On Sep 16, 11:56*am, "Mike Lucas" wrote:
"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 No where do I see
antennas explained other than the showing of capacitive coupling to
ground of antennas as a perceived circuit of an antenna?. Until this
is corrected we will never have continium of discussion between hams
on antennas.It is not a mystery anymore so why do the ARRL avoid it
like a plague?
Art

Art:
* * You have written 2,947 posts to RRAA, and at least 2/3 of them
contain a reference to " equilibrium". Numerous people have asked
you to define or at least explain your usage of the term. So far, you
have not done so.Actually, you have either diverted the question, or
told questioners to do their own research. Your posts show that you
know nothing about how antennas work, and suspect very little.Why
would ARRL *correct something that's perfectly fine as is???

Mike W5CHR
Memphis Tenn

Mike
I know more about antennas and radiation than you think !
For instance, equilibrium demands that charges do not move laterally
along an antenna when in equilibrium
Without equilibrium charges do move along the surface of a radiator
and Newtons law of parity demands
that charges are moving thru the CENTER of the radiator thus
encoundering just copper losses.
Thus for a radiator that is not in equilibrium has three resistance
1 Radiation resistance
2 outer resistance
3 Inner copper resistance.

Equilibrium is nothing more than the enforcement of Newtons law of
parity.
This is so simple to those who work from first principles for
themselves instead of being lemmings.
Correctness is not always determined from a poll
Regards
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 11:56 am, "Mike Lucas" wrote:
"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 No where do I see
antennas explained other than the showing of capacitive coupling to
ground of antennas as a perceived circuit of an antenna?. Until this
is corrected we will never have continium of discussion between hams
on antennas.It is not a mystery anymore so why do the ARRL avoid it
like a plague?
Art

Art:
You have written 2,947 posts to RRAA, and at least 2/3 of them
contain a reference to " equilibrium". Numerous people have asked
you to define or at least explain your usage of the term. So far, you
have not done so.Actually, you have either diverted the question, or
told questioners to do their own research. Your posts show that you
know nothing about how antennas work, and suspect very little.Why
would ARRL correct something that's perfectly fine as is???

Mike W5CHR
Memphis Tenn

Mike
I know more about antennas and radiation than you think !
For instance, equilibrium demands that charges do not move laterally
along an antenna when in equilibrium
Without equilibrium charges do move along the surface of a radiator
and Newtons law of parity demands
that charges are moving thru the CENTER of the radiator thus
encoundering just copper losses.
Thus for a radiator that is not in equilibrium has three resistance
1 Radiation resistance
2 outer resistance
3 Inner copper resistance.

Equilibrium is nothing more than the enforcement of Newtons law of
parity.
This is so simple to those who work from first principles for
themselves instead of being lemmings.
Correctness is not always determined from a poll
Regards
Art

-

I've heard of Newton's laws of motion, but not Newton's law of parity.
Newton dealt primarily with motion, mass, and such. Electromagnetic
radiation hadn't even been discovered when Newton was alive.
Electromagnetic radiation does not behave the same way as matter, which is
described in terms such as momentum, inertia, accceleration and such.

On Sep 16, 2:49*pm, "Rectifier" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 16, 11:56 am, "Mike Lucas" wrote:



"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 No where do I see
antennas explained other than the showing of capacitive coupling to
ground of antennas as a perceived circuit of an antenna?. Until this
is corrected we will never have continium of discussion between hams
on antennas.It is not a mystery anymore so why do the ARRL avoid it
like a plague?
Art

Art:
You have written 2,947 posts to RRAA, and at least 2/3 of them
contain a reference to " equilibrium". Numerous people have asked
you to define or at least explain your usage of the term. So far, you
have not done so.Actually, you have either diverted the question, or
told questioners to do their own research. Your posts show that you
know nothing about how antennas work, and suspect very little.Why
would ARRL correct something that's perfectly fine as is???

Mike W5CHR
Memphis Tenn

Mike
I know more about antennas and radiation than you think !
For instance, equilibrium demands that charges do not move laterally
along an antenna when in equilibrium
Without equilibrium charges do move along the surface of a radiator
and Newtons law of parity demands
that charges are moving thru the *CENTER of the radiator thus
encoundering just copper losses.
Thus for a radiator that is not in equilibrium has three resistance
1 Radiation resistance
2 outer resistance
3 Inner copper resistance.

Equilibrium is nothing more than *the enforcement of Newtons law of
parity.
This is so simple to those who work from first principles for
themselves instead of being lemmings.
Correctness is not always determined from a poll
Regards
Art

-

I've heard of Newton's laws of motion, but not Newton's law of parity.
Newton dealt primarily with motion, mass, and such. *Electromagnetic
radiation hadn't even been discovered when Newton was alive.
Electromagnetic radiation does not behave the same way as matter, which is
described in terms such as momentum, inertia, accceleration and such.

Mike
Einstein changed course in study because he could not solve the
description of the weak force
which I see as foucalt current. Knowing this Einstein would be proud
to stand up as state his
thoughts on Universal law has now been proved forget. You cannot
parcel laws based on a particular subject.
Universl laws are just that. UNIVERSAL. What on earth does parity mean
in the U.S.?
Art

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:15:58 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

What on earth does parity mean in the U.S.?
Art

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/money_24.html
It has evolved into the money that farmers get from the government to
NOT grow crops and keep prices high.



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

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

...
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/money_24.html
It has evolved into the money that farmers get from the government to
NOT grow crops and keep prices high.

Jeff:

Every once and-a-while a poster deserves my undivided attention AND
respect; today, that poster is YOU! ROFLOL!!!!

Warmest regards,
JS

On Sep 16, 6:56*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:15:58 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
What on earth does parity mean in the U.S.?
Art

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/money_24.html
It has evolved into the money that farmers get from the government to
NOT grow crops and keep prices high.

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

Well you may have hit on it. I am an englishman still in the learning
of American.
I saw the term parity as being on a par,maybe that is where I am going
wrong.
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.
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

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

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 2:49 pm, "Rectifier" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 16, 11:56 am, "Mike Lucas" wrote:



"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 No where do I see
antennas explained other than the showing of capacitive coupling to
ground of antennas as a perceived circuit of an antenna?. Until this
is corrected we will never have continium of discussion between hams
on antennas.It is not a mystery anymore so why do the ARRL avoid it
like a plague?
Art

Art:
You have written 2,947 posts to RRAA, and at least 2/3 of them
contain a reference to " equilibrium". Numerous people have asked
you to define or at least explain your usage of the term. So far, you
have not done so.Actually, you have either diverted the question, or
told questioners to do their own research. Your posts show that you
know nothing about how antennas work, and suspect very little.Why
would ARRL correct something that's perfectly fine as is???

Mike W5CHR
Memphis Tenn

Mike
I know more about antennas and radiation than you think !
For instance, equilibrium demands that charges do not move laterally
along an antenna when in equilibrium
Without equilibrium charges do move along the surface of a radiator
and Newtons law of parity demands
that charges are moving thru the CENTER of the radiator thus
encoundering just copper losses.
Thus for a radiator that is not in equilibrium has three resistance
1 Radiation resistance
2 outer resistance
3 Inner copper resistance.

Equilibrium is nothing more than the enforcement of Newtons law of
parity.
This is so simple to those who work from first principles for
themselves instead of being lemmings.
Correctness is not always determined from a poll
Regards
Art

-

I've heard of Newton's laws of motion, but not Newton's law of parity.
Newton dealt primarily with motion, mass, and such. Electromagnetic
radiation hadn't even been discovered when Newton was alive.
Electromagnetic radiation does not behave the same way as matter, which is
described in terms such as momentum, inertia, accceleration and such.

Mike
Einstein changed course in study because he could not solve the
description of the weak force
which I see as foucalt current. Knowing this Einstein would be proud
to stand up as state his
thoughts on Universal law has now been proved forget. You cannot
parcel laws based on a particular subject.
Universl laws are just that. UNIVERSAL. What on earth does parity mean
in the U.S.?
Art

-

The equal and opposite reaction thing applies to massive bodies and motion.
It's all different when talking about relativistic speeds for things such as
electromagnetic radiation.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:43:56 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

... and Newtons law of parity demands
that charges are moving thru the CENTER of the radiator thus
encoundering just copper losses.

Google fails to find anything under Newton's Law of Parity.
Which one of these is what you're talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physics_topics_M-Q#P
http://neohumanism.org/p/pa/parity.html

Equilibrium is nothing more than the enforcement of Newtons law of
parity.

It's hard to enforce a law that doesn't exist.

Drivel: I tried to write a spoof of your postings mimicking your
style of technical word salad. I built the necessary framework, and
added copious amounts of buzzwords and technobabble. However, the
result was unimpressive and not even close to the quality of your
pseudo technological rants. I'm truly impressed at your ability to
fabricate such rubbish and would greatly appreciate some clues as to
how it is done.

Hint: Numbers, formulas, references, URL's, and specifics. Lacking
those, you would be a philosopher.

Incidentally, equilibrium is implied in the various FCC exams. If you
lack sufficient equilibrium to take the exams due to intoxication, the
FCC (or VE) will refuse to administer the exam.


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

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:43:56 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:


Google fails to find anything under Newton's Law of Parity.
Which one of these is what you're talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physics_topics_M-Q#P
http://neohumanism.org/p/pa/parity.html

parity.

It's hard to enforce a law that doesn't exist.

Drivel: I tried to write a spoof of your postings mimicking your
style of technical word salad. I built the necessary framework, and
added copious amounts of buzzwords and technobabble. However, the
result was unimpressive and not even close to the quality of your
pseudo technological rants. I'm truly impressed at your ability to
fabricate such rubbish and would greatly appreciate some clues as to
how it is done.

Hint: Numbers, formulas, references, URL's, and specifics. Lacking
those, you would be a philosopher.

Incidentally, equilibrium is implied in the various FCC exams. If you
lack sufficient equilibrium to take the exams due to intoxication, the
FCC (or VE) will refuse to administer the exam.

So, look on the bright-side! Once you have proven Art wrong, you have
really done nothing at all!

We will still be stuck with the same mysteries, the same enigmas, the
same riddles! :-) Life would be NOT if not for the "unknowns" ... the
advances we can make, the riddles we can solve, etc. ...

Indeed, when I "run" a program to compute an area of a circle, the
volume of that sphere, the surface area of that sphere--it works! No
"error factor", no "pruning", no "adjustments", etc. Same with a
square, a rectangle, a cube, or for that matter, any polygon, be it 2d
or 3d ...

When I run "antenna equations/formulas", I get no joy. When our
"antenna formulas" approach to, around, 99.9999999999% of that
exactness, preciseness, we will be able to claim, "We are close!" ROFLOL

Until then, we will use the "Compute, then cut-and-prune-and-adjust
method(s.) :-(

But hey, if there where not such questions, inaccuracies and
"sloppy-ness", life would be boring -- now, wouldn't it?
another-straight-faced-look

Regards,
JS