"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...
Art Unwin wrote:
Many on this newsgroup are aware of my views on radiation which I then
took to the QRZ antenna page because of the fraustration created by
lack of knowledge of equilibrium by the average american.
I have now run into another interpretation by americans which differ
from the european aspect and that is Newtons third law with respect to
reaction . Definitions on the net view this law as an equal and
diametrically opposite force where Newton never used the word
"diametrically". English law is based on the intention provided by the
words of the law such that it becomes unchanged thru time. American
law does not define "intention" thus the law can and does change over
time creating appeals against the intent of words.
One definition of Newton's law on the net shows two skaters pushing
against each other as an illustration of the law. But Newton's
"intent" was in the olde english where "opposite" was viewed in a
different way.
If you view a helicopter the front rotor is in a horizontal plane and
rotating clockwise thus per Newton the resulting action is a rotator
at the rear that is rotating in a "vertical " plane and rotating
counter clockwise to maintain equilibrium. Another example is a
caramel bar that is placed under tension which produces a force at
right angles that narrows the cross section and the sample fails in
shear at 45 degrees ( vector resultant of the two forces)
I bring this up because of what I have stated earlier about radiation
on this newsgroup, where the applied force is electrical on a radiator
and per Newton the reaction is at right angle to that force which is
called the displacement current ( capacitive magnetic field). No
wonder Einstein gave up on the pursuit of radiation because as a
german had no understanding of olde english and thus was looking for a
equal and diametrically opposite force in his search for the "weak
force." He was correct in his prediction of it's presence with respect
to radiation but, unfortunately, was looking in the wrong place and
thus relativity was born!
Regards
Art KB9MZ....XG (uk)

Apparently when he couldn't unify Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism
he just gave up. You'll have to forgive the inadequacy of my American
education. I guess they must know all about Newtonian electromagnetism
wherever it is that you hail from.

73, ac6xg




no, he didn't give up, he moved to another forum to see how many other
suckers he could get to agree with him. check out:
http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php...ighlight=kb9mz
but you have to be a 'member' to be able to reply on there.

On Apr 11, 6:28*am, "Dave" wrote:


Apparently when he couldn't unify Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism
he just gave up. *You'll have to forgive the inadequacy of my American
education. *I guess they must know all about Newtonian electromagnetism
wherever it is that you hail from.

73, ac6xg

no, he didn't give up, he moved to another forum to see how many other
suckers he could get to agree with him. *check out:http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php...ighlight=kb9mz
but you have to be a 'member' to be able to reply on there.

Good grief.. :/ I read through about 75% of that.. You can't debate
a subject
with Art. Tom asks him to simply show one device he has designed using
this new fangled Gaussian theory, then Art claims Tom is "dissing"
him,
kicking sand in his face, or whatever other assault Art conjures up in
his
mind. :/

But he also alters facts to suit his whim, conjures non events out of
the
thin air, and other feats of internet skill.
He whines because we ask him to define how he uses the term
equilibrium
in respect to antennas.
But then he runs off to web page Q and whines that everyone asks him
the definition of the word itself.. This is an oft used tactic of many
that
wish to confuse the audience at hand.

He runs off to web page Q and tells all that some great wizard from
MIT
laid out a bunch of math to prove his theory.
This is an outright deception, because I was there, I saw the exchange
and the wizard from MIT never gave any real math at all.
In fact, when questioned about a few points by Richard Clark, the
great wizard from MIT took off, never to be heard from again.
And he never gave any math at all as far as Art's design.
So this event can be labeled as "the big lie" as far as I'm concerned.

I'm all for antenna experimentation, but after several years of
tinkering I have learned a couple of things.
And so far they have never been proved wrong. Even by Art, or
even the great wizard from MIT.

#`1 There is no free lunch.
#2 You can't polish a turd and make it a diamond.

Art claims to do both, but as always, refuses to provide a working
model that can be tested against known benchmark antennas,
or he provides a design which does not work as claimed.
Like the short "contra wound" contraption I've seen a picture of.
He claims it is a viable antenna for 160m, and will be quite
efficient.
Heck, I don't even have to test it. I can just look at it and tell
you it will be a dud compared to any decent antenna.
But this is OK. It's not my design, and it's not my job to prove
the design actually works.
That is Art's job, but Art refuses to do it.

If I had a design, I would want to test it against antennas with
known properties. Art refuses. This is why he thinks many of
these off the wall theories and designs work.
He will never actually do the tests to confirm the performance.
I bet he doesn't even have any reference antennas on his
property, like say a 160m dipole, or a 1/4 wave monopole.
How can one advocate a design or theory without even testing it?

To sum, Art is like a dog that chases it's tail all day long. :/
That's my interpretation, and I'm sticking with it.

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:32:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

He runs off to web page Q and tells all that some great wizard from
MIT
laid out a bunch of math to prove his theory.
This is an outright deception, because I was there, I saw the exchange
and the wizard from MIT never gave any real math at all.
In fact, when questioned about a few points by Richard Clark, the
great wizard from MIT took off, never to be heard from again.

Hi Mark,

Just to balance this (and it is like trying to balance a stack of
crystal champagne glasses on a trampoline), Art's MIT galahad wandered
into the word game of Art's. The term Gauss' Law exists in the math
of Maxwell's equations (and Art will probably stop reading at this
observation to crow vindication).

Maxwell took the static law of Gauss and applied a time variable (what
Art claims is his own invention) AND then Maxwell named his elaborated
mathematics "Gauss' Law."

Our MIT galahad jumped ship when I pointed out that his own reference
made this same point in terminology and described its derivation
exactly as I have above. To give credit to the unfortunate galahad,
Maxwell's form of "Gauss' Law" is perfectly good math (duh), and what
Art describes is close enough if you ignore his juvenile chest
thumping over his intellectual property rights (dick waving).

We have since seen this word salad Art's offered garnished with
particals seasoned with a weekend farce.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Apr 13, 5:54*pm, Richard Clark wrote:

We have since seen this word salad Art's offered garnished with
particals seasoned with a weekend farce.


I fear there has been a disturbance in the week farce.
Woe is Art... :/

wrote:


#2 You can't polish a turd and make it a diamond.


But you can roll it in kitty litter and call it a Zagnut!


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Apr 14, 8:29*am, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
#2 *You can't polish a turd and make it a diamond.

But you can roll it in kitty litter and call it a Zagnut!

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -

Didn't Carl Spackler dig one of those out of a swimming pool
and eat it? :/

wrote:
On Apr 14, 8:29 am, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
#2 You can't polish a turd and make it a diamond.
But you can roll it in kitty litter and call it a Zagnut!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Didn't Carl Spackler dig one of those out of a swimming pool
and eat it? :/

Funny you should mention it, that was on TV this past weekend. A true
classic.

"Darling, could you loofah my stretch marks?" I still cringe during
that part.

On the topic:


When I was a little kid, 9 or 10 I think, I had an old cathedral radio
that had shortwave on it. Found it in the attic.

I wanted to experiment with antennas. First I put the typical short
straight wire on it. Then I saw a science book that had a big dish
antenna on it.

I thought "Wow - if this thing can hear signals from satellites millions
of miles out in space, imagine what it can do with those shortwave signals.

So I made a little dish antenna out of copper wire and aluminum foil,
around a foot in diameter, and put it on top of the radio. It worked,
kinda. Continuing to learn, I found what a longwire antenna could do for
performance.


Point is, some 40 years later, I see something sort of like what I did
as a 9 year old kid being talked about again. I suspect it will work
just about as well now as it did then. Which is to say - not very well.

I had an excuse though.

On Apr 13, 5:32*pm, wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:28*am, "Dave" wrote:



Apparently when he couldn't unify Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism
he just gave up. *You'll have to forgive the inadequacy of my American
education. *I guess they must know all about Newtonian electromagnetism
wherever it is that you hail from.

73, ac6xg

no, he didn't give up, he moved to another forum to see how many other
suckers he could get to agree with him. *check out:http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php...ighlight=kb9mz
but you have to be a 'member' to be able to reply on there.

Good grief.. *:/ *I read through about 75% of that.. You can't debate
a subject
with Art. Tom asks him to simply show one device he has designed using
this new fangled Gaussian theory, then Art claims Tom is "dissing"
him,
kicking sand in his face, or whatever other assault Art conjures up in
his
mind. *:/

But he also alters facts to suit his whim, conjures non events out of
the
thin air, and other feats of internet skill.
He whines because we ask him to define how he uses the term
equilibrium
in respect to antennas.
But then he runs off to web page Q and whines that everyone asks him
the definition of the word itself.. This is an oft used tactic of many
that
wish to confuse the audience at hand.

He runs off to web page Q and tells all that some great wizard from
MIT
laid out a bunch of math to prove his theory.
This is an outright deception, because I was there, I saw the exchange
and the wizard from MIT never gave any real math at all.
In fact, when questioned about a few points by Richard Clark, the
great wizard from MIT took off, never to be heard from again.
And he never gave any math at all as far as Art's design.
So this event can be labeled as "the big lie" as far as I'm concerned.

I'm all for antenna experimentation, but after several years of
tinkering I have learned a couple of things.
And so far they have never been proved wrong. Even by Art, or
even the great wizard from MIT.

#`1 There is no free lunch.
#2 *You can't polish a turd and make it a diamond.

Art claims to do both, but as always, refuses to provide a working
model that can be tested against known benchmark antennas,
or he provides a design which does not work as claimed.
Like the short "contra wound" contraption I've seen a picture of.
He claims it is a viable antenna for 160m, and will be quite
efficient.
Heck, I don't even have to test it. I can just look at it and tell
you it will be a dud compared to any decent antenna.
But this is OK. It's not my design, and it's not my job to prove
the design actually works.
That is Art's job, but Art refuses to do it.

If I had a design, I would want to test it against antennas with
known properties. Art refuses. This is why he thinks many of
these off the wall theories and designs work.
He will never actually do the tests to confirm the performance.
I bet he doesn't even have any reference antennas on his
property, like say a 160m dipole, or a 1/4 wave monopole.
How can one advocate a design or theory without even testing it?

To sum, Art is like a dog that chases it's tail all day long. * :/
That's my interpretation, and I'm sticking with it.

Arts design is not origonal, it was around in the 60s and 70s as a CB
radio joke. It rated up there along with burying a dipole a 1/4 wl
deep in the ground.. Unlike the buried antenna this joke was
especially good because sometimes it wold work just well enough to
work some skip and then you would hear the guy talking about this
great antenna he had

Jimmie

On Apr 14, 11:39*am, JIMMIE wrote:
advocate a design or theory without even testing it?

To sum, Art is like a dog that chases it's tail all day long. * :/
That's my interpretation, and I'm sticking with it.

Arts design is not origonal, it was around in the 60s and 70s as a CB
radio joke. It rated up there along with burying a dipole a 1/4 wl
deep in the ground.. Unlike the buried antenna this joke was
especially good because sometimes it wold work just well enough to
work some skip and then you would hear the guy talking about this
great antenna he had

Jimmie

Normally I wouldn't care less if someone wanted to design an
RF load with inferior qualities. It's a semi-free country..
But Art insists on making up new theory to promote these
wonders of mutt UK/Ill. technology. That's the rub..
But I imagine your testing scenario could apply to him.
IE: He hears a station using his wonder stick as a receiving
antenna, so he decides it surely must be as efficient as a dipole.
Course, on those low frequencies almost anything can be used
for a receiving antenna.
I've come to the conclusion that calling Art an antenna designer
would be akin to calling Festus Hagen a speech therapist. :/