"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 2:10 pm, "Rectifier" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 16, 12:52 pm, "Frank" wrote:



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

Also, I would be very interested in identifying where the "weak force"
is indicated in, for example, the following point form expression of
Ampere's Law:

DEL cross H = J+ dD/dt

Frank

Frank
I am not a servant of this newsgroup. All I am doing is trying to
educate those that are willing do be educated
with respect to antennas. You for your self can read the history of
the masters and Newton to determine how they were aware of the weak
force,
its angle and size and yet cannot describe it. Even so it is included
in all calculations involved in the Universe because equilibrium is a
staple.
The fact that members of this group need to be shown that the weak
force is not fictitious is pityful . I have in the prior posting
descibed the action of radiation where previously I have stated that
the weak force is the rotary current flow which as well as the rest of
the details given are preordained by Newtons law. Prove Newton is
wrong and you have my attention.
Nothing personal
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ............xg

-

Oh yeah! Newton was also wrong that light needed a medium through which to
travel (which he called, "aether").

We are talking ab out radiation not the eather.

The law I am referring to is every action has an opposite reaction.
It is a very short law that has not been disproven.
Application of that law states that for a radiator not in equilibrium
a charge is moving on the outside of the radiator THEREFORE
there is a charge moving in the centre of the radiator in the opposite
direction.
So simple Why do hams reject it? No, the charge at the centre is not
and cannot radiate
You don't need a lot of posts, sneers insults e.t.c. to respond just
go to your nearest University
and provide the statement to the Dean and then bring his response back
to all of us
Art

-

First off, I did not intend to have my post interpretd as a sneer. I'm
sorry if you took it that way. I said, "Oh yeah!" because I thought of the
point after I submitted a previous post.

The equal and opposite reaction law only applies when there is mass.
Electromagnetic radiation has no mass. Therefore, the law does not apply.

On Sep 16, 3:08*pm, "Rectifier" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 16, 2:10 pm, "Rectifier" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 16, 12:52 pm, "Frank" wrote:

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

Also, I would be very interested in identifying where the "weak force"
is indicated in, for example, the following point form expression of
Ampere's Law:

DEL cross H = J+ dD/dt

Frank

Frank
I am not a servant of this newsgroup. All I am doing is trying to
educate those that are willing do be educated
with respect to antennas. You for your self can read the history of
the masters and Newton to determine how they were aware of the weak
force,
its angle and size and yet cannot describe it. Even so it is included
in all calculations involved in the Universe because equilibrium is a
staple.
The fact that members of this group need to be shown that the weak
force is not fictitious is pityful . I have in the prior posting
descibed the action of radiation where previously I have stated that
the weak force is the rotary current flow which as well as the rest of
the details given are preordained by Newtons law. Prove Newton is
wrong and you have my attention.
Nothing personal
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ............xg

-

Oh yeah! Newton was also wrong that light needed a medium through which to
travel (which he called, "aether").

We are talking ab out radiation not the eather.

The law I am referring to is every action has an opposite reaction.
It is a very short law that has not been disproven.
Application of that law states that for a radiator not in equilibrium
a charge is moving on the outside of the radiator THEREFORE
there is a charge moving in the centre of the radiator in the opposite
direction.
So simple Why do hams reject it? No, the charge at the centre is not
and cannot radiate
You don't need a lot of posts, sneers insults e.t.c. to respond just
go to your nearest University
and provide the statement to the Dean and then bring his response back
to all of us
Art

-

First off, I did not intend to have my post interpretd as a sneer. *I'm
sorry if you took it that way. *I said, "Oh yeah!" because I thought of the
point after I submitted a previous post.

The equal and opposite reaction law only applies when there is mass.
Electromagnetic radiation has no mass. *Therefore, the law does not apply.

Radiation has no mass? You just made that up

Art Unwin wrote:

...
Radiation has no mass? You just made that up

Yes, that would seem to break the law of "'E' equals mc squared", and
its' opposite, counterpart ... I mean, if you really think about it ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

On Sep 16, 4:06*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
...
Radiation has no mass? You just made that up

Yes, that would seem to break the law of "'E' equals mc squared", and
its' opposite, counterpart ... I mean, if you really think about it ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

John, the danger in using mc squared is that it has not stood the test
of time. I have difficulty with it as the motion of an observer
acheiving the speed of light seems like standing on a sand spar
waiting for the tide to come in. Same goes with Feynman diagrams
as it just replaces an unknown with another unknown! Are these both
emporers with no clothes surrounded by Lemmings?
Art

Art Unwin wrote:

John, the danger in using mc squared is that it has not stood the test
of time.

Next thing he'll claim is that nuclear fission doesn't release energy.

tom
K0TAR

On Sep 16, 8:44*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

John, the danger in using mc squared is that it has not stood the test
of time.

Next thing he'll claim is that nuclear fission doesn't release energy.

tom
K0TAR

Oh Tom! bound particles means a LARGE force binding particles
together.
Break them apart and you release a large amount of energy which you
cannot destroy.
With heavy water you have two bound particles, the particles
themselves are weak in energy.
But then you are trying to get away from the subject at hand in this
thread.
Want to start atomic stuff then start a thread and attract those who
are interested in that.
Think antennas and radiation
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 16, 8:44 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

John, the danger in using mc squared is that it has not stood the test
of time.
Next thing he'll claim is that nuclear fission doesn't release energy.

tom
K0TAR

Oh Tom! bound particles means a LARGE force binding particles
together.
Break them apart and you release a large amount of energy which you
cannot destroy.
With heavy water you have two bound particles, the particles
themselves are weak in energy.
But then you are trying to get away from the subject at hand in this
thread.
Want to start atomic stuff then start a thread and attract those who
are interested in that.
Think antennas and radiation
Art

Went right over your head at 30,000 feet Art.

tom
K0TAR

Art Unwin wrote:

...
John, the danger in using mc squared is that it has not stood the test
of time. I have difficulty with it as the motion of an observer
acheiving the speed of light seems like standing on a sand spar
waiting for the tide to come in. Same goes with Feynman diagrams
as it just replaces an unknown with another unknown! Are these both
emporers with no clothes surrounded by Lemmings?
Art

Well, darn Art, those nuclear explosions, yanno', like the ones "we"
used to do in Nevada ... those flying particles, the heat, the light,
the radiation, the sand blast, the wind!, etc., it is hard enough to
keep track of all that c*rp flying about, at those speeds (not to
mention the amount of sun screen a guy needs just to be in vicinity!),
it is hard to arrive at an exact tally when, it is all over--yanno' what
I mean, Vern? ;-)

Regards,
JS

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 3:08 pm, "Rectifier" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 16, 2:10 pm, "Rectifier" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 16, 12:52 pm, "Frank" wrote:

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

Also, I would be very interested in identifying where the "weak force"
is indicated in, for example, the following point form expression of
Ampere's Law:

DEL cross H = J+ dD/dt

Frank

Frank
I am not a servant of this newsgroup. All I am doing is trying to
educate those that are willing do be educated
with respect to antennas. You for your self can read the history of
the masters and Newton to determine how they were aware of the weak
force,
its angle and size and yet cannot describe it. Even so it is included
in all calculations involved in the Universe because equilibrium is a
staple.
The fact that members of this group need to be shown that the weak
force is not fictitious is pityful . I have in the prior posting
descibed the action of radiation where previously I have stated that
the weak force is the rotary current flow which as well as the rest of
the details given are preordained by Newtons law. Prove Newton is
wrong and you have my attention.
Nothing personal
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ............xg

-

Oh yeah! Newton was also wrong that light needed a medium through which
to
travel (which he called, "aether").

We are talking ab out radiation not the eather.

The law I am referring to is every action has an opposite reaction.
It is a very short law that has not been disproven.
Application of that law states that for a radiator not in equilibrium
a charge is moving on the outside of the radiator THEREFORE
there is a charge moving in the centre of the radiator in the opposite
direction.
So simple Why do hams reject it? No, the charge at the centre is not
and cannot radiate
You don't need a lot of posts, sneers insults e.t.c. to respond just
go to your nearest University
and provide the statement to the Dean and then bring his response back
to all of us
Art

-

First off, I did not intend to have my post interpretd as a sneer. I'm
sorry if you took it that way. I said, "Oh yeah!" because I thought of the
point after I submitted a previous post.

The equal and opposite reaction law only applies when there is mass.
Electromagnetic radiation has no mass. Therefore, the law does not apply.

Radiation has no mass? You just made that up

-

No, actually, a little fella named Albert Einstein made it up. An electron
and a positron have mass. When they come together and annihilate, they turn
into pure energy (two 511 KeV photons travelling in opposite directions if I
remember right), which has no mass. That's what E=MC^2 predicted; and
that's what happens in certain radioactive decays all the time. Positrons
get produced by the deceleration of neutrons which come too close to the
nucleus of an atom with large mass. They then annihilate when coming close
to an electron. This is just one example.

Radiation has no mass and is, therefore, not subject to Newton's laws. A
link to a simple explanation at a physics department of a university is:

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritt...radiation.html

From that site (and also what I learned in college physics) is: ". . . a
bundle of energy called a "photon" is released. However, particles of light
differ from particles of matter: they have no mass, occupy no space, and
travel at the speed of light. . ."

Rectifier wrote:

...
No, actually, a little fella named Albert Einstein made it up. An
electron and a positron have mass. When they come together and
annihilate, they turn into pure energy (two 511 KeV photons travelling
in opposite directions if I remember right), which has no mass. That's
what E=MC^2 predicted; and that's what happens in certain radioactive
decays all the time. Positrons get produced by the deceleration of
neutrons which come too close to the nucleus of an atom with large
mass. They then annihilate when coming close to an electron. This is
just one example.
...

Actually, we only wish things were/are that simplistic. There is then
"the other story" (hey, did I just see Paul Harvey in here?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

Time and movement are very much in play, as are "kinetic energy factors"
.... in a nutshell, mass to energy is much "easier" process than energy
to mass -- and, certainly, much easier to compute/define/determine.

Regards,
JS