Sun Spots
For what it's worth, the latest prediction:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...tm?list1112475 ac6xg |
Sun Spots
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 |
Sun Spots
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 |
Sun Spots
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 |
Sun Spots
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 |
Sun Spots
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? |
Sun Spots
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 |
Sun Spots
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 |
Sun Spots
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 |
Sun Spots
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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com