On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 10:31:59 -0800 (PST), 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.. :/



Two things.
Why are you still bothering with him? He loves the attention he is
getting, he is off in some other NG spewing about being the most
responded to poster. The correct response is to kill file him. I have
only read responses to his posts.
Many of you could benefit by setting your newsreader to quote
correctly. Outhouse Express can do it, it may even do it by default.

"JosephKK" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 10:31:59 -0800 (PST), 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.. :/



Two things.
Why are you still bothering with him? He loves the attention he is
getting, he is off in some other NG spewing about being the most
responded to poster. The correct response is to kill file him. I have
only read responses to his posts.
Many of you could benefit by setting your newsreader to quote
correctly. Outhouse Express can do it, it may even do it by default.

art is fun! he gives me something to laugh at when the wx is bad.

usually oe does quote properly, but something is different about art's
posts, they must be in a format that oe doesn't like so it won't
automatically indent and quote them.

On Nov 16, 10:16*am, "Dave" wrote:
"JosephKK" wrote in message

...



On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 10:31:59 -0800 (PST), 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.. *:/

Two things.
Why are you still bothering with him? *He loves the attention he is
getting, he is off in some other NG spewing about being the most
responded to poster. *The correct response is to kill file him. I have
only read responses to his posts.
Many of you could benefit by setting your newsreader to quote
correctly. *Outhouse Express can do it, it may even do it by default.

art is fun! *he gives me something to laugh at when the wx is bad.

usually oe does quote properly, but something is different about art's
posts, they must be in a format that oe doesn't like so it won't
automatically indent and quote them.

David
There is something odd about that post. I have not been dabbling in
other newsgroups other than a short stint
on Eham. I have not stated that I get more resposes than anybody else
on the net. So I really don't know where he is coming from
I have no problem in people killing my file as that would leave people
who want to discuss antennas instead
of staying purely for insults and argueing reasons. Perhaps he is one
of the kb9.... group that are intent on destroying newsgroups
before somebody divulges where he lives so that people can decide how
to react. Maybe when the table turns on him he will ponder
if his behaviour justified the response he gets!

Now back to antennas, how can one determine if current does or does
not flow in the centre of a conductor? by separating It was the basis
of equilibrium of a radiator
that allowed the use of Newtrons law to determine that if a charge
does not move in sync with the current then no current can be flowing
thru the center.
Nobody used Newtons laws in the case of a fractional wavelength
antenna.
but of a bound electron breaking away from the orbits of the material.
This thinking says that a antenna will dissapate over time so we must
consider the possibility of an unbound electron at rest upon the
surface which brings us back to the Newton domain Is it beyond the
sensabilities to see it as an action and a reacgtion between the
settlement of particles on a surface and the reaction to this action
by the application of current which provides a reactionary field. This
idea of waves moving along with the current flow and various other
ideas put forward by the likes of book authors seems to be a never
ending attempt to provide substanced to a long ago thought out bad
theory which would be disrupted if current was observed to flow in the
centre of a radiator
Regards
Art
Art

John Smith wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
"Could you give a similar description only this time make it a 5/8
wavelength antenna."
...
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard:

I certainly don't want to engage in a large argument.

Rather, I would just venture an opinion directly related to my real
world construction experiences, and the results from the same:

If there are notable gains from constructing a 5/8 wave antenna, as
opposed to a 1/2 wave--I have NOT seen them.

It all looks good in EZNEC and/or mmana-gal (or, "on paper"), however,
in real world s-meter/signal-reports, "it" does not.

Perhaps I have experienced a anomaly(s?)

Or, put simply, the extra "hassle" in dealing with these extended
lengths is simply "not worth it!"

Regards,
JS

I think that we all should remember that it is the "ART" of antenna
design not the "SCIENCE" of antenna design.

Dave WD9BDZ

"David G. Nagel" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
"Could you give a similar description only this time make it a 5/8
wavelength antenna."
...
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard:

I certainly don't want to engage in a large argument.

Rather, I would just venture an opinion directly related to my real world
construction experiences, and the results from the same:

If there are notable gains from constructing a 5/8 wave antenna, as
opposed to a 1/2 wave--I have NOT seen them.

It all looks good in EZNEC and/or mmana-gal (or, "on paper"), however, in
real world s-meter/signal-reports, "it" does not.

Perhaps I have experienced a anomaly(s?)

Or, put simply, the extra "hassle" in dealing with these extended lengths
is simply "not worth it!"

Regards,
JS

I think that we all should remember that it is the "ART" of antenna design
not the "SCIENCE" of antenna design.

Dave WD9BDZ

its only an art to art its a science to everyone else. art paints his
antennas with magical mystery jumping diamagnetic neutrinos that levitate in
the breeze. sounds like paintings like the melted watch and distorted
perceptions to me.

Art wrote:
"This idea of waves moving along with the current flow and various other
ideas put forward by book authors seems to be a never ending attempt to
provide substance(d) to long ago thought out bad theory which would be
disrupted if current was observed to flow in the center of a radiator."

The theory is well tested and good.

Authors often write books to inform. They are paid for their efforts.

Skin effect is a fact of agreement among the scientific community. A
proof is readily at hand. Coaxial cable keeps what`s inside in and
what`s outside out.

The best exposition of "skin effect" that I know of is found in chapter
27 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield
Griffith. The 1st edition was published in 1962. It was republished by
Scitech in 2006. Art would enjoy and benefit from all 638 pages.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Nov 16, 11:58*am, "Dave" wrote:
"David G. Nagel" wrote in om...



John Smith wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
"Could you give a similar description only this time make it a 5/8
wavelength antenna."
...
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard:

I certainly don't want to engage in a large argument.

Rather, I would just venture an opinion directly related to my real world
construction experiences, and the results from the same:

If there are notable gains from constructing a 5/8 wave antenna, as
opposed to a 1/2 wave--I have NOT seen them.

It all looks good in EZNEC and/or mmana-gal (or, "on paper"), however, in
real world s-meter/signal-reports, "it" does not.

Perhaps I have experienced a anomaly(s?)

Or, put simply, the extra "hassle" in dealing with these extended lengths
is simply "not worth it!"

Regards,
JS

I think that we all should remember that it is the "ART" of antenna design
not the "SCIENCE" of antenna design.

Dave WD9BDZ

its only an art to art its a science to everyone else. *art paints his
antennas with magical mystery jumping diamagnetic neutrinos that levitate in
the breeze. *sounds like paintings like the melted watch and distorted
perceptions to me.

No David, I am trying to lead people away from the idea of break away
elements from the radiator
substance itself. We all recognise that the rotation of the Sun has a
pivitable place in radiation.
It is also estimated that there are billions of particles per cubic
meter here on Earth which came from the Sun.
So what is so wrong in looking for a connection between these
particles and radiatiation? After all we are aware that they will come
to rest on a material that will not apply a bond to these particles
such as a diagmatic material which radiators are made of?
We also know that these particles in flight must have a straight line
projection that exceeds the gravitational pull and possibly this is
the weak force which is acknoweledged in the science community! Yet we
hang on to the idea that current cannot flow in the center of a
fractional wavelkength radiator
purely on similar speculation since it has never been observed or
proven. It just isn't a lot of sense and the ARRL could not care less
relying on a cycle of informing new hams how to solder a connector on
coax.
Good grief
Regards
Art

Richard Harrison wrote:
Art wrote:
"This idea of waves moving along with the current flow and various other
ideas put forward by book authors seems to be a never ending attempt to
provide substance(d) to long ago thought out bad theory which would be
disrupted if current was observed to flow in the center of a radiator."

The theory is well tested and good.

Authors often write books to inform. They are paid for their efforts.

Skin effect is a fact of agreement among the scientific community. A
proof is readily at hand. Coaxial cable keeps what`s inside in and
what`s outside out.

The best exposition of "skin effect" that I know of is found in chapter
27 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield
Griffith. The 1st edition was published in 1962. It was republished by
Scitech in 2006. Art would enjoy and benefit from all 638 pages.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI



High power coaxial transmission lines have hollow center conductors.

On Nov 16, 1:09*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"This idea of waves moving along with the current flow and various other
ideas put forward by book authors seems to be a never ending attempt to
provide substance(d) to long ago thought out bad theory which would be
disrupted if current was observed to flow in the center of a radiator."

The theory is well tested and good.

Authors often write books to inform. They are paid for their efforts.

Skin effect is a fact of agreement among the scientific community. A
proof is readily at hand. Coaxial cable keeps what`s inside in and
what`s outside out.

The best exposition of "skin effect" that I know of is found in chapter
27 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield
Griffith. The 1st edition was published in 1962. It was republished by
Scitech in 2006. Art would enjoy and benefit from all 638 pages.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI *

Isnt this all a little bit like acknowleging someone who is causing
intentional interference on the bands?

Jimmie

On Nov 16, 12:09*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"This idea of waves moving along with the current flow and various other
ideas put forward by book authors seems to be a never ending attempt to
provide substance(d) to long ago thought out bad theory which would be
disrupted if current was observed to flow in the center of a radiator."

The theory is well tested and good.

Authors often write books to inform. They are paid for their efforts.

Skin effect is a fact of agreement among the scientific community. A
proof is readily at hand. Coaxial cable keeps what`s inside in and
what`s outside out.

The best exposition of "skin effect" that I know of is found in chapter
27 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield
Griffith. The 1st edition was published in 1962. It was republished by
Scitech in 2006. Art would enjoy and benefit from all 638 pages.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI *

Richard I have made my thoughts known on radiation as well as the path
I followed
that brought me to where I am. In the past 100 years or more science
has not come to a consensus as to what energy is.
Einstein seached all his life for the weak force which he considered a
major part of radiatiation which leads to a Unified theory.
Today there is not one book thaat can provide a satisfactory answer as
to how radiattion is created.
What I am saying that there are to many theories that are being tagged
upon one another leading to an incorrect trail upon which books are
being printed
for a individual generation. So I proposed to myself a retreat from
the books and go back to Maxwells laws plus those of the masters that
provided the information to him and then with an open mind looked at
it with the 21st century in mind and the information garnered by
observation as opposed to theory.
Present day science is all a buzz about Neutrinos, CERN and the Sun
which is in a continually burning state creating partly burnt
constituents.
Gauss has a law dealing with particles and I have an interest in ham
radio. It is therefore natuaral to me that in light of present day
observances
Einstein may well have been correct even tho not aware of discoveries
found after his death. Thus my concentration was on outside particles
and not the wave style theorem and thus eventually arrived at the weak
force phenomina which is in use in many ways on Earyth which can also
be subcribed to radiation. But saying is not enough so I have used
Maxwellian computor programs to design these antennas with good
results all of which are bound
to the edict of equilibrium which all the past masters adhered to.
Einstein was not privy to a lot of things that I used on my jorney but
many hams do
and can easily confirm my findings which are observables not dreams
that support Maxwell. Books cannot and do not provide an actual
journey that provides a trail without gaps for the generation of
radiation. I have by starting the trail at the beginning with present
day science in mind and not pursuing the mode of academics who seek
favor by piggy backing theories of those who have received award thus
shutting out a;ll other aproaches.
Yes my thinking is known and yes I think for myself with no formal
attachment to the books upon which my education started where it is
incumbent on graduates to continue to hone and secure futher
information for the next generation rather than the sole pursuit of
personal wealth.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg (uk)