For what it's worth, the latest prediction:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...tm?list1112475

ac6xg

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. When
this passage of particles to Earth spiked a few years back our grid
became vunerable and the Northern lights were so bright they could be
seen as far south as the equator. Now Cern wants to stop the Neutrino
particles from the Sun by "impact" which suggests a coming presence of
Hallium that can create explosive pressures such that artificial
diamonds are readily made. When this experiment takes place it
suggests that radiation will really peak for a short time before we
all become incinerated. But the some scientists are comfortable that
all that can happen is known.
Well at least to the best of their knowledge
and in the short term ,
we think,
we hope!
And we have not figured out radio radiation yet, even tho we have a
multitude of formulae from a century ago!
Fortunately the Sun has not burnt out and solar particles are still
making it to Earth as the Sun's arbitrary border expands and fractures
as well as the coming radiation fractures in Italy

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.

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.

tom
K0TAR

tom wrote:
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.

Speaking of texts, one of my co-workers gave me a wonderful paperback
textbook last week "The Theory and Design of Circular Antenna Arrays" by
James D. Tillman, Jr., The University of Tennessee Engineering
Experiment Station, 1966.

The design, testing, scope pictures and the wonderful racks of gear they
built makes for a great piece of work.

I have no idea why he had this book or where he got it, but am grateful
to get it.

tom
K0TAR

On May 29, 8:10*pm, tom wrote:
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.

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.

tom
K0TAR

Whoo aren't we sensitive! If the books say radiation is not "fully
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
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. I know of
no books that illustrate the use of the "weak" force with respect to
radiation so would you say from your experience that Einstein was
wrong? Even the books do not print that suggestion. Now one scientist
has stated that radiation can be a point source which means the
radiation sphere of a radiator is of equal value at all points around
the arbitrary border, which of course is correct, and we are not
talking averages either. Pray tell me how I should go about making
such a radiator and what book is it to be found?
Best regards and lighten up
Art

On May 29, 8:37*pm, tom wrote:
tom wrote:
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.

Speaking of texts, one of my co-workers gave me a wonderful paperback
textbook last week "The Theory and Design of Circular Antenna Arrays" by
James D. Tillman, Jr., The University of Tennessee Engineering
Experiment Station, 1966.

The design, testing, scope pictures and the wonderful racks of gear they
built makes for a great piece of work.

I have no idea why he had this book or where he got it, but am grateful
to get it.

tom
K0TAR

Did it state that radiation was waves or particles and how he can
prove it ?
Is this in line with your extensive design of antennas?

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

Art Unwin wrote:
On May 29, 8:37 pm, tom wrote:
tom wrote:
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.
Speaking of texts, one of my co-workers gave me a wonderful paperback
textbook last week "The Theory and Design of Circular Antenna Arrays" by
James D. Tillman, Jr., The University of Tennessee Engineering
Experiment Station, 1966.

The design, testing, scope pictures and the wonderful racks of gear they
built makes for a great piece of work.

I have no idea why he had this book or where he got it, but am grateful
to get it.

tom
K0TAR

Did it state that radiation was waves or particles and how he can
prove it ?
Is this in line with your extensive design of antennas?

No comments needed here.

tom
K0TAR

On May 29, 9:30*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 29, 8:37 pm, tom wrote:
tom wrote:
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.
Speaking of texts, one of my co-workers gave me a wonderful paperback
textbook last week "The Theory and Design of Circular Antenna Arrays" by
James D. Tillman, Jr., The University of Tennessee Engineering
Experiment Station, 1966.

The design, testing, scope pictures and the wonderful racks of gear they
built makes for a great piece of work.

I have no idea why he had this book or where he got it, but am grateful
to get it.

tom
K0TAR

Did it state that radiation was waves or particles and how he can
prove it ?
Is this in line with your extensive design of antennas?

No comments needed here.

tom
K0TAR

What ever is the matter with you? You seem to want to pick a fight for
some reason.
So you are a qualified antenna engineer and you dislike my aproach to
antennas because I am a mechanical engineer or what. I experiment with
antennas which means I am not totally governed by the books and I
enjoy that. I also study so that my results can be understood
mathematically. Now I am not an antenna engineer but when you and
others
could not relate the mathematics of Gaussian statics to Maxwell I
realised that the so called gurus were not experts after all and this
was confirmed when the term equilibrium flumoxed all of you. Now you
claim efficiencies of some sort, does it show up on a receiver S
metre? I doubt it. And you claim 98% efficiency but supply zero
parameters.Heck, I can get a computer program to give me figures
better than that but it is meaningless
But all of this really doesn't matter on this newsgroup, I am not a
antenna engineer so in no way am I encroaching on the esteem you feel
you posses as a antenna engineer because of your electrical
background. Yes, you know more about antennas that is written in the
books, because you committed it to memory whether it was correct or
not to pass an exam. Feel better now?
Sleep well
Art

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