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.

Art Unwin wrote:
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.

Amazing. So many words, so little information pertaining to the
subject. And meanwhile smoothly changing the focus while still saying
nothing. He really is awesome.

tom
K0TAR

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

On Sep 17, 12:30*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
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=bLQuYRAAAACBvd...
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=tWGMphwAAAAGTj...
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

Jeff
Let us straighten out a few things about me that most know
I am nowhere as clever or versatile in all the subjects that you
mentioned.
Frankly my present knoweledge is very limited.
I had a heart attack, 5 bypasses plus a loss in memory.So that I could
continue to live I chose radiation as a niche
study for recovery. Ofcourse I will never recover fully. So basically
I have tunnel vision built around the niche of radiation and antennas
where I went back to first principles and started with Newton
This process has lasted for several years, very slow progress but I
have got to a point that my thoughts on antennas and radiation is so
different from the books that I have to go back to the beginning with
respect tp Newton and re evaluate with my peers. Yes I am seen as an
idiot, very understandable but I am persistent in talking and
discussing the initial point in radiation .From Newtons laws I deduce
that current flow on a fractional wavelength antenna includes current
flow thru the centre of a radiator. I am going right back to my new
beginnings but the books do not say that! Soi I can't participate in
the many diversions from the niche I have taken and thus ask for a
similar focus from others. No sympathy or crying desired as I am
comfortable and living a good life but even with tunnel vision I am
determined to continue and participate in the route I have chosen as
there is no alternative.
Sooooo after more than a thousand posts based on the initial radiator
and equilibrium I have been unable to make one step forward in a re
evaluation of my journey. But I will never give up so you will have to
live with that. All of this is old hat to most of the posters who give
me hell and sometimes I respond in kind to new posters in a like
manner which is wrong but it happens. So to sum up I am a simple man
with tunnel vision in a single subject and no where as knoweledgable
as other posters outside my field of choice.
My very best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:43:22 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Frankly my present knoweledge is very limited.

Then learn. Antenna design and modeling is not easy. Just
understanding Maxwell's Equations is enough to keep you busy for a few
months. Antenna modeling (I suggest using 4NEC2) will keep you busy
for another few months. Trying to reconcile theory, models, and
reality will burn a few more months. However, when you're done, you
will understand something about antennas and how they work.
http://home.ict.nl/~arivoors/

Personally, I judge people by their willingness and ability to learn.
That's what distinguished modern technological humans from a inanimate
rock.

I had a heart attack, 5 bypasses plus a loss in memory.

In 2002, I just barely missed having a heart attack. I nearly passed
out during the treadmill test. I celebrated the event with a triple
bypass, which effectively rolled back my biological clock about 10
years. Best thing I ever did. No memory loss except from the
anaesthetics used during surgery. Incidentally, I'm now 60.8 years
old. Kinda sounds like you also had a stroke. You're lucky to be
alive. My father had a stroke in 1986 and did not do very well
afterwards.

So that I could
continue to live I chose radiation as a niche
study for recovery.

Fine, but I question the methods you call "study". It's considered
good form to gather your evidence first, and then supply your
conclusions, not the reverse order.

Of course I will never recover fully.

Neither will I. I'm still collecting medical problems. Man was meant
to live for about 25 years. Anything beyond that is a free ride.

So basically
I have tunnel vision built around the niche of radiation and antennas
where I went back to first principles and started with Newton
This process has lasted for several years, very slow progress but I
have got to a point that my thoughts on antennas and radiation is so
different from the books that I have to go back to the beginning with
respect tp Newton and re evaluate with my peers.

Radio and antennas are built of physics. However, it's not Newtonian
physics, but electrodynamics as in Maxwell's Equations. Have you
studied those? They're quite different from Newton's equations, which
a sometimes called "classical mechanics". (Note: It's not easy. Just
decoding the notation is a major challenge).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

Yes I am seen as an
idiot, very understandable but I am persistent in talking and
discussing the initial point in radiation .

You make an attempt at understanding. An idiot doesn't even try.

From Newtons laws I deduce
that current flow on a fractional wavelength antenna includes current
flow thru the centre of a radiator.

Which of Newton's laws? What equations or thought experiment resulted
in this deduction? How do you reconcile your conclusion with the
common assumption that RF current flows on the outside of a conductor?

I am going right back to my new
beginnings but the books do not say that!

For good reason. You're wrong and your unspecified books are correct.

So I can't participate in
the many diversions from the niche I have taken and thus ask for a
similar focus from others.

Yes you can. You can take it one step at a time. No need to jump
directly from Newton to skin effect. Just walk me through your logic.

No sympathy or crying desired as I am
comfortable and living a good life but even with tunnel vision I am
determined to continue and participate in the route I have chosen as
there is no alternative.

By contrast, I'm willing to throw out everything I have learned and
presume to be correct, if any of it can be proven or demonstrated
wrong. I hold absolutely nothing (except my bank balance) as sacred,
and consider everything subject to suspicion and debate. If you are
permanently attached to your pet theory, you effectively refuse to
accept input or criticism. Therefore, you have stopped learning and
are starting to resemble the previously mentioned inanimate rock.

For example, did you know that the direction one counts causes the
final count to vary? A simple example is counting the number of
fingers on both hands. Start from one end counting 1,2,3,4,5,6... and
ending in 10, which appears to be the correct count. Yet counting
fingers downward results in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, plus 5 more makes 11.
Surprise, you have 11 fingers. Like I said, nothing is sacred.

Sooooo after more than a thousand posts based on the initial radiator
and equilibrium I have been unable to make one step forward in a re
evaluation of my journey. But I will never give up so you will have to
live with that. All of this is old hat to most of the posters who give
me hell and sometimes I respond in kind to new posters in a like
manner which is wrong but it happens. So to sum up I am a simple man
with tunnel vision in a single subject and no where as knoweledgable
as other posters outside my field of choice.

Suit yourself. As you make your bed, so shall you sleep in it.
Repetition of incorrect gibberish only works in politics, not in
science and technology.

My very best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

Good luck. Let me know when you produce some logic, equations, or
numbers.

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

On Sep 17, 10:07*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:43:22 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
Frankly my present knoweledge is very limited.

Then learn. *Antenna design and modeling is not easy. *Just
understanding Maxwell's Equations is enough to keep you busy for a few
months. *Antenna modeling (I suggest using 4NEC2) will keep you busy
for another few months. *Trying to reconcile theory, models, and
reality will burn a few more months. *However, when you're done, you
will understand something about antennas and how they work.
http://home.ict.nl/~arivoors/

Personally, I judge people by their willingness and ability to learn.
That's what distinguished modern technological humans from a inanimate
rock.

I had a heart attack, 5 bypasses plus a loss in memory.

In 2002, I just barely missed having a heart attack. *I nearly passed
out during the treadmill test. *I celebrated the event with a triple
bypass, which effectively rolled back my biological clock about 10
years. *Best thing I ever did. *No memory loss except from the
anaesthetics used during surgery. *Incidentally, I'm now 60.8 years
old. *Kinda sounds like you also had a stroke. *You're lucky to be
alive. *My father had a stroke in 1986 and did not do very well
afterwards.

So that I could
continue to live I chose radiation as a niche
study for recovery.

Fine, but I question the methods you call "study". *It's considered
good form to gather your evidence first, and then supply your
conclusions, not the reverse order.

Of course I will never recover fully.

Neither will I. *I'm still collecting medical problems. *Man was meant
to live for about 25 years. *Anything beyond that is a free ride. *

So basically
I have tunnel vision built around the niche of radiation and antennas
where I went back to first principles and started with Newton
This process has lasted for several years, very slow progress but I
have got to a point that my thoughts on antennas and radiation is so
different from the books that I have to go back to the beginning with
respect tp Newton and re evaluate with my peers.

Radio and antennas are built of physics. *However, it's not Newtonian
physics, but electrodynamics as in Maxwell's Equations. *Have you
studied those? *They're quite different from Newton's equations, which
a sometimes called "classical mechanics". *(Note: *It's not easy. Just
decoding the notation is a major challenge).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

Yes I am seen as an
idiot, very understandable but I am persistent in talking and
discussing the initial point in radiation .

You make an attempt at understanding. *An idiot doesn't even try.

From Newtons laws I deduce
that current flow on a fractional wavelength antenna includes current
flow thru the centre of a radiator.

Which of Newton's laws? *What equations or thought experiment resulted
in this deduction? *How do you reconcile your conclusion with the
common assumption that RF current flows on the outside of a conductor?

I am going right back to my new
beginnings but the books do not say that!

For good reason. *You're wrong and your unspecified books are correct.

So I can't participate in
the many diversions from the niche I have taken and thus ask for a
similar focus from others.

Yes you can. *You can take it one step at a time. *No need to jump
directly from Newton to skin effect. *Just walk me through your logic.

No sympathy or crying desired as I am
comfortable and living a good life but even with tunnel vision I am
determined to continue and participate in the route I have chosen as
there is no alternative.

By contrast, I'm willing to throw out everything I have learned and
presume to be correct, if any of it can be proven or demonstrated
wrong. *I hold absolutely nothing (except my bank balance) as sacred,
and consider everything subject to suspicion and debate. *If you are
permanently attached to your pet theory, you effectively refuse to
accept input or criticism. *Therefore, you have stopped learning and
are starting to resemble the previously mentioned inanimate rock.

For example, did you know that the direction one counts causes the
final count to vary? *A simple example is counting the number of
fingers on both hands. *Start from one end counting 1,2,3,4,5,6... and
ending in 10, which appears to be the correct count. *Yet counting
fingers downward results in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, plus 5 more makes 11.
Surprise, you have 11 fingers. *Like I said, nothing is sacred.

Sooooo after more than a thousand posts based on the initial radiator
and equilibrium I have been unable to make one step forward in a re
evaluation of my journey. But I will never give up so you will have to
live with that. All of this is old hat to most of the posters who give
me hell and sometimes I respond in kind to new posters in a like
manner which is wrong but it happens. So to sum up I am a simple man
with tunnel vision in a single subject and no where as knoweledgable
as other posters outside my field of choice.

Suit yourself. *As you make your bed, so shall you sleep in it.
Repetition of incorrect gibberish only works in politics, not in
science and technology.

My very best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

Good luck. *Let me know when you produce some logic, equations, or
numbers.

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

It has been placedon this newsgroup a couple of times or more over the
years and I will try to find
it. If I can't then I will write it up again the best way I can which
all have difficulty with.
I thank you very very much for your most genourous offer and Frank if
you want a copy we can do that to
Regards
Art