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 Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:30:16 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

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.
So says the only self-proclaimed expert.
- snip -
This is not trolling. I am exposing people for what they are and they
are fraustrated
The only person you're exposing is yourself and not in a good way. It
is extremely difficult to take your arguments seriously or even
understand them given your posts' poor spelling and grammar along with
the abysmal formatting.The spelling variants are understandable, my
schooling started on the banks of the Devon river. Words like
"fraustrated' are something else altogether. That isn't a fat-fingered
error.

Don't blame it one the web interface you post through.Your posts could
be composed and spell-checked in a text editor before the content is
pasted into a web interface. You could
also let
the web interface handle word-wrapping
instead of inserting
seemingly random cr/lf pairs in your
posts.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to present your theories
and arguments in a rational, cohesive manner.

in their inability to show me as wrong or even having a book that
states where and why I am wrong.
This is equaled and exceeded by your inability to clearly state and
detail your theories without the use of circular logic. Many times
when a question is asked rather than answer you choose to start a new
thread.

This is not rambling. Since when is
the truth rambling?
What makes any of your ramblings the truth? Was your post on GB
standing alone (3 Sept 2009) the truth? You conveniently ignored the
fact that GB's declaration of war came about because Germany had
attacked GB's ally Poland. GB stood beside Poland and not alone.

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
I have previously suggested that you present your theories directly to
those in the academic community. Why not obtain validation there and
then come back and say 'I told you so'?

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 .
Yet you always run to a new thread.

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.
Did I mention something about spelling, grammar and formatting?

I'm not certain how "many hams around the World is following this
augument" but that number is insignificantly small relative to the
world-wide amateur community. The size of the amateur community is in
turn insignificantly small relative to the world-wide academic
community. You choice of venue is as questionable as anything else.

selah

On Sep 14, 11:30*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
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......

The easiest way to support your hypothesis is to show a plot or data
table showing how time effects a static field. Frankly I don't know
how you could show any relevant data since the word STATIC means
"unchanging over time" . Applying a time variable to something that is
static is pointless.
Time is relevant to DYNAMIC fields but someone else has already taken
care of that for us.

Jimmie

"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
On Sep 14, 11:30 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
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......

The easiest way to support your hypothesis is to show a plot or data
table showing how time effects a static field. Frankly I don't know
how you could show any relevant data since the word STATIC means
"unchanging over time" . Applying a time variable to something that is
static is pointless.
Time is relevant to DYNAMIC fields but someone else has already taken
care of that for us.

Jimmie


I've noted, further down the thread, that the term 'electrostatic' is used
in electromagnetics to distinguish between phenomena that depend on the
presence of a quantity of charge (e.g. electric field strength) and
phenomena that depend on the rate of movement of charge (e.g. magnetic field
strength). Perhaps the 'static' part of the word is a misnomer when the
whole system is alternating at a radio frequency, but it is used widely in
the literature. For example, if you look up the components of electric
field around a dipole you'll find close-in reactive components that are
often referred to as 'electrostatic'.

As always: if in doubt, read Kraus.

Chris

On Sep 15, 10:21*am, JIMMIE wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:30*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



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......

The easiest way to support your hypothesis is to show a plot or data
table showing how time effects a static field. Frankly I don't know
how you could show any relevant data since the word STATIC means
"unchanging over time" . Applying a time variable to something that is
static is pointless.
Time is relevant to DYNAMIC fields but someone else has already taken
care of that for us.

Jimmie

No, it is not pointless because it enables particles at rest ON
radiators. to be implied. This has been the problem for decades that
has prevented advancement. This extension thus moves away from the
idea of parts removed from the radiator itself. Referring to books is
like saying "all is known". So the question posed is all important
because, if true, it means that a radiator can be any shape size or
elevation as long as all contained is in a state of equilibrium.
Now all avoid the question because they say they don't understand the
word "equilibrium."
So I posed the question to a antenna optimizer where it responded with
a non planar design in equilibrium. Never mind whether it is useable
or not it confirmed the extension given. We have argued for a long
time on a question that contains the word equilibrium rather than
focussing on that which is now revealed. Now along comes this "chris"
who unlike Dr Davis declares he doesn't understand the question( not
equilibrium), tho he has been prolific in advice and insults. So
there has been absolutely no closure on the question thus giving rise
to insults.which all can supply with ease. The question is still
there and does not have academic closure!

Art Unwin wrote:
... it enables particles at rest ON radiators.

As far as RF is concerned, free electron particles indeed
do rest ON radiators. It's called "skin effect".
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 15, 12:07*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
... it enables particles at rest ON radiators.

As far as RF is concerned, free electron particles indeed
do rest ON radiators. It's called "skin effect".
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, After all this time of taking no decision who lost itat the
last minuite
Skin effect refers to current flow along the aluminum. It even shows
witness of this by inlaying circular grooves in its surface. This by
the way is a measurement tool in non destructive measurement. This
current method provides resistive impedance which signifies energy
lost. You then have another component which is termed radiation
resistance which points to energy applied to to create radiation by
the launching of the particles. When you do your fancy playing with
EZNEC you will notice that as the impedance goes down the radiation
increases. It will continue to do so while the impedance goes down as
a result of more current flowing outside the aluminum When you get to
the point when the impedance is zero it shows that all applied
current has been applied outside the aluminum which is now not
carrying ANY of the applied current. WOW!
You can also apply even more current of which all will still go to the
external sleeve of
particles to increase radiation and still no increase in current flow
in the surface of aluminum, even tho the impedance may go into the
negative quadrant. You also stated that applying a time varying field
is an example of typical failures! No idea where that comes from. Now
with reference to current flow in the particle sleeve. We had an
extensive discussion as to how the circuit of a half wave vertical
antenna was formed. At that time I was adamant that it must be a
closed circuit and suggested that return flow was thru the centre of
the antenna. Another brou har ensued with the implication was that
both the upward and downward travels of the applied current was on the
same skin deep surfaces! Very wierd. One of your past disagreements
with the group extended beyond the 1000 posts so I am certainly not
going to take on the debate mode with you.
Have a happy day.

On Sep 15, 2:53*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
When you do your fancy playing with EZNEC you will notice
that as the impedance goes down the radiation increases.

Art, below to help you analyze your belief is a link to the calculated
radiation efficiency for a system with a perfect, base-driven,
monopole radiator using an r-f ground better than that used by most AM
broadcast stations.

The system is brought to resonance with a loading coil. The feedpoint
impedance is 4.1131 +j0 ohms, of which the radiation resistance
component is ~ 0.1 ohm.

So if, as you write, reducing feedpoint impedance increases radiation,
what do think accounts for this extremely poor system efficiency
(2.75%), compared to the ~ 95% system efficiency typical of a 1/4-wave
monopole using that same r-f ground?

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...AMBestCase.gif

RF

Art Unwin wrote:
Skin effect refers to current flow along the aluminum.

Actually, it is more complicated than that. Since
the current impulse travels at the speed of light,
the current impulse energy transfer necessarily involves
photons. Note there is no current impulse traveling at
the speed of light under steady-state DC conditions
which is the only kind of current being carried 100% by
electrons. Any current, e.g. RF current, traveling at
the speed of light, involves photons, even the DC impulse
current.

When you get to
the point when the impedance is zero it shows that all applied
current has been applied outside the aluminum which is now not
carrying ANY of the applied current. WOW!

It is true that one can set EZNEC to lossless conditions but
one cannot do that in the real world. Aluminum and copper
are only ever lossless at superconductor temperatures.

You also stated that applying a time varying field
is an example of typical failures! No idea where that comes from.

Me either since I don't remember anything about "typical
failures". What I said is that the electrons excited by
HF+ RF energy move hardly at all. It is akin to tossing
a stone into a still pond - the water molecules (carriers)
move hardly at all except up and down.

Another brou har ensued with the implication was that
both the upward and downward travels of the applied current was on the
same skin deep surfaces! Very wierd.

Again consider tossing a stone into a still pond. When the
waves reach the shore, they are reflected thus forming
standing waves on the water. Again the water molecules
move primarily up and down, moving hardly at all in the
direction of propagation of the forward and reflected waves.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 16, 6:46*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Skin effect refers to current flow along the aluminum.

Actually, it is more complicated than that. Since
the current impulse travels at the speed of light,
the current impulse energy transfer necessarily involves
photons. Note there is no current impulse traveling at
the speed of light under steady-state DC conditions
which is the only kind of current being carried 100% by
electrons. Any current, e.g. RF current, traveling at
the speed of light, involves photons, even the DC impulse
current.

When you get to
the point when the impedance is zero it shows that all applied
current has been applied outside the aluminum which is now not
carrying ANY of the applied current. WOW!

It is true that one can set EZNEC to lossless conditions but
one cannot do that in the real world. Aluminum and copper
are only ever lossless at superconductor temperatures.


73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com
Let me make myself quite clear on this point before the thread closes.
My position is that a radiator must be 1WL to achieve equilibrium.
When considering a
1/2 wave vertical one can only make it a closed circuit of 1 WL is by
adding a ground plane
rather than assuming that we have conflicting charge directions on the
surface of the 1/2 WL.
We now review the circuit (tank circuit) that applies to radiation. We
now accept that particles do rest on diamagnetic surfaces per the
Gauss extension. In fact, this surface or sleeve of particles is so
tightly formed that it has the hoop stress of a arbitrary boundary
such that nothing is removed from the diamagnetic material itself. In
the case where a particle is driven away from this border its place is
immediately taken up by one of the billions of particles floating
around looking for a diamagnetic place to rest.
We can now see that current applied to a radiating element splits into
two paths in parallel
One leg is in the intervening space between the particles and the
diamagnetic material and the other leg IN the surface of the
diamagnetic material called skin effect.
A computer program only recognizes the diamagnetic element such that
it only points to the impedance presented by that separate current
track .
Thus with increase in radiation the impedance referred to by the
computer is SOLELY
of that presented by the diamagnetic material. Thus when the program
states zero impedance it is stating that no current is being applied
to the diamagnetic material
and where all current is routed to the arbitrary boundary consisting
of tightly bound particles.
The concept of extreme cooling for zero resistance is not required
when no current is applied! All the current is now being carried by
the arbitrary border where all forces can be accounted for since there
are no losses incurred! Of-course the program itself leaves the
operator to sort this out because it did not supply a complete circle
of energy flow by ignoring the current applied to the particle sleeve
or boundary, where the energy lost in the
programs element is not supplanted with the energy gain of the
arbitrary border! This suggests that somewhere in the program the
positive and the minus signs were accidently interchanged. If the
programmer had recognised the existance of the Gaussian border
he would have the provided the means of energy transfer to it and thus
fully abided with the concept of equilibrium.
Art