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 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 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

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

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

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

"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?

"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").

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

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.