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

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

On Nov 4, 10:51*am, Art Unwin 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 hope it is a good flight. Of course, with the recent economic
downturn, I imagine in-flight meals are out.
I heard they now offer a cup of water and a fig neutrino.







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.

Well, then WTF are you doing here whining about it?
Art, you are just plain full of crap. If the work had been done,
you would be offering it as evidence.
But all you do is hand wave various levels of bafflegab.

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,.

Well, it's obvious that your education has led you astray.
You can't spell worth a crap, your ideas about science
border on lunacy. And to top it off, you probably voted for
Obama.
And you want to whine about my level of education?
I'm sure this is news to you, but they don't offer antenna
theory in high school. So it wouldn't make a rats ass
if I finished high school or not. I would still have to study
antenna theory either at a later school, or on my own.
I choose to do such study on my own time.

My home schooling appears to be superior to your
version, being I spell slightly better than you do, and
when I talk about antenna theory, people don't constantly
jump down my back telling me I'm insane.
I'm not even corrected very often, and I'm sure they would
if I was off in outer space as far as theory or even
details of whatever antenna talk I enter into.
A fairly nit picky bunch you have around here.
They don't suffer fools very well.

On the other hand, you can't make one post without
causing extreme controversy.
Your idea of science is to conjure up various degrees
of bafflegab, and then blame everyone else for not doing
your "work" when the controversy starts up.

Fortunately many hams are continueing to experiment in search of the
holy grail where others wish to continue as just talking heads.

What is a holy grail antenna? I know what a talking head is.
I see them on the tube every day.
On the other hand, all I see you do is talk out your ass.
A talking ass. Kind of reminds me of Mr. Ed, with a
twist.

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.

Oh, and you are the one to set us all straight I presume...
Chortle...

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.

Art, I've got news for you. Terman probably forgot more about
radiation than you know in totality. I think Richards book was
printed in about 1955, and it's still fairly relevant.
You on the other hand... :/

Regards
Art

Regards, the ignorant dumbass.

"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 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.

"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

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

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

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

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