On Sep 14, 2:49*pm, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:15 am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:29 am, Richard Clark wrote:

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:46:30 +0100, "christofire"

wrote:
Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many
polarizations? Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach
me? A*

You appear to have changed your identity from S* to A* !

The answers according to the physics that real-life radio
communication depends upon, and was designed by, a

A much simpler, and compelling explanation:
what you see is what you get.

If it looks vertical, the polarization is vertical;
If it looks horizontal, the polarization is horizontal.

It thus stands to reason that if the radiator is U shaped you see both
horizontal and vertical - hence the full sphere filled with radiation.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Sep 14, 5:45*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Point to a law that I have violated *of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect
is confined to the nucleus.

And why not?

If you're going to go away just go away. I don't understand why you
would expect anyone to accept your fancies as fact based upon the
rambling, incoherent explanations you provide. Your only success is
the audience you have gathered while acting as troll.

Art Unwin wrote:
You are NOT an engineer. You are NOT a scientist. You may have been an
engineer in the past, but today, you are not showing that ability.

The pity is, you believe what you are doing. That is the only thing that can
be verified. (Verification comes from the fact you did submit a patent
application. That is the only thing that can be independently verified.) Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG(UK)

I don't know who you are or where you came from into this discussion
that has lasted for years. I did read a portion of what you stated but
you must recognize that this newsgroup
is like a magnet to those who want to sound off without revealing
themselves. It is called free speechand I know not where you fit in! I
am sorry I inadvertently came into your court room your honour. Joe
the judge I presume and not Joe the plumber
That is the best I can do for you until the patent office prints the
rest.
Then you can base all the above accusations that you made prior to the
facts

Years is a fallacy. You showed up with your fantasies quite recently,
not even 2 years ago, at least with the nonsense you currently spout.
If it's true, prove it.

You have gotten farther and farther from reality as time has passed. If
it's true, prove it.

You refuse to give proof for your claims. If it's true, prove it.

You refuse to refute proofs against your claims. If it's true, prove it.

You won't give us a design to test because you know none of them
actually work the way you claim. If it's true, prove it.

Your claims of diamagnetic levitating neutrinos and other nonsense has
nothing to do with reality. If it's true, prove it.

You are a FRAUD. Prove you are not.

And I will predict your answer, if you give one, will be equivalent to
"You need to prove I'm wrong".

tom
K0TAR

On Sep 14, 9:35*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
You are NOT an engineer. You are NOT a scientist. You may have been an
engineer in the past, but today, you are not showing that ability.

The pity is, you believe what you are doing. That is the only thing that can
be verified. (Verification comes from the fact you did submit a patent
application. That is the only thing that can be independently verified..) Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG(UK)

I don't know who you are or where you came from into this discussion
that has lasted for years. I did read a portion of what you stated but
you must recognize that this newsgroup
is like a magnet to those who want to sound off without revealing
themselves. It is called free speechand I know not where you fit in! I
am sorry I inadvertently came into your court room your honour. Joe
the judge I presume and not Joe the plumber
That is the best I can do for you until the patent office prints the
rest.
Then you can base all the above accusations that you made prior to the
facts

Years is a fallacy. *You showed up with your fantasies quite recently,
not even 2 years ago, at least with the nonsense you currently spout.
If it's true, prove it.

You have gotten farther and farther from reality as time has passed. *If
it's true, prove it.

You refuse to give proof for your claims. *If it's true, prove it.

You refuse to refute proofs against your claims. *If it's true, prove it.

On Sep 14, 9:35*pm, Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin



wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:45*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....

Point to a law that I have violated *of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect
is confined to the nucleus.

And why not?

If you're going to go away just go away. I don't understand why you
would expect anyone to accept your fancies as fact based upon the
rambling, incoherent explanations you provide. Your only success is
the audience you have gathered while acting as troll.

No. "Success" is showing up the self perceived experts.
The question is why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law
of statics illegal ?
Or stated another way, what is it illegal by changing a static field
into a dynamic field?
This is not trolling. I am exposing people for what they are and they
are fraustrated
in their inability to show me as wrong or even having a book that
states where and why I am wrong. This is not rambling. Since when is
the truth rambling? If you are an expert take up the challenge in
terms of academics or consult a professor for an answer Either is
acceptable for the purposes of debate of what is true or not
true.Everything I have stated
stands upon this very point So guys, direct yourselves at the root
instead of floundering around in a aimless fashion.
And as far as the size of the audience the bigger the better the
exposure and the more success I have against those who rely on
slander. I want this to be as wide spread as possible instead of
running away. Live with it . I am quite sure that many hams around the
World is following this augument looking for that first person you
will take up the challenge
and provide closure with an answer to this very simple question,
without the fear of recrimination from the group all of which say it
is illegal. Until then......

On Sep 14, 6:30*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I then found out that
one of the prolific antagonistic posters did not survive high school.
True, he was suspended, so it was not really his fault!

I'm glad to see I'm such a thorn in your side. That means I
must be doing something right if a gifted mechanical engineer
like yourself considers me such a scary threat to your sanity.
Why do you keep telling lies about Dr. Davis? You know
good and well that as soon as he got a grip on what you are
proposing, he ran off like a deer spooked by a zenon flash
camera.
I'm curious...What gives you *your* track record? As far as
I know, you never went to MIT, and I'm fairly sure you didn't
work for NASA.
So where does this leave you? Where did an individual
such as you obtain all your supposed vast knowledge of all
things RF?

I don't think it was books, as you decry them as carriers
of ill advice. It wasn't at college, because you didn't take the
relevant courses if you were a mechanical engineer.
I'm starting to think you have a baffle gab machine, kind of
like the toy "8 ball" that spits out answers to questions
posed to it.
The only problem is that it often spits out the same answer
for different questions. :/
I can see Art now.. Oh wondrous eight ball, how does one
define resonance..
8 ball spits out.. You have obtained true equilibrium.
Art asks 8 ball another question.. Oh wondrous 8 ball,
how does one define a full length radiator?
8 ball spits out.. You have obtained true equilibrium.
And so it goes throughout the day... :/

I'll tell you this Art.. The more you whine about me and
my education, the more I'm going to bug you.

The other day I decided to leave you alone, as you
are old and senile, and I don't want you to get all
excited and have a heart attack, or get all dizzy
and fall down and crack your differential.
But it's obvious that you still have me on the brain.
If this is going to be the case, I might as well give
you something to actually whine about.
The first thing you need to do is define how you use
the word equilibrium when pertaining to antenna
systems.
If you can't do this, you didn't stay on your vacation
long enough.
BTW, quoting answers from the 8 ball is not going
to flush well.

Oh BTW #2, I was expelled, not suspended.
They did not want me back. They felt I no longer
had anything to offer their institution.
I was a thorn in their ass, much like I'm fixing to
be to you if you don't quit whining about me
and my vast education.
It has no bearing on your activities, or your
lack of being able to describe your theories
in terms that sane people can understand and
relate to.

Art Unwin wrote:


I don't know who you are or where you came from into this discussion
that has lasted for years. I did read a portion of what you stated

As expected, you ignore that which conflicts with your claims.

but
you must recognize that this newsgroup
is like a magnet to those who want to sound off without revealing
themselves. It is called free speechand I know not where you fit in! I
am sorry I inadvertently came into your court room your honour. Joe
the judge I presume and not Joe the plumber
That is the best I can do for you until the patent office prints the
rest.

I have read you patent.

http://www.freshpatents.com/Gaussian...hp?type=claims

http://www.freshpatents.com/Gaussian...pe=description

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...FPTO%2Fsearch-
bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22Gaussi an+radiative+cluster%22&OS=%22Gaussian+radiative+c luster%22&RS=%22Gaussian+radiative+cluster%22

It broadly describes a yagi antenna after it has been blown down
by a wind storm. No wonder the patent office has an issue with it.

Then you can base all the above accusations that you made prior to the
facts

You patent does not provide any facts that support the claims you
have been making in this group.

Szczepan Białek wrote:


"Richard Fry" wrote
...
On Sep 14, 12:41 pm, Szczepan Białek wrote:

In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate?

Parts with r-f-current flow, the greatest radiation occurring from
locations along the radiator where current is greatest.

Your words: "Only the change in current and charge, over time, produces
EM radiation."
At oscillations the current start from zero, accelerate to max speed and
deccelerate to zero.
At the max speed no acceleration at all.

Current flow is near zero at the ends of any unloaded dipole, and at
the top of any unloaded vertical monopole (even those in directional
arrays).

At the ends are the max accelerations and the max radiation.
S*

Your problem is not understanding the motion of charges in the antenna.

Sure, the derivative of a sine wave is 0 at the peak, but this does
not directly translate to the motion of the electrons
at specific locations in the antenna.

Look at the antenna current as an electron oscillating
back and forth between the ends. The position over time is described
by a function. Throughout the entire length, the electron is
changing velocity (accelerating).

Hint: the _voltage_ at the feed point may be described by a sine wave.
Your challenge is to determine how the electrons move in response
to that sine wave.

Part of understanding this is knowing the difference between what is
happing as time progresses at the different parts of the antenna.

The trick to understanding this is to carefully do and understand
the mathematics that are involved.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:35:28 -0500, tom wrote:

Years is a fallacy. You showed up with your fantasies quite recently,
not even 2 years ago, at least with the nonsense you currently spout.
If it's true, prove it.

Hi Tom,

Actually Art arrived back in the dark ages of the fin-de-siecle. He
had just had a patent issued for a new invented antenna and asked if
anyone could explain how it worked. (drum-roll)

Several were astonished (as I have already mentioned) to find that his
antenna design had reflector (the new and improved model had two)
elements that were shorter than the driven element, and the director
elements longer.

Well, when no one could fulfill that request, we've been sub-morons
ever since. It's a rare honour that he keeps coming back here for the
validation of cretins when the Nobel Committee is located in Sweden.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Fry" wrote
...
On Sep 14, 12:41 pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate?

Parts with r-f-current flow, the greatest radiation occurring from
locations along the radiator where current is greatest.

Your words: "Only the change in current and charge, over time, produces EM
radiation."
At oscillations the current start from zero, accelerate to max speed and
deccelerate to zero.
At the max speed no acceleration at all.

Current flow is near zero at the ends of any unloaded dipole, and at
the top of any unloaded vertical monopole (even those in directional
arrays).

At the ends are the max accelerations and the max radiation.
S*