|
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... As a non engineer and somebody who is wired diferntly from the norm QED. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:47:46 -0500, "Ed Cregger"
wrote: To bring all of this down to Earth, I refer all to the old axiom, "Never mud wrestle with a pig, yada yada yada..." Hi Ed, Are you implying it would be easier to put lipstick on Art, than to get his antenna through the eye of a needle? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 8, 11:06*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... As a non engineer and somebody who is wired diferntly from the norm QED. David, I am so happy that Dr Davis of MIT has finaly been vindicated in the eyes of this group. It has taken years for the group to accept the static relationship with electromagnetics., I am also pleased that the present generation are using up to date material and not the books of 50 years ago where those taught at that time all was thought to be known and all change was resisted. Of course if this newsgroup wish to challenge the book excerpts that have been placed on this thread it would be very interesting including the deduction that a radiator can be any size, shape or elevation as long as it is in equilibrium.which is no small matter in designing small volume antennas using all four fourses that Maxwell and others clearly intended. Antennas belong to the present generation where the old timers are satified going to their graves convident that all is known while the present generation forgve ahead by the recognition of the trole of all four fouces which must be accounted for in any full analysis of the subject of radiation.. Now that Dr Davis has been vindicated old timers who are still mentally capable have the opportunity to be present in these very exciting times Nice weather here Davis so put aside that book you are writing and get outside where you can practice the praticle instead of being a talking head. Best regards Art. PS I look forward to your destruction of the text suplied on this thread since it opposes everything you have argued for during the last half dozen years. Hate to tell you but I did tell you so, many, many times. Eat some humble pie! |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Hate to tell you but I did tell you so, many, many times. Eat some humble pie! not me. my antennas are big and high in the sky where they belong, not packed in a shoebox. just scanning 25 years worth of contest certificates that prove my big straight planar antennas do work. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 8, 1:15*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Hate to tell you but I did tell you so, many, many times. Eat some humble pie! not me. *my antennas are big and high in the sky where they belong, not packed in a shoebox. *just scanning 25 years worth of contest certificates that prove my big straight planar antennas do work. Nothing wrong with that David the maximum boom length I got to was 80 feet and 13 elements but then had to back off to 60feet but they surely worked good but now I have got to old to handle the work required to maintain them. I was very surprized to hear you say that you were wired like Richard so don't ventue in Illinois! By the way did you get your four square antenna sorted out and is it working to your expectations? With respect to antenna height I have a feeling that height is not a question of wavelengths but a question of capacitive coupling to ground. I put the top band antenna up temporarily at a height of thirty feet and the the impedance settled on 50 ohms. I am now winterizing it so it gets thru the winter. It consists of just one element and a dish reflector but it will have to wait until next year before I feed it at the dish end, in the mean time it will just be fed at the centre I still hope for directionality even tho the rotor is at 30 feet but either way it will be interesting unless I move on to another project. I had to move away from the shoebox size of antenna, what I found out was it worked quite well for receiving but for transmit the eddy currents opposed each other thus preventing particle elevation so the volume is now double what it was but still small enough for the rotor to turn the top band form and light enough to easily put it on the tower Regards Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 8, 10:14*am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: 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 Hopefully you now feel better after throwing that stone |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 8, 11:06*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... As a non engineer and somebody who is wired diferntly from the norm QED. David, I think I have misinterpreted your response above and I truly apologize I mistook the line above as a statement from you which I see now was not Now I am totally unaware of the point you are trying to make Regards Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 8, 2:41*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I still hope for directionality even tho the rotor is at 30 feet but either way it will be interesting unless I move on to another project. I'm sure it will be directive to some degree. But except for receive, what good will that do you if you are 20db-30db down from a dipole due to the excessive inductive losses? I liken your setup to using a MW receiving loopstick as a transmit antenna.. :/ Not a whole heck of a lot of difference except yours is now a massive four shoe boxes in size. Mercy.. It's still puny considering the frequency. My MW receiving loop in this room is bigger than that. "A diamond 44 inches by 44 inches. And my MW loop would almost certainly outdo your design being as it is bigger and uses less turns of coil. "5" It's still a dummy load on a rotating stick... :/ I had to move away from the shoebox size of antenna, what I found out was it worked quite well for receiving but for transmit the eddy currents opposed each other thus preventing particle elevation so the volume is now double what it was but still small enough for the rotor to turn the top band form and light enough to easily put it on the tower So we have validation that your first antenna was a dud when used for transmitting! I'll alert the SPCA! But I'm afraid doubling the size of your dummy load on a stick is not going to pan out in the manner you would like. Even four shoe boxes worth of wound wire maketh not a good 160m antenna. Reboot and try again. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Nov 8, 11:06 am, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... As a non engineer and somebody who is wired diferntly from the norm QED. Now I am totally unaware of the point you are trying to make and that is the point. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
I am also pleased that the present generation are using up to date
material and not the books of 50 years ago where those taught at that time all was thought to be known and all change was resisted. Art, I am not sure what you mean. This material has not changed in over 100 years. To quote from Ida's text, pp 731, 732: "Based on the inroduction of the displacement currents in Ampere's law, Maxwell predicted the existence of propagating waves, a prediction that was verified experimetally in 1888 by Heinrich Hertz. This prediction was based on the nature of the equations one obtains by using Maxwell's equations. We will show here that Maxwell's equations result, in general, in wave equations". This proof is shown in "Example 12.3", which is posted on my previously referenced web link: http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm Unless you can show, by manipulation of Maxwell's equations, that it is possible to obtain a 2nd order partial differential equation where the independant variable is time; what is the point? I should also note that a course I took in electromagetics (About 1983) has an almost identical development of a wave equation. For reference the text is: "Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields", Clayton R Paul, and Syed A Nasar, published in 1982, ISBN 0-07-045884-7, pp 241 - 243 73, Frank. |
Stinky man smelling hams and perfumy scented sissy hams
Every generation that I have encountered (three) during my life time is
absolutely convinced that they know everything and that there is nothing left to discover. I usually find this trait to be most displayed with electrical engineers, though software engineers run a very close second place. Ed, NM2K |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 10, 12:24*pm, "Frank" wrote:
I am also pleased that the present generation are using up to date material and not the books of 50 years ago where those taught at that time all was thought to be known and all change was resisted. Art, I am not sure what you mean. *This material has not changed in over 100 years. *To quote from Ida's text, pp 731, 732: *"Based on the inroduction of the displacement currents in Ampere's law, Maxwell predicted the existence of propagating waves, a prediction that was verified experimetally in 1888 by Heinrich Hertz. *This prediction was based on the nature of the equations one obtains by using Maxwell's equations. *We will show here that Maxwell's equations result, in general, in wave equations". *This proof is shown in "Example 12.3", which is posted on my previously referenced web link:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm Unless you can show, by manipulation of Maxwell's equations, that it is possible to obtain a 2nd order partial differential equation where the independant variable is time; what is the point? *I should also note that a course I took in electromagetics (About 1983) has an almost identical development of a wave equation. *For reference the text is: "Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields", Clayton R Paul, and Syed A Nasar, published in 1982, ISBN 0-07-045884-7, *pp 241 - 243 73, Frank. Frank, a couple of years ago I explained the inter weaving of Gauss law of statics with that of Maxwell. I twas this that met the most resistance of the this group. They seemed to see staics as something divorced from electromagnetics and thus one could not use equations of one with respect to the other. Thus when it was shown that the statics mathematics equated with Maxwells laws every body said that was not valid. The text you supplied made specific reference to this mathematical interplay whilst talking about quasi statics tho they never did the interface that I did. It was this rejection at the beginning that set the stage for years long rebuttle to the ideas that I put forward. To this day pretty much all are of the position that interfacing statics with dynamic fields or time varying currents was totally invalid which I put down to the education they received some 50 years ago. It was for that reason I was delighted to see a modern book that treated the subject with startling clarity. About 2 years ago a white paper was put out by two scientists that covers the Aether and its driving relationship to the Universe as well as revisiting the thinkings of the past with which they outlined questions that the present aproach seem to gloss over, as well as the revolving constituents( not foam) of the fast moving and revolving Aether and comparing present day notions of the Univers as opposed to their own findings. This paper is excellent and shows that many present day notions could be way of the mark Thus it pleases me that many are still questioning or reviewing the logic of electromagnetics including the more modern works of Planck in light of present day advances which certainly does not reflect the attitude of many in this group. In science and physics it is not a crime to challenge the thinkings of the past regardless if it may result in change as age of a theory does not present the idea of validity goes along with seniority As an aside modern books still refer to waves in electromagnetics but I feel this is a result of not understanding how radiation occurs and thus concluding it similar to magnetic lines of force where as I theorise it is the multi quantity of elevation and projection of charged particles with spin such that straight line trajectory is maintained , a must for transmission of radio communications by virtue of the "weak force" Regards Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:36:56 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote: statics mathematics equated with Maxwells laws Well, it didn't take long for amnesia to emerge from remission. Just to set the time-line: On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:18:20 -0800, Richard Clark wrote: 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. Two days, five hours, 18 minutes, and 36 seconds for the fog to roll back in. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Frank, a couple of years ago I explained the inter weaving of Gauss
law of statics with that of Maxwell. I twas this that met the most resistance of the this group.They seemed to see staics as something divorced from electromagnetics and thus one could not use equations of one with respect to the other. Thus when it was shown that the statics mathematics equated with Maxwells laws every body said that was not valid. I don't understand the above comments since Gauss' laws for electric and magnetic fields are the 3rd and 4th of Maxwell's equations. In fact the equations for static and the time-varying case are identical, as follows, in point form: DEL dot D = rho, and; DEL dot B = 0 (Paul and Nasar, pp 199, 200.) The above is identical to that found in the classic EM text: "Electromagnetic Theory", by Julius Adams Stratton of MIT; published in 1941. There is nothing new in any of this. Probably the development of a wave equation from Maxwell's equation was a bit of overkill to make a point. The text you supplied made specific reference to this mathematical interplay whilst talking about quasi statics tho they never did the interface that I did. It was this rejection at the beginning that set the stage for years long rebuttle to the ideas that I put forward. To this day pretty much all are of the position that interfacing statics with dynamic fields or time varying currents was totally invalid which I put down to the education they received some 50 years ago. It was for that reason I was delighted to see a modern book that treated the subject with startling clarity. The "Quasi-static" referred to above only effect displacement current in Ampere's law. About 2 years ago a white paper was put out by two scientists that covers the Aether and its driving relationship to the Universe as well as revisiting the thinkings of the past with which they outlined questions that the present aproach seem to gloss over, as well as the revolving constituents( not foam) of the fast moving and revolving Aether and comparing present day ............................................. What are the references to the above mentioned paper? 73, Frank |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 10, 7:58*pm, "Frank" wrote:
Frank, a couple of years ago I explained the inter weaving of Gauss law of statics with that of Maxwell. I twas this that met the most resistance of the this group.They seemed to see staics as something divorced from electromagnetics and thus one could not use equations of one with respect to the other. Thus when it was shown that the statics mathematics equated with Maxwells laws every body said that was not valid. I don't understand the above comments since Gauss' laws for electric and magnetic fields are the 3rd and 4th of Maxwell's equations. *In fact the equations for static and the time-varying case are identical, as follows, in point form: * * * * * * * * DEL dot D = rho, and; * * * * * * * * DEL dot B = 0 (Paul and Nasar, *pp 199, 200.) The above is identical to that found in the classic EM text: "Electromagnetic Theory", by Julius Adams Stratton of MIT; published in 1941. *There is nothing new in any of this. Probably the development of a wave equation from Maxwell's equation was a bit of overkill to make a point. The text you supplied made specific reference to this mathematical interplay whilst talking about quasi statics tho they never did the interface that I did. It was this rejection at the beginning that set the stage for years long rebuttle to the ideas that I put forward. To this day pretty much all are of the position that interfacing statics with dynamic fields or time varying currents was totally invalid which I put down to the education they received some 50 years ago. It was for that reason I was delighted to see a modern book that treated the subject with startling clarity. The "Quasi-static" referred to above only effect displacement current in Ampere's law. About 2 years ago a white paper was put out by two scientists that covers the Aether and its driving relationship to the Universe as well as revisiting the thinkings of the past with which they outlined questions that the present aproach seem to gloss over, as well as the revolving constituents( not foam) of the fast moving and revolving Aether and comparing present day ............................................. What are the references to the above mentioned paper? 73, Frank Brilliant Frank as a mechanical engineer I trust you will excuse me from knowing this. Ofcourse I will have to review things for myself so I understand fully what you have pointed out The way I put it initially is that if you add radiators and a time varying field to a gaussian field while holding to the equilibrium format you arrive at Maxwells law. I asked somebody that was knoweledgable in the field about it and he stated I had made a discovery which now looking back could mean anything.However, I sought this opinion from a qualified person as I had gone thru a series of illnesses and at that particular meeting puss was flowing from my pacemaker chest pocket but it was an excercise that I had to do since my training originially was that of an mechanical engineer before I had heart troubles and lost some of my memory faculties Because of this "discovery" it then becomes obvious that a radiator can be any shape , size and elevation when meeting Maxwells laws" as long as the contents of the border is in equilibrium" Now Frank notable hams have stated that a radiator must be straight for maximum efficiency which from my observations are untrue. Knowing that modern day computor programs were formulated around Maxwells laws THAT INCLUDE THE WEAK FORCE it would appear an overcheck of the equilibrium factor should appear when using an optimizer. Well as you know you overchecked that for yourself and confirmed it, thus the basis for my theory then started to unravel until I arrived at my present point where antennas of the highest efficiency can made within the smaller volume which I have subsequently made many. So it was then I shared some details to this group as they were supposed experts and from then on they have thrashed me in every way including a ham who provided the matjhematics comparing Gauss and Maxwell which continues to this day.Basicalyl all resisted the idea of a different antenna design on the assumption that all was known about antennas Now we have assertions that the Neutrinos has no mass and no magnetic field and yet itis understood that there are millions of them for every cubic metre on Earth and it goes on. Hopefully the above will make things clearer. I will try and get back to the white papers that I spoke of and hopefully the book that was published later. I will get back to you after I review the history of events on my laptop in the hope it still resides there Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 10, 9:41*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 10, 7:58*pm, "Frank" wrote: Frank, a couple of years ago I explained the inter weaving of Gauss law of statics with that of Maxwell. I twas this that met the most resistance of the this group.They seemed to see staics as something divorced from electromagnetics and thus one could not use equations of one with respect to the other. Thus when it was shown that the statics mathematics equated with Maxwells laws every body said that was not valid. I don't understand the above comments since Gauss' laws for electric and magnetic fields are the 3rd and 4th of Maxwell's equations. *In fact the equations for static and the time-varying case are identical, as follows, in point form: * * * * * * * * DEL dot D = rho, and; * * * * * * * * DEL dot B = 0 (Paul and Nasar, *pp 199, 200.) The above is identical to that found in the classic EM text: "Electromagnetic Theory", by Julius Adams Stratton of MIT; published in 1941. *There is nothing new in any of this. Probably the development of a wave equation from Maxwell's equation was a bit of overkill to make a point. The text you supplied made specific reference to this mathematical interplay whilst talking about quasi statics tho they never did the interface that I did. It was this rejection at the beginning that set the stage for years long rebuttle to the ideas that I put forward. To this day pretty much all are of the position that interfacing statics with dynamic fields or time varying currents was totally invalid which I put down to the education they received some 50 years ago. It was for that reason I was delighted to see a modern book that treated the subject with startling clarity. The "Quasi-static" referred to above only effect displacement current in Ampere's law. About 2 years ago a white paper was put out by two scientists that covers the Aether and its driving relationship to the Universe as well as revisiting the thinkings of the past with which they outlined questions that the present aproach seem to gloss over, as well as the revolving constituents( not foam) of the fast moving and revolving Aether and comparing present day ............................................. What are the references to the above mentioned paper? 73, Frank Brilliant Frank as a mechanical engineer I trust you will excuse me from knowing this. Ofcourse I will have to review things for myself so I understand fully what you have pointed out The way I put it initially is that if you add radiators and a time varying field to a gaussian field while holding to the equilibrium format you arrive at Maxwells law. I asked somebody that was knoweledgable in the field about it and he stated I had made a discovery which now looking back could mean anything.However, I sought this opinion from a qualified person as I had gone thru a series of illnesses and at that particular meeting puss was flowing from my pacemaker chest pocket but it was an excercise that I had to do since my training originially was that of an mechanical engineer before I had heart troubles and lost some of my memory faculties Because of this "discovery" it then becomes obvious that a radiator can be any shape , size and elevation when meeting Maxwells laws" as long as the contents of the border is in equilibrium" Now Frank notable hams have stated that a radiator must be straight for maximum efficiency which from my observations are untrue. Knowing that modern day computor programs were formulated around Maxwells laws THAT INCLUDE THE WEAK FORCE it would appear an overcheck of the equilibrium factor should appear when using an optimizer. Well as you know you overchecked that for yourself and confirmed it, thus the basis for my theory then started to unravel until I arrived at my present point where antennas of the highest efficiency can made within the smaller volume which I have subsequently made many. So it was then I shared some details to this group as they were supposed experts and from then on they have thrashed me in every way including a ham who provided the matjhematics comparing Gauss and Maxwell which continues to this day.Basicalyl all resisted the idea of a different antenna design on the assumption that all was known about antennas Now we have assertions that the Neutrinos has no mass and no magnetic field and yet itis understood that there are millions of them for every cubic metre on Earth and it goes on. *Hopefully the above will make things clearer. I will try and get back to the white papers that I spoke of and hopefully the book that was published later. I will get back to you after I review the history of events on my laptop in the hope it still resides there Best regards Art Unwin *KB9MZ....XG Secrets of the aether Three papers written by two physics peoiple in Southern Illinois Now also in book form released about two years ago Art Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Nov 10, 7:58 pm, "Frank" wrote: Knowing that modern day computor programs were formulated around Maxwells laws THAT INCLUDE THE WEAK FORCE it would appear an overcheck of the equilibrium factor should appear when using an optimizer. Art, show me ONE program that uses the weak force with maxwell's equations. or ONE reference to maxwell's equations that say they include the weak force interactions (besides your own posts of course). |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 11, 3:45*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Nov 10, 7:58 pm, "Frank" wrote: Knowing that modern day computor programs were formulated around Maxwells laws THAT INCLUDE THE WEAK FORCE it would appear an overcheck of the equilibrium factor should appear when using an optimizer. Art, show me ONE program that uses the weak force with maxwell's equations. or ONE reference to maxwell's equations that say they include the weak force interactions (besides your own posts of course). Dave Any AO programs will do it as they both have optimizers There is a free program Gal-mana or some thing like that which also has an optimizer 4nec2 is a freebee with optimizer. All of these will provide antennas in equilibrium All other antenna programs have inut of the weak force tho I doubt that those designed just for Yagis will have it as that is a planar device. My suggestion is that you stay with minninec programs and the 4nec2 program by Ari which incorporate Minninec optimizers additions. I would imagine that any history books on universal laws would have reference to it. The masters worked from basics to get their laws based on equilibrium which in the mathematical areana is a Gaussian field where all forces must add up to zero. All of the laws ddid not add up to zero so they added a force that completed the circle. They did not identify the "weak force" but inclusion was a must for all forces/vectors to add up to zero.All the laws that Maxwell used in his condensation of laws all had the stipulation of equilibrium. Wet and cold here so stay in and be a book worm Regards Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 11, 5:15*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 11, 3:45*pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message .... On Nov 10, 7:58 pm, "Frank" wrote: Knowing that modern day computor programs were formulated around Maxwells laws THAT INCLUDE THE WEAK FORCE it would appear an overcheck of the equilibrium factor should appear when using an optimizer. Art, show me ONE program that uses the weak force with maxwell's equations. or ONE reference to maxwell's equations that say they include the weak force interactions (besides your own posts of course). Dave Any AO programs will do it as they both have optimizers There is a free program Gal-mana or some thing like that which also has an optimizer 4nec2 is a freebee with optimizer. All of these will provide antennas in equilibrium All other antenna programs have inut of the weak force tho I doubt that those designed *just for *Yagis will have it as that is a planar device. My suggestion is that you stay with minninec programs and the 4nec2 program by Ari which incorporate Minninec optimizers additions. I would imagine that any history books on universal laws would have reference to it. The masters worked from basics to get their laws based on equilibrium which in the mathematical areana is a Gaussian field where all forces must add up to zero. All of the laws ddid not add up to zero so they added a force that completed the circle. They did not identify the "weak force" but inclusion was a must for all forces/vectors to add up to zero.All the laws that Maxwell used in his condensation of laws all had the stipulation of equilibrium. Wet and cold here so stay in and be a book worm Regards Art " David I googled" Maxwell equilibrium" On the first page they have a wiki answer to a question as to why equilibrium is not a basic for fractional wavelength antennas! You can kill two birds with one stone on that one Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Art Unwin wrote:
David I googled" Maxwell equilibrium" On the first page they have a wiki answer to a question as to why equilibrium is not a basic for fractional wavelength antennas! You can kill two birds with one stone on that one Art A Google search with that phrase returns several papers on the solution of Vlasov-Maxwell equations for a plasma, which has nothing to do with antennas. A Google Groups search with that phrase returns numorous links to your own babbling nonsense. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 11, 7:15*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: David I googled" Maxwell equilibrium" On the first page they have a wiki answer to a question as to why equilibrium is not a basic for fractional wavelength antennas! You can kill two birds with one stone on that one Art A Google search with that phrase returns several papers on the solution of Vlasov-Maxwell equations for a plasma, which has nothing to do with antennas. A Google Groups search with that phrase returns numorous links to your own babbling nonsense. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Worked for me. Maybe your browser is different the term wiki or wilki may provide a clue as to the browser I used Jim you are starting to get very rude, I never said that Vlasov- Maxwell had anything to do with antennas |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 11, 7:15Â*pm, wrote: Art Unwin wrote: David I googled" Maxwell equilibrium" On the first page they have a wiki answer to a question as to why equilibrium is not a basic for fractional wavelength antennas! You can kill two birds with one stone on that one Art A Google search with that phrase returns several papers on the solution of Vlasov-Maxwell equations for a plasma, which has nothing to do with antennas. A Google Groups search with that phrase returns numorous links to your own babbling nonsense. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Worked for me. Maybe your browser is different The browser used has nothing to do with the results of a Google search. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 11, 8:35*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: On Nov 11, 7:15*pm, wrote: Art Unwin wrote: David I googled" Maxwell equilibrium" On the first page they have a wiki answer to a question as to why equilibrium is not a basic for fractional wavelength antennas! You can kill two birds with one stone on that one Art A Google search with that phrase returns several papers on the solution of Vlasov-Maxwell equations for a plasma, which has nothing to do with antennas. A Google Groups search with that phrase returns numorous links to your own babbling nonsense. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Worked for me. Maybe your browser is different The browser used has nothing to do with the results of a Google search. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Ask your children for help or maybe somebody in the group will come forward to help you. Don't know why you are following the thread it is all blabber. Can';t you block me? |
Staying on Topic (was "Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams)
Hello, and I would like to propose that subjects in the area of general
electromagnetics be posted to a more appropriate ng such as sci.physics.electromagnetics or sci.physics.research (moderated). I think Mr. Unwin has a better chance of finding more sympathetic ears to his propositions in a more theoretical venue. Along with that recommendation goes a quote from the late Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO, John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337 |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 11, 9:06*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 11, 8:35*pm, wrote: Art Unwin wrote: On Nov 11, 7:15*pm, wrote: Art Unwin wrote: David I googled" Maxwell equilibrium" On the first page they have a wiki answer to a question as to why equilibrium is not a basic for fractional wavelength antennas! You can kill two birds with one stone on that one Art A Google search with that phrase returns several papers on the solution of Vlasov-Maxwell equations for a plasma, which has nothing to do with antennas. A Google Groups search with that phrase returns numorous links to your own babbling nonsense. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Worked for me. Maybe your browser is different The browser used has nothing to do with the results of a Google search. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Ask your children for help or maybe somebody in the group will come forward to help you. Don't know why you are following the thread it is all blabber. Can';t you block me? Wikianswers statement referred to The question raised was that Maxwells laws require equilibrium Full wave antennas are in equilibrium buf fractional wavelengths are not. ((((((((!!!!!( Seems like I have heard that a lot on this newsgroup )))))!!!!!~ The answer was basically in agreement and stated that for fractional wavelength antennas requires compromises when applying Maxwell laws.. You can now ask where the curfrent goes when it reaches the end of a fractional wavelength radiatorand get what some say "is the rest of the story" On the other side you can bombard Wilkianswers that HAM RADIO REJECT the idea of associating equilibrium with Maxwells laws or any other laws in Physics.as it just blabber and does NOT represent the present day thinking of ham radio enthusiasts in the U.S.and the American Navy reseach centers in Washington DC You, the experts, can also ask the ARRL to print same in QST otherwise change will become unstopable Regards Art |
Staying on Topic (was "Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams)
J. B. Wood wrote:
... Along with that recommendation goes a quote from the late Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO, John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337 I would like to add: Gaining the "extraordinary proof[s]" to validate "extraordinary claims" requires the extraordinary ****ing-off of personalities who are deeply rooted in common knowledge/theory/equations/accepted-beliefs/etc. -- JS But then, a "tempest in a teapot" would, quite likely, result in the same action(s.) Ya' never know, ya' just never know ... Regards, JS |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
You can now ask where the current goes when it reaches the end of a
fractional wavelength radiator and get what some say "is the rest of the story". Current is always zero at the end of a radiator of any length. Frank |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 12, 12:06*pm, "Frank" wrote:
You can now ask where the current goes when it reaches the end of a fractional wavelength radiator and get what some say *"is the rest of the story". Current is always zero at the end of a radiator of any length. Frank Maybe Frank but it never came to a stop!!!!. When you look at it as not being equilibrium one must show the sharges moving to the ends of the radiator where end effect is created. Now you draw a line to the right on the outside of the radiator with an arrow at the end to show the movement of the charge. Now the original notion that there is no charge or current goes away because a reactive line and arrow must be assigned for quasi equilibrium to be established and that line or vector has only the center of the radiator to flow to form a closed circuit. When a radiator is in equilibrium the charge does NOT move to the end so that there is no vector to the right thus physics state that the need for an opposing vector does not exist. Thus for a radiator in equilibrium current will move along the surface but the charges will not. So do the charges really stay in a static possition? No it doesn't It was on the surface over the skin provided by the eddy current which when combined with moving current both produce a combination magnetic field that provides a vector force away from the surface of the radiator. The charge static position.is thus over powered by the combination magnetic field that places a spin upon the partiucle and ejects it in a straight line trajectory. These ejections have a reberatory effect on the radiator and also on the receiving radiator so that communication occurs in a vibratory manner Now the extension of gaussian static field shows up in actual radiation phenomina in the same way the eddy current fields provide levitation which thus agrees with other known laws Tho it can be shown that the law of statics is part of Maxwells laws mathematically I know of no disclosure where the same was approached from a strictly flux flow position which brings static particles into the mode of radiation as well as defining the eddy current creating the "weak" force as anticipated by Einstein till he died.Nowhere is a physics law violated physics laws have been solidified and the theory is solid Best regards Art Unwin.....KB9MZ........XG |
"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. 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 Again you are misquoting and this time it is Planck His constant evolved around a proton where the results has some conflicts to this day with respect to classical science. When he was studying black holes in the aether he saw it as PROTONS escaping and not particles such as neutrinos which have since proven to have mass where he was using the term momentum which is a varient of mass and gravitational effects. There is nothing that suggests that energy can be carried without the presence of mass and thus the wave of energy as inferred by many is debunked, Yes Maxwell left a lot but he nevver alluded to static particles and piossibly not even to the pre condition pf equilibrium. What he is famous for is noting all the observations and equations of his predecessors and used his mathematical acumen to reduce or condense the laws given to him of which he did not individually contribute as personal observations at that particular time. Gauss specifically mentioned static particles where Maxwell omitted such references thus leaving radiation as a mystery where the "wave" format gained strength because of the magnetic field format b ut with which Einstein disagreed. Einsteins foray into relativity further debunked the idea of waves or energy without mass to carry potential energy or to show the effects of kinetic energy and the association between gravity and momentum and the importance of frequency of movement. You cannot rely on the forever continuance of old books that were used in your part of the centuries as being imbedded in stone based on your own particular life span.History shows that new generations come along using the education of their fore fathers on whose shoulders they stand and where the human race requires challenge that the past may or may not accept when their time comes about and thoughts go with them. Remember a constant as used by Planck is purely a mathematical condition which describes an event that occurrs physically without change such that a number can be prented in the place of a full description of the actual event in a similar way the "wek force" has been calculatedf for the past century. Art Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Current is always zero at the end of a radiator of any length.
Frank Maybe Frank but it never came to a stop!!!!. When you look at it as not being equilibrium one must show the sharges moving to the ends of the radiator The charges (electrons) do not realy move. They vibrate at the applied E-field frequency. The charge displacement, depending on frequency; for example at 10 MHz, is of the order of 10 atomic diameters -- approximately 2*10^(-9) m. http://www.geocities.com/ferman30/AtomsDimTable.html Frank |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Nov 11, 3:45 pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Nov 10, 7:58 pm, "Frank" wrote: Knowing that modern day computor programs were formulated around Maxwells laws THAT INCLUDE THE WEAK FORCE it would appear an overcheck of the equilibrium factor should appear when using an optimizer. Art, show me ONE program that uses the weak force with maxwell's equations. or ONE reference to maxwell's equations that say they include the weak force interactions (besides your own posts of course). reply garbage off topic snipped... you are worse than a politician art... answer the question. show me a program that uses the weak force. i will guarantee you that nec and ao DO NOT use the weak force. keep searching, quote the manual, don't make your own assumptions based on what you believe. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Dave wrote:
show me a program that uses the weak force. Didn't the weak force and the electromagnetic force get united into the "electroweak" force in the late 60's? In which case, aren't the two forces interchangable? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 12, 5:54*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave wrote: show me a program that uses the weak force. Didn't the weak force and the electromagnetic force get united into the "electroweak" force in the late 60's? In which case, aren't the two forces interchangable? -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com Yes tho some use the term electroweak incorrectly as equal to the weak force aloneinstead of the combination force ( I may have described that incorrectly). Some have now reduced the number of forces down to three where some also infere that it can be reduced to one.( gravity being a subset of electromagnetism) Problem is that electroweak bundles the mathematical terms as if the weak force is the only other action whereas the weak force is a bundling of all mathematical factors( a constant by any other name) required in addition to the other forces to allow all forces to sum to zero.(Newton) I have not seen anything that quantifies the eddy current as being equal in itself as being equal to the missing vector but then science has not found the weak force to prove that it is in singular form and equal to the vector required for equilibrium. If somebody would pick up my theorem that could easily be solved by taking the periphary of the eddy current traveling at the speed of light (frrequency dependant) Regards Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 12, 3:47*pm, "Frank" wrote:
Current is always zero at the end of a radiator of any length. Frank Maybe Frank but it never came to a stop!!!!. When you look at it as not being equilibrium one must show the sharges moving to the ends of the radiator The charges (electrons) do not realy move. *They vibrate at the applied E-field frequency. *The charge displacement, depending on frequency; for example at 10 MHz, is of the order of 10 atomic diameters -- approximately 2*10^(-9) m.http://www.geocities.com/ferman30/AtomsDimTable.html Frank Correct but only if the equilibrium rule is respected other wise it does move in line with the applied current Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
On Nov 12, 6:56*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 12, 3:47*pm, "Frank" wrote: Current is always zero at the end of a radiator of any length. Frank Maybe Frank but it never came to a stop!!!!. When you look at it as not being equilibrium one must show the sharges moving to the ends of the radiator The charges (electrons) do not realy move. *They vibrate at the applied E-field frequency. *The charge displacement, depending on frequency; for example at 10 MHz, is of the order of 10 atomic diameters -- approximately 2*10^(-9) m.http://www.geocities.com/ferman30/AtomsDimTable.html Frank Correct but only if the equilibrium rule is respected other wise it does move in line with the applied current Art Would also like to point ouyt that we have bound electrons as part of the diamagnetic material of the radiator the other is an unbound electron or particle that resides on the surface of the diagmatic material. It is the charge of this unbound particle we are talking about when levitated by the eddy current aqnd not the electons that are bound within the material Art |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Nov 12, 5:54 pm, Cecil Moore wrote: Dave wrote: show me a program that uses the weak force. Didn't the weak force and the electromagnetic force get united into the "electroweak" force in the late 60's? In which case, aren't the two forces interchangable? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com only at temperatures over 10^15K... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction so if you are living just after the big bang maybe you could consider them the same. |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
"Dave" wrote in message ... "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Nov 11, 3:45 pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Nov 10, 7:58 pm, "Frank" wrote: Knowing that modern day computor programs were formulated around Maxwells laws THAT INCLUDE THE WEAK FORCE it would appear an overcheck of the equilibrium factor should appear when using an optimizer. Art, show me ONE program that uses the weak force with maxwell's equations. or ONE reference to maxwell's equations that say they include the weak force interactions (besides your own posts of course). reply garbage off topic snipped... you are worse than a politician art... answer the question. show me a program that uses the weak force. i will guarantee you that nec and ao DO NOT use the weak force. keep searching, quote the manual, don't make your own assumptions based on what you believe. you know, it took me a while, but i have finally figured out art. art is a politician, and worse than that, he is a democrat. all that talk about equilibrium should have tipped me off earlier! art is all for the weak (force) and wants to get everything into equilibrium by taking away from the strong and giving to the weak. He is also excellent at not answering questions as most of you may have noticed. his slipperyness is only topped by our new president, maybe art has been taking lessons from the big chicago politicians in how not to get pinned down. Just think about it, who else but a politician could go on this long doing nothing but asserting beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. politicians do that all the time, they live on repeating sound bites and bumper sticker slogans for years never saying any more than a dozen words on any particular topic... and the more they get pressed the more they fall back on the same repetitive statements. art does exactly the same thing, always falling back on 'equilibrium', can't you just picture that as a bumper sticker?!?! maybe if he repeats it long enough he will get voted into some big science post and get a big grant, after all, if it gets repeated enough if must be right! |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Dave wrote:
so if you are living just after the big bang maybe you could consider them the same. How can you possibly believe that the universe was 9 billion years old in earth years before earth years even existed? We *are* living just after the big bang. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave wrote: so if you are living just after the big bang maybe you could consider them the same. How can you possibly believe that the universe was 9 billion years old in earth years before earth years even existed? We *are* living just after the big bang. Cecil: I can be a bit dense, yanno? Could you elaborate a bit ... I lost you somewhere? I mean I understand time could not be measured in earth years before the earth existed ... but after it did exist (and we invented time based on its' spinning) can't we just extrapolate backwards? Or, what? Regards, JS |
"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
John Smith wrote:
Could you elaborate a bit ... I lost you somewhere? I mean I understand time could not be measured in earth years before the earth existed ... but after it did exist (and we invented time based on its' spinning) can't we just extrapolate backwards? Or, what? As you know, relativistic effects change the length of seconds. Just after the Big Bang, everything must have been traveling close to the speed of light. (The inflation of the universe is supposed to have happened at much faster than the speed of light.) But what if seconds were simply extremely long due to velocity. As the particles slowed down, seconds got shorter until today we have the shortest second ever to exist - shorter than it was yesterday. Now take today's short second, lay them end to end, and extrapolate the age of the universe. You get a number that is much too large. Conceptually, but not to scale: BB|------------------------------------|first second ... .... |--|today's second What if the first second was actually one trillion of our present-day seconds? Extrapolation would lead to an error of 12 magnitudes in the length of that first second. Not only are there time effects - there are also space effects. Things are not getting farther away from each other - light-years are getting longer as we speak, i.e. space itself is expanding, i.e. the standard meter in the National Bureau of Standards is getting longer as we speak. What happens when me measure the light frequency of distant galaxies while, during the travel of that light, light-years were getting longer and seconds were getting shorter? Hint: same thing that happens when the time base knob on an oscilloscope gets loose and slips. (That actually happened to me and the result was an epiphany about space/time.) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com