"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

I can easily see myself as being viewed as an "unwashed ham" on this
newsgroup !
I am still of the belief that on a fractional wave antenna the current
travels on both the outside
and the inside of the radiator. This puts me in opposition to the
multitude of "washed" hams
who resist change even tho as yet I have not been proved as being in
error.
I suppose a "washed" ham is one who is of the opinion that "all is
known about antennas" and thus
"change" is to be avoided.
At the moment the consensus seems to be that current only flows on the
outside of a radiator as an open circuit where-as a few say the power
jumps from the end of the antennas to ground to complete a circuit.
One would tend to think that a newsgroup of "washed" hams would be
able to supply the definitive answer in line with "all is known".
Points to consider,
A fractional wavelength antenna is NOT in a state of equi;ibrium
( balanced forces if you prefer)
where a full wave radiator IS in a state of equilibrium ( balanced
forces where the sum of which equals zero) and all laws are based on a
state of equilibrium per classical physics
Best regards
Art

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

welcome back art, glad you are still around or it could be a long cold
winter! i definately look forward to your rediculous theories to give me a
good laugh now and then. once the current flows back down inside the
antenna element, where does it go?

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
I can easily see myself as being viewed as an "unwashed ham" on this
newsgroup !
I am still of the belief that on a fractional wave antenna the current
travels on both the outside
and the inside of the radiator. This puts me in opposition to the
multitude of "washed" hams
who resist change even tho as yet I have not been proved as being in
error.
I suppose a "washed" ham is one who is of the opinion that "all is
known about antennas" and thus
"change" is to be avoided.
At the moment the consensus seems to be that current only flows on the
outside of a radiator as an open circuit where-as a few say the power
jumps from the end of the antennas to ground to complete a circuit.
One would tend to think that a newsgroup of "washed" hams would be
able to supply the definitive answer in line with "all is known".
Points to consider,
A fractional wavelength antenna is NOT in a state of equi;ibrium
( balanced forces if you prefer)
where a full wave radiator IS in a state of equilibrium ( balanced
forces where the sum of which equals zero) and all laws are based on a
state of equilibrium per classical physics
Best regards
Art

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Oct 31, 4:09*pm, "Dave" wrote:
welcome back art, glad you are still around or it could be a long cold
winter! *i definately look forward to your rediculous theories to give me a
good laugh now and then. *once the current flows back down inside the
antenna element, where does it go?

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

I can easily see myself as being viewed as an "unwashed ham" on this
newsgroup !
I am still of the belief that on a fractional wave antenna the current
travels on both the outside
and the inside of the radiator. This puts me in opposition to the
multitude of "washed" *hams
who resist change even tho as yet I have not been proved as being in
error.
I suppose a "washed" ham is one who is of the opinion that "all is
known about antennas" and thus
"change" is to be avoided.
At the moment the consensus seems to be that current only flows on the
outside of a radiator as an open circuit where-as a few say the power
jumps from the end of the antennas to ground to complete a circuit.
One would tend to think that a newsgroup of "washed" hams would be
able to supply the definitive answer in line with "all is known".
Points to consider,
A fractional wavelength antenna is NOT in a state of equi;ibrium
( balanced forces if you prefer)
where a full wave radiator IS in a state of equilibrium ( balanced
forces where the sum of which equals zero) and all laws are based on a
state of equilibrium per classical physics
Best regards
Art

So you accept that current flows down the center ?
Knowing that you should be able to answer your own question !
Unless you to are an "unwashed" ham
Art

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Oct 31, 1:40*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I can easily see myself as being viewed as an "unwashed ham" on this
newsgroup !
I hope you use a good deodorant. :/

I am still of the belief that on a fractional wave antenna the current
travels on both the outside
and the inside of the radiator.
It's a free country. But skin effect knows no boundaries I'm
afraid.

This puts me in opposition to the
multitude of "washed" *hams
who resist change even tho as yet I have not been proved as being in
error.

Nor have you taken any effort to prove you are not in error.
So what we end up with is a room of non stinky hams, who
have to hold their noses when a certain unwashed ham enters
the building. :/

I suppose a "washed" ham is one who is of the opinion that "all is
known about antennas" and thus
"change" is to be avoided.

No a washed ham would be one who showers or bathes on a fairly
regular basis, and most likely uses some type of deodorant.
I suppose a car wash could be a suitable substitution. Or a lake.
It's not really that critical as long as water is involved.

At the moment the consensus seems to be that current only flows on the
outside of a radiator as an open circuit where-as a few say the power
jumps from the end of the antennas to ground to complete a circuit.

My cat has new mittens. The ones we used last year jumped to
ground, and vaporized into black carbon based matter.
Almost like a fig neutrino which was left in an 450 degree oven
for 14 hours.

*One would tend to think that a newsgroup of "washed" hams would be
able to supply the definitive answer in line with "all is known".

Define "all is known".

Points to consider,
A fractional wavelength antenna is NOT in a state of equi;ibrium
( balanced forces if you prefer)

Define equilibrium as it relates to an antenna.

where a full wave radiator IS in a state of equilibrium ( balanced
forces where the sum of which equals zero) and all laws are based on a
state of equilibrium per classical physics

If a full wave radiator IS in a state of equilibrium, whatever that
means,
why are you interested in fractional antennas?
If a full wave is so special, why is a half wave generally just as an
efficient a radiator as a full wave?
Something for you to ponder during your next visit to the
water closet.


Best regards
Art

And likewise I'm sure. I'm going to go play in the dirt for a while.

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

wrote in message
...
On Oct 31, 1:40 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I can easily see myself as being viewed as an "unwashed ham" on this
newsgroup !
I hope you use a good deodorant. :/

I am still of the belief that on a fractional wave antenna the current
travels on both the outside
and the inside of the radiator.
It's a free country. But skin effect knows no boundaries I'm
afraid.

This puts me in opposition to the
multitude of "washed" hams
who resist change even tho as yet I have not been proved as being in
error.

Nor have you taken any effort to prove you are not in error.
So what we end up with is a room of non stinky hams, who
have to hold their noses when a certain unwashed ham enters
the building. :/

I suppose a "washed" ham is one who is of the opinion that "all is
known about antennas" and thus
"change" is to be avoided.

No a washed ham would be one who showers or bathes on a fairly
regular basis, and most likely uses some type of deodorant.
I suppose a car wash could be a suitable substitution. Or a lake.
It's not really that critical as long as water is involved.

At the moment the consensus seems to be that current only flows on the
outside of a radiator as an open circuit where-as a few say the power
jumps from the end of the antennas to ground to complete a circuit.

My cat has new mittens. The ones we used last year jumped to
ground, and vaporized into black carbon based matter.
Almost like a fig neutrino which was left in an 450 degree oven
for 14 hours.

One would tend to think that a newsgroup of "washed" hams would be
able to supply the definitive answer in line with "all is known".

Define "all is known".

Points to consider,
A fractional wavelength antenna is NOT in a state of equi;ibrium
( balanced forces if you prefer)

Define equilibrium as it relates to an antenna.

where a full wave radiator IS in a state of equilibrium ( balanced
forces where the sum of which equals zero) and all laws are based on a
state of equilibrium per classical physics

If a full wave radiator IS in a state of equilibrium, whatever that
means,
why are you interested in fractional antennas?
If a full wave is so special, why is a half wave generally just as an
efficient a radiator as a full wave?
Something for you to ponder during your next visit to the
water closet.


Best regards
Art

And likewise I'm sure. I'm going to go play in the dirt for a while.

And just how would you be able to measure the SWR on the inside of the
antenna element?? But I guess that you might assume that what ever the SWR
on the line, and therefore you would take 1/2 for the outside of the element
and the other half for the inside of the element... but wouldn't that cancel
each other, and if it did then wouldn't the SWR drop to zero?? I am really
confused!

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

"Art Unwin" writes...
I am still of the belief that on a fractional wave antenna
the current travels on both the outside and the inside of
the radiator. This puts me in opposition to the multitude
of "washed" hams who resist change even tho as yet
I have not been proved as being in error.
___________

Believe as you personally wish, Art.

But note that your belief is not supported either by theo-
retical or practical physics, or decades of field experience.

Instead of challenging the readers of your posts to prove
that you are wrong, you might take the time to research and
show SCIENTIFICALLY that you are right (if you can do so).

RF

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Oct 31, 7:13*pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Art Unwin" writes...
I am still of the belief that on a fractional wave antenna
the current travels on both the outside and the inside of
the radiator. This puts me in opposition to the multitude
of "washed" hams who resist change even tho as yet
I have not been proved as being in error.

___________

Believe as you personally wish, Art.

But note that your belief is not supported either by theo-
retical or practical physics, or decades of field experience.

Instead of challenging the readers of your posts to prove
that you are wrong, you might take the time to research and
show SCIENTIFICALLY that you are right (if you can do so).

RF

So what do you believe ?

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

So what do you believe ?


Art,
I believe we will never get a 'straight' answer from you. Does
that make me a 'washed' ham or an 'unwashed' one? Beats me, I don't
know.
- 'Doc

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

So you accept that current flows down the center ?
Knowing that you should be able to answer your own question !
Unless you to are an "unwashed" ham
Art

no, i took a shower last night, so i am definately washed. that was a
question for you, where does the current go on the inside of the antenna
element?

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 1, 8:26*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

So you accept that current flows down the center ?
Knowing that you should be able to answer your own question !
Unless you to are an "unwashed" ham
Art

no, i took a shower last night, so i am definately washed. *that was a
question for you, where does the current go on the inside of the antenna
element?

David
When viewing the antenna from an equilibrium point of view which is a
staple requirement of all electrical laws
one must assume that all forces/vectors equal zero (Newton )
Following this dictum physics state that foe equilibrium the charge on
the surface of a radiator does not move
linearlly there fore, there cannot be a linear force or vector to
oppose it. From this it is stated that there is no movement
in linear form else where which includes the center of the conductor/
radiator when the radfiator is one wavelength or multiple there of.
Now we have the case of a fractional wavelength radiator. In this case
one is aware that charges do move in a linear
direction as evidenced by "end effect". Therefore by following the
standard laws of physics there must be a
balancing force/vector in the opposite direction and the only place
that vector could be is in the center of the conductor
One should also be aware that a electrical curcuit for a fractional
wavelength is a series circuit and a parallelel circuit for a
fulle wavelength both of which are closed cuircuits when determining
current flow of a radiator so one can itemise the electrical circuit
in detail with respect to the components on the actual radiator to
ensure compatability.
Now according to my theory of radiation the forward current on a
radiator is opposed by closed circuit eddy current
which in combination provide a angular rotational force on any
residing particle which allows for directional levitation or
projection.
When the current of the radiator reaches the end of the radiator it
closes the circuit by entering the center of the conductor
( assuming the arrangement is not in a state of vacuum)under circular
surface current cuircuit where it is still in existance.
The internal current flow is solely resistive in nature comprising of
theseries resistance of the material used and not radiative.
Now David, if you can point to a description that differs to the above
and follows the laws of physics I would be happy to look it up and
study it , but in the final analysis one must be able to determine
the state of the conductor at it's center at all times.
David, my explanation is based on the world of physics as I know it.
It is not based on opinions from those who never graduated from high
school or those who have not studied physics and rely solely on the
written world or heresay. Hopefully any responses will be likewise.
Have a happy winter discussing physics and its application to antennas
and radiation which is what this newsgroup initially was generated for

Elementary my dear Watson as one Englishman said
Best regards
Art

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:40:07 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I can easily see myself as being viewed as an "unwashed ham" on this
newsgroup !

Mabye. Most recently, the term comes from cold war era references to
the GUM (great unwashed masses). This was a derrogatory term for the
average intelligence of the general public. The origin of the term
dates back to merry olde England, where it was used to refer to the
lower classes:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=29346
This may be appropriate for ham radio if you have an elitist view of
the Extra-Class license, accompanied by the usual snobbery. As your
FCC ULS page shows you have an Advanced class license:
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=410939
this is entirely possible, but improbable. To avoid confusion, I
suggest you upgrade to Extra-Class so that your self image improves,
and so that you not consider yourself being viewd as a lower class
"unwashed" ham.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 1, 12:33*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:40:07 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
I can easily see myself as being viewed as an "unwashed ham" on this
newsgroup !

Mabye. *Most recently, the term comes from cold war era references to
the GUM (great unwashed masses). *This was a derrogatory term for the
average intelligence of the general public. *The origin of the term
dates back to merry olde England, where it was used to refer to the
lower classes:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=29346
This may be appropriate for ham radio if you have an elitist view of
the Extra-Class license, accompanied by the usual snobbery. *As your
FCC ULS page shows you have an Advanced class license:
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=410939
this is entirely possible, but improbable. *To avoid confusion, I
suggest you upgrade to Extra-Class so that your self image improves,
and so that you not consider yourself being viewd as a lower class
"unwashed" ham.

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

I don't think Owen determined "unwashed: by the number of FCC
examinations passed.
I suspect he was refering to those who do not have a leaning towards
the science and physics of ham radio
but just want a license to be a talking head. How this type of person
views another is of no consequence
unless all reverts back to the middle ages where death can be a
consquence of any challenge to the status quo.
Art

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Nov 1, 8:26 am, "Dave" wrote:
David, my explanation is based on the world of physics as I know it.

the world according to art... I love it!

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 12:01:43 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Nov 1, 12:33*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:40:07 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
I can easily see myself as being viewed as an "unwashed ham" on this
newsgroup !

Mabye. *Most recently, the term comes from cold war era references to
the GUM (great unwashed masses). *This was a derrogatory term for the
average intelligence of the general public. *The origin of the term
dates back to merry olde England, where it was used to refer to the
lower classes:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=29346
This may be appropriate for ham radio if you have an elitist view of
the Extra-Class license, accompanied by the usual snobbery. *As your
FCC ULS page shows you have an Advanced class license:
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=410939
this is entirely possible, but improbable. *To avoid confusion, I
suggest you upgrade to Extra-Class so that your self image improves,
and so that you not consider yourself being viewd as a lower class
"unwashed" ham.

I don't think Owen determined "unwashed: by the number of FCC
examinations passed.

Who be this Owen?

I suspect he was refering to those who do not have a leaning towards
the science and physics of ham radio
but just want a license to be a talking head. How this type of person
views another is of no consequence

We have a substantial number of hams locally that are only interested
in emergency services and have no interest in the technical aspects of
ham radio beyond operating their radios. I'm sure they will be
thrilled to know that their views are of no consequence.

unless all reverts back to the middle ages where death can be a
consquence of any challenge to the status quo.
Art

Yea verily. Methinks trial by combat be the manner in which all
arguments should be settled. It worked well in the middle ages where
all the combative types conveniently exterminated each other, leaving
only the peaceful and tolerant, thus laying the path for the
Renaissance. Perhaps it be a worthy enterprise to return to trial by
combat in ham radio. That should clear out the endless political
debates, reduce pileups, and promote harmony on various bands.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

Art, once upon a time, a long time ago, I first heard the word, or concept,
called "skin effect". It seems that somehow, current at RF tends to stay near
the surface of the conductor, going less deep into the conductor as frequency
rises. In fact, at frequencies we 'unwashed' hams use routinely, the current
hardly penetrates the conductor at all. Consequently, if the conductor is the
radiating element of an antenna, and it is a solid, there is no way the current
can enter the center of the conductor and travel through the mass of the
conductor.

I also heard a long time ago the word "reflection." Seems that many savants
discovered that when the current reaches the end of the radiator (conductor) it
sees an open circuit, which the savants say causes the current to reverse its
direction and flow back along the "surface" of the conductor. I also seem to
recall some of those savants say that the combination of the forward current and
the reflected current esstablishes what they call a 'standing wave.' Art, are
you at all familiar with what I'm saying here? These savants have been able to
prove that a standing wave exists on the radiator by moving a fluorescent bulb
along the radiator for all to see.

So what I'm asking you to explain, Art, is how could this proven standing wave
exist on the radiator if the current reaching end of the radiator now goes into
the center of the radiator to propagate only through the mass of the conductor,
and seeing only the resistance of the conductor?

You've told us this happens, Art, but you haven't explained why. Now Art, please
explain this concept to all of us unwashed hams.

Walt, W2DU

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 1, 3:51*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 12:01:43 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin



wrote:
On Nov 1, 12:33*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:40:07 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
I can easily see myself as being viewed as an "unwashed ham" on this
newsgroup !

Mabye. *Most recently, the term comes from cold war era references to
the GUM (great unwashed masses). *This was a derrogatory term for the
average intelligence of the general public. *The origin of the term
dates back to merry olde England, where it was used to refer to the
lower classes:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=29346
This may be appropriate for ham radio if you have an elitist view of
the Extra-Class license, accompanied by the usual snobbery. *As your
FCC ULS page shows you have an Advanced class license:
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=410939
this is entirely possible, but improbable. *To avoid confusion, I
suggest you upgrade to Extra-Class so that your self image improves,
and so that you not consider yourself being viewd as a lower class
"unwashed" ham.
I don't think Owen determined "unwashed: by the number of FCC
examinations passed.

Who be this Owen? *

I suspect he was refering to those who do not have a leaning towards
the science and physics of ham radio
but just want a license to be a talking head. How this type of person
views another is of no consequence

We have a substantial number of hams locally that are only interested
in emergency services and have no interest in the technical aspects of
ham radio beyond operating their radios. *I'm sure they will be
thrilled to know that their views are of no consequence.

unless all reverts back to the middle ages where death can be a
consquence of any challenge to the status quo.
Art

Yea verily. *Methinks trial by combat be the manner in which all
arguments should be settled. *It worked well in the middle ages where
all the combative types conveniently exterminated each other, leaving
only the peaceful and tolerant, thus laying the path for the
Renaissance. * Perhaps it be a worthy enterprise to return to trial by
combat in ham radio. *That should clear out the endless political
debates, reduce pileups, and promote harmony on various bands.

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

No, I don't go along with those who choose ethnic cleansing
nor by those who accumulate the most wealth or those who determine
that God is on their side or the strong that are determined to
dominate
the weak. All nations that have followed this path in history lose out
in numbers
until their ways change, never to rise again as the future holds for
them " kill and be killed" by the many they have harmed.
I suspect that the next change in size of nations
will be the Middle East as all sides have moved towards permanent sin
that will never be forgiven and where some are willing to give
themselves
while taking all, leaving nothing but a desert while the tolerant have
presettled
else where they remove themselves from pre ethnic pasts.
Could we now possibly go back to radio and antennas which is what the
newsgroup
is set up for?
Art

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 15:01:38 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

"Unwashed" hams
"washed" hams
ethnic cleansing
accumulate the most wealth
God is on their side
the strong dominate the weak.
history
" kill and be killed"
size of nations
the Middle East
permanent sin
a desert
pre ethnic pasts.

Could we now possibly go back to radio and antennas which is what the
newsgroup is set up for?

Among the 13 topics you chose to write about, you don't seem to be
interested, so why ask?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

"Walter Maxwell" wrote in message
...

You've told us this happens, Art, but you haven't explained why. Now Art,
please
explain this concept to all of us unwashed hams.

hey, i just took a shower, speak for yourself!

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 1, 4:28*pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
Art, once upon a time, a long time ago, I first heard the word, or concept,
called "skin effect".
I don't think you are alo0ne there.


It seems that somehow, current at RF tends to stay near
the surface of the conductor, going less deep into the conductor as frequency
rises.
I don't know why you say somehow. Only the surface of a radiator
radiates and the opposing force to the time varying current
known as eddy current changes its depth of penetration with frequency


In fact, at frequencies we 'unwashed' hams use routinely, the current
hardly penetrates the conductor at all.
Again quit true



Consequently, if the conductor is the
radiating element of an antenna, and it is a solid, there is no way the current
can enter the center of the conductor and travel through the mass of the
conductor.

The only thing stopping the fliow of current is the eddy current. The
eddy current
is not present when current flows thru the center of a conductor, nor
is there
radiation from the center of the conductor and the copper resistance
of the center
is certainly less than the provided current and skin resistance that
would occur
if the currfent behaved like salmon and fought it's way back
upstream.




I also heard a long time ago the word "reflection." Seems that many savants
discovered that when the current reaches the end of the radiator (conductor) it
sees an open circuit,
You are moving away from the subject at hand by not declaring what the
radiator is !
For instance there is no evidence that the provided current reverses
itself on a full
wave quad preferring instead to close the current circuit by returning
to the sourcewhich is what standard
physics teaches. There are two radiation circuits, a series and a
parallel circuit
both of which are continuous and closed circuits.


which the savants say causes the current to reverse its
direction and flow back along the "surface" of the conductor.
Ther may well be current disturbance on the outside of a radiator but
the
main current path is always the one of least resistance to complete a
closed circuit.

I also seem to
recall some of those savants say that the combination of the forward current and
the reflected current esstablishes what they call a 'standing wave.'
Well I recognise that there can be disturbances but none that are
powerfull enough to overpower the
main current applied to the radiator.

Art, are
you at all familiar with what I'm saying here?
Yes. You are trying to apply a foundation for a book


These savants have been able to
prove that a standing wave exists on the radiator by moving a fluorescent bulb
along the radiator for all to see.
I have never stated that a standing wave does not exist


So what I'm asking you to explain, Art, is how could this proven standing wave
exist on the radiator if the current reaching end of the radiator now goes into
the center of the radiator to propagate only through the mass of the conductor,
and seeing only the resistance of the conductor?

First of all the standing wave is a disturbance along the path of
current flow
but not so strong as it can overpower it's provider., physics would
never support such a notion.
I previously stated that radiation can only occur from the surface of
the radiator
since it is the eddy or Foucault current that can provide levitation
to resting particles. When current flows thru
a material center it only encounters copper losses as there is no eddy
current generated.


You've told us this happens, Art, but you haven't explained why. Now Art, please
explain this concept to all of us unwashed hams.

I have stated many times what is happening. I reject all notions that
the applied time varying current can be overcome
from its pursuit of returning to its source as it will always follow
the path of least resistance and wil, never generate
a negative force that destroys equilibrium or suggests that energy can
be create.

Frankly, your concentration on reflections with respect to radiation
is just a way to promote a book while at the same time
ignoring what provides communication which is the main issue with
respect to antennas. When you get down to the real
issue of what creats radiation you will find it much easier to
explain reflections instead of just trying to substantiate
possible answers to the frequent abnormalities of your position. I
challenge you to show that when the arbritary field enclosing a static
field
accompanied by the addition of a time varying field applied to said
enclosed field in equilibrium does not equal Maxwells laws.
If it does then the action of particles is a given with respect to
radiation and thus destroys your notions with respect to reflection.
Provide a service to ham radio, Show that the said addition to
gaussian law does NOT equate to Maxwells findings and thus the
present teachings are correct and my theorem is not.



Walt, W2DU
Best regards
Art Unwin

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 15:01:38 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I don't think Owen determined "unwashed: by the number of FCC
examinations passed.

Who be this Owen? *

Who is Owen? Is he a radio god?

No, I don't go along with those who choose ethnic cleansing
nor by those who accumulate the most wealth or those who determine
that God is on their side or the strong that are determined to
dominate the weak.

Well, those are usually the winners. If you don't "go along" with
them, it's highly likely that you will be among the losers. That's an
acceptable proposition in a country that protects, supports, and
sometimes even subsidizes the losers (i.e. government bailout). You
might find it more comfortable to be among the winners.

All nations that have followed this path in history lose out
in numbers
until their ways change, never to rise again as the future holds for
them " kill and be killed" by the many they have harmed.

All nations? Well, Jews have maintained their cultural and
nationalistic integrity probably the longest. We also do quite well
in collecting wealth. We're not into ethnic cleansing, although there
are factions that wouldn't mind doing that to the neighboring Arab
states. Lots of other examples (Persia, China, American Indian
nations, Egypt, India) that have been around for a long time. They
all have their ups and downs, but all seem to survive.

I suspect that the next change in size of nations
will be the Middle East as all sides have moved towards permanent sin
that will never be forgiven and where some are willing to give
themselves
while taking all, leaving nothing but a desert while the tolerant have
presettled
else where they remove themselves from pre ethnic pasts.

For a nominal charge, I'll supply the needed forgiveness. As for
leaving the middle east a deserts, it has always been a desert. Not
much changes above ground level.

Could we now possibly go back to radio and antennas which is what the
newsgroup
is set up for?

Possibly yes. However, ending a sentence in a preposition is a
violation of proper grammar, up with which I will not put.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

"Art Unwin" wrote

When viewing the antenna from an equilibrium point of view which is a
staple requirement of all electrical laws
one must assume that all forces/vectors equal zero (Newton )
Following this dictum physics state that foe equilibrium the charge on
the surface of a radiator does not move
linearlly there fore, there cannot be a linear force or vector to
oppose it. From this it is stated that there is no movement
in linear form else where which includes the center of the conductor/
radiator when the radfiator is one wavelength or multiple there of.
Now we have the case of a fractional wavelength radiator. In this case
one is aware that charges do move in a linear
direction as evidenced by "end effect". Therefore by following the
standard laws of physics there must be a
balancing force/vector in the opposite direction and the only place
that vector could be is in the center of the conductor
One should also be aware that a electrical curcuit for a fractional
wavelength is a series circuit and a parallelel circuit for a
fulle wavelength both of which are closed cuircuits when determining
current flow of a radiator so one can itemise the electrical circuit
in detail with respect to the components on the actual radiator to
ensure compatability.
Now according to my theory of radiation the forward current on a
radiator is opposed by closed circuit eddy current
which in combination provide a angular rotational force on any
residing particle which allows for directional levitation or
projection.
When the current of the radiator reaches the end of the radiator it
closes the circuit by entering the center of the conductor
( assuming the arrangement is not in a state of vacuum)under circular
surface current cuircuit where it is still in existance.
The internal current flow is solely resistive in nature comprising of
theseries resistance of the material used and not radiative.
Now David, if you can point to a description that differs to the above
and follows the laws of physics I would be happy to look it up and
study it , but in the final analysis one must be able to determine
the state of the conductor at it's center at all times.
David, my explanation is based on the world of physics as I know it.


Hi Art
Trying to build a picture here.
Let's say I have a 1/2 wave dipole, and I drive it such that one ampere
is flowing at the feedpoint. Let's agree to use amps RMS and volts RMS
at 14 MHz
for this example, just for clarity.
If I measure the current a short distance from the feedpoint, it's a bit
less than one amp. Correct so far?

If I tease the antenna conductor apart and measure the current flowing
on the
outside with one RF Ammeter, and the current flowing in the
center with a second ammeter, what are the two currents?

Thanks!
73
PN2222A

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 1, 7:07*pm, "PN2222A" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote



When viewing the antenna from an equilibrium point of view which is a
staple requirement of all electrical laws
one must assume that all forces/vectors equal zero (Newton )
Following this dictum physics state that foe equilibrium the charge on
the surface of a radiator does not move
linearlly there fore, there cannot be a linear force or vector to
oppose it. From this it is stated that there is no movement
in linear form else where which includes the center of the conductor/
radiator when the radfiator is one wavelength or multiple there of.
Now we have the case of a fractional wavelength radiator. In this case
one is aware that charges do move in a linear
direction as evidenced by "end effect". Therefore by following the
standard laws of physics there must be a
balancing force/vector in the opposite direction *and the only place
that vector could be is in the center of the conductor
One should also be aware that a electrical curcuit for a fractional
wavelength is a series circuit and a parallelel circuit for a
fulle wavelength both of which are closed cuircuits when determining
current flow of a radiator so one can itemise the electrical circuit
in detail with respect to the components on the actual radiator to
ensure compatability.
Now according to my theory of radiation the forward current on a
radiator is opposed by closed circuit eddy current
which in combination provide a angular rotational force on any
residing particle which allows for directional levitation or
projection.
When the current of the radiator reaches the end of the radiator it
closes the circuit by entering the center of the conductor
( assuming the arrangement is not in a state of vacuum)under circular
surface current cuircuit where it is still in existance.
The internal current flow is solely resistive in nature comprising of
theseries resistance of the material used and not radiative.
Now David, if you can point to a description that differs to the above
and follows the laws of physics I would be happy to look it up and
study it , but in *the final analysis one must be able to determine
the state of the conductor at it's center at all times.
David, my explanation is based on the world of physics as I know it.

Hi Art
Trying to build a picture here.
Let's say I have a 1/2 wave dipole, and I drive it such that one ampere
is flowing at the feedpoint. *Let's agree to use amps RMS and volts RMS
at 14 MHz
for this example, just for clarity.
If I measure the current a short distance from the feedpoint, it's a bit
less than one amp. * Correct so far?

If I tease the antenna conductor apart and measure the current flowing
on the
outside with one RF Ammeter, and the current flowing in the
center with a second ammeter, what are the two currents?

Thanks!
73
PN2222A

Sorry. I have enough problems trying to explain my own theorem which
follows Newton,
Gauss and also Einsteins dream in identifying all four universal
forces which provide the key
to the explanation to radiation and discards the notion of traveling
waves in the atmosphere.
Until this group has the courage in disputing that the addition of
radiators and a time varying
current to a Gaussian arbitrary static field in equilibrium is
mathematically identical with Maxwell's laws
AND also accept the Grand Unification Theory which I have supplied the
proof of authenticity change will never be accepted regardless of
first
principles that they learned in their only period of learning where
they apparently were placed
in a position of understanding all the laws of the Universe and every
thing else. If any of those
that are educated enough to take up the challenge from first
principles then they are in danger of being mocked
by those who cannot accept change,Thus it is safer to abide by books
that are full of just conjecture with respect to radiation.
There is nobody in this newsgroup who is willing to take the challenge
and be subject to the ire of the many talking heads.
The comparison of my extended Gaussian law of statics to the laws of
Maxwell will never be attempted by a ham whether
on this newsgroup or else where. On top of thatm, the theorem will
never be attempted or accepted when applied to NEC or mininec programs
with optimizer regardles of the fact that computer programs are
founded on the laws of Maxwell which includes the four forces of the
Universe plus the foundation of equilibrium NONE of which are included
or accounted for in the design of Yagi's or other planar devices.
To be frank,, most of this group have asked for a definition of the
term equilibrium, this despite the fact that there is no law of
physics in this universe that does not expect the condition of
equilibrium as a a given for the validity of any law with respect to
our universe. This is in addition to all suppliers of technical
information to Maxwell to condense into a smaller number, all
specifically stated that the information given were valid ONLY under
the conditions of equilibrium
As far as your question goes, you cannot create energy so the energy
supplied is the same that returns to the source
neglecting losses in the closed system i.e Energy supplied to the
"system" cannot be overcome by the disturbances created by the initial
energy
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg
which has never been extended

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
. . .
Possibly yes. However, ending a sentence in a preposition is a
violation of proper grammar, up with which I will not put.

Johnny's dad wanted to read him a story from a book, but Johnny wasn't
interested. So his mean father sent him to his room without supper.
After supper, his father went to Johnny's room to try again. And Johnny
said,

"Why did you bring the book that before dinner I didn't want to be read
to out of up for after?"

That was the record of six prepositions at the end of a sentence
submitted by readers to "Charlie Rice's Punchbowl" in Parade Magazine
oh, I dunno, 45 years or so ago. I guess remembering stuff like that is
why I don't have room to remember where I parked the car or left my glasses.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
To be frank,, most of this group have asked for a definition of the
term equilibrium,

and which you have never supplied, despite your claim that it has to be
satified for everything.

this despite the fact that there is no law of
physics in this universe that does not expect the condition of
equilibrium as a a given for the validity of any law with respect to
our universe.

which laws specifically require equilibrium? any law that talks about
energy transfer, which is most of them, require non-equilibrium. energy can
not flow where everything is in equilibrium, by definition! oh, but wait,
you have not supplied that definition yet, so you must have a different
definition in which energy can flow despite equilibrium... lets hear it art,
that is worthy of a Nobel prize for sure!

This is in addition to all suppliers of technical
information to Maxwell to condense into a smaller number, all
specifically stated that the information given were valid ONLY under
the conditions of equilibrium

Give quotes. i want to see in the original writings where Gauss, Ampere,
Coulomb, Ohm, Lorentz, etc all require some kind of equilibrium. Come on
art, you claim to be above all of us who have studied such things for years,
and yet you can not define even your most basic condition that you keep
ranting about.

So your homework assignment is to in one equation do this: Define
Equilibrium.

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 2, 7:04*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

To be frank,, most of this group have asked for a definition of the
term equilibrium,

and which you have never supplied, despite your claim that it has to be
satified for everything.

this despite the fact that there is no law of
physics in this universe * that does not expect the condition of
equilibrium as a a given for the validity of any law with respect to
our universe.

which laws specifically require equilibrium? *any law that talks about
energy transfer, which is most of them, require non-equilibrium. *energy can
not flow where everything is in equilibrium, by definition! *oh, but wait,
you have not supplied that definition yet, so you must have a different
definition in which energy can flow despite equilibrium... lets hear it art,
that is worthy of a Nobel prize for sure!

This is in addition to all suppliers of technical
information to Maxwell to condense into a smaller number, all
specifically stated that the information given were valid ONLY under
the conditions of equilibrium

Give quotes. *i want to see in the original writings where Gauss, Ampere,
Coulomb, Ohm, Lorentz, etc all require some kind of equilibrium. *Come on
art, you claim to be above all of us who have studied such things for years,
and yet you can not define even your most basic condition that you keep
ranting about.

So your homework assignment is to in one equation do this: *Define
Equilibrium.

David,
I am so glad that you keep writing. No I can't spend a lot of time
responding
because of the postings content. What I do find important is that
everybody
exercise to right of free speech as it allows all to determine who
and what you really are
Most people would look at a dictionary for themselves to determine
what the word
equilibrium actually means as well as the recordings of history where
all the masters of the past
has made a stipulation about the conditi9on of equilibrium as a staple
of the validity of the laws that they espoused.
You should also know that Einstein was convinced that radiation held
the clues as to the nature of the four forces of the universe
He never stumbled on the answer but he never ditched the idea of
equilibrium as a staple
for the laws of relativity. Nor have other discarded same in string
theory or the burgeoning science of particles
in our universe. I am betting that there are some knoweledgable people
out there that do read your postings and place you in a certain
category.
I would also point out that those who try to distort the ideas of
reflection are the owners of the largest threads on this newsgroup
where there are many that exceed a thousand posting where many are
unable to turn the espoused ideas of reflections into a closed circuit
of understanding since it involves so many positions that are
unsustainable to those familiar with the state of the art.
All one has to do to destroy my theory and the new clues that emanate
is to add radiators and a time varying current to that enclosed within
a arbitrary border is in a state of equilibrium as per Gauss to
determine the difference in the math to that espoused by Maxwell to
detroy my position. All one has to do is to use any computor program
on antennas with an optimizer, insert any dimensions that do not guide
the computer in the direction of a planar design ie. all dimensions
being non repeatable and then determine why the programs based on the
laws of Maxwell consistently provide antennas that are in a state of
equilibrium. No ham on this group have proved false my assertions with
respect to radiation since their learning stopped at the point of
leaving university where they still hold on to the books of
yesteryear. On top of all this there is no evidence that there is any
advantage in having rafiators in a straight line, or that size is a
factor for any antenna WHERE there is accountability for ALLl the four
forces that aid in the production of radiation.
So David keep writing as I have given you lots of data to refute so
that posters can understand who and what you are .
Great day for antennas so get off the net and enjoy your self
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
So David keep writing as I have given you lots of data to refute so
that posters can understand who and what you are .

you have given no 'data', you have done lots of hand waving and
pontificating, but you have presented no actual data or equations that could
be refuted. i am just in here keeping you talking because i enjoy the
occasional laugh when you put together a particularly good piece of
bafflegab.

Great day for antennas so get off the net and enjoy your self

I am taking the day off from antenna work, i have a guest operator using my
station for ss cw and i am just working on an update of my latest book...
practical stuff for the practical ham, you will have no place in it nor need
for it.

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 2, 12:12*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

So David keep writing as I have given you lots of data to refute so
that posters can understand who and what you are *.

you have given no 'data', you have done lots of hand waving and
pontificating, but you have presented no actual data or equations that could
be refuted. *i am just in here keeping you talking because i enjoy the
occasional laugh when you put together a particularly good piece of
bafflegab.

Great day for antennas so get off the net and enjoy your self

I am taking the day off from antenna work, i have a guest operator using my
station for ss cw and i am just working on an update of my latest book...
practical stuff for the practical ham, you will have no place in it nor need
for it.

The book idea sounds interesting. there seems to be a lot more
printing
outside theo academic world these days to counteract their iron hold
on science discussions.
The best independent book that I own is
The secret of gravity and other mysteries of the Universe by Weldon
Vlasak which I recommend to anybody
in the ham radio world. Let me know when your book gets on the Oprah
list of the book of the month
so I can see you on TV
At the moment I am putting a different rotatable antenna for top band
on my tower while the weather is still good
tho there are a lot of hitches that get in the way when at the top !.
Art

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

Art Unwin wrote:

...
Best regards
Art

Of course, I am always open to "new proof" (heck, even old proof will do!)

However, in a capacitor, I do believe that power and/or current does
travel the surface of the plate(s.) To make a jump from this
acceptance, to one accepting the same occurs at rf, where a signal
actually leaves the antenna and enters/"rides"/travels/propagates the
ether, is easily made, at least by me.

Since, obviously, the signal MUST leave the surface, why not just travel
it (shortest distance between two points--and all that) to begin with?

I do believe it does travel the surface, if at all possible; however,
given a very thin radiator and/or a very large PA, it would not surprise
me if you can't force the current/power/VA to another route ...

Regards,
JS

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 2, 1:20*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

* ...

Best regards
Art

Of course, I am always open to "new proof" (heck, even old proof will do!)

However, in a capacitor, I do believe that power and/or current does
travel the surface of the plate(s.) *
But of course John it will travel along the plate
that is natures way of seeking the point of least resistance
to cross. Remember that the plate of a capacitor represents an
inductor which in combination with a capacitor has the same
constituents as a
tank circuit except that it is not being subject to a time varying
field.
I would like to say that I was in error stating that the when
programers made the computor program
on antennas on the premise of a contunuous sine wave they are quite
correct when viwing it from yhe stand point of a
tank circuit.





To make a jump from this
acceptance, to one accepting the same occurs at rf, where a signal
actually leaves the antenna and enters/"rides"/travels/propagates the
ether, is easily made, at least by me.
I think the case is slightly different, it needs a continued varied
current to
achieve a stable eddy current which gives the ability for levitated
charge movement
and in the capacitor case the point of least resistance is pre
established after the first varient in current
and it is the current movement inconjunction with the eddy current
that provides the essential spin needed
for inline projection




Since, obviously, the signal MUST leave the surface, why not just travel
it (shortest distance between two points--and all that) to begin with?

Exactly . After the first pulse of current flow the point of least
resistance
is attained so yes the charge will travel at that specific point.
When a capacitor breaks down you cannot see the path taken by the
current
on the initiating plate but you can see a point trace where the charge
impinges
on the reeiving plate as opposed to the whole area of the plate.
Remember convention if correct states that a capacitor does not
radiate

I do believe it does travel the surface, if at all possible; *however,
given a very thin radiator and/or a very large PA, it would not surprise
me if you can't force the current/power/VA to another route ...

I don't see how that could happen except when a charge is released it
produces a
lesser resistance route by ironizing of the medium travelled either in
the initial case
or of a resultant discharge travelling thu ozone.


Regards,
JS
Interesting
Regards
Art

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

Art, will you please tell us who has distorted the idea of reflection?

Walt, W2DU

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

Art Unwin wrote:

...
I don't see how that could happen except when a charge is released it
produces a
lesser resistance route by ironizing of the medium travelled either in
the initial case
or of a resultant discharge travelling thu ozone.

Regards,
JS
Interesting
Regards
Art


Well, I AM one which can picture, theoretically, the antenna as a
"transformer"; and, the antenna taking the signal from the feedline and
"properly interfacing"/matching/transforming-its'-characteristics to the
ether (actually, the ether looks like a "spherical turn" of
superconductor which envelopes the antenna, as someone, either
intentionally or unintentionally, mentioned in an earlier post in
another thread ...)

But, as some gurus have pointed out, REAL PROOF for this is lacking ...

However, very ancient material incorporated the ether into theories of
those times. Then, Einstein, in error, dismissed the ether
totally--then he reneged and changed "luminous ether" to "gravitational
ether." It would seem the "luminous ether" would be fine, if you only
dealt with photons and/or "waves of photons." "Gravitational ether"
would allow for much, much more ... in that one point is a LOT to
contemplate ...

It seems to me, that most, past, authors/experimenters/scholars having
been "fooled once" and changing from the ethers existence to its'
non-existence, would NOT take a chance on being "fooled again"--they
began to "ignore" the ether ...

End-point being, there are loads of equations and formulas laying about
which craftily ignore the ether ... indeed, in my younger years it was
not uncommon to find physicists totally ignorant of Einsteins acceptance
of the gravitational ether (indeed, my own education was along these
lines, only later readings on Einstein brought forth this error.)
"They" would state that Einstein denied the ether, and one would have to
go to great lengths to convince them different, if at all! ... go figure.

It is still quite common to find hams will have "NO ETHER!"

And, the point of all that? We shall, often, need to agree to disagree ...

Regards,
JS

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 2, 3:09*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
...
I don't see how that could happen except when a charge is released it
produces a
lesser resistance route by ironizing of the medium travelled either in
the initial case
or of a resultant discharge travelling thu ozone.

Regards,
JS
Interesting
Regards
Art

Well, I AM one which can picture, theoretically, the antenna as a
"transformer"; *and, the antenna taking the signal from the feedline and
"properly interfacing"/matching/transforming-its'-characteristics to the
ether (actually, the ether looks like a "spherical turn" of
superconductor which envelopes the antenna, as someone, either
intentionally or unintentionally, mentioned in an earlier post in
another thread ...)

But, as some gurus have pointed out, REAL PROOF for this is lacking ...

However, very ancient material incorporated the ether into theories of
those times. *Then, Einstein, in error, dismissed the ether
totally--then he reneged and changed "luminous ether" to "gravitational
ether." *It would seem the "luminous ether" would be fine, if you only
dealt with photons and/or "waves of photons." *"Gravitational ether"
would allow for much, much more ... in that one point is a LOT to
contemplate ...

It seems to me, that most, past, authors/experimenters/scholars having
been "fooled once" and changing from the ethers existence to its'
non-existence, would NOT take a chance on being "fooled again"--they
began to "ignore" the ether ...

End-point being, there are loads of equations and formulas laying about
which craftily ignore the ether ... indeed, in my younger years it was
not uncommon to find physicists totally ignorant of Einsteins acceptance
of the gravitational ether (indeed, my own education was along these
lines, only later readings on Einstein brought forth this error.)
"They" would state that Einstein denied the ether, and one would have to
go to great lengths to convince them different, if at all! ... go figure.

It is still quite common to find hams will have "NO ETHER!"

And, the point of all that? *We shall, often, need to agree to disagree ...

Regards,
JS

What blows my mind John there is nobody willing to do the math with
respect to my extension of GAUSS
It blows my mind when a ham with a doctorate comes along and supplies
the mathematical proof and the math is denied
by the guru's on this newsgroup.
It blows my mind when hams state a conductor must be straight when
they use helicals in so many places yet despite the denials
they will not do the math for themselves but continue to ask me
endless questions so they can continue arguements.
Then they deny I have such an antenna and an Aussie who obviously
likes to bet offered a wager of what was it $1000 US ?
and nobody took him up on the wager. Then there are computor programs
that push aside Yagi antennas in favor of those
in equilibrium which support what I have found and these programs are
designed around Maxwell who is now arpparently losing favor with hams
tho professionals cling to it dearly. I have no problem with Guru's
disagreeing with me but I did expect a morsel or a small challenge
in at least one area other than look up the dictionary for them to get
the definition of equilibrium. And now we have a man who has written a
book
and preferes to tout this piece of trash rather than do the math with
respect to the radiation all on the basis that what he believes is in
a book that he wrote so it must be authentic. David take note when
your book comes out it may spawn a new science to rival classical
physics. It blows my mind that we have threads that break the thousand
mark on reflections or swr and then get repeated again and again
because of disagreements on the substance Now he is toting a later
edition hoping to collect some money from hams. Give me a break since
he will not do the math that I speak of probably because he can't
handle the difference in units between Gauss and Maxwell. You know
when OBAMA
wins the election on Tuesday hams will unite and declare McCAIN the
winner
John have a great evening
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

Art wrote:
"----and these programs are designed around Maxwell who is now
apparently losing favor with hams----"

Baloney! My 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book was copyrighted in
2005. On page 3-24 it says:
"By the late 1800s, the work of Lorf Raleigh, Sommerfeld, Fresnell,
Maxwell and many others led to the full mathematic characterization of
all electromagnetic phenomena, light included."

J.C. Maxwell had not nearly lost favor by 2005 among the editors of "The
ARRL Antenna Book", and had he recently been discredited most of us
would have heard of it.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

What blows my mind John there is nobody willing to do the math with
respect to my extension of GAUSS

ok, give us your equations. what EXACTLY have you done to Gauss? NO HAND
WAVING, write the equations!

It blows my mind when a ham with a doctorate comes along and supplies
the mathematical proof and the math is denied

if i remember right, he added (t) in a place where it wasn't necessary.
then dissappeared. maybe he decided it was better to not be associated with
your theory? or is he off writing it up for a Nobel prize for himself???

David take note when your book comes out it may spawn a new science to
rival classical
physics.

not my book, nothing theoretical in it, just practical proven stuff.

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 3, 5:57*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

What blows my mind John there is nobody willing to do the math with
respect to my extension of GAUSS

ok, give us your equations. *what EXACTLY have you done to Gauss? *NO HAND
WAVING, write the equations!
No David there is no point going down that path again. Me giving you
an equation
would only add more problems. You surely must be aware of an
arbritary border
format where the contents are in equilibrium, why not play with the
Gaussian law of statics
and learn how such a field becomes handy. Then you change it to a
dynamic field with the addition
of radiators while maintaining equilibrium and then subject everything
to a time varying field.
When you do this for your self it becomes more meaningfull to the user
but you have a real problem that you have to sort out
before you play with any of the electrical laws. You have to review
history to convince yourself that all the masters involved in physics
made the proviso that equilibrium MUST exist for the laws to be valid.
They made this proviso based on the reasoning that our Universe is in
a state of equilibrium and later that every action has an equal and
opposite reaction (Newton) If you do not agree with these principles
then the use of a arbitrary border for a mathematical solution is not
valid.
As far as Dr Davis of MIT who is working for the space agency, he did
everything that was required of him and then left. Several times he
came back to help out members of the group with respect to the
mathematics but it was plain that the group did not welcome his
presence. The private e mail I received from him gave me a lot of
confidence in my findings. What I find exciting is that galactic
particles are finding their way from the Sun to Earth which gives
mechanical content to the subject of radiation as opposed to the
prevailing theory of waves. To me this is more far reaching than just
radiation as it also gives other cycles to these same particles with
an affinity to water and other diamagnetic substances which gives it a
firm connection to storms and tornadoes as well as rotating sea areas
along with tides, all of which involved the four forces of the
Universe which Einstein correctly fore saw radiation as the key for
forward movement in understanding of Classical Physics. I consider
myself very fortunate when going back to the Gaussian fields and
applying a broader mathematic front to his work which he may have well
did for himself if he stayed in the field. Doing this provided so many
clues with respect to radiation and how it is produced which produced
connections to other known phenomina which was well known but now how
a dotted line connection to other things that are well established
such that more extensive research was not required which can be very
difficult to those not involved in the academic field;. For me the
jigsaw is now completed and as history shows change takes a long while
to be accepted certainly by those in academia
but for me it doesn't matter as I feel very smug and fortunate with my
findings which contempt by others cannot eradicate.
Enuff said
Best regards
Art unwin KB9MZ..........XG





It blows my mind when a ham with a doctorate comes along and supplies
the mathematical proof and the math is denied

if i remember right, he added (t) in a place where it wasn't necessary.
then dissappeared. *maybe he decided it was better to not be associated with
your theory? *or is he off writing it up for a Nobel prize for himself???

David take note when your book comes out it may spawn a new science to
rival classical
physics.

not my book, nothing theoretical in it, just practical proven stuff.

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 2, 5:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


What blows my mind John there is nobody willing to do the math with
respect to my extension of GAUSS

Time is up. I'm back from the dirt pile. Let the games continue.
What blows my mind is why a certain whiny Englishman who
moved to the land of Obama, refuses to do his own homework to
show the world.
Why would I want to do work on your dinky dummy load on a stick?
Why would I even *need* to do your work? After all, all is known
regarding antennas according to you. So you should already know
all the details of this mathematical endeavor, and should be prepared
to release them to the unwashed stinky masses.

It blows my mind when a ham with a doctorate comes along and supplies
the mathematical proof and the math is denied
by the guru's on this newsgroup.

Why do you keep lying about the doktor. We all know he didn't provide
any math. If your advanced age has made this hard for you to recall,
I can provide the links to the original thread, which I have already
done
before. Maybe even two or three times. :/

It blows my mind when hams state a conductor must be straight when
they use helicals in so many places yet despite the denials
they will not do the math for themselves but continue to ask me
endless questions so they can continue arguements.

What math might I need to answer whatever question you might
have about coils? You already know everything about antennas,
so why bug us about it?

Then they deny I have such an antenna and an Aussie who obviously
likes to bet offered a wager of what was it $1000 US ?
and nobody took him up on the wager.

I have no idea what you are blabbering about. I know you supposedly
sent one of your designs to another ham on this group for a test
run. We have never heard a single peep as to the results of this
test drive. What say, Mr. Stinky?

Then there are computor programs
that push aside Yagi antennas in favor of those
*in equilibrium which support what I have found and these programs are
designed around Maxwell who is now arpparently losing favor with hams
tho professionals cling to it dearly.

Must be a strong program to be able to push around yagi antennas.
Well, I suppose if the yagi was built for 1.2 ghz, it would be
fairly
easy to push aside. But I suspect it would strain mightily to
push around a HF tri-bander..

I have no problem with Guru's
disagreeing with me but I did expect a morsel or a small challenge
in at least one area other than look up the dictionary for them to get
the definition of equilibrium.

I *know* how the rest of the world describes equilibrium. What
I want to know is how *you* apply this term to antenna theory.
Of course, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to
provide this simple answer.
All you want to do is whine, ****, and moan about the sorry
state of the antenna world as you know it.

And now we have a man who has written a
book
and preferes to tout this piece of trash rather than do the math with
respect to the radiation all on the basis that what he believes is in
a book that he wrote so it must be authentic.

What are you whining about now? I know nothing of your man, and
his book. I've been busy playing in the dirt. I guess I missed the
memo...

David take note when
your book comes out it may spawn a new science to rival classical
physics.

I wouldn't be holding your breath.

It blows my mind that we have threads that break the thousand
mark on reflections or swr and then get repeated again and again
because of disagreements on the substance

Your mind is going to explode if you keep this up. !!!BOOM!!!
Blood and brain matter flying all about.. Another one bites the
dust..

*Now he is toting a later
edition hoping to collect some money from hams.

Money is good. And I can do the math when it comes to $$$.



Give me a break since
he will not do the math that I speak of probably because he can't
handle the difference in units between Gauss and Maxwell.

When are *you* going to do the math?

You know
when OBAMA
wins the election on Tuesday hams will unite and declare McCAIN the
winner

I hope so. Obama sucks so hard, he's likely to implode before he gets
in office. Of course, you'll probably vote for the sorry socialist sum-
bitch,
if you haven't already.. :(
I bet he won't do the math for you either. Sure, he'll tell you
whatever
you want to hear at the moment, but at the end of the day, all you
will have is a dummy load on stick legs. Maybe we should have your
antenna do some squats. :/

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

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

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

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

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

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.

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:40:07 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

A fractional wavelength antenna is NOT in a state of equi;ibrium
( balanced forces if you prefer)
where a full wave radiator IS in a state of equilibrium

Neither of those antennas (and no antennas) are in a state of
equilibrium.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC