"Richard Clark" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 30 May 2009 18:43:45 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:
"Dave" wrote
.. .
both, and neither,
which part radiate the radio waves.

I can see a struggle developing here between you and Art as to who has
the claim to wear the cap and bells.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I think Szczepan can take Art in best out of three falls. Neither seems to
have an interest in real world antennas. Perhaps there is a
rec.radio.magicalphysics group they could move to?

Dale W4OP

Dale Parfitt wrote:

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 30 May 2009 18:43:45 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:
"Dave" wrote
. ..
both, and neither,
which part radiate the radio waves.

I can see a struggle developing here between you and Art as to who has
the claim to wear the cap and bells.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I think Szczepan can take Art in best out of three falls. Neither seems to
have an interest in real world antennas. Perhaps there is a
rec.radio.magicalphysics group they could move to?

Dale W4OP

alt.support.alzheimers

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 30, 1:55*pm, "Dale Parfitt" wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message

news
On Sat, 30 May 2009 18:43:45 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:
"Dave" wrote
.. .
both, and neither,
which part radiate the radio waves.

I can see a struggle developing here between you and Art as to who has
the claim to wear the cap and bells.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I think Szczepan can take Art in best out of three falls. Neither seems to
have an interest in real world antennas. Perhaps there is a
rec.radio.magicalphysics group they could move to?

Dale W4OP

Heh I just want you all to keep posting regarding your knowledge of
antennas. The more you post the more you reveal yourselves. I was a
mechanical engineer not a antenna or electrical engineer so I am
struggling just to get on the ladder of knowledge. There are a few
here that feel they are best qualified to judge with respect to
antennas. I just can't make them out. Now we have Tom competing for
the top spot because he has made antennas to work and is anxious to
let everybody know about it Yup 98% efficient he states
That 98% of radiation that went to the wrong place.What has he
accomplished that nobody else has done Now where did that other 2% go
possibly hiding inside the radiator tube? Has he accounted for a
everything involved in the generation of radiation? Does he know what
radiation is and what creates it? Now will somebody explain to me why
the subject
of waves keep coming up when radiation is discussed and do the waves
tip over when they get to their destination and dump dots and dashes
all over the place? Every body is keeping mum as to what creates
radiation because none can answer the question They only can ask
questions to divert the spot light else where. Perhaps the "tide" has
turned with respect to Maxwell and it is time to surf the "waves"!

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
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.

art is just babbling.

which part radiates?? the whole thing radiates of course.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
I think Szczepan can take Art in best out of three falls. Neither seems
to
have an interest in real world antennas. Perhaps there is a
rec.radio.magicalphysics group they could move to?

not even close, art has him for crackpot theories hands down.

Every body is keeping mum as to what creates
radiation because none can answer the question.

you haven't asked that question, you have stated your theory about magical
levitating anti-diamagnetic neutrinos. according to Maxwell's equations as
supported by detailed observations and calculations over the last 100 years
or more, accelerating charges create radiation.

On Fri, 29 May 2009 22:45:03 -0700, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:

It also cites the array at Imperial Beach, which is not
far. I see it several times a year but it was abandoned years ago and may
be coming down. I wonder who gets all that nice RF cable.

It was decomissioned in 1999 but it's still there today:
http://addiejones.com/califimages/elephantcage.jpg
http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi-bin/image.cgi?image=10010&mode=sequential&flags=0
http://www.navycthistory.com/images2/IBCDAALamberton.jpg
http://www.navycthistory.com/ibbradbury01.html
http://jproc.ca/rrp/masset_frd10.jpg
http://www.navycthistory.com/Imperial_beach_intro.html
Do you really want 50 year old coax?

"Off-topic Sal"

From sunspots to elephant cages. One small step for Art. One giant
leap for most of the newsgroup participants.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 30 May 2009 14:59:21 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Also, Google Maps photo:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=%27Elephant+Cage%27+Naval+Communicati on+Station+San+Diego&ie=UTF8&ll=32.593481,-117.129654&spn=0.002929,0.006866&t=h&z=18

Google Earth map with locations of 16 elephant cages:
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=48401&filename= 113957-FRD10.kmz
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=48402&filename= 174116-ProtoWullenweber.kmz

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law.

Ok, you capitalize that as if it were a specific law... provide a
reference, other than your own posts, for "Gauss's law of Statics". If
you can't do that, provide the specific equation you are refering to.

come on art, cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics".

Art Unwin wrote:
snip
A bunch of his usual nonsense, none of which he has proven.


And I repeat -

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

How much better are yours?

tom
K0TAR

On May 30, 7:24*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

snip
A bunch of his usual nonsense, none of which he has proven.

And I repeat -

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

How much better are yours?

tom
K0TAR

That's a silly question Tom it is the pattern that matters to me.
Anyway it was 100% and the pattern was a ball which to me is what I
wanted i.e. equal pressure on all boundary points which is absolute
equilibrium. The 100% figure is nice but the program worked it out not
I. Any way the scientist was correct on his theory with respect to
"point radiation" unfortunately, like others,,, he passed away
My other desire is to make the radiator as small as possible and I
solved that some time ago as well as a frequency response that makes a
log periodic look ancient.
Now your turn ! You have had enough questions and I have asked for
just one and that is the action and manner of waves, but you can't
seem to answer that one so I will provide another.
Radiation is a result of an accellerated charge is what all the books
say , what is the nature of that charge such as mass and what force
created that acceleration? Now if you are the expert that you say you
are then you will have to answer a question sometime or your perceived
status will come under scrutiny and David can be very difficult at
times with his questions never answers but questions only questions.
Art
Art