Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:33:04 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

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.

It appears that sentimentality rules the thread. Lacking any steps
taken by Art towards providing a question with its corresponding
answer must mean he couldn't pass the same test it might be placed in.

Barring Art's hesitancy to supply his own solution, I can only rummage
up a similar instance from him where we might make this a quality of
test a CBer might tackle that is drawn from patented (5,625,367)
technology:

Q. reflector element is usually tuned to a frequency slightly
higher than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE or FALSE?

Q. director elements are usually tuned to frequencies slightly
lower than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE or FALSE?

Thankfully, the PTO does not test nor issue licenses based upon this
technology source used as reference material.

I can well imagine how "equilibrium" would similarly pollute the
question pool and the lack of follow-up leaves us with the soap opera
it was always meant to be.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:18:45 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Consider the following as rhetorical questions. I don't expect you to
answer. My purpose is to demonstrate what you have left out of your
rants.

Sorry about that. Don't you think it is odd that all computer programs
based on Maxwells laws reflect every thing I have stated?

Name one or more of these computer programs based on Maxwell's
Equations (not laws).

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?

Who are these people and what programs are they using?
What results did they obtain?
Which NEC models were they using (NEC2, NEC4, etc)?

None of this is in the antenna books or relavent books on science and
do you know why?

Which antenna books are lacking? I have about 5 linear feet of
printed antenna books, several boxes of IEEE Antenna and Propagation
SIG proceedings, and much of my hard disk stuffed with free and
commercial modeling and design software. Which antenna books are you
suggesting are lacking and why?

My generation has been taken over by computers where prior generations
resorted to origanal thought from first principles.

Nice topic switch. I'm 60.8 years old and am also in the computer
business.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/office/
I've never had an original thought in my life. I base everything I do
on what myself and others have done before. Short of divine
revelations, I suspect that much of the scientific and engineering
world works the same way. Everything is based somewhat on past
experience and history.

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.

I can see you've never actually used a computah to solve problems. I
have. Computers are difficult to deal with for solving an individual
problem. They are truly wonderful for solving repetitive and
interactive problems. Simulations and emulations are fantastic for
uncovering bugs and problems before they become too difficult or too
expensive to fix. There are many companies that go directly from a
computah model to manufacturing without a prototype because they are
confident their computah models will work. If saving huge amounts of
time and effort constitutes being lazy, you have a warped perspective
of what computahs can do for you.

Problem is that books on the sciences
have not had critical analysis by the following generation which
always call for revisions.

Nice topic switch again. Books tend to be several years behind.

Which technical antenna books are you suggesting have failed to obtain
a peer review? I played tech editor on one Unix book (never again!)
and have a fair idea of the process. There are many books published
under various vanity press labels which are solely the responsibility
of the author. Some of those, I will agree have not been extensively
peer reviewed. I know of several in the ham radio market that have
not been properly reviewed, but which are generally accurate.

Which antenna books do you find inadequate due to lack of a "critical
analysis"?

The books used for supplying questions to
the computer are those taken from the books that never received the
normal generational
revisions.

My computer does not accept questions. We're not there yet. I have
to frame the problem in a language that the computer can understand.
The questions are implied in the framing of the problem.

There are books which only survive the first printing. Those will
never survive a "normal generational revision" because there will be
no 2nd generation.

Which antenna books do you find inadequate due to the lack of a 2nd
printing?

Sorting computer answers requires common sense

My computer does the sorting, not me. I do the interpretation of the
results produced by the computer. My computer also lacks common
sense. We're not there yet. It's also possible that I lack common
sense, but I won't admit to that.

but with the
absence of required revisions what one calls common sense is one that
needs revision ala garbage in garbage out.

Who or what organization requires a revision?

Where does common sense come into the design of an antenna? What
equations govern the application of common sense in an antenna design?
What are the units of measure of common sense?

Now we get statements that
if more gain came from tipping antennas the world would have tipped
the towers
years ago.

That's not common sense. It's designing within the limitations of the
technology and within conventional construction practices. If you've
ever had to deal with populating a tower full of assorted antennas and
trying to optimize the arrangement for maximum revenue (more
antennas), versus minimum interaction and intermod, you'll understand
what practical limitations are all about. Anyone can design an
antenna that works in free space. It takes some skill and experience
to design it to meet regulatory and practical limitations.

To me that is totally absent of common sence but for people
who rely on unrevised books it is perfectly understandable.

Most authors include an email address to which you can send
corrections and objections. Some of mine have appeared in the errata
pages for at least one book. What antenna book is in need of revision
because it discusses tilting antennas?

If people
have discarded Universal laws then the computers will not reflect same
based on input.

What universal law? I don't recall seeing a Universal Law in my
computer or software.

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.

Well, yes... that's the way it works. You learn from the past and you
build on it. Most of those papers consist of a summary of existing
technology and understanding. They then add their own research. You
can see that on everything from traffic laws to patents. Have you
ever even read a single issue of IEEE Antennas and Propagation SIG
proceedings?

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.

No need to go looking outside the industrialized world. I sometimes
help at the local skool on senior projects. The students are required
to build something to graduate. I have a difficult time keeping the
ideas down to something that can be built in a few weeks of class.
However, the imagination and creativity of some of these students is
well beyond what I would expect to see from a seasoned professional.
If you want originality, get it before it's squashed by the
responsibilities and realities of life.

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..........

Really? Skool textbooks are rotated almost constantly. That's
allegedly to keep up to date, but really to squash the used book
market. I spent much of college career arguing with the professors,
much of which was over reality versus what's in the books. When the
instructors have a political agenda added to the mix, things get
really interesting. Incidentally, one has to understand the books,
before one can argue against them.

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 those that are capable of original thinking and those that
simply become cogs in the system. I don't have time to expound on the
relative merits of each. If you want to see a small riot, get all the
independent thinkers together. They can never agree on anything. Are
you sure you want everyone to be an original thinker? I shudder at
what methinks will happen to something like the traffic laws.

There are many of past generations
that have
generalized about point radiation alas this generations belittles it
and successfully resist change.

Nice topic switch again. How many and which generations generalized
about point radiation? How have these generations "belittled" point
radiation? Do you know that it's actually called zero-point energy?
What does zero-point energy have to do with antennas? How are you
going to deal with the infinite energy density required to obtain
zero-point energy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Sad Sad Sad
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg

Ah... The servers are finally done backing up and updating. Thanks
for the diversion.

--
# 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 14:23:55 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

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

There are quantum mechanics in antennas:
http://www.amazon.com/24775-Quantum-Indoor-HDTV-Antenna/dp/B000W8XQJC
It's even amplified.

More realistically:
"Superconducting quantum antenna"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=rM2pAAAAEBAJ&dq=7369093
Apparently it uses a quantum screen to generate fringing. That's
common at infrared but I haven't seen it used to focus RF. I can't
tell if it's for real. I'll get brain damage from trying to read this
stuff after midnight. Tomorrow...

--
# 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 17:58:35 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

No Newtonians in this crowd. Perhaps it was the relativistic term
"speed of light" that confused this group so much. Let's restate it
in units that Newton could have appreciated.

We know that we can accelerate an electron to 167,770 miles/s - it
happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt
displays still glowing in the world. Some of us know its mass at this
speed. A question for the Newtonian philosopherz:
"What is the mass of a photon traveling at 167,770 miles/s?"

Google to the rescue:
http://asistm.duit.uwa.edu.au/synchrotron/downloads/pdfs/chapter11_7.pdf

mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5

whe
mr = relativistic mass
mo = mass at rest
v = velocity of particle
c = speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec

For v = 167,700 miles/sec
mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5
mr/mo = 1/ 1 - 0.813^0.5 = 1/ (1 - 0.902) = 1/ 0.0984 = 10.2

So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 10 times that
of the particle at rest. It doesn't matter what particle. Do I get a
gold star?

(Somebody please check my arithmetic as I forgot to eat dinner, it's
after midnight, my brain is mush, and my calculator battery is fading
fast).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
--
# 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 19:37:27 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:15:07 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

No respionse

Well that comes as no surprise that you can't do a Newtonian
calculation. OK, that is one down.

Ummm... that wasn't Newton. No quantum effects in Newton's work. That
was Einstein's theory of special relativity. See gamma.
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html


--
# 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 Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:13:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:58:35 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

No Newtonians in this crowd. Perhaps it was the relativistic term
"speed of light" that confused this group so much. Let's restate it
in units that Newton could have appreciated.

We know that we can accelerate an electron to 167,770 miles/s - it
happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt
displays still glowing in the world. Some of us know its mass at this
speed. A question for the Newtonian philosopherz:
"What is the mass of a photon traveling at 167,770 miles/s?"

Google to the rescue:
http://asistm.duit.uwa.edu.au/synchrotron/downloads/pdfs/chapter11_7.pdf

mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5

whe
mr = relativistic mass
mo = mass at rest
v = velocity of particle
c = speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec

For v = 167,700 miles/sec
mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5
mr/mo = 1/ 1 - 0.813^0.5 = 1/ (1 - 0.902) = 1/ 0.0984 = 10.2

So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 10 times that
of the particle at rest. It doesn't matter what particle. Do I get a
gold star?

(Somebody please check my arithmetic as I forgot to eat dinner, it's
after midnight, my brain is mush, and my calculator battery is fading
fast).

All wrong. No gold star for that mess. I just hate it when I click
"send" and only then discover my arithmetic error. Rev 1.0 follows:

mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5

whe
mr = relativistic mass
mo = mass at rest
v = velocity of particle
c = speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec

For v = 167,700 miles/sec
mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5
mr/mo = 1/ (1 - 0.813)^0.5 = 1/ (0.187)^0.5 = 1/ 0.432 = 2.31

So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 2.3 times
that of the particle at rest. It doesn't matter what particle. Maybe
a silver star?



--
# 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
 

Richard Clark wrote:

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

Can't go with you there; he is asking some of the same questions as
myself, just in a different way. I am just weird enough to understand
him and his questions.

Three? LOL How about Forty-Three? And those are constantly changing,
depends on the umpires, I guess ...

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
According to Einstein, anything with energy has mass equivalence -
especially photons. But other than that, nothing with mass can travel
at the speed of light.

Make that "nothing with *rest* mass can travel at the
speed of light". From an earlier posting of mine:

"Photons have zero rest mass. Otherwise, they couldn't
travel at the speed of light."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Jeff:

I am top posting here, just because your post is so damn long, and I
could NOT bring myself to cut any of it ...

Thanks for being candid with us. Yep, you are one of us alright. Yep,
we have to use others past books, thoughts, knowledge, computer apps,
papers, etc. ... it is just too much, it is inundating ... I mean, my
home office here looks like yours! And, the wife is a "neat-freak" ...
I tell you, I spend all my time looking for materials she has
"organized" for me ... smirk

I hope you didn't come here for answers, I mean I can't speak for
everyone here, but all I have is questions! And, if I ask something
that doesn't have a black and white answer, I get slapped in the face!
blank-look

Demands for answers, demands for open discussions, demands we look at
even the quantum world in "explorations into antennas", especially from
some of the STRONG personalities you find here, can be intimidating ...
but, welcome aboard.

However, if you thought you would find peace of mind, bliss and
enlightenment here ... think again. ROFLOL

You are just about to find out "how deep this Rabbit-Hole goes!"

Warm regards,
JS

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:18:45 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Consider the following as rhetorical questions. I don't expect you to
answer. My purpose is to demonstrate what you have left out of your
rants.

Sorry about that. Don't you think it is odd that all computer programs
based on Maxwells laws reflect every thing I have stated?

Name one or more of these computer programs based on Maxwell's
Equations (not laws).

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?

Who are these people and what programs are they using?
What results did they obtain?
Which NEC models were they using (NEC2, NEC4, etc)?

None of this is in the antenna books or relavent books on science and
do you know why?

Which antenna books are lacking? I have about 5 linear feet of
printed antenna books, several boxes of IEEE Antenna and Propagation
SIG proceedings, and much of my hard disk stuffed with free and
commercial modeling and design software. Which antenna books are you
suggesting are lacking and why?

My generation has been taken over by computers where prior generations
resorted to origanal thought from first principles.

Nice topic switch. I'm 60.8 years old and am also in the computer
business.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/office/
I've never had an original thought in my life. I base everything I do
on what myself and others have done before. Short of divine
revelations, I suspect that much of the scientific and engineering
world works the same way. Everything is based somewhat on past
experience and history.

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.

I can see you've never actually used a computah to solve problems. I
have. Computers are difficult to deal with for solving an individual
problem. They are truly wonderful for solving repetitive and
interactive problems. Simulations and emulations are fantastic for
uncovering bugs and problems before they become too difficult or too
expensive to fix. There are many companies that go directly from a
computah model to manufacturing without a prototype because they are
confident their computah models will work. If saving huge amounts of
time and effort constitutes being lazy, you have a warped perspective
of what computahs can do for you.

Problem is that books on the sciences
have not had critical analysis by the following generation which
always call for revisions.

Nice topic switch again. Books tend to be several years behind.

Which technical antenna books are you suggesting have failed to obtain
a peer review? I played tech editor on one Unix book (never again!)
and have a fair idea of the process. There are many books published
under various vanity press labels which are solely the responsibility
of the author. Some of those, I will agree have not been extensively
peer reviewed. I know of several in the ham radio market that have
not been properly reviewed, but which are generally accurate.

Which antenna books do you find inadequate due to lack of a "critical
analysis"?

The books used for supplying questions to
the computer are those taken from the books that never received the
normal generational
revisions.

My computer does not accept questions. We're not there yet. I have
to frame the problem in a language that the computer can understand.
The questions are implied in the framing of the problem.

There are books which only survive the first printing. Those will
never survive a "normal generational revision" because there will be
no 2nd generation.

Which antenna books do you find inadequate due to the lack of a 2nd
printing?

Sorting computer answers requires common sense

My computer does the sorting, not me. I do the interpretation of the
results produced by the computer. My computer also lacks common
sense. We're not there yet. It's also possible that I lack common
sense, but I won't admit to that.

but with the
absence of required revisions what one calls common sense is one that
needs revision ala garbage in garbage out.

Who or what organization requires a revision?

Where does common sense come into the design of an antenna? What
equations govern the application of common sense in an antenna design?
What are the units of measure of common sense?

Now we get statements that
if more gain came from tipping antennas the world would have tipped
the towers
years ago.

That's not common sense. It's designing within the limitations of the
technology and within conventional construction practices. If you've
ever had to deal with populating a tower full of assorted antennas and
trying to optimize the arrangement for maximum revenue (more
antennas), versus minimum interaction and intermod, you'll understand
what practical limitations are all about. Anyone can design an
antenna that works in free space. It takes some skill and experience
to design it to meet regulatory and practical limitations.

To me that is totally absent of common sence but for people
who rely on unrevised books it is perfectly understandable.

Most authors include an email address to which you can send
corrections and objections. Some of mine have appeared in the errata
pages for at least one book. What antenna book is in need of revision
because it discusses tilting antennas?

If people
have discarded Universal laws then the computers will not reflect same
based on input.

What universal law? I don't recall seeing a Universal Law in my
computer or software.

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.

Well, yes... that's the way it works. You learn from the past and you
build on it. Most of those papers consist of a summary of existing
technology and understanding. They then add their own research. You
can see that on everything from traffic laws to patents. Have you
ever even read a single issue of IEEE Antennas and Propagation SIG
proceedings?

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.

No need to go looking outside the industrialized world. I sometimes
help at the local skool on senior projects. The students are required
to build something to graduate. I have a difficult time keeping the
ideas down to something that can be built in a few weeks of class.
However, the imagination and creativity of some of these students is
well beyond what I would expect to see from a seasoned professional.
If you want originality, get it before it's squashed by the
responsibilities and realities of life.

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..........

Really? Skool textbooks are rotated almost constantly. That's
allegedly to keep up to date, but really to squash the used book
market. I spent much of college career arguing with the professors,
much of which was over reality versus what's in the books. When the
instructors have a political agenda added to the mix, things get
really interesting. Incidentally, one has to understand the books,
before one can argue against them.

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 those that are capable of original thinking and those that
simply become cogs in the system. I don't have time to expound on the
relative merits of each. If you want to see a small riot, get all the
independent thinkers together. They can never agree on anything. Are
you sure you want everyone to be an original thinker? I shudder at
what methinks will happen to something like the traffic laws.

There are many of past generations
that have
generalized about point radiation alas this generations belittles it
and successfully resist change.

Nice topic switch again. How many and which generations generalized
about point radiation? How have these generations "belittled" point
radiation? Do you know that it's actually called zero-point energy?
What does zero-point energy have to do with antennas? How are you
going to deal with the infinite energy density required to obtain
zero-point energy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Sad Sad Sad
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg

Ah... The servers are finally done backing up and updating. Thanks
for the diversion.

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:23:55 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

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

There are quantum mechanics in antennas:
http://www.amazon.com/24775-Quantum-Indoor-HDTV-Antenna/dp/B000W8XQJC
It's even amplified.

More realistically:
"Superconducting quantum antenna"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=rM2pAAAAEBAJ&dq=7369093
Apparently it uses a quantum screen to generate fringing. That's
common at infrared but I haven't seen it used to focus RF. I can't
tell if it's for real. I'll get brain damage from trying to read this
stuff after midnight. Tomorrow...


Jeff:

Another good point, I avoid patents in my searches!

In the google search box, I always include the search terms "-patents"
and "-patent" (minus the double quotes) ... that is the type of stuff
(silly patents) which just accelerates my insane questions to
unfathomable limits!

Heck, I can't even tell the "silly" ones (patents) from the "real" ones
.... indeed, I strongly suspect I am a poor one to judge!

LOL!

Regards,
JS