On Nov 15, 2:03*pm, Dave wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:41*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Nov 15, 12:45*pm, Dave wrote:

On Nov 15, 4:50*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Nov 15, 6:27*am, Dave wrote:

On Nov 15, 3:10*am, JIMMIE wrote:

On Nov 14, 9:12*pm, "christofire" wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message

...
On Nov 11, 3:12 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

It is better to ask for forgiveness than requesting permission-

http://unwinantennas.com/appearstobegone. That is a good
start *:-)

* No, it's back!

Chris

Its true the sun runs on coal, English coal no doubt of the finest
grade.

Jimmie

that is either poorly written satire, or a result of todays education
system... either way its 99.9% wrong... he did get the first 5 words
correct, and that English was not Einsteins native language. *His
citing of Gauss's law in one of the patent claims is rather unique, as
is the inclusion of the weak force in the other... obviously a result
of too many google snippets and not enough in depth study.

This is only true if one demands total adherence to the teachings of
the books.
Many are just theories that have been expanded upon *via the use of
constants to account for the unknown and often most collapse over time
due to misinterpretation by humans.
In the case of making the static situation into a dynamic system the
mathematics are the duplication of Maxwell's laws for radiation. This
is why the use of full wave radiators satisfy equilibrium laws such
that 100% efficiencies are obtained that satisfy the teachings of
other sciences that particles and not waves are the carriers of
radiation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

i don't demand adherence to the books, but since the books i learned
from haven't been proven false in the last 30 years i am inclined to
keep believing them. *particles or waves depend on your preference,
however when computing from currents in conductors it is easiest to
use waves, when working at higher energies and when studying electron
or nuclear interactions it is often easier to use particles. *i don't
see how using full waves helps since 1/2 wave antennas are self
resonant, and there is no equilibrium in radiating systems... maybe if
you consider perfectly conducting and lossless closed systems like
waveguides or coax stubs, but once you add a radiating element energy
must flow out of the system so there can't be equilibrium.

1/2 waves are not resonant at a constant and repeatable length. The
existance of particles has been proven in other sciences. It is just
in Classical physics where the presence of particle has not been
proved which leaves those that are stubborn to take the approach that
waves can change into particles and vica versa. As for equilibrium,
according to Hawkings it only in existence just PRIOR to the loss of
equilibrium seen as the BIG BANG. It has been billions of years since
that happened such that all surfaces on Earth that are diamagnetic are
covered by particles at rest.( Without assimilation to other mass)
* With this condition in existence particles come to a screeching halt
at the magnetic field generated in arbitrary form around the earth
where added extra particles that arrive combine linearly into magnetic
lines. If a particle is accelerated outside our boundary a particle
can enter the equivalent pseudo *Faraday shield via the length of
opening between the magnetic lines that allows entrance of a particle
in equilibrium. It is the attraction of such particles between the
Earth's surface and its magnetic field that creates the weather where
updrafts lifts moisture which is diamagnetic upon which the particles
reside until an imbalance occurs with change in temperature such that
particles have nowhere to go except back to Earth when the outer
magnetic field rises to saturation. Remember, the term "waves" is an
adjective whereas a "particle" is a noun and thus has substance or
contains matter. Thus it is ridiculous with respect to physics where
one disappline explains *the particle as the carrier of communication
is countered by those who "know" where that the only explanation that
can be provided for the disparity is that they are both one and the
same vis interchangability!
such as particles- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

waves are nouns in my books. and a 1/2 wave dipole is perfectly
repeatable when i measure it. *maybe you need a new library, or a new
bar, i want some of whatever you are drinking.

No, that is a cop out! A half wave length is ever changing. Because
you cannot measure the differences in the lengths does not mean that
you have consistency. You are confusing
infinity with absolute which one tends to regard as the same, to
justify the use of a mathematical step by mathematicians which defies
the position of equilibrium.
The same goes for a yagi where every element re radiates such there is
never enough elements to account for total radiation in beam form.