Art Unwin wrote:

Whoo aren't we sensitive! If the books say radiation is not "fully
understood "

Nope not very sensitive, just don't like to lumped in with a loony.

And which books say it's not understood? Be specific, give examples.

understood "(. Tom with one exception Tom OK?) I will take them at
their word, well, at least until I publish the rest of the
story..GDay
By the way Tom, anybody can design an antenna as it is very hard for
them not to radiate but to design an antenna that is more efficient
than the present state of the art that is something else. For your

Hmm, my antennas, and probably everyone else's here, tend to be over 98%
efficient.

How much better are yours?

tom
K0TAR

On May 29, 9:29*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

Whoo aren't we sensitive! If the books say radiation is not "fully

* understood "

Nope not very sensitive, just don't like to lumped in with a loony.

And which books say it's not understood? *Be specific, give examples.

snip

Now now Tom, there is no need to lie to make a point. I said "fully
understood" big difference
Now to the books. A common title "fields and waves" What on earth have
waves got to do with radiation? Seems like the Moon makes waves and
people like you,and this thread is listed as sun spots ! Which is
correct?. I know, what ever the professor said as he determines who
passes or fails. Now as a mechanical engineer I have read no
explanation
as to how waves provide radiation because that is not fully understood
by those who write the books But now Tom, as an esteemed antenna
engineer and designer, you are now in a perfect position to explain to
all the little people how that actually works because you Tom
are an expert by your own words You fully understand radiation and
antennas. We also have the standard model which consists of the four
forces so educate the rest of us by explaining what force is used to
make waves that create communication. You ask for specifics well now
you have them. Time for you to provide answers or don't you have any ?
Now to the antennas that you have made, I warrant all of them were
planar probably Yagi's but as a electrical engineer you surely are
aware of Maxwell's laws with respect to radiation so why did you make
antennas that does not account for all forces involved as per Maxwell?
On top of that, there is no mention of waves in any electrical laws so
why does it keep coming up with respect to radiation? Still no answers
Tom Heh? So why is it that you now want to pick a fight with me?
Because we disagree on the means of the creation of radiation?
Sleep tight tonight
Art



tom
K0TAR

"tom" wrote
. net...
Art Unwin wrote:
And we have not figured out radio radiation yet, even tho we have a
multitude of formulae from a century ago!

Art, please do not include the majority of us here in your statements.

What you really should be saying is YOU have not figured out EM radiation
yet.

I for one can design and build, with the help of STANDARD TEXTS
(especially those many decades old!), almost any type of antenna or
antenna array anyone could ever need. And it will work exactly as
predicted if one takes into account normal environmental variables, such
as buildings, trees and ground conductivity.

Everybody should see that engineering people know his job.

This isn't unknown unpredictable territory, regardless of your claims,
none of which have been proven, by the way. This stuff works, and we know
how, and it's not the way you claim.

You all know how. You have yours own STANDARD TEXTS. But I do not know the
one thing. Which part of the antenna radiate.
See;
(http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jone...Hertz_exp.html

"According to theory, if electromagnetic waves were spreading from the
oscillator sparks"

The theory is from XIX century. The oscillating sparks are in the centre of
the Hertz dipole.
What do you assume in your predictions. Are the radio waves radiated from
the end (no current) of an antena or from the places of the wire where the
current is max?
S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"tom" wrote
. net...
Art Unwin wrote:
And we have not figured out radio radiation yet, even tho we have a
multitude of formulae from a century ago!
What do you assume in your predictions. Are the radio waves radiated from
the end (no current) of an antena or from the places of the wire where the
current is max?
S*

both, and neither, art's radiation comes from magical levitating
antidiamagnetic neutrinos from the sun that jump off of antennas when the
current flows.

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"tom" wrote
. net...
Art Unwin wrote:
And we have not figured out radio radiation yet, even tho we have a
multitude of formulae from a century ago!
What do you assume in your predictions. Are the radio waves radiated
from the end (no current) of an antena or from the places of the wire
where the current is max?
S*

both, and neither, art's radiation comes from magical levitating
antidiamagnetic neutrinos from the sun that jump off of antennas when the
current flows.

Earlier Art wrote: "For your information you have never built an antenna
that conforms in its
entirety to Maxwell';s laws thus you cannot possibly understand
radiation as presented by Maxwell. For instance, Einstein studied
Maxwell's laws in the hope of finding the properties of the "weak"
force. He failed. He then decided to move away from standard physics
to look at things from another view point but still failed."

So Art is looking for the next theory. It is a good way to know the results
of experiments. Maxwell did not see the antenas. You all do. Tell than us
which part radiate the radio waves.
S*

On Fri, 29 May 2009 17:09:45 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote:
On May 29, 4:21?pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
For what it's worth, the latest prediction:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...ction.htm?list...

ac6xg

Interesting Jim but just a small bit of knowledge. The Cern experiment
scheduled to start this year seems to me to be an attempt to stop
particles in their tracks faster that the Earth's atmosphere can.

It sure doesn't take you long to hijack and deflect a thread into a
Troll-A-Rama.

Art Unwin wrote:

When this experiment takes place it
suggests that radiation will really peak for a short time before we
all become incinerated.

I've arranged for the Neptune Society to handle all my incineration needs.

So how about those sun spot cycles?

ac6xg

On Jun 1, 2:18*pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

* When this experiment takes place it

suggests that radiation will really peak for a short time before we
all become incinerated.

I've arranged for the Neptune Society to handle all my incineration needs..

So how about those sun spot cycles?

ac6xg

Looking better. Obama should have his new grid in place before the
next sun cycle so the lack of large sun spots are doing Mother Earth a
favor.
Regards
Art