from http://unwinantennas.com/:

"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

Does the author not understand the difference between fusion and
combustion? Why would anyone pay attention to such an ignoramus when
he writes about antenna theory?

On Nov 11, 10:41*am, Bill wrote:
fromhttp://unwinantennas.com/:

"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

Does the author not understand the difference between fusion and
combustion? Why would anyone pay attention to such an ignoramus when
he writes about antenna theory?

By all means re write it according to your own teachings. I paid for
the option of what I wrote and I assume you can do the same.
Maybe your efforts will be printed in many books as a cannon, tho
critiscism alone rarely is !

On Nov 11, 5:50*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 11, 10:41*am, Bill wrote:

fromhttp://unwinantennas.com/:

"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

Does the author not understand the difference between fusion and
combustion? Why would anyone pay attention to such an ignoramus when
he writes about antenna theory?

By all means re write it according to your own teachings

It is too hopeless to be rewritten.

I paid for the option of what I wrote and I assume you can do the same.

You should have paid for an editor. I would not pay to display myself
as a great ass on the internet.

Maybe your efforts will be printed in many books as a
cannon, tho critiscism alone rarely is !

You are illiterate AND ignorant. Can't you even use a dictionary?

On Nov 11, 1:12*pm, Bill wrote:
On Nov 11, 5:50*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Nov 11, 10:41*am, Bill wrote:

fromhttp://unwinantennas.com/:

"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

Does the author not understand the difference between fusion and
combustion? Why would anyone pay attention to such an ignoramus when
he writes about antenna theory?

By all means re write it according to your own teachings

It is too hopeless to be rewritten.

I paid for the option of what I wrote and I assume you can do the same.

You should have paid for an editor. I would not pay to display myself
as a great ass on the internet.

Maybe your efforts will be printed in many books as a

* cannon, tho critiscism alone rarely is !

You are illiterate AND ignorant. Can't you even use a dictionary?

It is better to ask for forgiveness than requesting permission

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



It is better to ask for forgiveness than requesting permission-


http://unwinantennas.com/ appears to be gone. That is a good
start :-)

"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/ appears to be gone. That is a good
start :-)


* No, it's back!

Chris

On Nov 11, 10:41 am, Bill wrote:
fromhttp://unwinantennas.com/:

"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

Does the author not understand the difference between fusion and
combustion? Why would anyone pay attention to such an ignoramus when
he writes about antenna theory?

Andy comments;

It looks like satire to me. I got a chuckle out of it.... But you
can
verify this by going to the sun and lchecking it out for yourself....
It'll be OK
if you go at night when it's a lot cooler.

Andy W4OAH

Andy comments;

* It looks like satire to me. *I got a chuckle out of it.... *But you
can
verify this by going to the sun and lchecking it out for yourself....
It'll be OK
if you go at night when it's a lot cooler.

* * * * * * * * * * * * Andy *W4OAH

Seriously, you can see great pictures of the solar surface with
DX ToolBox:

http://www.blackcatsystems.com/software/dxtoolbox.html

On Nov 12, 7:59*am, AndyS wrote:
On Nov 11, 10:41 am, Bill wrote:

fromhttp://unwinantennas.com/:

"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

Does the author not understand the difference between fusion and
combustion? Why would anyone pay attention to such an ignoramus when
he writes about antenna theory?

Andy comments;

* It looks like satire to me. *I got a chuckle out of it.... *
* * * * * * * * * * * * Andy *W4OAH

Who was being satirized? Newton, Einstein?

On Nov 11, 10:41*am, Bill wrote:
fromhttp://unwinantennas.com/:

"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

Does the author not understand the difference between fusion and
combustion? Why would anyone pay attention to such an ignoramus when
he writes about antenna theory?

The term "soot" defines the presence of particles that still contain
energy when dispelled from a chemical exchange process. In the case of
escape from the Sun's internal processes it must be recognized that
ejected particles still contain energy in nuclear form as well as
vector forces applied by the boundary equilibrium breaking form of a
leverage action.
The mechanics of what happens within the Sun's boundary is not as
important as the recognition of the equilibrium breaking vectors when
reviewing what I see as the initial carrier of radiation in the form
of an "accelerated charge". True, my spelling is not in accordance
with the rules of the english language but languages used other than
english
cannot be automatically dismissed as drivel unless correctly
translated as such.