On May 1, 12:57*am, JIMMIE wrote:
On Apr 30, 10:31*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Apr 30, 7:39*pm, wrote:

Your whole wave concept of the universe (sinusoidal vibrations) is
only part of the picture that is very very old and outdated. You
ignore another component, quantum mechanics, which requires a good
knowledge of mathematics to conceptualize well where possible to do so
at all. Even then, conceptualization falls apart when you try to
account for other phenomena such as exotic energy and matter and worse
when you go into specific theories that involve added dimensions to
our 4-D concept of the universe. You have been trying for years but
you will get nowhere looking for your holy grail as long as you
believe you have the answers because, alas, you are the only ham who
is thinking outside of the box. Humans cannot conceptualize the
universe in terms of a soap bubble and most cannot even express their
definition of a soap bubble in more than 3 dimensions. Only
mathematics can be used to express what you are attempting and
although the math may be understood, even the mathemetician or
physicist who derives his concepts usually cannot conceptualize them
in terms of their physical experience.

On Apr 18, 3:42*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Apr 18, 1:41*pm, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Physics is physics, otherwise known as Classical physics

only in your mind.

He used the boundary method except using only two dimensions
and not three which requires the dimension of time.

best re-read it again, and again... Gauss' law is in 3d, it has to be in 3d
because the electric field from a charge is not confined to a plane... never
was and never will be. *unlike your thinking art.

Vibration is resonance in terms of our Earth since it does not account
for all forces involved in the Universe which requires balance or
equilibrium.

the 'universe' makes no requirements, it is the laws of physics that control
the universe. *nothing in the universe is anywhere near in equilibrium or we
would all be cold dark cinders.

Only because we , humans,do not know the extent of the boundaries of
the Cosmos as a whole
You cannot deal with true equilibrium while neglecting the outer space
beyond our Universe. Study the law of partial pressures to get a
deeper understanding.
We can only deal in the Universe we know which is only one bubble or
boundary of many that constitutes the Cosmos. But let it drop David..
Yes, I have an antenna that I lifted into the rotator on my tower with
my bare hands for top band and other bands including AM! *I built it
and many others on the theories and principles that I have enunciated.
Maybe my theory is incorrect and the antenna, which is a fact,sorry
about that, can be *attributed to a different theory. *I will continue
to look for a alternative that also is agreed upon by present antenna
computer programs which I assume to be correct as they are based on
the presence of equilibrium] with accountability for all forces,
because they duplicate the results and configuration of my rotatable
antenna. In the mean time study the thread regarding helix antennas on
QRZ *antenna construction *which now has over 4k hits without *similar
comments such as yours.
Regards and best 73s
Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A lot of words. *As far as mathematics is concerned I started with the
Mathematics of Gauss and Maxwell and found they were mathematically
connected. Nobody on this group agreed with that posture of mine. So
as far as mathematics goes with this group is straight out of the
window! *Cecil tried that aproach and failed also. Now you are
proposing that mathematics is the trail that reveals all. Sooooo, be
my guest. I will do my best in following the trail that you have in
mind that you feel is better than mine. My guess is that you have
nothing in mind and are standing on sand like Andy Capp.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Art,the only diasagreement about Gauss and Maxwell was that YOU
discovered anything NEW. Most people interested in antennas or current
flow are aware of the Gauss/ Maxwell connection. Jeez its High School
Physics.

Jimmie

So it has now come down to a big lie. Years ago there was total
agreement on this group that the Gauss law of Statics has no
connection with the laws of Maxwell. How soon you have forgotten your
auguements with Dr Davis on the same subject. Now we come to a stage
where the antenna and its mathematics are real and all join to say I
knew that all the time or that is nothing new. All those years of
discussion, which are still in the archives as witness to the big lie
now turned upon it's head.
What has your lieing gained you over the years? Do you now feel it has
enhanced your reputation?

Nave

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Laws of science are predicated of our presence in the Universe such as
a single bubble in a bubble bath where pressure contained in a bubble
is different to that of other bubbles. Thus pressure in a single
bubble is analogous to a small part which constitutes the law of
partial pressure.Thus when we on Earth view a half wave as resonant we
have moved away from the concept of the Universe upon which boundary
laws are founded.The concept of a half wave being resonant
is really an approximation of equality in volved in the boundary
aproach similar to the conversion of a three dimensional picture to
that of a two dimension. We see this in a pendulum clock where
friction is used as an equivalent of that which is lost in the change
which is also relative to momentum. We can look at a pendulum clock
and see that this results of showing the effects of equality where
momentum has been manipulated. If a half wave was truly a resonant
point which signifies the completion of one repeatable action we would
expect that the pendulum only swings from top to bottom and back again
by discarding momentum. If the bob of a pendulum is made of a long
length with allowance for movement in three dimensional form we have a
paradox where because of three dimensional movement the pendulum
changes to a circular movement which does not has a repartation of
sequences which signifies accountability because of the Corriolis
effect which is a phenomina of Earth and not the Cosmos. i.e. similar
to the analogy
of partial pressures. Thus, when following the laws of Newton which
follows the nature of the Cosmos, we must take into account the laws
of relativity which is a recognition of change depending on what part
of the Universe that you are viewing things from. This is a
diffinitive metric and not an average metric as viewed by Newton.
Since we are following the laws of the Cosmos(Newton) the metric of
balance must also be that of the Cosmos where true resonance becomes
equal to a period where all forces are accounted for and not that of
half a period.
David, science is a part of nature as is electrical and mechanical and
chemical understanding and not a compentalization of unconnected
sciences. It is for this reason that shows the lack of understanding
of Newtons laws which has mislead the World into using a half period
as a resonant point in communication.
Best regards
Art Unwin

On May 1, 7:24*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

A lot of words. *As far as mathematics is concerned I started with the
Mathematics of Gauss and Maxwell and found they were mathematically
connected. Nobody on this group agreed with that posture of mine.

On the contrary, it was pointed out many times that Gauss's Law is one of
the basic Maxwell Equations, so they are definately bound to each other.

So as far as mathematics goes with this group is straight out of the
window!

So as far as your understanding of the Maxwell Equations, you are straight
out the window.

Cecil tried that aproach and failed also. Now you are
proposing that mathematics is the trail that reveals all.

unfortunately art has strayed so far off the trail that he'll need a
spiritual guide to help him back to the light of day.

Well David
I have now finished all my work on the antenna except for a couple of
bells and whistle that can wait for the balmy days of summer. Swr
along the frequency span
is similar to that of a log periodic with a slight waveiness but that
can be altered remotely quite easily as well as a couple of other
things.
Jim, I will be finished on the other today and will be in UPS on
Monday.
I will not test before hand but leave that up to you. Will E mail you
later with details
By the way David, the antenna will stay at ground level and I will
take the one off the tower as height is not now a consideration
I suppose I will now have to think about taking the tower down as it
is not needed anymore which will make the wife happy.
This week end is now for the wife and her birthday. After that I will
exercise the new antenna with a special look out for you.
Regards, your adversary
Art

On Apr 30, 7:39*pm, wrote:
Your whole wave concept of the universe (sinusoidal vibrations) is
only part of the picture that is very very old and outdated. You
ignore another component, quantum mechanics, which requires a good
knowledge of mathematics to conceptualize well where possible to do so
at all. Even then, conceptualization falls apart when you try to
account for other phenomena such as exotic energy and matter and worse
when you go into specific theories that involve added dimensions to
our 4-D concept of the universe. You have been trying for years but
you will get nowhere looking for your holy grail as long as you
believe you have the answers because, alas, you are the only ham who
is thinking outside of the box. Humans cannot conceptualize the
universe in terms of a soap bubble and most cannot even express their
definition of a soap bubble in more than 3 dimensions. Only
mathematics can be used to express what you are attempting and
although the math may be understood, even the mathemetician or
physicist who derives his concepts usually cannot conceptualize them
in terms of their physical experience.

On Apr 18, 3:42*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Apr 18, 1:41*pm, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....

Physics is physics, otherwise known as Classical physics

only in your mind.

He used the boundary method except using only two dimensions
and not three which requires the dimension of time.

best re-read it again, and again... Gauss' law is in 3d, it has to be in 3d
because the electric field from a charge is not confined to a plane.... never
was and never will be. *unlike your thinking art.

Vibration is resonance in terms of our Earth since it does not account
for all forces involved in the Universe which requires balance or
equilibrium.

the 'universe' makes no requirements, it is the laws of physics that control
the universe. *nothing in the universe is anywhere near in equilibrium or we
would all be cold dark cinders.

Only because we , humans,do not know the extent of the boundaries of
the Cosmos as a whole
You cannot deal with true equilibrium while neglecting the outer space
beyond our Universe. Study the law of partial pressures to get a
deeper understanding.
We can only deal in the Universe we know which is only one bubble or
boundary of many that constitutes the Cosmos. But let it drop David.
Yes, I have an antenna that I lifted into the rotator on my tower with
my bare hands for top band and other bands including AM! *I built it
and many others on the theories and principles that I have enunciated.
Maybe my theory is incorrect and the antenna, which is a fact,sorry
about that, can be *attributed to a different theory. *I will continue
to look for a alternative that also is agreed upon by present antenna
computer programs which I assume to be correct as they are based on
the presence of equilibrium] with accountability for all forces,
because they duplicate the results and configuration of my rotatable
antenna. In the mean time study the thread regarding helix antennas on
QRZ *antenna construction *which now has over 4k hits without *similar
comments such as yours.
Regards and best 73s
Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Note
Classical physics still reigns supreme. It is what is followed by all
the masters
including Newton,Heaviside, Gauss,Maxwell,Einstein and others.
Einstein never abandoned classical physics as the subject matter of
the Universe.
If a movie is made by a director and supporting characters it is the
same movie that is viewed from the outside by an observer. Einstein
observed the same movie that was made by others from the inside
whereas Einstein viewed it from a different vantage point. Thus
Einstein stayed with the classical and certainly did not view or
describe a different movie
My antenna ideas and thoughts stay completely within the bounds of
classical physics. The speed of light is determined by the passage of
a particle when propelled by a time changing magnetic field. That same
particle emits light as it expels kinetic energy when passing to or
from different boundaries formed in the Universe under the rules or
laws of partial pressures. Thus the speed of light is the acelleration
of the formation of a magnetic field , this is the same speed imparted
on a particle when impacted with same. Light is emitted from that same
particle or mass when it expends potential energy into kinetic energy
by the laws of partial pressures. It all comes back to the
derivitation of the Grand Universal Theory, where all progress from
the four standard forces as predicted by Einstein. All the above is
that enacted by my antenna via Classical physics, no waves, just the
impact of force upon mass

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
I have now finished all my work on the antenna except for a couple of
bells and whistle that can wait for the balmy days of summer. Swr
along the frequency span is similar to that of a log periodic with a slight
waveiness but that can be altered remotely quite easily as well as a couple

well, what is the beamwidth and frequency range??

On May 1, 1:55*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

I have now finished all my work on the antenna except for a couple of
bells and whistle that can wait for the balmy days of summer. Swr
along the frequency span is similar to that of a log periodic with a slight
waveiness but that can be altered remotely quite easily as well as a couple

well, what is the beamwidth and frequency range??

What are your desires ?

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On May 1, 1:55 pm, "Dave" wrote:
well, what is the beamwidth and frequency range??

What are your desires ?

I'll make it easy, 10 degree beamwidth and 30MHz bandwidth.

On Fri, 01 May 2009 22:37:24 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

I'll make it easy, 10 degree beamwidth and 30MHz bandwidth.

At how many GHz?

The problems of poor reporting are creeping into the lack of specific
questions.

An example:
Inventor
I have this patent that proves my technology.
Questioner
It shows the reflector is smaller than the driven element;
it shows the director is larger than the driven element;
Does this prove the Yagi no longer works?
Inventor
[silence/mumbling/outrage] I didn't come here for ad hominem!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On May 1, 5:54*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 22:37:24 GMT, "Dave" wrote:
I'll make it easy, 10 degree beamwidth and 30MHz bandwidth.

At how many GHz?

The problems of poor reporting are creeping into the lack of specific
questions.

An example:
Inventor
* * * * I have this patent that proves my technology.
Questioner
* * * * It shows the reflector is smaller than the driven element;
* * * * it shows the director is larger than the driven element;
* * * * Does this prove the Yagi no longer works?
Inventor
* * * * [silence/mumbling/outrage] I didn't come here for ad hominem!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

A reflector can be shorter or longer than the driven element in planar
designs especially Yagis with two reflectors. Shakesphere should have
told you that !
David, the antenna covers the distance covered by a mfj 259 b which is
1.7 to around
175 mega hz. Obviously it therefore has no limits above .Below I
cannot measure unless I modify my radio outside the amateur bands, ie
reflect swr outside the ham bands. Beam widths I can't determine as I
do not have enough segments available on my optimizer program . But I
believe that can be accomplished.
Check out the SK list regularly as I may leave the answer in my will
if it mentions you.
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
David, the antenna covers the distance covered by a mfj 259 b which is
1.7 to around
175 mega hz. Obviously it therefore has no limits above .Below I
cannot measure unless I modify my radio outside the amateur bands, ie
reflect swr outside the ham bands. Beam widths I can't determine as I
do not have enough segments available on my optimizer program . But I
believe that can be accomplished.

but wait... you have built it.. you can measure the swr, so why can't you
measure the beamwidth? pick an AM broadcast station and turn it and see how
wide the pattern is.