|
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
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 |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"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 |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Mike Lucas" wrote in message . .. "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 Ahmen, time to go back into hibernation Art. W4OP |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
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 |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
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 |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
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 |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"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 - People used to think that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. E=MC^2 took care of that. By equilibrium, are you referring to the law of conservation of energy? |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"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"). |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
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". I believe that! I keep on pushing the facts and as yet nobody has shown that they are in error So n ow count the number of posts that I have seen in return and measure their content with respect to the indicated facts. My target is to over ride the reluctance to change on this subject before I die Why not start a revolution and analyse the postings of this thread and show where they differ from those of mine. Be the first person to do so presuming that you graduated from high school. I had to memorize and fully understand Newtons laws before I left high school and I am presuming the same happens here in the U.S. of A As far as whether I am truthfull or not I would remind you that a $5000 bet was proferred that I could produce the antenna that I talk about. The person with that bet was willing to place the money in advance for holding. Nobody took him up on that bet or mine as I wanted to be a part of it. Art |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 16, 11:06*am, 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 I think your term for equilibrium is the term the exams use for "resonant". An antenna with "equilibrium" is your name for an antenna upon which a TEM standing wave is present with a standing wave ratio of 1:1, correct? That would be your point of maximum effciency of ejection of galactic particles from the end points of the antenna which is optimized by sloping it relative to to the earth plane. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
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 |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"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. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
|
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"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. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... 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 - My engineering training is many years old now, but I haven't seen equilibrium in the context of antennas discussed anywhere except by you, in this newsgroup. Do you have any references to papers that have been peer reviewed and published? |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 16, 2:53*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote: ... I think your term for equilibrium is the term the exams use for "resonant". An antenna with "equilibrium" is your name for an antenna upon which a TEM standing wave is present with a standing wave ratio of 1:1, correct? That would be your point of maximum effciency of ejection of galactic particles from the end points of the antenna which is optimized by sloping it relative to to the earth plane. Some months ago, I made this exact mistake, made, almost, that exact-same statement. Although I did not leave with a complete and clear understanding of "Arts' Equilibrium", I did leave with an understanding it was NOT resonance ... so ??? Regards, JS Thank you I am very pleased that you adressed the subject directly and you are quite correct resonace can be but not necessarily equate to equilibrium. Don't go away JS help these people out when you can. I they do not stay on subject there is no need for me to respond Art |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
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 |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Art Unwin wrote:
... resonace can be but not necessarily equate to equilibrium. Don't go away JS help these people out when you can. I they do not stay on subject there is no need for me to respond Art Well, I got that part "right" too (I think), as demonstrated by a 5/8 wave antenna, etc., they are NOT resonate but exist in the "confines" of your equilibrium ... but Art, they will have to take their lessons from "The Master", you! wink Regards, JS |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
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 |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"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. . ." |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 16, 3:39*pm, "Wayne" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ...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 - My engineering training is many years old now, but I haven't seen equilibrium in the context of antennas discussed anywhere except by you, in this newsgroup. *Do you have any references to papers that have been peer reviewed and published? Oh I suppose a search on google re antennas and equilibrium will get you something to read but difficult if you are starting from Zero. The point where you begin is Newtons laws, if they are in error then so am I I doubt if you will find anything that definitely proves that he is wrong.If a professor does not know what I have stated he should be nfired which goes for some of the people at University of Illinois in the electrical engineering area. EVERYTHING in science revolves around equilibrium. If a posting denys that or does not respond to that Law i will not respond and that includes Richard whose sole aim in life if to divert the crowd with off topic nothings as he does not ahve any engineering degree from any accredited college and thus is a pretender looking for a date with any poster. Art |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
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 |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
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 |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
but difficult if you are starting from Zero. The point where you begin
is Newtons laws, if they are in error then so am I Newtons laws are not in error. But your application of them is in error. You are applying laws that apply to objects with mass to electromagnetic radiation, which has no mass. engineering degree from any accredited college and thus is a pretender looking for a date with any poster. I have an Engineering Physics degree from a university program that is an ABET certified engineering program. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Rectifier wrote:
Radiation has no mass ... On the contrary, radiation is photons which indeed do have mass when traveling at the speed of light, which radiation does. The pressure of photons from the sun can actually be used to propel a sail boat through space. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sm...l_feature.html -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Art Unwin wrote:
... The point where you begin is Newtons laws, if they are in error then so am I I doubt if you will find anything that definitely proves that he is wrong.If a professor does not know what I have stated he should be nfired ... Art Well, I certainly don't know about all that ... But, if my understanding is correct, newtons laws begin to "fall apart" with very small particles ... and indeed, the ether (eather, aether -- sometimes I make a typo and type it as "either") is composed of such ... I am sure, I am least correct at the quantum level ... wink Regards, JS |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Rectifier wrote:
You are applying laws that apply to objects with mass to electromagnetic radiation, which has no mass. Photons have zero rest mass. Otherwise, they couldn't travel at the speed of light. But photons traveling at the speed of light certainly have mass. Where in the world did you get such irrational ideas? I have an Engineering Physics degree from a university program that is an ABET certified engineering program. After your latest posting, they may de-certify your university's program. Exactly what university was it that taught you that photons traveling at the speed of light have zero mass? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 16, 4:23*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: ... The point where you begin is Newtons laws, if they are in error then so am I I doubt if you will find anything that definitely proves that he is wrong.If a professor does not know what I have stated he should be nfired ... Art Well, I certainly don't know about all that ... But, if my understanding is correct, newtons laws begin to "fall apart" with very small particles ... and indeed, the ether (eather, aether -- sometimes I make a typo and type it as "either") is composed of such ... I am sure, I am least correct at the quantum level ... wink Regards, JS That was ruled out when it was determined that Neutrons were not without mass ! |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Art Unwin wrote:
... That was ruled out when it was determined that Neutrons were not without mass ! Hmmm ... actually, how can anything "really" be without "mass", isn't energy just a "form of mass" and "vice versa?" I mean, the equations certainly imply this ... I mean really, when we deal with particles the size of photons and below .... aren't they "melding" into the same "thingys" grin ... and, perhaps my data is old ... I don't think "newton does quantum", but he might have a brother by the same name ... ;-) Regards, JS |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 16, 4:32*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Rectifier wrote: You are applying laws that apply to objects with mass to electromagnetic radiation, which has no mass. Photons have zero rest mass. Otherwise, they couldn't travel at the speed of light. But photons traveling at the speed of light certainly have mass. Where in the world did you get such irrational ideas? I have an Engineering Physics degree from a university program that is an ABET certified engineering program. After your latest posting, they may de-certify your university's program. Exactly what university was it that taught you that photons traveling at the speed of light have zero mass? -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com Cecil, this sounds like a regular poster David.Perhaps he is pulling your leg with his nonsence Art |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
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 |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
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 |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
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 |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Art Unwin wrote:
... Cecil, this sounds like a regular poster David.Perhaps he is pulling your leg with his nonsence Art What, this is not the "Pulling Your Leg Festival?" Damn, it appears I have caught the wrong door again! Last time this happened, it was a womens restroom, at walmart, no less :-( -- at least this is less embarrassing ... grin I have found this news group to be a usable answer to the question, "What would happen if you accidentally entered the door to an old-peoples/rest-home/psychiatric-institution instead of the forum for the college lecture you were supposed to be at and in attendance? Hey, it works for me ... another-straight-face-yet Regards, JS |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
... http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/money_24.html It has evolved into the money that farmers get from the government to NOT grow crops and keep prices high. Jeff: Every once and-a-while a poster deserves my undivided attention AND respect; today, that poster is YOU! ROFLOL!!!! Warmest regards, JS |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:47:54 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: On Sep 16, 4:32*pm, Cecil Moore wrote: Photons have zero rest mass. a photon at rest, how droll. Cecil, this sounds like a regular poster David.Perhaps he is pulling your leg with his nonsence We know that we can accelerate an electron to 90% of the speed of light - it happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt displays still glowing in the world. Some of us know its mass at this speed. A question for the Newtonian philosopherz: "What is the mass of a photon traveling at 90% of the speed of light?" 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 16, 6:56*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:15:58 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: What on earth does parity mean in the U.S.? Art http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/money_24.html It has evolved into the money that farmers get from the government to NOT grow crops and keep prices high. -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 * * * * * #http://802.11junk.com* * * * * * * #http://www.LearnByDestroying.com* * * * * * * AE6KS Well you may have hit on it. I am an englishman still in the learning of American. I saw the term parity as being on a par,maybe that is where I am going wrong. The law I am refering to is that every action has an opposite reaction, not quite the words Newtons used but the reaction is on par with the initial action. If you are in doubt look up Newtons actual words. Parity is what I picked up on this newsgroup so when in Rome........ Parity means the maintainance of balance still sounds O.K. but I will not use it any more! Art |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Art Unwin wrote:
Oh I suppose a search on google re antennas and equilibrium will get you something to read Nope, unless you are interested in insects, the above statement is dead wrong. tom K0TAR |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
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 |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Cecil Moore wrote:
Rectifier wrote: Radiation has no mass ... On the contrary, radiation is photons which indeed do have mass when traveling at the speed of light, which radiation does. According to Einstein, anything with energy has mass equivalence - especially photons. But other than that, nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light. You can have one, or the other, not both. 73, ac6xg |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com