"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

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

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

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?

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