"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 22, 6:28 pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 6:51 am, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

* As I say, you should present your theory to sci.physics and
sci.physics.research if you have any interest in checking whether it is
correct, and not limit its exposure to this group. Do let us know when
you
have posted there.

No, that is not the choice I have made. I decided to merge a paper
aproach with that of a patent request . You have read one patent
request and you have to wait for the PTO to print out the concluding
application. I am sharing it with industry and not the boneheads
who bunch themselves into secret rooms away from those outside who
cannot possibly provide anything of interest. They have the common
interest that if it doesn't come from them..........!!!!!! Pretty much
the same as this group. We shall see
Art

* OK, at an appropriate juncture I'll invite some of them to come over and
take a look at what you write here (crossposting would probably be frowned
upon). It might be enlightening to receive the views of some physicists.

Chris

If you know of any I would welcome their views. There are many retired
educated people in this world today that turn to that which they had
an interest with when young. Now it is difficult to get up to speed in
different sciences because various journals get the rights of various
papers from Universities e.t.c which are then denied to libraries and
the public.
This is a resource the country should assist because its costs are low
and where all have
large experience obtained thru their working years. Imagine
professionals who when retired
have twenty or more years of experience be allowed to follow and
contribute in areas where an interest has laid dormant for so long.
Today's efforts are applied to computers where data comes out in
bundles which have to be sorted to determine if anything good is being
offered by using a mish mash of arithmetic formulae that are merged
with similar formulae from different functions. Sad, sad, sad.


* It's true that a lot of effort is put into the areas that yield the
greatest profit, and computing in one form or another does seem to have a
grip at the moment. However, it is enlightening to take a look from time to
time at news groups like the two I named to see the sorts of things they are
discussing, and the _unbounded_ nature of the universe (which is what I
wrote) is one of them. They too appear to have input from ex-professionals.

Have you ever tried to obtain access to a technical library in a university
or one of the engineering institutions? You might be surprised how easy or
inexpensive it turns out to be. As a member of the general public I have
access to the IET library in London to read as much as I wish, and to
photocopy.

Chris

On Sep 22, 5:30*pm, Registered User wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:24:17 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:

Well look at how salvage yards sort out metals into different
enclosures.
They apply a displacement current *to a conveyor where each piece of
metal is elevated with spin such that it lands in the appropriate
enclosure which is dependent on the resistivity of the metal elevated.

This isn't exactly how such systems work. Abstractly the system is a
metal detector and a sorting table hanging off a CAN. A controller at
the other end of the CAN 'reads' the discriminator and 'writes' to the
sorter. The writes open and close ejector nozzles. These are the magic
devices that cause the material to 'elevate with spin'.

This method of elevating scrap for recovery has been used for years
and it is the same action that is applied to particles for radiation.
Why would you need a citation for a practice that is well known and in
use?

Because you might be wishing your agenda into how you propose things
work. Who'da thunk that!

Interesting. Can you point to an article or something on the web that
describes what you
say. For myself I have only run into articles by special purpose
machine manufacturers
who deal with sorting machines for scrap yards which deals with many
materials including plastics , glass etc as well as different metallic
materials. This sorting aproach that you mention sounds rather
interesting if they are relying on magic or voodoo!

On Sep 22, 6:48*pm, Art Unwin wrote
after major clippage:
Today's efforts are applied to computers where data comes out in
bundles which have to be sorted to determine if anything good is being
offered by using a mish mash of arithmetic formulae that are merged
with similar formulae from different functions. *Sad, sad, sad.

However as far as NEC is concerned, your sad-sad-sadness applies only
to those (possibly even yourself) using computer software without
sufficient understanding of how it should be used, and applied.

Note that the U.S. FCC has endorsed the use of NEC in the licensing
process of many types of directional MW broadcast arrays -- given that
such NEC analysis was performed by someone with provable and
acceptable competence.

RF

On Sep 22, 6:58*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 6:28 pm, "christofire" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....
On Sep 22, 6:51 am, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

* As I say, you should present your theory to sci.physics and
sci.physics.research if you have any interest in checking whether it is
correct, and not limit its exposure to this group. Do let us know when
you
have posted there.

No, that is not the choice I have made. I decided to merge a paper
aproach with that of a patent request . You have read one patent
request and you have to wait for the PTO to print out the concluding
application. I am sharing it with industry and not the boneheads
who bunch themselves into secret rooms away from those outside who
cannot possibly provide anything of interest. They have the common
interest that if it doesn't come from them..........!!!!!! Pretty much
the same as this group. We shall see
Art

* OK, at an appropriate juncture I'll invite some of them to come over and
take a look at what you write here (crossposting would probably be frowned
upon). It might be enlightening to receive the views of some physicists..

Chris

If you know of any I would welcome their views. There are many retired
educated people in this world today that turn to that which they had
an interest with when young. Now it is difficult to get up to speed in
different sciences because various journals get the rights of various
papers from Universities e.t.c which are then denied to libraries and
the public.
This is a resource the country should assist because its costs are low
and where all have
large experience obtained thru their working years. Imagine
professionals who when retired
have twenty or more years of experience be allowed to follow and
contribute in areas where an interest has laid dormant for so long.
Today's efforts are applied to computers where data comes out in
bundles which have to be sorted to determine if anything good is being
offered by using a mish mash of arithmetic formulae that are merged
with similar formulae from different functions. *Sad, sad, sad.

* It's true that a lot of effort is put into the areas that yield the
greatest profit, and computing in one form or another does seem to have a
grip at the moment. *However, it is enlightening to take a look from time to
time at news groups like the two I named to see the sorts of things they are
discussing, and the _unbounded_ nature of the universe (which is what I
wrote) is one of them. *They too appear to have input from ex-professionals.

Have you ever tried to obtain access to a technical library in a university
or one of the engineering institutions? *You might be surprised how easy or
inexpensive it turns out to be. *As a member of the general public I have
access to the IET library in London to read as much as I wish, and to
photocopy.

Chris

Yes, some university libraries allow access to the public but not for
copies. These must
come from journals at quite high prices. Here you can be a member of a
professional society say IEEE but to get the journals of say antennas
and propagation then you must pay a couple of $100 to have access to
them. This is on top of the fees for the institution and the group
that you are personally a member of which also requires fees. But the
U.S. is not like being in London where you can take the tube to any
where such as the patent office library or visit the one on Birdcage
Walk ( Royal Institution of Mechanical Engineers in the old days)
I am not aware of this IET that you mentioned. Here in Illinois which
is the size of the UK plus has a population that London sees every
day of the week! One library I would like to get into is on
Whitechapel road in Stepney ( Queen Mary college) where extensive work
is done on antennas. Anyway what I do is to start right at the
beginning ie first principles
and with antennas stuck in a rut for so long it was a good one for me
as a retired person
to fiddle with as it was nice to talk to my buddies at BAC St Albans
and nearby towns when radio itself was a hobby for me but most have
now passed away. Now I have finished my personal antenna studies and I
will have to turn to the honey doos that have piled up over the last
few years even tho I have had a handy man come in regularly even so I
go thru periods where every thing that I own is broken and I must turn
away from my hobbies.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 21, 7:33 pm, "christofire" wrote:

snip crap
No it does not appear in Kraus book. He never followed Maxwells laws
with respect to equilibrium.
snip more crap

and he had a good reason not to... because its all made up by you art, and
its totally WRONG!

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave"
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

In the Gas Analogy the monopole antena is exactly like the Kundt's
tube.

Heaviside did the Hydraulic Analogy. All is exactly the same like in
the fluids mechanics.
Next the electrons were discovered. Automatically Heaviside is a
history and the Gas Analogy is in power.

But you, radio people, are very close to waves and should be easy for
you to work out the answer for the Question:
Which Analogy is right?

neither analogy is 'right'. they are useful in limited circumstances
to demonstrate some basic pressure wave physics to young students. but
neither one properly reproduces electromagnetic waves.

"electromagnetic waves" are paper waves. Radio waves are real waves. Now
we must not know what the waves are like. Now we should estabilish from
which part of the radiator radiate the radio waves.
Do you agree with Richard Harisson:
"At the open circuited ends of a resonant antenna there is almost double
the forward voltage but zero total current due to cancellation of the
dorward and reflected currents at the open circuit. At the open circuit
in the wire, all the energy in the wave is transferred to the electric
field."
S*


we know what they are like, you just have to understand the mathematics.

I understand. Without that it was be impossible to know that Maxwell
proposed the displacement current to save the incompressible electric
fluid. In Maxwell times AC current was known. To pass the incompressible
fluid through a capacitor the displacement current is necessary. I prefere
the compressible electrons. They compress in the plates and nothing flow
between them. The polarization is not the macro flow.

and yes, richard's statements are true, but a bit too restrictive, it
doesn't HAVE to be resonant. Voltage doubles and current=0 at the end of
any wire fed with a time varying current, it doesn't even have to be a
sine wave... note the effect of sending square waves from a time domain
reflectometer down an open circuited wire.

Yes. But antennas are in resonance.
S*

antennas don't have to be 'in resonance'.... a very short dipole radiates
almost as well as one 1/2 wavelength long... its all in the fields.

On Sep 22, 8:13*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 21, 7:33 pm, "christofire" wrote:

snip crapNo it does not appear in Kraus book. He never followed Maxwells laws
with respect to equilibrium.

snip more crap

and he had a good reason not to... because its all made up by you art, and
its totally WRONG!

So you are back David ! have you built that four poster antenna yet,
of steel I presume,
for the top band? Hopefully the system of yours is in a state of
equilibrium so you can tell us good things about it. Did you have to
make a ground plane system? They are not needed for a system in
equilibrium so you may have displaced a lot of moles from their
habitat for no good reason. 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. And that problem you had about the
legality of turning a static field into a dynamic field, have you made
any progress on that yet ( just pulling your tail)

Dave wrote:
Yes. But antennas are in resonance.
S*

antennas don't have to be 'in resonance'.... a very short dipole
radiates almost as well as one 1/2 wavelength long... its all in the
fields.

As I tried to make Art understand with respect to yagis, it's not
necessarily resonant (or even usually), it's matched. By the matching
network.

It was like releasing excess nitrogen containing waste into the wind,
like all things are with Art.

See wall, hit with head, repeat.

tom
K0TAR

Art Unwin wrote:
So you are back David ! have you built that four poster antenna yet,
of steel I presume,
for the top band? Hopefully the system of yours is in a state of
equilibrium so you can tell us good things about it. Did you have to
make a ground plane system? They are not needed for a system in
equilibrium

Wow! No ground system needed for top band. The AM broadcasters are
going to be all over this. Art, you are about to become very very rich.
This overturns every measurement ever made on AM broadcast antenna
arrays. You should be very proud that hundreds of engineers and their
measurements were wrong.

Again, congratulations.

tom
K0TAR

On Sep 22, 8:32*pm, tom wrote:
Dave wrote:
Yes. But antennas are in resonance.
S*

antennas don't have to be 'in resonance'.... a very short dipole
radiates almost as well as one 1/2 wavelength long... its all in the
fields.

As I tried to make Art understand with respect to yagis, it's not
necessarily resonant (or even usually), it's matched. *By the matching
network.

It was like releasing excess nitrogen containing waste into the wind,
like all things are with Art.

See wall, hit with head, repeat.

tom
K0TAR

And you think I didn't know that like it was a personal secret of
yours?
I don't even remember discussing yagis with you. I moved away from
those years ago when I was building antennas with 80 foot booms and a
dozen or more elements all made of fishing poles with aluminum foil
surfaces. Now I am interested in antennas the size that Chip works
with but not with the same aproach. In fact I am committed to having
antennas made that are small enough for those with small gardens to
use, where how much money or land that you have allow you to run over
others is not a measure of ones skills. As for you you just sit on the
side lines with nothing to offer but insults since you appear to live
alone berift of friends. Try smiling instead of just growling and get
a life.