Tom Donaly wrote:
It could be worse, John. He could claim that his loading coil replaces
a certain amount of period (time) in addition to length.

The percentage of a wavelength that the loading coil
electrically occupies is directly related to the delay
in time through the loading coil.

At 4 MHz, 36 degrees (0.1 WL) of loading coil equates
to 25 nS of delay through the loading coil.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Art Unwin wrote:
It is either Roy and Tom or Cecil himself. All others follow their
role models lead.

Roy's and Tom's blunder was to think one could use the phase
of the current on a standing wave antenna to determine the
delay through a loading coil when the phase of that current
doesn't change with length even in the wire sections of the
antenna.

Hint: The phase of the current on a standing wave antenna
cannot even be used to determine the delay through a wire
(proved by EZNEC) since the phase doesn't change with
length (over 90 degrees of length).

Since the phase of standing wave current cannot be used on
a wire, why would anyone be naive enough to think it can be
used on a loading coil?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On May 4, 2:39*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

I often skip threads that I do not understand.

Yup, Roy does that as well as others. Saves having to apologize


Yeah That's the one where you stated energy does not require mass ie
the photon
I would have to go back to the big bang to demonstrate to you that was
wrong.
Another day
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
Yeah That's the one where you stated energy does not require mass ie
the photon
I would have to go back to the big bang to demonstrate to you that was
wrong.

I was just quoting the standard model. Photons indeed
do have mass since they are always traveling at the speed
of light through a medium. If a photon ever slows down to
zero, that's when its mass goes to zero. No particle with
a non-zero rest mass can ever travel at the speed of light.

I never, never said that "energy does not require mass"!

What I said was that ZERO energy does not require mass.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On May 4, 3:22*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Yeah That's the one where you stated energy does not require mass ie
the photon
I would have to go back to the big bang to demonstrate to you that was
wrong.

I was just quoting the standard model. Photons indeed
do have mass since they are always traveling at the speed
of light through a medium. If a photon ever slows down to
zero, that's when its mass goes to zero. No particle with
a non-zero rest mass can ever travel at the speed of light.

I never, never said that "energy does not require mass"!

What I said was that ZERO energy does not require mass.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

HMMmm
The big bang started with energy being supplied to mass at zero
temperature
What supplied that energy has not been determined but it was energy
provided to mass, possibly hydrogen since it is first on an element
list, that propelled the parts of the broken initial mass. The initial
energy can only be provided back per Newtons laws is by all mass
returning to the initial point of rest. Therefore since a boundary was
formed around every piece of mass that was emitted since it generated
its own environment it is impossible for all boundaries to return to
the original point as the environments generated within each boundary
fills all the space around the original point of action. Thus unless
all boundaries decay to nothing, which means all energy now be zero,
it still leaves us with the initial mass to be accounted for that was
the carrier of the initially supplied energy! In other words the
initial energy supplied for the big bang can only return to the
initial point of the universe to achieve accountability of all forces.
I have a feeling that scientists today are getting close to assigning
different
names to the same parts by viewing the same but from different vantage
points ie a cluster of particles having a different name to that of
its parts.
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
In other words the
initial energy supplied for the big bang can only return to the
initial point of the universe to achieve accountability of all forces.

It's called "The Big Crunch", Art, and is the theory
to which I personally ascribe. I'm trying to live
long enough to see it happen. :-)

I believe the universal expansion from the Big Bang
will someday reverse itself and collapse back into
the singularity from which it came. It's called
"The Oscillating Universe", a book I read half a
century ago about the time I graduated from Texas A&M.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On May 4, 5:43*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
In other words the
initial energy supplied for the big bang can only return to the
initial point of the universe to achieve accountability of all forces.

It's called "The Big Crunch", Art, and is the theory
to which I personally ascribe. I'm trying to live
long enough to see it happen. :-)

I believe the universal expansion from the Big Bang
will someday reverse itself and collapse back into
the singularity from which it came. It's called
"The Oscillating Universe", a book I read half a
century ago about the time I graduated from Texas A&M.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

How can you live to see it happen when it requires our Earth to be
concentrated as a single point mass at what was our Earth center of
gravity! Only when all boundaries shrink to point mass will they all
be able to elbow themselves back to a single point at the point of
origin. You can't see a black hole if you are drawn in also!
Enuff said
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

snip

There is nothing without mass. Radiation is created by an
accelleration of charge which is mass. Particles create radiation .
Waves is also mass that is soluble acting under the influences of the
Universe.Thus a wave is a adjective that describes the applied
actions upon mass ie a noun. If a particle sits on the formation of a
wave then the two part ways.

When ya 'splains it that way, it gets me to thinkin'.

On Mon, 4 May 2009 20:25:23 -0700, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:

There is nothing without mass.

Metaphysics?

Waves is also mass
How much does one wave of 160M weigh on Earth? (Killer question
because none will never see a number put to it.)

Here's another, perhaps easier, question: "How many angels dancing on
the head of a pin would a 75cM wave knock off?" [You don't need a
number to answer "all of them."]

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
How much does one wave of 160M weigh on Earth?

How many photons are in that wave?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com