On Sep 16, 9:40*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

* ...

John you are equating resonance with equilibrium, a dipole in antenna
terms is a half wavelength
resonant but not in a state of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a staple in
this Universe. First comes equilibrium
after which you may consider resonance.......but not the reverse. Both
of the samples are of a half wave length thus it is not in
equilibrium.
Equilibrium comes first in the satisfaction analysis, if it fails all
falls apart.
Best regards
Art

Uhhh Art, you "were" actually responding to "JB", you are lucky I read
your posts, and that this one prompted me to respond (or, unlucky, I
guess it depends on how "you view it" grin ) ...

I realize "something IS wrong" with the basic platform all "antenna
theory/equations/formulas/maths/truths/etc." is/are built upon ... but
what that "something" is? ... all I can say, I am looking and wondering
... but then, so are many -- and, if you are one of that "many", you
already have foot on the right path ... need I include, IMHO?

Regards,
JS

Sorry about that. Don't you think it is odd that all computer programs
based on Maxwells laws reflect every thing I have stated? I am not a
computer freak
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?
None of this is in the antenna books or relavent books on science and
do you know why?
My generation has been taken over by computers where prior generations
resorted to origanal thought from first principles.
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. Problem is that books on the sciences
have not had critical analysis by the following generation which
always call for revisions. The books used for supplying questions to
the computer are those taken from the books that never received the
normal generational
revisions. Sorting computer answers requires common sense but with the
absence of required revisions what one calls common sense is one that
needs revision ala garbage in garbage out. Now we get statements that
if more gain came from tipping antennas the world would have tipped
the towers
years ago. To me that is totally absent of common sence but for people
who rely on unrevised books it is perfectly understandable. If people
have discarded Universal laws then the computers will not reflect same
based on input. 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. 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.
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.......... 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 many of past generations
that have
generalized about point radiation alas this generations belittles it
and successfully resist change. Sad Sad Sad
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg

On Sep 17, 12:18*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 16, 9:40*pm, John Smith wrote:



Art Unwin wrote:

* ...

John you are equating resonance with equilibrium, a dipole in antenna
terms is a half wavelength
resonant but not in a state of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a staple in
this Universe. First comes equilibrium
after which you may consider resonance.......but not the reverse. Both
of the samples are of a half wave length thus it is not in
equilibrium.
Equilibrium comes first in the satisfaction analysis, if it fails all
falls apart.
Best regards
Art

Uhhh Art, you "were" actually responding to "JB", you are lucky I read
your posts, and that this one prompted me to respond (or, unlucky, I
guess it depends on how "you view it" grin ) ...

I realize "something IS wrong" with the basic platform all "antenna
theory/equations/formulas/maths/truths/etc." is/are built upon ... but
what that "something" is? ... all I can say, I am looking and wondering
... but then, so are many -- and, if you are one of that "many", you
already have foot on the right path ... need I include, IMHO?

Regards,
JS

Sorry about that. Don't you think it is odd that all computer programs
based on Maxwells laws reflect every thing I have stated? I am not a
computer freak
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?
None of this is in the antenna books or relavent books on science and
do you know why?
My generation has been taken over by computers where prior generations
resorted to origanal thought from first principles.
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. Problem is that books on the sciences
have not had critical analysis by the following generation which
always call for revisions. The books used for supplying questions to
the computer are those taken from the books that never received the
normal generational
revisions. Sorting computer answers requires common sense but with the
absence of required revisions what one calls common sense is one that
needs revision ala garbage in garbage out. Now we get statements that
if more gain came from tipping antennas the world would have tipped
the towers
years ago. To me that is totally absent of common sence but for people
who rely on unrevised books it is perfectly understandable. If people
have discarded Universal laws then the computers will not reflect same
based on input. 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. 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.
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.......... 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 many of past generations
that have
generalized about point radiation alas this generations belittles it
and successfully resist change. Sad * Sad * Sad
Art Unwin * * * KB9MZ........xg

If you really want us "lesser mortals" to appreciate your thoughts ,
why don't you just put down your formulations in terms of concrete
mathematical equations and post it to a website or some place as a
document or something. That way we can see what you mean. In all of
these I assume that your thoughts are at least expressible in terms of
the known mathematics.
We would appreciate your endeavor and who knows it can lead to a new
form of mathematics with your pure and powerful thoughts.
And don't think that I am saying you are wrong outright because what
you have said as reaction forces, are involved in a local neighborhood
of the electron and the field associated with it. But they don't quite
manifest in a way that you say they does to the best of my knowledge.
Moreover it is not quite a practical idea to think of individual
electrons and the reaction associated with them when they are in all
probable states and with well practically innumerable number of
electrons.

In case you don't like to quantify your thoughts and put them into
practical formulations which can be solved in finite number of
steps.... well I am sorry we will never be enlightened. And prefer to
look at an antenna the more conventional way. All these neglecting the
fact that mechanics of particles at microscopic level deviates
considerably from the macroscopic world formulations, the inclusion of
which might make this thread more bitter.
--DB

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

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.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:20:23 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

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

I wish you would edit my drivel. I just hate reading my own writing.
I even have myself entered in my kill file. Don't worry about the
length. The problem was that a tape backup and restore was taking far
longer than I expected. I didn't wanna do anything useful, so I
decided to dive into Usenet. Don't worry, it probably won't happen
again.

Thanks for being candid with us.

I was too tired and overworked to fabricate any lies. It's so much
easier to tell the truth, especially since I don't have to later
remember and untangle the lies that I fabricated.

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'm cleaning up. After many years of neglect and sloth, there's no
more room left to add more things. I've already tossed or recycled
most of the junk. I'm now working on the good stuff. I just
discovered I have 5 air compressors, 5 bicycles, 3 sweep generators,
etc. Time to downsize.

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

My secret is that I'm not married. Things tend to stay where I leave
them. Count your blessings. If your wife didn't pickup after you,
your shop would look like mine.

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

If you check my posting history, you'll find that I usually answer
questions, not ask them. I learn more by doing the necessary research
to answer other peoples questions, than I do by asking questions.

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.

You obviously haven't read my postings. Try alt.internet.wireless.
I'm the one that is doing the intimidating.

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

Nope. My life is an endless search for entertainment value. That
might explain why I wasted an hour or more replying to Art.

How my world works:
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/panorama/jeffl.htm
(Wait for the page to load. Move mouse around image.)

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

Well, thanks for the welcome and warnings.

Warm regards,

Yep. I just stacked about half a cord of firewood. I wanna be warm
this winter.

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