without conivance a
computer program
that provides the details of every thing that I have stated?
None of this is in the antenna books or relavent books on science and
do you know why?
My generation has been taken over by computers where prior generations
resorted to origanal thought from first principles.
They accept that the computer will spill out a lot of inaplicable
information but feel the sorting problem
is so much easier for the lazy. Problem is that books on the sciences
have not had critical analysis by the following generation which
always call for revisions. The books used for supplying questions to
the computer are those taken from the books that never received the
normal generational
revisions. Sorting computer answers requires common sense but with the
absence of required revisions what one calls common sense is one that
needs revision ala garbage in garbage out. Now we get statements that
if more gain came from tipping antennas the world would have tipped
the towers
years ago. To me that is totally absent of common sence but for people
who rely on unrevised books it is perfectly understandable. If people
have discarded Universal laws then the computers will not reflect same
based on input. We have to many academics churning out physics papers
which reflects direction of past papers as a way of getting them
accepted and published and a path to a higher station. What we need is
design by first principles which other countries still have by not yet
smitten by computers and who are capable of original thought.
Universities in the industrial world state the books that must be
followedand the student realizes that the answer in the books are the
datum used by professors so.......... follow the same path formed by
those that proceded you as the primary for getting a job is that piece
of paper without original thought. There are many of past generations
that have
generalized about point radiation alas this generations belittles it
and successfully resist change. Sad * Sad * Sad
Art Unwin * * * KB9MZ........xg

If you really want us "lesser mortals" to appreciate your thoughts ,
why don't you just put down your formulations in terms of concrete
mathematical equations and post it to a website or some place as a
document or something. That way we can see what you mean. In all of
these I assume that your thoughts are at least expressible in terms of
the known mathematics.
We would appreciate your endeavor and who knows it can lead to a new
form of mathematics with your pure and powerful thoughts.
And don't think that I am saying you are wrong outright because what
you have said as reaction forces, are involved in a local neighborhood
of the electron and the field associated with it. But they don't quite
manifest in a way that you say they does to the best of my knowledge.
Moreover it is not quite a practical idea to think of individual
electrons and the reaction associated with them when they are in all
probable states and with well practically innumerable number of
electrons.

In case you don't like to quantify your thoughts and put them into
practical formulations which can be solved in finite number of
steps.... well I am sorry we will never be enlightened. And prefer to
look at an antenna the more conventional way. All these neglecting the
fact that mechanics of particles at microscopic level deviates
considerably from the macroscopic world formulations, the inclusion of
which might make this thread more bitter.
--DB

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:29:08 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Well you may have hit on it. I am an englishman still in the learning
of American.

Except for a few odd terms, the kings English still works on this side
of the pond.

The law I am refering to is that every action has an opposite
reaction, not quite the words Newtons
used but the reaction is on par with the initial action. If you are in
doubt look up Newtons actual words.

You could lookup the exact quote for Newton's 3rd law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."
Please note that the words "parity" and "on par" are not used anywhere
in the explanation and discussion. If you want to introduce new
physical principles, it would probably be best if you used more
conventional terminology suitable for the GUM (great unwashed masses).

Parity is what I picked up on this newsgroup so when in Rome........
Parity means the maintainance of balance
still sounds O.K. but I will not use it any more!
Art

Well, there are also online dictionaries. Try:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+parity
None of the definitions for parity resemble whatever it is you're
trying to do, explain, or complain about.

Incidentally, the way you use Google as a dictionary is to inscribe:
define: parity
in the search box.

You also use the term equilibrium in a similar manner. Your use is
correct (to mean a type of balance) but you consistently fail to
adequately describe what is balancing against what else. Some people
may prefer your technobabble description, but if there's a balance,
there's also a corresponding equation which equates whatever it is
you're balancing. I like equations and numbers.

If you genuinely want to understand how antennas work based on first
principles, you might consider that all an antenna does is provide an
optimum transfer (match) of power between a transmitting device at
some impedance (usually 50 ohms) and the impedance of free space (377
ohms). Everything else in antenna design is controlling the direction
and efficiency of this power transfer.


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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:38:29 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Truth is stranger than fiction and what I am saying is the truth or
factual.

Assertion does not constitute proof. Speaking strictly for myself, I
really don't care what you think, advocate, imply, or suggest. What I
do care is the reasoning behind your thinking, your advocacy, etc.
Simply stating that something is right, wrong, or works in some manner
is insufficient. Unless you're an established authority on the topic
of antenna design, I have no intention of accepting your rants at face
value.

In all the years that I have been on this group nobody has proved me
wrong
with respect to radiation.

That's easy to understand. You haven't said anything. There's no
substance to your "explanations". I can't argue against an
insubstantial fog or cloud, and neither can anyone else. No models,
no measurements, no tests, no numbers, no nothing. Besides, it's not
my position to prove that you are wrong. It's your job to convince us
that you're correct. We pass judgement on your ideas, you do not. Of
course, you're always welcome to pass judgements on my qualifications
to make such a judgement.

If they had I would have apologized for the
record.

I should hope so. I've been wrong a few times. It happens.
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=bLQuYRAAAACBvdjA7WBXQw3w3fq wxHRj
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=tWGMphwAAAAGTj9X4k0U7wKkGyU 8QhaBhaxMG2M1PWkMtCZAt5tdxQ
Hmmm.... 24,000 postings. Maybe I should find something more
productive to do.

For myself I can run all of these people out of town on antennas as
they are all self perceived experts
bestowing glory on them selves in retirement to supply the recognition
they feel they earned in the past.

Wow. I'm not retired yet, but I'm not worried. You would have no
trouble running me out of town with your expertise on antennas. I'm
still learning and probably will never be an expert. I read the NEC
mailing list. I dabble with EzNEC and 4NEC2. I designm model, and
build some rather odd microwave antennas. I have two antenna related
products to my name from about 20 years ago. Not quite an expert but
sufficiently functional to hold my own:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/
Note: I did *NOT* design the commercial antennas shown.

Find an expert for yourself and ask him the same questions that you
ask of me.

I only asked one question. What do you mean by equalibrium and what
is being balanced against what else. No expert or beginner could
answer that. Only you can.

My statements are nothing special and nor am I

Actually, your statements initially appeared quite special to me. I
was serious when I asked what program you used to generate your rant.
I couldn't believe that anyone intentionally wrote such a word salad.
I suspected there was some software behind it. I even attempted to
duplicate the feat by hand (and failed). Your statements are special
to me for no better reason than I failed to mimick the style.

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