Resonance and equilibrium
 

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

Resonance and equilibrium
 

"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.

keep blowing bubbles art, maybe you will be better at that than trying to
describe fields and waves.

rest of arts babbling snipped

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On Apr 18, 11:28*am, "Dave" wrote:
"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.

keep blowing bubbles art, maybe you will be better at that than trying to
describe fields and waves.

rest of arts babbling snipped

David
Physics is physics, otherwise known as Classical physics
Newton viewed the Cosmos from the outside in, and Einstein
viewed the Cosmos from the inside out. Einstein took this approach
to science because of his inability to locate the "weak force". But
the object of his examination was the same as Newtons, the Cosmos as a
whole. Gauss's approach to statics is the same as Newton, Maxwell and
others. He used the boundary method except using only two dimensions
and not three which requires the dimension of time.
Use of the three dimensions was to check the work of other
scientists that he used in his equations where some of the equations
were two dimensional and required the
other dimension addition of time for equilibrium per Newton's
requirements.
Since you have placed "electricity" in a separate compartment from
that of science you can never fully understand the laws of science so
I will leave the subject in a static position with respect to this
group. I will however leave you with some thoughts to ponder.
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.
In other words a sine curve is a graphic(scope) that shows the metric
of the Universe, after all the measuring instrument uses particles
from beyond Earth for its means of measurement ! For this reason it is
able to measure the equivalent on Earth which is termed "vibration"
because each "period" is not repeatable i.e. lack of accountability
of all forces viz a vi displacement current which represents the weak
force.
Best regards
Art

Best regards
Art Unwin....xg (uk)

Resonance and equilibrium
 

"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.

Resonance and equilibrium
 

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

Resonance and equilibrium
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 1:41 pm, "Dave" wrote:
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.

thats obviously because its not an open forum, only people who think like
you go there, so you have a captive audience.

Resonance and equilibrium
 

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 -

Resonance and equilibrium
 

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.

Resonance and equilibrium
 

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

Resonance and equilibrium
 

"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.

Resonance and equilibrium
 

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?

Resonance and equilibrium
 

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

Resonance and equilibrium
 

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

Resonance and equilibrium
 

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

Resonance and equilibrium
 

"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??

Resonance and equilibrium
 

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 ?

Resonance and equilibrium
 

"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.

Resonance and equilibrium
 

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

Resonance and equilibrium
 

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

Resonance and equilibrium
 

"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.

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 1, 7:37*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"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.

I dont know if Dave built it or not but I did and tested the beamwidth
just as you said and got 360 degrees. Rotating it had no effect at all
on signal strength. I tried it on 2M and couldnt hit the local
repeater with 1 watt normally I can reach it with 100mW. I would say
this classifies the antenna as a dummy load.

Jimmie

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On Fri, 1 May 2009 17:35:36 -0700 (PDT), JIMMIE
wrote:

I dont know if Dave built it or not but I did and tested the beamwidth
just as you said and got 360 degrees. Rotating it had no effect at all
on signal strength. I tried it on 2M and couldnt hit the local
repeater with 1 watt normally I can reach it with 100mW.

Hi Jimmie,

Try it again on Saturday and Sunday to see if its more attuned to the
Weekend force.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 1, 7:35*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On May 1, 7:37*pm, "Dave" wrote:

"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.

I dont know if Dave built it or not but I did and tested the beamwidth
just as you said and got 360 degrees. Rotating it had no effect at all
on signal strength. I tried it on 2M and couldnt hit the local
repeater with 1 watt normally I can reach it with 100mW. I would say
this classifies the antenna as a dummy load.

Jimmie

But Jimmie I have not divulged the full story. It is up to you to
determine the merits of antennas that you make without posessing the
full instructions. I was intent on sharing all with my fellow hams but
after the pilloring of the Dr who came on board so that he could help
with the problems that the group were having with mathematics and
Maxwell it appeared to me that most thought all was known about
antennas thus all is known about mine. I don't mind if you think it is
a dummy load since I do not know the merits of your education. You may
well be the same person who was argueing at the same time who admitted
to never graduating from high school.
David
I have ordered some remote relays so that I can operate the camera
scan and rotate
mechanism that I use to carry the antenna and every thing takes time.
I would also remind you that beam width can only be determined in
terms of point to point transmissions and grazing angles on ground
level antennas can create havoc.
Either way, you never did concur with the mathematics presented on
this antenna so
I thought you should drop the subject all together since you seem to
be my superior in these matters and feel you have proved my
mathematics in error. Suffice to say I have described the abilities of
my antenna and care not whether you can believe it or not until you
delve more into Maxwell's laws in light of what I have stated. Rest
assured that Richard still agrees with your assesment a judgement you
should feel confident about. Grin
Let us move on and let somebody else take over this thread for their
own use which is now coming to be the norm.
Art

Resonance and equilibrium
 

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?

snip
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

At 160m. You can't possibly have missed that, Richard. Art has stated
it dozens of times. Maybe hundreds.

He's nuts, and very thorough about it.

tom
K0TAR

Resonance and equilibrium
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On May 1, 7:35 pm, JIMMIE wrote:
snip
Jimmie

But Jimmie I have not divulged the full story. It is up to you to
determine the merits of antennas that you make without posessing the
full instructions. I was intent on sharing all with my fellow hams but
after the pilloring of the Dr who came on board so that he could help
with the problems that the group were having with mathematics and
snip again
Art

Art

You have claimed time and time again that you have told us all we need
to know to make this antenna and its brethren.

So what have you invented now? Something new and double secret I'd bet.

tom
K0TAR

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 1, 9:01*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
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?

snip
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

At 160m. *You can't possibly have missed that, Richard. *Art has stated
it dozens of times. *Maybe hundreds.

He's nuts, and very thorough about it.

tom
K0TAR

Tom, you are a real misery. Are you suffering from depression?
In this group some are so dense you have to state things a hundred
times at least

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 1, 9:09*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 1, 7:35 pm, JIMMIE wrote:
snip
Jimmie

But Jimmie I have not divulged the full story. It is up to you to
determine the merits of antennas that you make without posessing the
full instructions. I was intent on sharing all with my fellow hams but
after the pilloring of the Dr who came on board so that he could help
with the problems that the group were having with mathematics and
snip again
Art

Art

You have claimed time and time again that you have told us all we need
to know to make this antenna and its brethren.

So what have you invented now? *Something new and double secret I'd bet..

tom
K0TAR

Many times things go out one ear and out the other, perforated ear
drums does that for you. You have not yet recanted your position on
Maxwell's laws and I told you everything. Without recanting your
position on Maxwell then all I state obviously goes in one ear and out
the other. From what you stated on Maxwell it is obvious that my logic
on every thing is not acceptable to you. From your stand point I am a
liar with respect to my antenna as you have deemed it impossible. From
a person who knows all that there is to know about antennas you
discussing it more seems quite sense
less. And yet thru the years nobody has pointed out an error in my
statements.
If one did so and me knowing that I have such an antenna I would have
to rethink my logic as to why it works the way it does. It is small
and light enough to hold out on one hand and works on 160 which you
say is impossible. And you are correct at least in your own mind since
you have stuck with planar designs despite its contradictions with
Maxwell.

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On Fri, 01 May 2009 21:01:26 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:
I'll make it easy, 10 degree beamwidth and 30MHz bandwidth.

At how many GHz?

At 160m.

Art is careful to never give every detail. Experience has taught him
that doing that leads to the quick thud of deflating claims. Like
Cecil, always arguing about a detail means never having to say you're
sorry.

You can't possibly have missed that, Richard. Art has stated
it dozens of times. Maybe hundreds.

Well, perhaps 11 times or 99, I pulled the plug on him and only hear
his postings as static behind other conversation. 10 years of his
dull needle stuck in the same worn groove has lost its -um- charm.
Same thing for Cecileo's preaching from the gallows hoping that the
last fall will give him enough swing to kick someone in the nuts.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 1, 8:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I don't mind if you think it is
a dummy load since I do not know the merits of your education. You may
well be the same person who was argueing at the same time who admitted
to never graduating from high school.

You know damn well who is who around here.
I could come back with my meager formal training and bitch slap
your theory into submission, but it gets really boring arguing a
subject with the crack spiders bitch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc

Resonance and equilibrium
 

"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
On May 1, 7:37 pm, "Dave" wrote:
I dont know if Dave built it or not but I did and tested the beamwidth
just as you said and got 360 degrees. Rotating it had no effect at all
on signal strength. I tried it on 2M and couldnt hit the local
repeater with 1 watt normally I can reach it with 100mW. I would say
this classifies the antenna as a dummy load.

no, i am waiting for the final tweaked design. if you have built one to
art's specs then you are probably measuring just the side/back lobes, which
is a very good sign. if it has a pencil beam on 160m, then by the time it
gets to 2m the beam will probably be so thin that it will be like a laser
beam, so you'll have to be pointing it VERY accurately on the repeater. so
go rotate it again, very slowly and carefully, and don't forget to aim it in
elevation also!

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 2, 6:24*am, "Dave" wrote:
"JIMMIE" wrote in message

...
On May 1, 7:37 pm, "Dave" wrote:

I dont know if Dave built it or not but I did and tested the beamwidth
just as you said and got 360 degrees. Rotating it had no effect at all
on signal strength. I tried it on 2M and couldnt hit the local
repeater with 1 watt normally I can reach it with 100mW. I would say
this classifies the antenna as a dummy load.

no, i am waiting for the final tweaked design. *if you have built one to
art's specs then you are probably measuring just the side/back lobes, which
is a very good sign. *if it has a pencil beam on 160m, then by the time it
gets to 2m the beam will probably be so thin that it will be like a laser
beam, so you'll have to be pointing it VERY accurately on the repeater. *so
go rotate it again, very slowly and carefully, and don't forget to aim it in
elevation also!

Hold on. I don.t know if I have a pencil beam as I can't measure it or
model it.
However, I don't see that as a real hurdle! The idea that the beam
width changes with frequency is beyond my ken. As for a final tweaked
design, for a ham that is an impossibility

Resonance and equilibrium
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Hold on. I don.t know if I have a pencil beam as I can't measure it or
model it.
However, I don't see that as a real hurdle! The idea that the beam
width changes with frequency is beyond my ken. As for a final tweaked
design, for a ham that is an impossibility

but you do have one that is built to your spec right? and you can turn it
by hand? so if you point it at a local AM station can you see a big
increase in signal strength and a good front-back and front-side ratio?? I
don't need a 'final'design, as you say that is impossible for a ham, but
i'll settle for something better than a 4-square for 160m that i can turn
with a normal rotor!

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 1, 10:01*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
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?

snip
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

At 160m. *You can't possibly have missed that, Richard. *Art has stated
it dozens of times. *Maybe hundreds.

He's nuts, and very thorough about it.

tom
K0TAR

Tom hes too thorough.
I think hes just a troll, maybe he,s the real Arts grandson or
something. Hes too consistent to be as blithrering as he acts. Maybe
he is just some old fart that likes to stir up conversation and gets a
kick out of how long of a thread he can create or how many hundred
words he can get someone to write.

His "antenna design" isnt origonal. I am not sure what the origonal
source was but I know at one time it was used as a joke among CBers.
They would describe it to some newbie and get him to build it and put
it up on a tower and make him jump through as many hoops as possible
to get it to work. So maybe he is just one of those from the CB
usegroup having fun with hams.

Jimmie

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 2, 12:07*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Hold on. I don.t know if I have a pencil beam as I can't measure it or
model it.
However, I don't see that as a real hurdle! The idea that the beam
width changes with frequency is beyond my ken. *As for a final tweaked
design, for a ham that is an impossibility

but you do have one that is built to your spec right? *and you can turn it
by hand? *so if you point it at a local AM station can you see a big
increase in signal strength and a good front-back and front-side ratio?? *I
don't need a 'final'design, as you say that is impossible for a ham, but
i'll settle for something better than a 4-square for 160m that i can turn
with a normal rotor!

Yes you are correct. But I am waiting for some remote relays for the
rotator scan and asmith control and some other things with respect to
the antenna. Ordered from China
so it will take a bit more than a week from now, then I can do as you
say. For beam width changes I also need a adjustment contraption to
change up or down from what I have now but that is a summer job ie
bells and whistles. I have Jim's sample antenna packed and ready to go
and he is probably more experienced in that area, when I receive his
address via e mail, it is packed in a priority mail container. He can
pass on what it does but without comment with respect to construction.
Construction details are private and I am not going to disclose those
until there is a climate change.
At the moment Jim is the only guy I can trust on the newsgroup and the
only guy I have great confidence in so if he provides a finding I can
believe it as it will be specific and to the point As far as the four
square goes without change in azmith I don't believe it can compete
but we will see.
Having a get away week end at the moment with the wife antennas have
been put to one side.
Art

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 2, 12:34*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On May 1, 10:01*pm, Tom Ring wrote:



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?

snip
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

At 160m. *You can't possibly have missed that, Richard. *Art has stated
it dozens of times. *Maybe hundreds.

He's nuts, and very thorough about it.

tom
K0TAR

Tom hes too thorough.
I think hes just a troll, maybe he,s the real Arts grandson or
something. Hes too consistent to be as blithrering as he acts. Maybe
he is just some old fart that likes to stir up conversation and gets a
kick out of how long of a thread he can create or how many hundred
words he can get someone to write.

* His "antenna design" isnt origonal. I am not sure what the origonal
source was but I know at one time it was used as a joke among CBers.
They would describe it to some newbie and get him to build it and put
it up on a tower and make him jump through as many hoops as possible
to get it to work. So maybe he is just one of those from the CB
usegroup having fun with hams.

Jimmie

To deliberatly try to deceive one that wishes to learn is totally
dishonest.!
I try to be a gentleman at all times by trying to walk in other
peoples shoes.

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 1, 9:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 1, 7:35*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
- Show quoted text -

...I was intent on sharing all with my fellow hams but
after the pilloring of the Dr who came on board so that he could help
with the problems that the group were having with mathematics and
Maxwell it appeared to me that most thought all was known about
antennas thus all is known about mine.

Yes, I remember the "Dr." (or perhaps doctoral candidate) from MIT who
jumped in and remarked that according to his model, when you
mathematically 'freeze' the motion of charge to a single point in time
(t = x seconds), that, glory be, Gauses law of statics (preservation
of charge) still holds true according to his computer results.

This may be of mild interest to scientists who question if the charge
would be preserved statically (perhaps some energy must be lost to the
dynamic motion of charge for example), it had nothing to do with what
you were writing. Once the "poor Dr." saw what you were up to, he
politely decided to exit stage right never to return again.

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 2, 3:00*pm, wrote:
On May 1, 9:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On May 1, 7:35*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
- Show quoted text -
...I was intent on sharing all with my fellow hams but
after the pilloring of the Dr who came on board so that he could help
with the problems that the group were having with mathematics and
Maxwell it appeared to me that most thought all was known about
antennas thus all is known about mine.

Yes, I remember the "Dr." (or perhaps doctoral candidate) from MIT who
jumped in and remarked that according to his model, when you
mathematically 'freeze' the motion of charge to a single point in time
(t = x seconds), that, glory be, Gauses law of statics (preservation
of charge) still holds true according to his computer results.

This may be of mild interest to scientists who question if the charge
would be preserved statically (perhaps some energy must be lost to the
dynamic motion of charge for example), it had nothing to do with what
you were writing. Once the "poor Dr." saw what you were up to, he
politely decided to exit stage right never to return again.

Why do you keep coming back with different names and different packs
of lies
John E Davis can be found at his home page @space,mit edu where he can
himself
tell you that you are lieing. Better still, read the archives of this
newsgroup for the truth
We all know who and what you are. You can run but you can't hide.
plonk

Resonance and equilibrium
 

Art Unwin wrote:

Many times things go out one ear and out the other, perforated ear
drums does that for you.

I am sorry to hear that you have perforarated eardrums. I know it's
painful.


From what you stated on Maxwell it is obvious that my logic
on every thing is not acceptable to you.


And yet thru the years nobody has pointed out an error in my
statements.

I have said nothing about Maxwell here. Ever.

And you are correct at least in your own mind since
you have stuck with planar designs despite its contradictions with
Maxwell.

You have not even a tiny idea of my antenna designs, especially since
most that have been even hinted at on the internet were under my old
callsign.

tom
K0TAR

Resonance and equilibrium
 

On May 2, 5:12*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

Many times things go out one ear and out the other, perforated ear
drums does that for you.

I am sorry to hear that you have perforarated eardrums. *I know it's
painful.

From what you stated on Maxwell it is obvious that my logic
on every thing is not acceptable to you.
And yet thru the years nobody has pointed out an error in my
statements.

I have said nothing about Maxwell here. *Ever.

* And you are correct at least in your own mind since

you have stuck with planar designs despite its contradictions with
Maxwell.

You have not even a tiny idea of my antenna designs, especially since
most that have been even hinted at on the internet were under my old
callsign.

tom
K0TAR

Then why are you here. Are you a judge? You always appear depressed or
mean spirited. Maybe when you hinted on your designs you got slammed.
I am fairly sure that they did not follow the edicts of Maxwell.

Resonance and equilibrium
 

Art Unwin wrote:

Then why are you here.

I assume that was a question. You have continuing issues with punctuation.

I am here to learn about antennas. Unlike yourself.

Are you a judge? You always appear depressed or
mean spirited.

Nope on the judge. I merely apply "common physics" to know you are
thinking in the "imaginary plane".

And mean spirited? What have I ever said to you, as opposed to Richard,
that could be presumed to be mean spirited? Google has all of it
recorded forever more. SHOW ME!

Maybe when you hinted on your designs you got slammed.

My designs have taken first place in several antenna competitions in the
"non-commercial" category. And sometimes first second third and fourth
in the same one. Almost always first place in every band I entered one
which was as many as 3 at an event. For lousy common style engineered
antennas,as opposed to your whizbang revolutionary ones, I've done okay
I guess.

I am fairly sure that they did not follow the edicts of Maxwell.

I wouldn't know, since you seem to be the only one who has a copy of his
edicts.

tom
K0TAR