|
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
What blows my mind John there is nobody willing to do the math with
respect to my extension of GAUSS It blows my mind when a ham with a doctorate comes along and supplies the mathematical proof and the math is denied by the guru's on this newsgroup. Art, the following should address your concerns with respect to Gauss's law. I maintain the web site for the "Night Train Express" net on 75 m, and have added a page to this web site concerning Gauss etc. There are two pages copied from a text book. Note that the third of Maxwell's equation is Gauss's Law. Link at: http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development of the wave equation. 73, Frank |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:26:27 GMT, "Frank" wrote:
Link at: http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development of the wave equation. Are you suppressing a 3rd page of math showing equal librium? It must be there according to Art's revisionist discovery of Newton's laws for the Unified Theory of RF Fields. ... maybe the 7th or 8th page then. 42nd page? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Nov 4, 9:48 am, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Mark Keith wrote: "Why would I even "need" to do your work?" Good question. Art`s full wavelength of wire is rolled up so its individual elements aren`t strung up to fully reinforce each other`s fields. Resistance loss of the elements adds even when rolled up. Art wrote: "What blows my mind John there is nobody willing to do the math with respect to my extension of GAUSS." Who needs it? Terman`s 1955 opus says on page 864: "Radio waves represent electrical energy that has escaped into free space: they are described in detail in Sec. 1-1. Radio waves are produced to some extent whenever a wire in open space carries a high-frequency current. The laws governing such radiation are obtained by using Maxwell`s equations to express the fields associated with the wi when this is done there is found to be a component, termed the radiated field, having a strength that varies inversely with distance." Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Well Richard I don't go along with that unless the definition of a wave is made clear. Some see a wave likened to a part of a cobwebb m oving in the atmosphere. Other see a wave as a group of particles unconnected but moving in unison with other particles thru the atmosphere. I go with the particle aproach in a counter gravity flight. Until. a good definition of a wave comes along and how such is constituted; As far as doing all the work for me the work has all been done and each assertion is backed up by existing modern practices such that no more proof is required. If people want to ignore science let them believe that the World is flat but I can't expect the like of Mark to follow such a trail as he readily admits to not completing high school or for that matter people who consider that all education has been completed and thus all is known,. Fortunately many hams are continueing to experiment in search of the holy grail where others wish to continue as just talking heads. Termnans definition quoted above is not definitive with respect to radiation in any way and it is well recognised that radiation is not known in all its aspects. What is known is that there are four fources involved all of which are accounted for in Maxwell's mathematics but not fully explained in a scientific account and that includes the so called definition that Terman put forward in the absense of fuul knoweledge of radiation. Regards Art ------------- I appreciate higher education, Art. But not all higher education needs to be obtained at college or university. After all, if one reads the same books outside of an organized curriculum and if one truly loves the pursuit of knowledge, is it not possible for one to further ones knowledge without completing organized/formal schemes of formal education? IIRC, some of our most important scientific discoveries were made by "uneducated" individuals. I feel that too much emphasis is placed upon having credentials in this world, not that I would not like to have a degree or two of my own to proudly display on the wall. Ed, NM2K (for just a short while longer) |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Ed Cregger wrote:
Well Richard I don't go along with that unless the definition of a wave is made clear. Some see a wave likened to a part of a cobwebb m oving in the atmosphere. Other see a wave as a group of particles unconnected but moving in unison with other particles thru the atmosphere. I go with the particle aproach in a counter gravity flight. I don't believe in waves moving through ether. I believe there is a field around a radiator, exactly like the glow around a light bulb. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
"Dave" wrote in message ... Ed Cregger wrote: Well Richard I don't go along with that unless the definition of a wave is made clear. Some see a wave likened to a part of a cobwebb m oving in the atmosphere. Other see a wave as a group of particles unconnected but moving in unison with other particles thru the atmosphere. I go with the particle aproach in a counter gravity flight. I don't believe in waves moving through ether. I believe there is a field around a radiator, exactly like the glow around a light bulb. ------------ Sorry, Dave. I did not write that text. Allegedly, scientists have determined that the very foundation of our universe is made of something that they call "quantum foam". Tiny sub particles that pop into and then out of existence. To me, this is just another way of saying "the aether". Ed, NM2K |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 5, 8:17*am, "Ed Cregger" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Nov 4, 9:48 am, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Mark Keith wrote: "Why would I even "need" to do your work?" Good question. Art`s full wavelength of wire is rolled up so its individual elements aren`t strung up to fully reinforce each other`s fields. Resistance loss of the elements adds even when rolled up. Art wrote: "What blows my mind John there is nobody willing to do the math with respect to my extension of GAUSS." Who needs it? Terman`s 1955 opus says on page 864: "Radio waves represent electrical energy that has escaped into free space: they are described in detail in Sec. 1-1. Radio waves are produced to some extent whenever a wire in open space carries a high-frequency current. The laws governing such radiation are obtained by using Maxwell`s equations to express the fields associated with the wi when this is done there is found to be a component, termed the radiated field, having a strength that varies inversely with distance." Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Well Richard I don't go along with that unless the definition of a wave is made clear. Some see a wave likened to a part of a cobwebb m oving in the atmosphere. Other see a wave as a group of particles unconnected but moving in unison with other particles thru the atmosphere. I go with the particle aproach in a counter gravity flight. Until. a good definition of a wave comes along and how such is constituted; As far as doing all the work for me the work has all been done and each assertion is backed up by existing modern practices such that no more proof is required. If people want to ignore science let them believe that the World is flat but I can't expect the like of Mark to follow such a trail as he readily admits to not completing high school or for that matter people who consider that all education has been completed and thus all is known,. Fortunately many hams are continueing to experiment in search of the holy grail where others wish to continue as just talking heads. Termnans definition quoted above is not definitive with respect to radiation in any way and it is well recognised that radiation is not known in all its aspects. What is known is that there are four fources involved all of which are accounted for in Maxwell's mathematics but not fully explained in a scientific account and that includes the so called definition that Terman put forward in the absense of fuul knoweledge of radiation. Regards Art ------------- I appreciate higher education, Art. But not all higher education needs to be obtained at college or university. After all, if one reads the same books outside of an organized curriculum and if one truly loves the pursuit of knowledge, is it not possible for one to further ones knowledge without completing organized/formal schemes of formal education? IIRC, some of our most important scientific discoveries were made by "uneducated" individuals. I feel that too much emphasis is placed upon having credentials in this world, not that I would not like to have a degree or two of my own to proudly display on the wall. Ed, NM2K (for just a short while longer) Ed, I agree with you 100% but if you are going to debate a subject then one stands on his knoweledge base without resorting to slirs. In a debate both positions are put on the table for debate. We are long gone from the days that those who challenge old ideas are pushed aside purely on the volume of jeers without any evidence what ever. Mark cannot debate the subject on its technical merits however he can mount an assault on any messenger based on emotions, he certainly is not equiped to go thru the higher math of Maxwell and Gauss. This does not exclude him from any discussion but to mount a personal assault in the place of knoweledge just gives exposure to what a person he really is.. On the subject of antennas I have put thru a theory where a particular antenna is produced. Antennas produced in the past have been torn apart on its merits thro out ham radio history but only after study and it is this study that I am looking for. As yet nothing that I have put forward has been scientifically refutted not that I wish for that but I do relish a challenge Regards Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Link at: http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm
Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development of the wave equation. Are you suppressing a 3rd page of math showing equal librium? It must be there according to Art's revisionist discovery of Newton's laws for the Unified Theory of RF Fields. ... maybe the 7th or 8th page then. 42nd page? No, Sorry Richard. Nothing about "Equal librium" in 1200 pages. 73, Frank, VE6CB |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 5, 8:44*am, Dave wrote:
Ed Cregger wrote: Well Richard I don't go along with that unless the definition of a wave is made clear. Some see a wave likened to a part of a cobwebb m oving in the atmosphere. Other see a wave as a group of particles unconnected but moving in unison with other particles thru the atmosphere. I go with the particle aproach in a counter gravity flight. I don't believe in waves moving through ether. *I believe there is a field around a radiator, exactly like the glow around a light bulb. David Nothing wrong with that as we are looking at the exchange of energy as with a tank circuit, I don't think there is any disagreement with at, it is where the subject of communication fits in. Observation shows that communication density varies with the state of the Sun and scientists have recognised particles on Earth that comes from the Sun. We also know that communication exists in a straight line so one must determine how such a thing can be created. We all know there are four forces at work in our Universe so it is essential that they are fully understood when we study radiation such that existing facts are corroborated. So David now you have established that there is a sort of glow in your mind around a antenna you have only established a possible starting point of your study. I have put forward a replication of radiation based on scrap sorting procedures that match the tank circuit phenomina and applied it to the subject of radiation where I account for all the four forces where straight line projection is maintained so why is this such a problem to hams? Regards Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Art wrote:
"Well Richard I don`t go along with that unless the definition of a wave is made clear." We deal with sinusoidal waves because all other shapes can be nade from combinations of these. Particle aspects of radiation come to the fore only when radiation interaxts with matter. Physics tells us a particle that moves with constant momentum in a straight line according to Newton`s first law (inertia statement) has wave motion, according to the "de Broglie hypothesis". Lambda = Planck`s constant / momentum. The wave aspect of EM radiation is used as a model to make the phenomenon intelligible in terms of familiar laws and events of our everyday, large-scale world. The 3rd edition of Kraus` "Antennas" says on page 904: "They (computer program designers) could develop software to simulate the performance of antennas. In general, these techniques either numerically solve Maxwell`s equations by descretizing the problem using integral techniques, such as Moment Methods (MoM) as discussed in Sec.14-11, or differential technuques, such as finite elements or finite difference-time domain." Maxwell gave us everything we need. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Ed Cregger wrote:
Allegedly, scientists have determined that the very foundation of our universe is made of something that they call "quantum foam". Tiny sub particles that pop into and then out of existence. To me, this is just another way of saying "the aether". Apparently Einstein agreed with you. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 5, 10:00*am, Art Unwin wrote:
Mark cannot debate the subject on its technical merits however he can mount an assault on any messenger based on emotions, he certainly is not equiped to go thru the higher math of Maxwell and Gauss. How can one debate an issue when the one offering the new theory refuses to answer any questions posed to him? And if I run across some math I can't handle, I can surely find someone who can. No one is going to be able to know everything, and that includes you. It seems to me you are not equipped to handle the math yourself. You sure haven't offered any at all. Zero.Nada. Zilch. So how would you know if I can handle the math or not? You haven't offered any to inspect. And neither did the Doktor you constantly bring up. Not a bit. This does not exclude him from any discussion but to mount a personal assault in the place of knoweledge just gives exposure to what a person he really is.. You are the one that started the personal assaults a long time ago. You've had your knickers in a twist ever since I proved your "loophole" antenna did not work as you claimed and it's all gone downhill since then. And that was a long time ago. You are the only one that seems to be worried about my level of education. No one else seems to care a whit. If I'm such an ignorant dumbass as you claim, why did it only take me about 30 minutes to disprove your "loophole" antenna theory. You know, the dipole fed with a version of a T match, with a variable cap that you claimed would allow you to steer the pattern of the antenna. A quick modeling of that antenna proved your claims to be false as far as steering the pattern. On your behalf, I did prove that the antenna was viable as far as tuning for each band, but I disproved your claims of steering the pattern. And I didn't need a spec of math to do it. What was your response to this modeling? Nothing at all... :/ Being as I shot that antenna out of the water, you quickly dropped it, and decided to try other designs. Very inefficient designs I might add. Of course you disagree, but you refuse to actually do the real world tests to prove or disprove these claims. Instead, you attack the messenger. You whine about other hams. You whine about England vs the USA. You just whine. Period. I find it disgusting. Sorry if that chaps your ass. I really could care less. What kind of person am I? I'm a person who can't stand a whiner, that's who I am. And all you do is whine, ****, and moan about *other* hams that won't do *your* work for you. On a personal level, you make me sick to my stomach. If you were any kind of real scientist, you would have done all this work on your own, and proved or disproved your theory to *yourself* before braying like a jackass on this group. You supposedly gave an antenna to a ham on this group to inspect and test. Did we ever hear about any results of this test. Nope. Not a peep. Zero, zilch, nada.. Did he ever report back to you? He sure didn't report back to us. Of course, you won't reveal if he did or not. Leads me to believe that my quick analysis of your antenna was pretty much right on, if you all are afraid to post the results. I don't need too much math to smell a turd. I have enough real world antenna experience to know what is bunk, and what is the real deal. I have offered you a sure way out of this mess many times, but you refuse to listen. I said, build it and test it! If it actually works, and you can prove it, your dilemma is over. But you refuse. You would rather whine, ****, and moan about all the other hams on the planet. You claim that most hams think all is known about antennas. But the only one I hear say that over and over is *you*. And to me, it's quite obvious that *you* have a long ways to go before you could even be close to claiming you know everything about antennas. Myself, I know I don't know everything about antennas, and I don't make claims hinting that I do. You will notice I don't enter threads which are out of my expertise. A man has to know his limitations. On the subject of antennas I have put thru a theory where a particular antenna is produced. Where is the "produced" antenna? Have you tested it against a radiator of known performance? Like a dipole? Antennas produced in the past have been torn apart on its merits thro out ham radio history but only after study and it is this study that I am looking for. Well, I hope you find that study wherever it is hiding and put it out of it's misery. As yet nothing that I have put forward has been scientifically refutted not that I wish for that but I do relish a challenge You wouldn't know how to respond to a challenge if it bit you in the ass. You refuse to answer logical questions posed to you. You refuse to reveal any test results. You refuse to provide any math to back up your claims. Of course, a horses ass like you will claim I'm too freakin stupid to make heads or tails of said math, which may or may not be true. But like I say, I *do* know plenty of people that can handle any math that might pose a problem to me, so that claim is fairly mute. Anything else you wish to whine or complain about before you start another thread of useless bafflegab? |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 5, 11:00*am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Art wrote: "Well Richard I don`t go along with that unless the definition of a wave is made clear." We deal with sinusoidal waves because all other shapes can be nade from combinations of these. The 3rd edition of Kraus` "Antennas" says on page 904: "They (computer program designers) could develop software to simulate the performance of antennas. In general, these techniques either numerically solve Maxwell`s equations by descretizing the problem using integral techniques, such as Moment Methods (MoM) as discussed in Sec.14-11, or differential technuques, such as finite elements or finite difference-time domain." Maxwell gave us everything we need. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Richard you have not come up with anything that contradicts what I have apothosized, nothing ! \When I mention antannas of a new desighn you say who needs them. When I say that antennas should be tilted with respect to the Earth you say BS. When I point to the coirrelatioin between Gaus statics and Maxwell you remain silent. Now you bring up Kraus by quoting what he said with respect to computor programs. I was not happy with computor programs because of the assumption that they has about sino soidal current. My studies prove that I was wrong in that determination. This allows me to review Kraus antennas to see where he deviated from Maxwell. You point to a computor program on antennas. Most if not all hams foicus on planar designs where current is induced progressively from one element to another in simple electromagnetic coupling form, that relationship does not supply anything with respect to radiation. Programmers put that design as an addition to the program that revolved around Maxwell you did not work around approximations. Now I feel it is legitamate to apply the computor programs to my deductions and Maxwell produces the antenna that I forcast and not the lesser efficient yagi antenna.Same goes for Krauss's work on the helix which like the plana designs are also a approximation. These fact are indisputable if you believe the MOM methods used for computor programs. Now we have the situation where a yagi or the helix is pushed aside by the computor programs in favor of what I have postulated. Now it is YOU who have a problem. I kn ow you do not use computors but it was you that brought the subject up.Computor programs duplicate what I am postilating with more efficient antennas and yet you put computors forward to repudiate what I say. So what are you going to do now? study computor programming to see how a program based around Maxwellk could provide such incorrect answers, deny the teachings of Maxwell or deny the viability of antenna computor programs which puts ham radio back a generation? Regards Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 5, 12:01*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Richard you have not come up with anything that contradicts what I have apothosized, nothing ! The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. Suggestions for apothosized: 1. apotheosis 2. hypothesize Spelling Help Powered by Franklin Electronic Publishers Now it is YOU who have a problem. Yep, just like I said.. Always blame it on the other guy. It's always his fault. Art is never wrong. What a horses ass.. :/ |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 5, 12:31*pm, wrote:
On Nov 5, 12:01*pm, Art Unwin wrote: Richard you have not come up with anything that contradicts what I have apothosized, nothing ! *The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. Suggestions for apothosized: * * *1. apotheosis * * * * * * * * 2. hypothesize Spelling Help Powered by Franklin Electronic Publishers Now *it is YOU who have a problem. Yep, just like I said.. Always blame it on the other guy. It's always his fault. Art is never wrong. What a horses ass.. *:/ Look. Ham radio has a problem, a real problem that they refuse to come to terms with. Antenna computor programs that have entered ham radio with the full acceptance of it's members which takes up a considerable portion of antenna news does NOT provide planar antennas as the most efficient antennas based on the compliance with Maxwell. This is no small matter for ham radio. We can bury our heads in the sand or we can re examine the facts as accepted by science. If adherence to Maxwells laws provides radiuators that are more efficient and smaller than the status quo we can ignore it as Richards states " we already have a design " or "who needs it" Now I have shared my findings based on the laws of Maxwell as to why this is, you need not agree with it but surely for those who are inquisitive about antennas should be curious about the parodox that I have exposed. There are smarter people on this newsgroup whome I have brought this to their attention so why the silence and the abuse with respect to these findings that Einstein pursued in a fruitless effort? Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 5, 12:45*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 5, 12:31*pm, wrote: On Nov 5, 12:01*pm, Art Unwin wrote: Richard you have not come up with anything that contradicts what I have apothosized, nothing ! *The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. Suggestions for apothosized: * * *1. apotheosis * * * * * * * * 2. hypothesize Spelling Help Powered by Franklin Electronic Publishers Now *it is YOU who have a problem. Yep, just like I said.. Always blame it on the other guy. It's always his fault. Art is never wrong. What a horses ass.. *:/ Look. Ham radio has a problem, a real problem that they refuse to come to terms with. No. *You* have the problem, not ham radio as a group. Antenna computor programs that have entered ham radio with the full acceptance of it's members which takes up a considerable portion of antenna news does NOT provide planar antennas as the most efficient antennas based on the compliance with Maxwell. I don't fully accept *all* results obtained through the use of antenna programs. There are a few cases where the programs have problems. Fortunately, most of these are known, and if you really understand what you are trying to model, it's usually fairly obvious if something is in error. This is no small matter for ham radio. We can bury our heads in the sand or we can re examine the facts as accepted by science. Be my guest. It's a free world. But don't feed me a turd and call it a steak. I can tell the difference in most cases. If adherence to Maxwells laws provides radiuators that are more efficient and smaller than the status quo we can ignore it as Richards states " we already have a design " or "who needs it" But so far you have been unable to do this. You seem to think that a free lunch is hiding somewhere. I'm here to tell you that you will likely starve to death before you find it. Why? Because there is no free lunch. Now I have shared my findings based on the laws of Maxwell as to why this is, you need not agree with it but surely for those who are inquisitive about antennas should be curious about the parodox that I have exposed. You haven't exposed anything except a bunch of baffle gab. There are smarter people on this newsgroup whome I have brought this to their attention so why the silence and the abuse with respect to these findings that Einstein pursued in a fruitless effort? Well, obviously they don't seem to agree with your theories. And who could blame them when the only "proof" offered is conjured up baffle gab. The ball is totally in your court. Either do the testing and prove your theory, or accept the failure. I know I'm not going to do any work on it. I don't like compromised inefficient antennas. So there is no incentive whatsoever for me to waste my energy on it when it's sure to be less effective than what I use at present. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 10:01:24 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote: Richard you have not come up with anything that contradicts what I have apothosized, "Potential Energy is not in equilibrium." so says Newton. "Kinetic Energy is not in equilibrium." so says Newton. "Radiation that uses neither, is not radiation." so says Gauss. "Radiation is not in equilibrium." so says Maxwell. "An antenna receives or transmits radiation." so says Einstein. "An antenna is not in equilibrium." so says Marx (of Hart, Schaffner & Marx). The math has been proven, and the dead white scientists (and haberdashers) have spoken from the grave. You have come up with a contradiction only, and demonstrated nothing that will raise the dead. No Lazarus Prize will be awarded this year. In spite of your reference to having apotheosized anything, no, you don't rise to the pantheon of deity either (not until you can get those nails out of your hands). To early for Easter. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Art wrote:
"We can bury our heads in the sand or we can re examune the facts as accepted by science. If adherence to Maxwell`s laws provides radiators that are more efficient and smaller than the status quo we can ignore it as Richard states "We already have a design" or Who needs it." Richard says: Hooray! Richard does not discourage novelty or the computer which is a most useful tool. Show us the novelty and the data. Art`s rant reminds me of an offhand remark by Jerry Chinski, Chief Engineer of KXYZ when I worked there in 1949. It was not directed at me when Jerry said: "You can have the best equipment in the world but if knuckleheads are operating it, the product is likely useless." Antenna modeling is well tested and accepted. If the computer operator is a knucklehead, its output is likely useless (GIGO). The operator likely needs help to get useful output. But, some operators blame the system not their own ineptitude. Many participants in this newsgroup use EZNEC to get good results when evaluating prospective antennas. I`m sure some blame the system when it doesn`t produce the desired results. I`d call them Chinski-ites. My 20th edition of "The ARRL Antenna Book" includes a CD-ROM of the entire book. Chapter 8 is "Phased Array Techniques" , written by the EZNEC man, Roy W. Lewallen, W7EL. It is full of practical information in print for all to see and criticize. Last line in the book is: We would appreciate any feedback or bug reports you might have. If Art would subject his data to such scrutiny, he might get more cheers and fewer jeers. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 5, 3:24*pm, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote: "We can bury our heads in the sand or we can re examune the facts as accepted by science. If adherence to Maxwell`s laws provides radiators that are more efficient and smaller than the status quo we can ignore it as Richard states "We already have a design" or Who needs it." * Richard says: Hooray! Richard does not discourage novelty or the computer which is a most useful tool. Show us the novelty and the data. Art`s rant reminds me of an offhand remark by Jerry Chinski, Chief Engineer of KXYZ when I worked there in 1949. It was not directed at me when Jerry said: "You can have the best equipment in the world but if knuckleheads are operating it, the product is likely useless." Antenna modeling is well tested and accepted. If the computer operator is a knucklehead, its output is likely useless (GIGO). The operator likely needs help to get useful output. But, some operators blame the system not their own ineptitude. Many participants in this newsgroup use EZNEC to get good results when evaluating prospective antennas. I`m sure some blame the system when it doesn`t produce the desired results. I`d call them Chinski-ites. My 20th edition of "The ARRL Antenna Book" includes a CD-ROM of the entire book. Chapter 8 is "Phased Array Techniques" , written by the EZNEC man, Roy W. Lewallen, W7EL. It is full of practical information in print for all to see and criticize. Last line in the book is: We would appreciate any feedback or bug reports you might have. If Art would subject his data to such scrutiny, he might get more cheers and fewer jeers. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI * * * * Ok Richard so I am inept, let us leave it at that. There are many experts and guru's on this newsgroup who pretty much agree with you and not one has come forward to refute some of the things that have been stated against what I proffer So I will assume that the program is accepted for Yagi' but not for radiators in equilibrium. All this is not unusual a lot of things that were found out were delayed from the public because of people just couldn';t take change. Those who do not understand the rules of science with respect to radiators say it is bafflegab because they don't understand the sciences. So I will let it go at that and assume that I am the one out of step. You and others have made your point and there is no such thing than a better antenna than the Yagi and that all is known is about antennas and nothing that is not printed in a book is acceptable to radio hams. I get the message and that should make every one happy Art Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Cecil Moore wrote:
Ed Cregger wrote: Allegedly, scientists have determined that the very foundation of our universe is made of something that they call "quantum foam". Tiny sub particles that pop into and then out of existence. To me, this is just another way of saying "the aether". Apparently Einstein agreed with you. Yes, I suspect both of you are correct ... it peeves me, and NOT SLIGHTLY, I can't even get my mind "wrapped about that." But then, neither can you! :-P Regards, JS |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 15:08:33 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote: nothing that is not printed in a book is acceptable to radio hams. You got your ideas by reading headstones? I get the message Somehow I doubt that. You sound like today's concession speach as a warm up for the next campaign cycle. Art, if you were running for political office, your idea shelf life would equal Lyndon Larouche's. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 10:01:24 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin wrote: Richard you have not come up with anything that contradicts what I have apothosized, "Potential Energy is not in equilibrium." so says Newton. "Kinetic Energy is not in equilibrium." so says Newton. "Radiation that uses neither, is not radiation." so says Gauss. "Radiation is not in equilibrium." so says Maxwell. "An antenna receives or transmits radiation." so says Einstein. "An antenna is not in equilibrium." so says Marx (of Hart, Schaffner & Marx). The math has been proven, and the dead white scientists (and haberdashers) have spoken from the grave. You have come up with a contradiction only, and demonstrated nothing that will raise the dead. No Lazarus Prize will be awarded this year. In spite of your reference to having apotheosized anything, no, you don't rise to the pantheon of deity either (not until you can get those nails out of your hands). To early for Easter. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC .... Almond Joy gots nuts, Mounds don't! :-) Regards, JS |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
John Smith wrote:
But then, neither can you! :-P The quantum foam is still seething following the Big Bang. It is akin to an explosion that has not yet run its course. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 5, 5:08*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Ok Richard so I am inept, let us leave it at that. There are many experts and guru's on this newsgroup who pretty much agree with you and not one has come forward to refute some of the things that have been stated against what I proffer I refute things you say quite often, but you ignore them. As an example, you constantly state that an antenna should be a full wave length in order to live a productive and useful life. You claim such an antenna is in equilibrium. Whatever that is supposed to mean to you. We don't know how equilibrium applies in your case, as you refuse to tell anyone when questioned. When I state that a full wave has no real efficiency advantage vs a half wave, a statement which almost everyone knows is true, you ignore it. Of course, using a small antenna the size of two shoe boxes is not really a full wave antenna. It's still a very small antenna fed with a loading coil made up of a full wave length of wire, if I understand what you are doing. And with your winding technique, it's quite easy to see how this could be a very lossy method to feed such a small radiator. You basically have a dummy load on a stick. A good 160m mobile antenna setup would tear it a new one.. :/ So I will assume that the program is accepted for Yagi' but not for radiators in equilibrium. How can a radiator be in equilibrium? You are talking about a piece of metal. All this is not unusual a lot of things that were found out were delayed from the public because of people just couldn';t take change. Change... Hummm.. A common Obama mantra.. Change can be good, or change can be bad. Throwing a lot of the Wall Street CEO's in prison would be a fairly good change. A new president who thinks he can bend the constitution to suit his personal agenda would not be a good change. Ignoring proven data and replacing it with faulty unproven data would not be a good change. Using proven data and building on it to prove a new design or theory would not be a bad change, if the new design or theory can pass the scrutiny of rigorous testing over a period of time. Using conjured up baffle gab to try to prove a new theory is not going to cut it in the change dept. BTW, I mention Obama quite a bit, and it's probably no secret I'm no fan of his. But I want to mention it is not on a personal level, or due to his skin color, etc. I'm sure he can be a fairly decent guy at times, but I still think he's a blatant socialist, and I have little use for him. He's a constitutional attorney who has no respect for the constitution. IE: he'd like to take a big crap on the 2nd amendment if he ever gets the chance for just one example. This is not to say I really like McCain either.. I'm more of the independent Libertarian ilk.. If a politician can't follow the constitution, I have zero use for them. But back to the matter at hand.. Those who do not understand the rules of science with respect to radiators say it is bafflegab because they don't understand the sciences. I understand enough to tell a turd from a diamond any day. An Einstein level of reasoning is not required for this simple task. So I will let it go at that and assume that I am the one out of step. You have taken the first step towards recovery. You and others have made your point and there is no such thing than a better antenna than the Yagi and that all is known is about antennas and nothing that is not printed in a book is acceptable to radio hams. I get the message and that should make every one happy Just more whining from a disenchanted pseudo inventer.. I don't even know how the poor Yagi got involved. The yagi has zero to do with anything I have argued about. A contra wound dummy load on a stick, and a yagi and about as different animals as chipmunks and baboons. Or are you know abandoning the dummy load on a stick, and returning to the perverted array with skewed elements you harped on quite a few months ago? You know, the one that provided less performance than the properly designed yagi with an equal number of elements.. You know, the one I called the cluster%#&* antenna.. Chortle.. :/ |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
NM5K wrote:
"Of course, using a small antenna the size of two shoe boxes is not really a full wave antenna. It`s still a very small antenna fed with a loading coil made up of a full wave length of wire, if I umderstand what you are doing." Yes. It appears he has a dipole two shoe boxes long. The ARRL Antenna Book has an interesting section on "Short Antennas" that starts on on page 6-21 in my 20th edition. On page 6-30 it says: "Loading is always a compromise; the best method is determined by the amount of space available and the band(s) to be worked. The simplest way to shorten a dipole is shown in Fig 53. If you do not have sufficient length between supports, simply hang as much of the center of the antenna as possible between the supports and let the ends hang down. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Richard Clark wrote:
"An antenna is not in "equilibrium" so says Marx (of Hart, Shaffner & Marx)." How about Chico, Harpo, and Groucho? Art Unwin hopes to stump us by not defining what he means if anything by "equilibrium". A synonym, "balance" is often used in radio. Terman defines "balance" on page 901 of his 1955 opus: "It is sometimes desirable to deliver power to a grounded antenna through a two-wire transmission line or, conversely, to use a coaxial cable line to deliver power to an ungrounded antenna system that is symmetrical with respect to ground. In either case, it is necessary to convert between a balanced system that is symmetrical with respect to ground, and an unbalanced system in which one side is grounded." That seems to capture a problem we had here. Art is unbalanced and we are well grounded. None of us is in equilibrium. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Mark Keith wrote:
"You`ve had your knickers in a twist ever since I proved your "loophole" antenna did not work as you (Art) claimed and its all gone downhill since then." Yes. As I recall, Art claimed to have discovered something like the "gamma match" shown on page 26-9 of my 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book. Of course it`s been around nearly forever. Art claimed radiation from the small gamma-loop strongly reinforced the dipole`s desired radiation. Art rejected the contention that radiation from the small loop is only directed in the plane of the loop so therefore only helps in the directions of the zenith and the earth and gives no help in the horizontal plane perpendicular to the dipole.and broadside to the small loop. If Art patented the idea that the matching system radiated to significantly enhance the dipole`s desired radiation, he should not expect riches in royalties. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 7, 11:18*am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Mark Keith wrote: "You`ve had your knickers in a twist ever since I proved your "loophole" antenna did not work as you (Art) claimed and its all gone downhill since then." Yes. As I recall, Art claimed to have discovered something like the "gamma match" shown on page 26-9 of my 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book. Of course it`s been around nearly forever. Art claimed radiation from the small gamma-loop strongly reinforced the dipole`s desired radiation. Art rejected the contention that radiation from the small loop is only directed in the plane of the loop so therefore only helps in the directions of the zenith and the earth and gives no help in the horizontal plane perpendicular to the dipole.and broadside to the small loop. If Art patented the idea that the matching system radiated to significantly enhance the dipole`s desired radiation, he should not expect riches in royalties. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI * * Yes I was granted a patent under " a constant impedance antenna system" and it is a matter of record despite what you have stated. And that is all I wanted,. a record of my work. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
|
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 7, 1:18*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 7, 11:18*am, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Mark Keith wrote: "You`ve had your knickers in a twist ever since I proved your "loophole" antenna did not work as you (Art) claimed and its all gone downhill since then." Yes. As I recall, Art claimed to have discovered something like the "gamma match" shown on page 26-9 of my 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book. Of course it`s been around nearly forever. Art claimed radiation from the small gamma-loop strongly reinforced the dipole`s desired radiation. Art rejected the contention that radiation from the small loop is only directed in the plane of the loop so therefore only helps in the directions of the zenith and the earth and gives no help in the horizontal plane perpendicular to the dipole.and broadside to the small loop. If Art patented the idea that the matching system radiated to significantly enhance the dipole`s desired radiation, he should not expect riches in royalties. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI * * Yes I was granted a patent under " a constant impedance antenna system" and it is a matter of record despite what you have stated. And that is all I wanted,. a record of my work.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Art you are still under the delusion that if you get a patent it means your idea is valid. No, it just means it was your idea. At one time you had to give some proof of the validity of the concept but this is no longer true. If you want to get a patent on a Star Trek type "transporter" or "warp drive" go ahead, you can probably get one. You can even patent something that already has a patent. The patent office will not keep you from screwing up. Jimmie. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 7, 1:56*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Nov 7, 1:18*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Nov 7, 11:18*am, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Mark Keith wrote: "You`ve had your knickers in a twist ever since I proved your "loophole" antenna did not work as you (Art) claimed and its all gone downhill since then." Yes. As I recall, Art claimed to have discovered something like the "gamma match" shown on page 26-9 of my 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book. Of course it`s been around nearly forever. Art claimed radiation from the small gamma-loop strongly reinforced the dipole`s desired radiation. Art rejected the contention that radiation from the small loop is only directed in the plane of the loop so therefore only helps in the directions of the zenith and the earth and gives no help in the horizontal plane perpendicular to the dipole.and broadside to the small loop. If Art patented the idea that the matching system radiated to significantly enhance the dipole`s desired radiation, he should not expect riches in royalties. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI * * Yes I was granted a patent under " a constant impedance antenna system" and it is a matter of record despite what you have stated. And that is all I wanted,. a record of my work.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Art you are *still under the delusion that if you get a patent it means your idea is valid. No, it just means it was your idea. At one time you had to give some proof of the validity of the concept but this is no longer true. If you want to get a patent on a Star Trek type "transporter" or "warp drive" go ahead, you can probably get one. You can even patent something that already has a patent. The patent office will not keep you from screwing up. Jimmie. No Jimmie I had to go to Washington to provide the proof in the 90"s and it was accepted and that is all I cared about. I did not write articles for the radio magazines or anything like that I do it purely to provide a record of my work I just moved on to other things but at least it is available to hams to use or reject. This is no different from what I am doing now with this new antenna, I applied for a patent and then shared it with the ham community, is that so bad? You can put the constant impedance antenna on EZNEC for yourself or ignore it Many others on this group Richard included don't know how to operate computors let alone work on antenna programs themselves so they are not talking from experience but from teachings reeived over half a century ago after which they have stopped learning. If any of these had any savvy they would have put some of the things I have stated and proved things one way or another but they don't want to as it means change. Now if you are "wired" like Richard then you are happy to join him in the war of words as the othe Richard has and a few others. As for me I have shared all and you can take it or leave it, your choice. At the moment it is a queer road on this group where people want to attack those who have new ideas or challenges the status quo but as yet have only relied on insults in the absence of individual thought or possibly suspend or get rid of patents and the like as they only promote change. The group can get angry with me if they wish because of my work but there is no way they are going to stop me doing it for what ever reason they have in mind. Sooner or later somebody with some smarts and some get go will look at things for themselves and test thgem out on a computor which now apears to be accepted by all and then decide whether they want to build on them or not, they will not rely on the opinions of this group as there is nothing provided to study just venom. So Jimmie I congratulate you on all your patents obtained as it shows you are capable of original thought where others are lacking Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 7, 2:41*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Many others on this group Richard included don't know how to operate computors let alone work on antenna programs themselves so they are not talking from experience but from teachings reeived How could you be on this group without knowing how to operate a computer? Sooner or later somebody with some smarts and some get go will look at things for themselves and test thgem out on a computor which now apears to be accepted by all and then decide whether they want to build on them or not, This should read "sooner or later Art will grow some smarts and will look at things for himself, and test them out on a computer if he feels so compelled, and then decide if he wants to build one or not. " At this late stage in the game, I would have thought you would have made a decision by now. You know, like build the freakin thing and test it out against radiators of known properties. In some parts of civilization, this is called "falling asleep at the wheel". :/ |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
"Frank" wrote in message news:hwjQk.677$xJ3.560@edtnps83... Link at: http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development of the wave equation. Are you suppressing a 3rd page of math showing equal librium? It must be there according to Art's revisionist discovery of Newton's laws for the Unified Theory of RF Fields. ... maybe the 7th or 8th page then. 42nd page? No, Sorry Richard. Nothing about "Equal librium" in 1200 pages. 73, Frank, VE6CB To clarify the math, I have added some relevant pages to: http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm Frank |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 7, 3:59*pm, "Frank" wrote:
"Frank" wrote in message news:hwjQk.677$xJ3.560@edtnps83... Link at:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development of the wave equation. Are you suppressing a 3rd page of math showing equal librium? *It must be there according to Art's revisionist discovery of Newton's laws for the Unified Theory of RF Fields. *... maybe the 7th or 8th page then.. 42nd page? No, Sorry Richard. Nothing about "Equal librium" in 1200 pages. 73, Frank, VE6CB To clarify the math, I have added some relevant pages to:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm Frank What is the name of the actual book you are quoting from? Time and time again we get a quote from books by some members of this group where it is then used totally out of context. As an aside I am not quite sure what your intent is to supply these formula. If it is to substantiate a point then I have totally missed it. Many thanks for the postings and efforts Regards Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 7, 7:55*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 7, 3:59*pm, "Frank" wrote: "Frank" wrote in message news:hwjQk.677$xJ3.560@edtnps83... Link at:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development of the wave equation. Are you suppressing a 3rd page of math showing equal librium? *It must be there according to Art's revisionist discovery of Newton's laws for the Unified Theory of RF Fields. *... maybe the 7th or 8th page then. 42nd page? No, Sorry Richard. Nothing about "Equal librium" in 1200 pages. 73, Frank, VE6CB To clarify the math, I have added some relevant pages to:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm Frank What is the name of the actual book you are quoting from? Time and time again we get a quote from books by some members of this group where it is then used totally out of context. As an aside I am not quite sure what your intent is to supply these formula. If it is to substantiate a point then I have totally missed it. Many thanks for the postings and efforts Regards Art Oooops I have just noticed the book reference. As far as what is printed I would like to hear somebody say that it confirms my thinking which is why you brought it forward but you did not say that. Maybe somebody with mathematical knoweledge will come forward to show how it disproves what I say but I doubt that, most will revert to the talking head stance. Any way Frank I like how things are printed so I will try the library to see if they have a copy. I was particularly interested in the slow wave comment as that was also derided on this newsgroup. Best regards Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 18:12:27 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote: As far as what is printed I would like to hear somebody say that it confirms my thinking That you invented a time component to Gauss' equations and Maxwell didn't? Fishing for validation or for Moby Dick? At least Ahab nailed a gold dollar to the mast for the first one to spot the great white whale. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 8, 1:25*am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 18:12:27 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin wrote: As far as what is printed I would like to hear somebody say that it confirms my thinking That you invented a time component to Gauss' equations and Maxwell didn't? *Fishing for validation or for Moby Dick? *At least Ahab nailed a gold dollar to the mast for the first one to spot the great white whale. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC As a non engineer and somebody who is wired diferntly from the norm it is undestandable that you have problems with Maxwell equations. Gaus did contriubute to the Maxwellian laws which is accepted. The static law wsas not the particular gaussian contribution. Many have taken this that tho Gauss contributed to Maxwells laws it was not by way of his law of statics thus some have taken this as pointing to statics as something different and separate from electromechanics, Science has excepted that equilibrium is as universal as the GUT theorem which is why Einstein searched so long to identify the "weak" force. I remember a decade ago where I pointed to water cavitation having the same effect in electrical matters pointing to the comnbines loop dipole arrangement where cavitation occurs so that voltage can be a maximum at the dipole ends and where llewellen quickly pointed out that electricity does not work that way likening it to pushing to a new science. am totally unaware and nobody has pointed otherwise that the law of statics had a deinitive connection to Maxwells laws which points to radiators of a smaller volume and the identification of the weak force. You can gabble forever in knee jerk reaction to my postings but until you provide scientific technology to the subject to repudiate what I state you will remain a person that is wired diffgerently from other males that communicats in a strange way such gthat all meaning is totally obscurred in your search for like minded people thatg you can have a close relationship with in a like minded way. I for one are not one of that life style so get off my back. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 7, 8:12*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 7, 7:55*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Nov 7, 3:59*pm, "Frank" wrote: "Frank" wrote in message news:hwjQk.677$xJ3.560@edtnps83... Link at:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development of the wave equation. Are you suppressing a 3rd page of math showing equal librium? *It must be there according to Art's revisionist discovery of Newton's laws for the Unified Theory of RF Fields. *... maybe the 7th or 8th page then. 42nd page? No, Sorry Richard. Nothing about "Equal librium" in 1200 pages. 73, Frank, VE6CB To clarify the math, I have added some relevant pages to:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm Frank What is the name of the actual book you are quoting from? Time and time again we get a quote from books by some members of this group where it is then used totally out of context. As an aside I am not quite sure what your intent is to supply these formula. If it is to substantiate a point then I have totally missed it. Many thanks for the postings and efforts Regards Art Oooops I have just noticed the book reference. As far as what is printed I would like to hear somebody say that it confirms my thinking which is why you brought it forward but you did not say that. Maybe somebody with mathematical knoweledge will come forward to show how it disproves what I say but I doubt that, most will revert to the talking head stance. Any way Frank I like how things are printed so I will try the library to see if they have a copy. I was particularly interested in the slow wave comment as that was also derided on this newsgroup. Best regards Art Frank What you have done is to bring to the fore front modern thinking in science that has emerged since the thinking of Jackson and Termin and become nmore in line with Einstein and particle theory. It without doubt confirms the thinking of the Grand universal theory by the inclusion of Staic law tho without the conclusive proof that Gauss;s static law provides but even so arrives at a common conclusion. It plkeases me very much that it is now used in college education so that the present generation will not bemind bound by the past. I was especially pleased with the reference to "slow wave" which is a very importabt component to Maxwells laws that has been ommited in the past. Regardles that the author did not reference specifically the statics law he is very implicite with respect to the commonality of statics with with respect with electro magnetics which I thank you very much for bringing it to the attention of others. This follows your effots in showing that NEC computor programs do indeed support the idea of arrays in equilibrium when you provided a computor analysis showing radiators that were resonant and at different angles to each other because of the addfition of the angle requirement of the weak force. You are to be commended for studying the statements for yourself to confirm their veracity instead of the attitude of the talking heads., I look forward to your future posts Very best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Art wrote:
"Frank, What is the name of the actual book you are quoting from?" Read the posting! "Engineering Eleactromagnetics, 2nd edition", Nathan Ida, ISBN 0-387-20156-4." My unsolicited comment: Lyndon Johnson once described someneone like you approximately as: "He couldn`t pour beer out of a boot if instructions were stamped on the heel." Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 07:05:08 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote: As a non engineer and somebody who is wired diferntly from the norm it is undestandable that you have problems with Maxwell equations. Well, Authru, it is obvious to the readers of this thread that of the two of us, this non engineer is the one who better comprehends Maxwell's work! This non engineer easily observes that Maxwell contributed the variable t (for time) to Gauss' equations. It is directly observable on page: http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm at the paragraph heading (guess what?): "The Time-Dependant Wave Equation" This is a part of the curriculum of every EE who has attempted to educate you to this matter. Even this non engineer has formal training to this specific point. You now have been offered clear, specific, and demonstrable proof that your claims are spurious. However, I am full aware that we will revisit those invalid claims again as if you were never aware of this simple demonstration. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Nov 7, 8:12 pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Nov 7, 7:55 pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Nov 7, 3:59 pm, "Frank" wrote: "Frank" wrote in message news:hwjQk.677$xJ3.560@edtnps83... Link at:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development of the wave equation. Are you suppressing a 3rd page of math showing equal librium? It must be there according to Art's revisionist discovery of Newton's laws for the Unified Theory of RF Fields. ... maybe the 7th or 8th page then. 42nd page? No, Sorry Richard. Nothing about "Equal librium" in 1200 pages. 73, Frank, VE6CB To clarify the math, I have added some relevant pages to:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm Frank What is the name of the actual book you are quoting from? Time and time again we get a quote from books by some members of this group where it is then used totally out of context. As an aside I am not quite sure what your intent is to supply these formula. If it is to substantiate a point then I have totally missed it. Many thanks for the postings and efforts Regards Art Oooops I have just noticed the book reference. As far as what is printed I would like to hear somebody say that it confirms my thinking which is why you brought it forward but you did not say that. Maybe somebody with mathematical knoweledge will come forward to show how it disproves what I say but I doubt that, most will revert to the talking head stance. Any way Frank I like how things are printed so I will try the library to see if they have a copy. I was particularly interested in the slow wave comment as that was also derided on this newsgroup. Best regards Art Frank What you have done is to bring to the fore front modern thinking in science that has emerged since the thinking of Jackson and Termin and become nmore in line with Einstein and particle theory. It without doubt confirms the thinking of the Grand universal theory by the inclusion of Staic law tho without the conclusive proof that Gauss;s static law provides but even so arrives at a common conclusion. It plkeases me very much that it is now used in college education so that the present generation will not bemind bound by the past. I was especially pleased with the reference to "slow wave" which is a very importabt component to Maxwells laws that has been ommited in the past. Regardles that the author did not reference specifically the statics law he is very implicite with respect to the commonality of statics with with respect with electro magnetics which I thank you very much for bringing it to the attention of others. This follows your effots in showing that NEC computor programs do indeed support the idea of arrays in equilibrium when you provided a computor analysis showing radiators that were resonant and at different angles to each other because of the addfition of the angle requirement of the weak force. You are to be commended for studying the statements for yourself to confirm their veracity instead of the attitude of the talking heads., I look forward to your future posts Very best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG ------------ To bring all of this down to Earth, I refer all to the old axiom, "Never mud wrestle with a pig, yada yada yada..." Ed, NM2K |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com