Standing waves
 

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:26:09 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:


Thank you for confirming the use of eddy currents in the elevation and
projection of scrap materials.
My post states (not confirms) that eddy currents can be used but they
don't work in the manner you suggested. The eddy currents are not
solely responsible for the "elevation and projection" and there is no
"elevate with spin" either. There is certainly no confirmation that
the process is "dependent on the resistivity of the metal elevated" as
you suggest.

My understanding is that the special
purpose machinery industry has now advanced to the ability of sorting
plastic and the like.
Your understanding based upon what? Had you done a modicum of research
you would have a definitive answer about the mechanisms used in
sorting plastics and other non-metallic materials.

A little research beyond glossy brochures filled with marketing-speak
can go a long way in aiding your understanding. You might use a search
engine to locate manufacturers of sorting systems and query the
manufactures for technical details on how their various systems
operate. Your idle speculation based upon incomplete information
serves no purpose.
http://tinyurl.com/clxl9t

Standing waves
 

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:45:39 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I joined the UCSC "Friends of the Library" association in order to
obtain an account. *$35 to $60/year. *

That was about 3 years ago. The price these daze is $75.
http://library.ucsc.edu/giving/friends/friends-of-the-library-membership-benefits
Some other changes. See corrections below.

Now that is interesting!
Visitors can only get on line if the University have them on their
list as being invited
Time period 45 days. I understand that you can't get copies because of
copywrite laws and oversite by the societies so I assume they get
freebees.

Chicago public library seems to have some IEEE Transactions:
http://www.chipublib.org/search/results/?searchType=keyword&terms=IEEE&x=0&y=0
but not Ants and Props. Typing "antenna" into the search box offers
117 books on the subject. That should keep you busy for a while.

There is some pressure on lab schools to place results on the web
since it is public money. The Governor signed a bill a little while
ago on transparency as to where the money goes
But then nobody actually follow all the laws in Chicago and down
state.

There's nothing that prevents you from joining the UCSC or other
university library and ignoring your local problems.

http://giving.ucsc.edu/giving_detail.php?web_id=631

Sigh. The link to joining the Friends of the Library seems to be
broken.

However, there's a catch.
Most of the online IEEE AP-S Transactions are about a year or more
behind. *The various libraries seem to prefer annual subscriptions,
which means most recent issues are often unavailable. *If that
happens, I either pay the price of the download (only if desperate),
or borrow an issue from a friend with a subscription.

Things have changed in the last few years. UCSC now contracts
directly with the IEEE for their online IEEE Transactions. No more
missing recent issues. However, I can't determine if Ants and Props
are available or even if the UCSC Friends of the Library are still
active. I'll inquire shortly as this is much cheaper than joining the
IEEE.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Standing waves
 

On Sep 23, 3:06*pm, Registered User wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:26:09 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:

Thank you for confirming the use of eddy currents in the elevation and
projection of scrap materials.

My post states (not confirms) that eddy currents can be used but they
don't work in the manner you suggested. The eddy currents are not
solely responsible for the "elevation and projection" and there is no
"elevate with spin" either. There is certainly no confirmation that
the process is "dependent on the resistivity of the metal elevated" as
you suggest.

My understanding is that the special
purpose machinery industry has now advanced to the ability of sorting
plastic and the like.

Your understanding based upon what? Had you done a modicum of research
you would have a definitive answer about the mechanisms used in
sorting plastics and other non-metallic materials.

A little research beyond glossy brochures filled with marketing-speak
can go a long way in aiding your understanding. You might use a search
engine to locate manufacturers of sorting systems and query the
manufactures for technical details on how their various systems
operate. Your idle speculation based upon incomplete information
serves no purpose.http://tinyurl.com/clxl9t

Fine.
Your correct and I am wrong.That should make you feel good
It matters little to me that my thoughts are different than yours so
that is the end of it.
Have a happy day

Standing waves
 

Richard Fry wrote:

No matter how short a dipole antenna is in wavelengths, current is
always zero at the ends of each arm of that dipole.

The current distribution on a thin, wire dipole takes the form of a
sine wave. If the antenna is short, as in this case, then the only
part of the sine that can exist is nearly linear. Hence the
~triangular shape for the total current on the dipole.

Confirm this for yourself using Figure 2-2(b) on page 2-4 of the
following link.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xTS... tenna&f=false

RF

You can also do it in a few seconds using the free EZNEC demo program.
Open the Dipole1.ez example and the View Antenna display. Click the
Currents (or FF Plot) button and see the current distribution in the
View Antenna display. Then change the frequency to 3 MHz to make the
dipole 0.05 wavelength long and click Currents or FF Plot again and see
the altered current distribution. You can see the shape better by using
the Current zoom control at the left of the View Antenna display.

As an additional educational exercise, compare the gains and patterns of
the lossless 0.5 and 0.05 wavelength antennas.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Standing waves
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
So you are back David ! have you built that four poster antenna yet,
of steel I presume, for the top band?

only 2 elements for top band, 4 for 80m out of rohn tower, and 4 for 40m out
of steel pipe towers... and they all work great without any magical
levitating diamagnetic solar neutrinos!

Haven't heard you mention anymore about
that book you were writing on antennas. I assume you do not have a
chapter about equilibrium as yet.

i never said i was writing a book on antennas. it has some antennas in it,
but its not about antennas.

Standing waves
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

I have onmy shelf the Fluid dynamics by Dr Ludwig Prandtl. Prandtl is a
big name.
S*
maybe in fluid dynamics, but not in electromagnetics.

Standing waves
 

On Sep 17, 11:59*pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
*"K7ITM" ...
....
reasonably simple terms. *One of the best I know is Joseph Boyer's
pair of articles from May and June, I think it was, 1978 "Ham Radio"
magazine: *"The Antenna-Transmission Line Analog." *It's a non-
mathematical work; it will leave you with answers with not a lot to
back them up, but they do match what we observe, as far as I
understand it. *I have these as a PDF, along with a fairly important
section from a book referenced by the articles.

You send me to library. ...

No, actually I told you that I have the article plus one of the
important references as a PDF [file]. It's certainly not worth my
effort or the net bandwidth for me to try to repeat what that article
has already done a good job with. Also, I gather from some of the
postings in this thread that you're more interested in arguing and
being negative than in reading such an article.

Cheers,
Tom

Standing waves
 

On Sep 23, 1:12*pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
The simplest dipole is a transmissing line (the two wires).

Not so.

A transmission line with balanced currents is not a dipole, and does
not / cannot produce the radiated fields of a dipole.

Kindly confirm such by your study and accurate comprehension of
engineering texts on this subject.

RF

Standing waves
 

On Sep 23, 1:00*pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Now you have my description. Which one do you prefer?

The one that can be proven by scientific principles, and shown by
practical performance.

RF

Standing waves
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:16:49 -0500, tom wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
tom wrote:
Note that none of these are particularly close to resonance at the
design frequency.
Yagis do have a resonant frequency but that frequency
is not at the design frequency. At the resonant frequency,
the forward gain and F/B ratio are not optimum. At the
optimum forward gain frequency and/or F/B ratio frequency,
the Yagi, sans matching network, is not resonant.

That's about as useful as saying you do not obtain the maximum miles
per gallon in your car when the ashtray is half full or when the
carpets are at their optimal brushed out nap.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Nice attribution to me Richard, but Cecil wrote it.

And it makes a lot more sense than your statement, although he could
have worded it better.

tom
K0TAR

Standing waves
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 23, 3:06 pm, Registered User wrote:
snip
operate. Your idle speculation based upon incomplete information
serves no purpose.http://tinyurl.com/clxl9t

Fine.
Your correct and I am wrong.That should make you feel good
It matters little to me that my thoughts are different than yours so
that is the end of it.
Have a happy day

RU 1
Art minus several thousand

Apologies to Douglas Adams for the minor ripoff.

tom
K0TAR

Standing waves
 

Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:12 pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
The simplest dipole is a transmissing line (the two wires).

Not so.
A transmission line with balanced currents is not a dipole, and does
not / cannot produce the radiated fields of a dipole.

Yes, no matter what the conditions on an ideal transmission
line, the two currents are equal in magnitude and opposite
phase. Therefore, zero radiation from an ideal transmission
line.

At the ends of a 1/2WL dipole, the forward current and
reflected currents are equal in amplitude and opposite
phase. Therefore, destructive interference with no
radiation.

At the center of a 1/2WL dipole, the forward current
and reflected current are in phase and interfere
constructively. Therefore, RADIATION!
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing waves
 

tom wrote:
And it makes a lot more sense than your statement, although he could
have worded it better.

Sorry, sometimes I write in Texan rather than English.:-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing waves
 

On Sep 23, 7:09*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
At the ends of a 1/2WL dipole, the forward current and
reflected currents are equal in amplitude and opposite
phase. Therefore, destructive interference with no
radiation.

At the center of a 1/2WL dipole, the forward current
and reflected current are in phase and interfere
constructively. Therefore, RADIATION!

Just to note that far-field radiation is produced, to some extent,
from all distances between the two ends of a 1/2WL linear dipole and
its feedpoint terminals.

RF

Standing waves
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
tom wrote:
And it makes a lot more sense than your statement, although he could
have worded it better.

Sorry, sometimes I write in Texan rather than English.:-)

Apology accepted. And I know you can't help it. ;)

Standing waves
 

Richard Fry wrote:
Just to note that far-field radiation is produced, to some extent,
from all distances between the two ends of a 1/2WL linear dipole and
its feedpoint terminals.

Yes, if I am not mistaken, MOM assumes that the radiation
from each segment is proportional to the net current in
the segment. The maximum radiation comes from the segment
in which the forward and reflected currents are in phase.
The minimum radiation comes from the segment in which the
forward and reflected currents are out of phase.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing waves
 

tom wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Sorry, sometimes I write in Texan rather than English.:-)

Apology accepted. And I know you can't help it. ;)

Yep, Ah rekon Ah'm gonna amble over yonder directly.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing waves
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
tom wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Sorry, sometimes I write in Texan rather than English.:-)

Apology accepted. And I know you can't help it. ;)

Yep, Ah rekon Ah'm gonna amble over yonder directly.

Oh you silly Texans.

Standing waves
 

On Sep 23, 5:46*am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

Physics of radiation is unknown.

Perhaps to you at this point, but not to many others who read the
posts here and elsewhere.

RF

Standing waves
 

Szczepan Białek wrote:

Physics of radiation is unknown. Antennas are the nice apparatus to analyse
it.

The physics has been known for a very long time now.

You are a babbling idiot.

For me the magnetic field is the illusion.

Any semblance to reality of your "thinking" is an illusion.

snip

My description is shorter:
The supply unit sends the voltage pulses (in opposite phase) in the
transmissing line. If such pulses collide the voltage is doubled and the
strong radiation take place. In straight radiator the forward pulse collides
with the reflected. In folded dipoles with that from the other wire.
S*

Yet more babbling nonsense of an idiot kook.

Did you tire of being constantly spanked for being a babbling kook in
sci.physics and decide maybe your chances of being accepted are better
in an amateur group?

Guess what, a lot of amateurs are engineers and actually understand the
theory.

Hell, even those that are not engineers obviously understand it a hell of
a lot better than you do.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Standing waves
 

U¿ytkownik "Dave" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

I have onmy shelf the Fluid dynamics by Dr Ludwig Prandtl. Prandtl is a
big name.
S*
maybe in fluid dynamics, but not in electromagnetics.

In each textbook on electromagnetics is wrote that the math is the same like
in fluid dynamics and in each textbook on fluid mechanism is wrote that the
math is the same as in electromagnetism. The same teache teach them. Do not
you know that?
Even famous Pointing vector was born in fluids by Umov.
S*

Standing waves
 

"K7ITM" wrote
...
On Sep 17, 11:59 pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
"K7ITM"
...
....
reasonably simple terms. One of the best I know is Joseph Boyer's
pair of articles from May and June, I think it was, 1978 "Ham Radio"
magazine: "The Antenna-Transmission Line Analog." It's a non-
mathematical work; it will leave you with answers with not a lot to
back them up, but they do match what we observe, as far as I
understand it. I have these as a PDF, along with a fairly important
section from a book referenced by the articles.

You send me to library. ...

No, actually I told you that I have the article plus one of the
important references as a PDF [file]. It's certainly not worth my
effort or the net bandwidth for me to try to repeat what that article
has already done a good job with. Also, I gather from some of the
postings in this thread that you're more interested in arguing and
being negative than in reading such an article.

I have used "library" many times in my posts in meaning "read something". I
am here to collect the arguments that EM is useless. So I am interested only
in troubles in explanation of antennas behaviour. You should agree that now
we should analize the behaviour of electrons in antennas. The first antenna
(Hertz experiment) was made before discovery of electrons. But electronic
oscillators use electrons which travel in vacuume . They have the charge and
the mass. In antennas are the same.
S*

Standing waves
 

On Sep 24, 2:35*am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

I am here to collect the arguments that EM is useless. So I am interested
only in troubles in explanation of antennas behaviour.

Suggest that you gather, study and accurately evaluate all such
relevant information before you decide whether or not "EM is useless."

RF

Standing waves
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Even famous Pointing vector was born in fluids by Umov.

It's "Poynting" vector, named after John Henry Poynting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing waves
 

Szczepan Białek wrote:

I am here to collect the arguments that EM is useless. So I am interested only
in troubles in explanation of antennas behaviour.

Any "troubles in explanation of antennas behaviour" are due to lack of
education.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Standing waves
 

"Richard Fry" wrote

On Sep 24, 2:35 am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

I am here to collect the arguments that EM is useless. So I am interested
only in troubles in explanation of antennas behaviour.

Suggest that you gather, study and accurately evaluate all such
relevant information before you decide whether or not "EM is useless."

Maxwell was the genius Such are almost always right. He assumed that
electricity is the incompressible massless fluid. But up to now nobody has
isolated the pure electricity. We use only the charged bodies. The electrons
are also like charged bodies. They have mass. EM was made for space. We here
analyse the electrons in the conductors. If electrons are not a pure
electricity when the EM is useless for conductors. Maxwell wrote the
"Treatise on electricity and magnetism" not "Electrodynamics of charged
bodies".
It seems that EM is useless for antennas. I do not know what is in space.
May be that there EM is usefull.
How do you see it?
S*

Standing waves
 

Szczepan Białek wrote:

Maxwell was the genius Such are almost always right. He assumed that
electricity is the incompressible massless fluid. But up to now nobody has
isolated the pure electricity. We use only the charged bodies. The electrons
are also like charged bodies. They have mass. EM was made for space. We here
analyse the electrons in the conductors. If electrons are not a pure
electricity when the EM is useless for conductors. Maxwell wrote the
"Treatise on electricity and magnetism" not "Electrodynamics of charged
bodies".
It seems that EM is useless for antennas. I do not know what is in space.
May be that there EM is usefull.
How do you see it?
S*

That everything you post is childish gibberish.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Standing waves
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Even famous Pointing vector was born in fluids by Umov.

It's "Poynting" vector, named after John Henry Poynting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector
"The Umov-Poynting vector[6] discovered by Nikolay Umov in 1874 describes
energy flux in liquid and elastic media in a completely generalized view."

Poynting "discovered" it in 1884.
"He was the developer and eponym of the Poynting vector, which describes the
direction and magnitude of electromagnetic energy flow and is used in the
Poynting theorem, a statement about energy conservation for electric and
magnetic fields. This work was first published in 1884. "

The same is with Maxwell math. Helmholtz wrote such for his whirls.
Many people are thinking in the same time about the same think.
I am not alone in the "Acoustic analogy".
S*

Standing waves
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
It seems that EM is useless for antennas. I do not know what is in
space. May be that there EM is usefull.

EM (photonic) waves travel at the speed of light in the medium.
EM (photonic) waves do not travel inside conductors. EM (photonic)
waves travel in space near to the surface of a conductor. For an
HF wire antenna, the photonic waves travel in the space surrounding
the wire and some is radiated. For a wire transmission line, the
fields of the photonic waves tend to cancel and not much is radiated.
For a wave guide, the photonic waves travel in the space on the
inside of the wave guide and very little energy escapes the conductive
sides of the wave guide.

The purpose of using a conductor with free electrons is that the
free electrons are capable of emitting EM waves in the form of
photons.

1. Without the photons, there would be no radiation.

2. Without the free electrons, there would be no photons.

3. Without the metal conductor, there would be no free electrons.

It is a very simple cause and effect chain from the aluminum or
copper antenna to the release of photons as radiation. I think
my 12 year old grandson could understand the principles involved.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing waves
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Even famous Pointing vector was born in fluids by Umov.

It's "Poynting" vector, named after John Henry Poynting.

Poynting "discovered" it in 1884.

You completely missed the "Poynt". See above. :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing waves
 

On Sep 24, 12:27Â*pm, Szczepan BiaÅ‚ek wrote:
"Cecil Moore" ... Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Even famous Pointing vector was born in fluids by Umov.

It's "Poynting" vector, named after John Henry Poynting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector

"The Umov-Poynting vector[6] discovered by Nikolay Umov in 1874 describes
energy flux in liquid and elastic media in a completely generalized view."

Poynting "discovered" it in 1884.
"He was the developer and eponym of the Poynting vector, which describes the
direction and magnitude of electromagnetic energy flow and is used in the
Poynting theorem, a statement about energy conservation for electric and
magnetic fields. This work was first published in 1884. "

The same is with Maxwell math. Helmholtz wrote such for his whirls.
Many people are thinking in the same time about the same think.
I am not alone in the "Acoustic analogy".
S*
You are correct in your analysis on transmission lines and radiation
and also with your linkage to other sciences such as water flow,
lamina make up.
Einstein made the connection to the standard model and it's four
forces. These are in constant use in our Universe so yes the
mathematics are intertwined. But there are many things we do not
understand about electricity and magnetics such as the fields that are
generated consist of.......what? Mass, elastic energy e.t.c?
So at this point it would be futile to rid yourself of EM as you would
also be ridding yourself
of 1/4 of the Standard model which has not entered the Universe as a
garbage thing.
To join the mathematics as applied by the Standard model to sciences
of the Universe is very idealistic but doable. But at the same time
mathematics has lead us to this present stage with respect to
radiation where with all the tools that scientists have now have not
been able to close gaps in radiation as we know it to this day. Look
at radiation and try to connect it to light and heat emmisions. The
last two science see them as rays, For
radiation ala antennas it is seen as waves, magnetic waves when we
know that intersections of such create distortions, deflections and
even cancellation. So why not begin with one of these problems from
first principles to find a single opening of contention to build a new
theory upon. The odds are that the required evidence is already out
there
where it is constituted on both mathematics and observation thru the
ages rather than something that popped out of a computer where you
have to do all the observations from scratch as to where this new
formula fits in. Since you are looking at acoustics why not start with
PV=WRT
which actually consists of forces stated in the standard model and
thus force
constituents of all the sciences, a treasure chest of guide lines and
information. You are searching for the new where all on this group
resist change from the old. Your treasure chest does not lie here only
minefieldsand decaying sign posts.
Regards

Standing waves
 

On Sep 24, 3:21Â*pm, Art Unwin wrote
to confirm the posts of Szczepan Białek (a.k.a."S*" ):

You are correct in your analysis on transmission lines and radiation...

That may be your opinion, Art.

S* may find it supportive.

But if you hope that anyone else will accept your opinion, you will
need to provide the literal proof of such using the known, and proven
principles of physics.

RF

Standing waves
 

"Art Unwin" wrote
...
On Sep 24, 12:27 pm, Szczepan Białek wrote:
"Cecil Moore"
... Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Even famous Pointing vector was born in fluids by Umov.

It's "Poynting" vector, named after John Henry Poynting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector

"The Umov-Poynting vector[6] discovered by Nikolay Umov in 1874 describes
energy flux in liquid and elastic media in a completely generalized view."

Poynting "discovered" it in 1884.
"He was the developer and eponym of the Poynting vector, which describes
the
direction and magnitude of electromagnetic energy flow and is used in the
Poynting theorem, a statement about energy conservation for electric and
magnetic fields. This work was first published in 1884. "

The same is with Maxwell math. Helmholtz wrote such for his whirls.
Many people are thinking in the same time about the same think.
I am not alone in the "Acoustic analogy".
S*
You are correct in your analysis on transmission lines and radiation
and also with your linkage to other sciences such as water flow,
lamina make up.
Einstein made the connection to the standard model and it's four
forces. These are in constant use in our Universe so yes the
mathematics are intertwined. But there are many things we do not
understand about electricity and magnetics such as the fields that are
generated consist of.......what? Mass, elastic energy e.t.c?
So at this point it would be futile to rid yourself of EM as you would
also be ridding yourself
of 1/4 of the Standard model which has not entered the Universe as a
garbage thing.
To join the mathematics as applied by the Standard model to sciences
of the Universe is very idealistic but doable. But at the same time
mathematics has lead us to this present stage with respect to
radiation where with all the tools that scientists have now have not
been able to close gaps in radiation as we know it to this day. Look
at radiation and try to connect it to light and heat emmisions. The
last two science see them as rays, For
radiation ala antennas it is seen as waves, magnetic waves when we
know that intersections of such create distortions, deflections and
even cancellation. So why not begin with one of these problems from
first principles to find a single opening of contention to build a new
theory upon. The odds are that the required evidence is already out
there
where it is constituted on both mathematics and observation thru the
ages rather than something that popped out of a computer where you
have to do all the observations from scratch as to where this new
formula fits in. Since you are looking at acoustics why not start with
PV=WRT
which actually consists of forces stated in the standard model and
thus force
constituents of all the sciences, a treasure chest of guide lines and
information. You are searching for the new where all on this group
resist change from the old.

They are the practicians. They know the evidences. Only teachers "resist
change from the old."
I know evidences about the Gas analogy from the pneumonic control systems
and many others branches.
Now I am collecting the evidences from the radio waves people that the
voltage radiate not current. I pick-up a lot.

Your treasure chest does not lie here only
minefieldsand decaying sign posts.

Regards
S*

Standing waves
 

With the Art and Szczepan show appearing with such humor on an
every-day basis, I no longer turn on the TV to watch Comedy Central.

Walt, W2DU

Standing waves
 

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:15:50 -0400, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

With the Art and Szczepan show appearing with such humor on an
every-day basis, I no longer turn on the TV to watch Comedy Central.

Walt, W2DU

Hi Walt,

They almost re-create the "Who's on First?" skit except neither wants
to be the straight man.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing waves
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:48:43 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote with abysmal quoting:
It will not be easy to work out here all details.
S*
Regards
Art
You guys need to get a room.
I think that might already be the case.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Mike I am certainly not wired the same as Clark as I'm married and
have great grand children. It maybe normal for him to go into a room
with a man but why would he paint such a picture of "S" to infer that
he is as sick as him? I like women like any other real man
and certainly do not condone the practices that Clark and possibly you
would aproove of with respect to males or airport bathroom manners

Oh dear, Art. That particular little jibe is used to rib folks who agree
with each other these days, and has gone way past the idea of anyone
suggesting that someone else is gay.

I was myself making a very loose reference that in some cases on the
internet, two different people might actually be occupying the same room
in exactly the same place because sometimes two different personalities
might actually be the same person.

I have no reason to suspect that you are either of these things.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Standing waves
 

On Sep 26, 7:23*pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:48:43 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote with abysmal quoting:
It will not be easy to work out here all details.
S*
Regards
Art
You guys need to get a room.
I think that might already be the case.

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -

Mike I am certainly not wired the same as Clark as I'm married and
have great grand children. It maybe normal for him to go into a room
with a man but why would he paint such a picture of "S" to infer that
he is as sick as him? I like women like any other real man
and certainly do not condone the practices that Clark and possibly you
would aproove of with respect to males or airport bathroom manners

Oh dear, Art. That particular little jibe is used to rib folks who agree
with each other these days, and has gone way past the idea of anyone
suggesting that someone else is gay.

I was myself making a very loose reference that in some cases on the
internet, two different people might actually be occupying the same room
in exactly the same place because sometimes two different personalities
might actually be the same person.

I have no reason to suspect that you are either of these things.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

I do not agree or disagree with "S". I just don't like it when people
gang up on a person while being shielded behind a keyboard. There is
absolutely no need for insults from those
who apparently know less but merges with a mob attack for personal
security but with the intent to hurt and harm.

Standing waves
 

Art Unwin wrote:

I do not agree or disagree with "S". I just don't like it when people
gang up on a person while being shielded behind a keyboard. There is
absolutely no need for insults from those
who apparently know less but merges with a mob attack for personal
security but with the intent to hurt and harm.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Art Unwin wrote:

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.

tom
K0TAR

Standing waves
 

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:23:48 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Oh dear, Art. That particular little jibe is used to rib folks who agree
with each other these days

What a tempest in a teaspoon.

At the risk of Art summoning up another mouthful of saliva to cast
upon anything British, a quote from P.G. Wodehouse comes to mind:
"He was either a man of about 150
who was rather young for his years or
a man of about 110
who had been aged by trouble."

Pushing that saliviathan risk to the edge with Oscar Wilde:
"My dear Algy, you talk exactly as if you were a dentist.
It is very vulgar to talk like a dentist when one isn't a dentist.
It produces a false impression..."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC