|
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 |
Sun Spots
"tom" wrote in message . net... tom wrote: snip ... 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. Just a guess, but maybe it deals with the Wullenweber [or Wullenwever] antenna, described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wullenweber and elsewhere. The article cites Hanza, Okinawa, Japan, where I was stationed in 1965/66 and worked inside the antenna building. The basement was filled with multicouplers and several very large spinning goniometers to pick off the desired signals. 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. "Off-topic Sal" |
Sun Spots
"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* |
Sun Spots
"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. |
Sun Spots
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On May 29, 9:30 pm, tom wrote: 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 I did, and you still refused to accept that Gauss's law IS part of Maxwell's equations as they are published in every text book in the last 100 years or so. was confirmed when the term equilibrium flumoxed all of you. because equilibrium has no place in electromagnetic radiation which by definition is a flow of energy, therefore not in equilibrium... no flow, no radiation... so your magical equilibrium antennas can't radiate, which is pretty much what everyone agrees on. |
Sun Spots
On May 30, 5:34*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On May 29, 9:30 pm, tom wrote: 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 I did, and you still refused to accept that Gauss's law IS part of Maxwell's equations as they are published in every text book in the last 100 years or so. was confirmed when the term equilibrium flumoxed all of you. because equilibrium has no place in electromagnetic radiation which by definition is a flow of energy, therefore not in equilibrium... no flow, no radiation... so your magical equilibrium antennas can't radiate, which is pretty much what everyone agrees on. Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law. Waves have no part in that picture can'tyou get that into your head. The Moon creats waves The Sun does not Again "statics" which is the subject of particles is what I was talking about. |
Sun Spots
"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. |
Sun Spots
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. |
Sun Spots
On May 30, 9:35*am, "Dave" wrote:
"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. I always thought Art had confused statics with statistics. |
Sun Spots
"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* |
Sun Spots
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 |
Sun Spots
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... 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 |
Sun Spots
Dale Parfitt wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... 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. |
Sun Spots
On May 30, 1:55*pm, "Dale Parfitt" wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... 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"! |
Sun Spots
"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. |
Sun Spots
"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. |
Sun Spots
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 |
Sun Spots
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 |
Sun Spots
"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". |
Sun Spots
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 |
Sun Spots
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 |
Sun Spots
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 30, 7:24 pm, tom wrote: 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 snip Art So your antenna, including losses, is 100% efficient. I find that a bit tough to believe. Ok, impossible to believe. tom K0TAR |
Sun Spots
Dale Parfitt wrote:
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 Well if you took them and added Chris from s.p.fusion, you'd have an amazing trio. Chris, to be fair, actually builds things and truthfully reports the results, makes modifications when it again fails, does more calculations, tries agains, fails again. He just thinks, similar to Art, that he's the only one that knows the "secret". Well sort of, you'd have to read his stuff. tom K0TAR |
Sun Spots
On May 30, 9:05*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: On May 30, 7:24 pm, tom wrote: 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 snip Art So your antenna, including losses, is 100% efficient. *I find that a bit tough to believe. *Ok, impossible to believe. tom K0TAR Well it depends on what the programmer refers to as efficiency. It could also mean all forces accounted for and when summed equals zero as reflected by the radiation ball and as you say it also accounts for losses. I'll wager that is what all antenna programs refer to as efficiency. Either way it is only 2% higher than the figure you were boasting about and yet you believe yours. Selective analysis? Art |
Sun Spots
Art Unwin wrote:
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 Me? Compete with people like the Richards, or Roy or the late great Cebik or any other of the other real pros here? Nonsense. Not even trying. You are amusing in a kind of Lewis Carroll way. So don't stop. But don't think the criticism will either, because you are just plain wrong. tom K0TAR |
Sun Spots
Sal M. Onella wrote:
Just a guess, but maybe it deals with the Wullenweber [or Wullenwever] antenna, described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wullenweber and elsewhere. Actually, unlike Wullenweber, they have multiple concentric rings of verticals in the array with a complex phasing system. My guess is that this may have been a contributor to the methods eventually used in phased array radars. But also something that was an engineering study, and not necessarily practical. tom K0TAR |
Sun Spots
On May 30, 9:20*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: 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 Me? Compete with people like the Richards, or Roy or the late great Cebik or any other of the other real pros here? *Nonsense. *Not even trying. You are amusing in a kind of Lewis Carroll way. *So don't stop. *But don't think the criticism will either, because you are just plain wrong. tom K0TAR Then quit judging people |
Sun Spots
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 30, 9:20 pm, tom wrote: Art Unwin wrote: 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 Me? Compete with people like the Richards, or Roy or the late great Cebik or any other of the other real pros here? Nonsense. Not even trying. You are amusing in a kind of Lewis Carroll way. So don't stop. But don't think the criticism will either, because you are just plain wrong. tom K0TAR Then quit judging people Engineers get to judge. It's part of our job. It's why eventually we learn enough make buildings and bridges that don't fall down. And it's why we don't allow people like you design things that need to work. That's the way it is. You may not like it, but that's just too bad. tom K0TAR |
Sun Spots
On May 30, 9:20*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: 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 Me? Compete with people like the Richards, or Roy or the late great Cebik or any other of the other real pros here? *Nonsense. *Not even trying. You are amusing in a kind of Lewis Carroll way. *So don't stop. *But don't think the criticism will either, because you are just plain wrong. tom K0TAR Nobody has proved that |
Sun Spots
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 30, 9:20 pm, tom wrote: Art Unwin wrote: 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 Me? Compete with people like the Richards, or Roy or the late great Cebik or any other of the other real pros here? Nonsense. Not even trying. You are amusing in a kind of Lewis Carroll way. So don't stop. But don't think the criticism will either, because you are just plain wrong. tom K0TAR Nobody has proved that No, you haven't proved anything. That's the way science works. We don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove that you are right. You seem to have missed that part. Be specific. Give detailed test conditions. Give exact design specifications of the test antennas. Give detailed results of your test measurements. Then someone else can confirm your results or not. Are you afraid your antennas don't really work? You certainly could prove prior art if they do. You've been claiming they do for long enough. Quit hiding behind words and give concrete things that can be tested. S--t or get off the pot. tom K0TAR tom K0TAR |
Sun Spots
tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: On May 30, 9:20 pm, tom wrote: Art Unwin wrote: 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 Me? Compete with people like the Richards, or Roy or the late great Cebik or any other of the other real pros here? Nonsense. Not even trying. You are amusing in a kind of Lewis Carroll way. So don't stop. But don't think the criticism will either, because you are just plain wrong. tom K0TAR Nobody has proved that No, you haven't proved anything. That's the way science works. We don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove that you are right. You seem to have missed that part. Be specific. Give detailed test conditions. Give exact design specifications of the test antennas. Give detailed results of your test measurements. Then someone else can confirm your results or not. Are you afraid your antennas don't really work? You certainly could prove prior art if they do. You've been claiming they do for long enough. Quit hiding behind words and give concrete things that can be tested. S--t or get off the pot. tom K0TAR HELLO? tom K0TAR |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com