"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

"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

On Sep 16, 8:05*pm, John Smith wrote:

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

Now how about that? WISDOM! I have to give credit where credit is due.

On Sep 16, 6:53*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
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.

Truth is stranger than fiction and what I am saying is the truth or
factual.
In all the years that I have been on this group nobody has proved me
wrong
with respect to radiation. If they had I would have apologized for the
record.
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.
Find an expert for yourself and ask him the same questions that you
ask of me.
My statements are nothing special and nor am I
Art





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

On Sep 16, 7:38*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 16, 6:53*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.

Truth is stranger than fiction and what I am saying is the truth or
factual.
In all the years that I have been on this group nobody has proved me
wrong
with respect to radiation. If they had I would have apologized for the
record.
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.
Find an expert for yourself and ask him the same questions that you
ask of me.
*My statements are nothing special and nor am I
Art

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

I think I have to take a bash at the term equilibrium since it apears
to be latin this side of the pond.
Equilibrium means balance using a minimumn of words. If there was not
balance then there would be movement.
Scientists revert to an arbitrary field where the outside forces equal
the inside forces as in Gauss's law of statics.
If movement is to be considered then the field will be termed dynamic.
Adding a time varying field and radiators to the static field
it is then the same format as Maxwells laws ie. derivative mathematics
of one is exactly the same as the other i.e. they are the same thing

If you look at a sinosoidal curve you have balance between the stating
point and another point that is repeatable.
With a pendulum it is two swings ,forward and backwards which is then
repeatable. In the case of a radiator the length of one point to a
similar point
that is repeatable is a point of equilibrium. True the curve crosses
zero at the half way point but the areas enclosed either side of the
half way point
are not in repeatable terms unless the curve does not cross the zero
point that is resonant but not in equilibrium. When it gets to the
point of repeatebility
or at the end of a period a term used in frequency then that point is
both in equilibrium and resonant.
As an aside when changing from a static field to a dynamic field the
term equilibrium still holds which leads to the term
A radiator can be any shape, form or elevation as long as it is in
equilibrium. This rules out the idea that a radiator must be straight
and planar.
I think I have said to much Nuf said class dismissed.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg
So guys look at the intent of what I am saying without crusifying the
terminology.

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