| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 9, 1:38*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 9, 11:27*am, Dave wrote: On Jan 9, 4:19*pm, Art Unwin wrote: snip handwaving when you supply equations that predict something DIFFERENT than Maxwell please let me know, otherwise i need no snake oil. O.K look at things another way where the given theory interlocks with even more branches of accepted science. When you apply Maxwells equations to an array it can only supply radiation from forces that are supplied. If all is not supplied ie the array is not in equilibrium then it accounts for only what is applicable. A yagi is not in equilibrium so Maxwell can only supply radiation evident by other laws or another arrangement that the programmer has provided, which will be in the order of something less than 100% If the result is 100% accountability translated into 100% efficiency then the array provided conformed to a Maxwell arrangement in equilibrium OR the programmer provided methods for the program to reorganised the array to conform with Maxwells equations which requires equilibrium. Thus Maxwell declares the difference between equilibrium and non equilibrium. The final test in terms of physics and astromoney and the laws of Newton is that the vectors of radiation must be equal to opposing vectors such that equilibrium is retained. Maxwell does this by supplying two vectors for radiation which is balanced by gravity and the rotation of the Earth which are accepted external influencies with reference to the Solar system. These same two vectors are reflected thru a series of interchanges per Newtons law where it inevitably it finishes up with the big bang where equilibrium is broken by the introduction of the same two vectors, one straight and one with spin content which is axial or otherwise ala, helical in content. It is the same two vectors which all the Universe is compared to as a datum level that portrays the difference between equilibrium and the breakage of equilibrium. This can be stated because without breakage or change from equilibrium movement cannot occur and the solar *system cannot exist. This was visualised by Einstein with out the success of deducing the initial vectors such that he turned to the science of Relativity in the hope they would then be exposed before he went to his death. Regards Art Another aproach to radiation Using a common dipole we have two variables,length and cross sectional area. Mathematically we can reduce length to a minimum thickness where by the crosd sectional area must increase a given amount to retain equilibrium. This clearly shows that the provider or receiver of communication can be in the form of a flat plate conductor or same that is perforated. Remember that at no time have I invoked Gausss field when made dynamic which both you and I agree to and others do not. Which forces interlocking of physics proof from other accepted physical facts. proof of interlocking as I have supplied. Art |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 9, 7:38*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
more handwaving snipped sorry art, no snappy comebacks this time, your vague pointless handwaving is not proving anything. maxwell's equations work just fine as published and as implemented in various modeling programs. you have shown nothing other than a good imagination in all the posts i have seen, maybe you should take up science fiction writing instead. if you aren't into writing i would particularly recommend you study the works of James Blish in his Cities in Flight series of novels, maybe you could make the spindizzy really work. |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 9, 1:50*pm, Dave wrote:
On Jan 9, 7:38*pm, Art Unwin wrote: more handwaving snipped sorry art, no snappy comebacks this time, your vague pointless handwaving is not proving anything. *maxwell's equations work just fine as published and as implemented in various modeling programs. you have shown nothing other than a good imagination in all the posts i have seen, maybe you should take up science fiction writing instead. *if you aren't into writing i would particularly recommend you study the works of James Blish in his Cities in Flight series of novels, maybe you could make the spindizzy really work. Yes, I agree we are at the end, with you only agreeing with the admissability of making the Gaussian field dynamic which equates mathematically to Maxwell. At least that shows a progression from the particle domain. With hands being tied with respect to that approach and the other approaches offered are not accepted by you for unspecified reasons. Hey, we gave it a shot with respect to physics and did not have to substitute insults under the umbrella of free speech If you hear me on the air I will be using the prescribed radiator and if we do not make contact then you can rest more easily with your own thinking. I had hoped that the transition from ham radio to CB had not already occured in the hope that some of the original amateurs were still alive who were well versed in antennas and physics but we are now in another eara. Both Europe and Japan were showing big signals yesterday so things are looking up. Regards Art |
Physics forums censor ship
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jan 9, 11:33 am, Dave wrote: On Jan 9, 5:27 pm, Dave wrote: On Jan 9, 4:19 pm, Art Unwin wrote: snip handwaving when you supply equations that predict something DIFFERENT than Maxwell please let me know, otherwise i need no snake oil. p.s. talking energy when trying to figure out what happens with waves is counterproductive. energy is an integration of power, power is a function of current or voltage and impedance, or field strength and impedance of the medium... when you go from fields or current/voltage to power you lose phase information that is important. integrating it into energy loses even the phase and time information. it is always best to describe waves by using one field or the other, which one is up to the student since they are always related by the impedance of the medium... the same goes for currents or voltages on conductors, pick one and stick with it, you can always calculate the other when needed. You stated that nobody knows how waves work so I took energy contained as the route. I can't explain how waves work either and I don't want to start of with an explanation how a wave works. So the impasse appears to me that first I have to explain how waves work instead of mass but also to continue on with the same theory and then apply it to another theory! It was stated earlier that a mouse trap can kill a mouse with less than 100% energy, so you require an autopsy to show how and why and if it is really dead! You can do the same by connecting a radio up to a mesh. You find how it can transmit and receive such that it is NOT dead, that is the easy way. We are now back to the prosecutor declaring one is an idiot where the judge retorts, as another example of free speech, that the prosequtor is a homosexual, but now requests the prosequtor to present evidence proof or you will be arrested! I am not guilty as I have presented a paper for my peers to agree or disagree on the basis of science. Unfortunately my peers in science have not yet arrived. Either way, thanks a bunch for your efforts and sticking to physics and not free speech. Best Regards Art Actually Art, I said that a mouse trap can kill a mouse with less than 100% efficiency. It may not catch all the mice, but the mice it catches are all dead. Schroedinger is the guy who had a half dead, half alive cat in a sealed box, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish! :-) 73's Mike G0ULI |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 9, 9:27*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
and the other approaches offered are not accepted by you for unspecified reasons. i have been very specific about why they are not acceptable, there are no specific equations that relate to something measurable, nor have you made any predictions of things that aren't already well described by existing laws and theories. |
Physics forums censor ship
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jan 9, 1:38 pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Jan 9, 11:27 am, Dave wrote: On Jan 9, 4:19 pm, Art Unwin wrote: snip handwaving when you supply equations that predict something DIFFERENT than Maxwell please let me know, otherwise i need no snake oil. O.K look at things another way where the given theory interlocks with even more branches of accepted science. When you apply Maxwells equations to an array it can only supply radiation from forces that are supplied. If all is not supplied ie the array is not in equilibrium then it accounts for only what is applicable. A yagi is not in equilibrium so Maxwell can only supply radiation evident by other laws or another arrangement that the programmer has provided, which will be in the order of something less than 100% If the result is 100% accountability translated into 100% efficiency then the array provided conformed to a Maxwell arrangement in equilibrium OR the programmer provided methods for the program to reorganised the array to conform with Maxwells equations which requires equilibrium. Thus Maxwell declares the difference between equilibrium and non equilibrium. The final test in terms of physics and astromoney and the laws of Newton is that the vectors of radiation must be equal to opposing vectors such that equilibrium is retained. Maxwell does this by supplying two vectors for radiation which is balanced by gravity and the rotation of the Earth which are accepted external influencies with reference to the Solar system. These same two vectors are reflected thru a series of interchanges per Newtons law where it inevitably it finishes up with the big bang where equilibrium is broken by the introduction of the same two vectors, one straight and one with spin content which is axial or otherwise ala, helical in content. It is the same two vectors which all the Universe is compared to as a datum level that portrays the difference between equilibrium and the breakage of equilibrium. This can be stated because without breakage or change from equilibrium movement cannot occur and the solar system cannot exist. This was visualised by Einstein with out the success of deducing the initial vectors such that he turned to the science of Relativity in the hope they would then be exposed before he went to his death. Regards Art Another aproach to radiation Using a common dipole we have two variables,length and cross sectional area. Mathematically we can reduce length to a minimum thickness where by the crosd sectional area must increase a given amount to retain equilibrium. This clearly shows that the provider or receiver of communication can be in the form of a flat plate conductor or same that is perforated. Remember that at no time have I invoked Gausss field when made dynamic which both you and I agree to and others do not. Which forces interlocking of physics proof from other accepted physical facts. proof of interlocking as I have supplied. Art Hi Art, If I read this correctly you are saying that as a dipole antenna is reduced in length relative to a given frequency, it must be increased in thickness until a point is reached where you are left with two closely spaced parallel plates which are the equivalent of the dipole. The plates need not be solid, so a perforated or mesh surface will do. You have mentioned how to form mesh structures a few times, so I assume that this is what you are using. Fat dipoles are inherently broadband, so such an antenna will be compact, efficient, broadband and cheap if constructed from mesh. Sounds like a reasonable experiment, but I don't think it needs any new maths to describe how it works. The existing theories already back you up. Cheers Mike G0ULI |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 9, 3:53*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jan 9, 1:38 pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Jan 9, 11:27 am, Dave wrote: On Jan 9, 4:19 pm, Art Unwin wrote: snip handwaving when you supply equations that predict something DIFFERENT than Maxwell please let me know, otherwise i need no snake oil. O.K look at things another way where the given theory interlocks with even more branches of accepted science. When you apply Maxwells equations to an array it can only supply radiation from forces that are supplied. If all is not supplied ie the array is not in equilibrium then it accounts for only what is applicable. A yagi is not in equilibrium so Maxwell can only supply radiation evident by other laws or another arrangement that the programmer has provided, which will be in the order of something less than 100% If the result is 100% accountability translated into 100% efficiency then the array provided conformed to a Maxwell arrangement in equilibrium OR the programmer provided methods for the program to reorganised the array to conform with Maxwells equations which requires equilibrium. Thus Maxwell declares the difference between equilibrium and non equilibrium. The final test in terms of physics and astromoney and the laws of Newton is that the vectors of radiation must be equal to opposing vectors such that equilibrium is retained. Maxwell does this by supplying two vectors for radiation which is balanced by gravity and the rotation of the Earth which are accepted external influencies with reference to the Solar system. These same two vectors are reflected thru a series of interchanges per Newtons law where it inevitably it finishes up with the big bang where equilibrium is broken by the introduction of the same two vectors, one straight and one with spin content which is axial or otherwise ala, helical in content. It is the same two vectors which all the Universe is compared to as a datum level that portrays the difference between equilibrium and the breakage of equilibrium. This can be stated because without breakage or change from equilibrium movement cannot occur and the solar system cannot exist. This was visualised by Einstein with out the success of deducing the initial vectors such that he turned to the science of Relativity in the hope they would then be exposed before he went to his death. Regards Art Another aproach to radiation Using a common dipole we have two variables,length and cross sectional area. Mathematically we can reduce length to a minimum thickness where by the crosd sectional area must increase a given amount to retain equilibrium. This clearly shows that the provider or receiver of communication can be in the form of a flat plate conductor or same that is perforated. Remember that at no time have I invoked Gausss field when made dynamic which both you and I agree to and others do not. Which forces interlocking of physics proof from other accepted physical facts. proof of interlocking as I have supplied. Art Hi Art, If I read this correctly you are saying that as a dipole antenna is reduced in length relative to a given frequency, it must be increased in thickness until a point is reached where you are left with two closely spaced parallel plates which are the equivalent of the dipole. Well actually I was infering that for minimum thicness of the plate ",area" must be increased. However if I had thought a bit more ,your explanation of two close spaced plates is a better description since there are two entities there as with a water chamber separated by a flexible gasket. Thus we have an application where a water analogy can be used for energy transfer ie. Volume can change from one side to the other by the deflection of the membrane yet the two entities still stay separate. Neat. The plates need not be solid, so a perforated or mesh surface will do. You have mentioned how to form mesh structures a few times, so I assume that this is what you are using. Yes that sums it up. Fat dipoles are inherently broadband, so such an antenna will be compact, efficient, broadband and cheap if constructed from mesh. Yes,I was illustrating the use of mathematics to show that two entities were actually the same because mathematics appeared to be the choice of proof. Nothing more. Sounds like a reasonable experiment, but I don't think it needs any new maths to describe how it works. The existing theories already back you up.. I fully understand that, but when the group denied existing physics in favor of requesting a different proof perhaps a new technology then I was lost for words. So when DR Davis of MIT came along and confirmed what I stated the group attacked him also. We never got beyond the point of legality of adding a time varient to Gauss's law such that Maxwells equations could be applied. Unfortunately this also presented the presence of particles albiet static particles so interpretations of the double split experiment got expanded beyond the spectrum of light of which there is no proof. Thus an opening for insults without explanation required A boon to those uneducated in the field Art Cheers Mike G0ULI |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 9, 3:46*pm, Dave wrote:
On Jan 9, 9:27*pm, Art Unwin wrote: and the other approaches offered are not accepted by you for unspecified reasons. i have been very specific about why they are not acceptable, there are no specific equations that relate to something measurable, nor have you made any predictions of things that aren't already well described by existing laws and theories. David, the acceptance that equilibrium must prevail for toatal accountability states that one cannot use a 1/2 wave radiator as a basis for the application of Maxwells equations. Why is this? Because equilibrium is determined by a period. If each half wave that constituted a period then one is saying that the half wave resonant point is half way between the beginning and the end of a cycle. There is a resonant point but that same point is NOT repeatable thus one must refer to the "period point" for equilibrium. Physics does not squable with this assertion,amature radio does by ignoring equilibrium requirement. Moving on with this revealment we can then say that a radiator can be any shape ,size or elevation as long as it is in equilibrium when Maxwell can be applied for accountability for all forces. Thus a radiator can be deformed ,reshaped or condensed and still be applicable to Maxwells laws as long as equilibrium is held to. Imediately we can therefore deduce that lumped loads if provided must be cancelled to retain equilibrium. Thus the application of equilibrium as required in physics provide a path for the design of compact radiators where all forces are accounted for as well as maximum radiation. To ask for mathematical proof of the requirement of equilibrium or balance which is the root or datum line for all physics is patently absurd and immediatly declares all prior physics laws supplied by the masters as void and redundant as all are based on equilibrium. The real problem here is that when Maxwell by the use of mathematical rules with his equations showed that mathematics easily supplanted past investigation by observation that all physicsts were lead to believe that mathematics over rule observation. Thus we now may use mathematical deductions such as probability to substitute for observation knowing full well that a punter at the race course will lose all by continuous betting on favorites and it doesn't happen that way in real life. If my memory is correct "probability" was the path taken in the double slit experiment in the face of tha absence of a true mathematical or observed factor . Since the results matched consensus among physicists the subject was considered "solved" never to be questioned again. And worse, expanded beyond the limits applied in the test. Imaginary answers provided! Don't worry, since mathematics rules all so imaginary can be seen as factual. Same goes for Newtons laws where he stated that every action has an equal and opposite reaction where present day students now add "diametrically" to further describe "opposite" which is not the intent of Newton initial determination. Now we have CERN spending billions on accellerating particles instead of the prior determined waves. O my! Art |
Physics forums censor ship
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:03:29 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote: Consider the current in that capacitor's plates which would run radial from the feed to their edges. When the former dipole was radiating, those currents were in-phase and they contributed to radiation. In this novel degenerate design, they both have moved to the opposite polarization and are anti-phase where their fields cancel. I can well imagine that the bright inventor, the holder of innumerable patents validating a new physics, could counter this problem of anti-phase cancellation. The two currents are adjacent because of their feed point design. "Change the feedpoint design! (Remarkable insight solves the problem.)" How? "Move the feedline every so slightly away (so slight that not even Richard could complain)." Richard doesn't complain ;-) "Now, take a wire and connect it to the extreme edge of one plate and connect it to one of the two feed wires. Then take a second wire, and connect it to the extreme, BUT OPPOSITE, edge of the second plate." Richard mildly points out that this solves the problem out to the edges of each plate and restores radiation, but then the current turns back towards the feedpoint along either plate that is a massive short and cancels the new wire out. :-O The cracker-jack holder of patents then would retort: "Remove the plates and that problem is gone!" ..... and we are back to the conventional dipole which proves this 2nd order degenerate design IS more compact. ****** tear on dotted line and return **************** Have we gotten any practical contra-example to the simple dipole being 100% efficient? You know, a real design that describes frequency, length, and width of wire? [I realize this may be a tough obstacle to surmount. Dimensions are sometimes novel concepts in these threads that challenge the most cerebral of patent holders. In fact, I can accurate forecast without aid of modeling that any response from Art to this posting will focus on parenthetical comments rather than science.] 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Physics forums censor ship
Art Unwin wrote:
Well actually I was infering that for minimum thicness of the plate ",area" must be increased. However if I had thought a bit more ,your explanation of two close spaced plates is a better description since there are two entities there as with a water chamber separated by a flexible gasket. Thus we have an application where a water analogy can be used for energy transfer ie. Volume can change from one side to the other by the deflection of the membrane yet the two entities still stay separate. Neat. Since water is for all practical purposes incompressible, you can't change the volume of water that way, just the shape of the volume. More psuedo-science babble. snip remaining babble -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
Physics forums censor ship
Art Unwin wrote:
David, the acceptance that equilibrium must prevail for toatal accountability states that one cannot use a 1/2 wave radiator as a basis for the application of Maxwells equations. Babbling nonsense. snip remaining nonsense -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
Physics forums censor ship
Mike Kaliski wrote:
Richard I have a personal preference for discone and log periodic antennae for the wide frequency coverage. Which is kind of why I suggested the interpretation of Art's design that I did. It is difficult to picture some of his designs from the descriptions at times. snip Mike One thing you need to understand is that Art has no designs. Even his patent applications contain the written and drawn versions of bafflegab. He has never designed, never built, and never tested anything that performs like his claims. All he does is pontificate. And he ain't the pontiff. tom K0TAR |
Physics forums censor ship
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:59:34 -0000, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote: Your points are well made although some of the first transmitting and receiving antennae were parallel plates coupled across a spark gap. From photographs I have seen, they look to be resonant somewhere in the current VHF band, not that it was of any consequence as the experiments were only conducted across about 8 feet. Could have just been magnetic induction coupling from the transmitting and receiving coils... Now there's an idea for a novel antenna. Hi Mike, Quite true as to band and dimensions. However, those are balanced (dare I say in equilibrium?) in comparison to all capacitor and no inductance with currents bucking each other. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Physics forums censor ship
|
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 10, 11:58*am, tom wrot
* He has never designed, never built, and never tested anything that performs like his claims. * Tom As you are so fond of saying, "you made the claim, you prove it", or is you claim as empty as you head. Jaro |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 10, 5:08*am, jaroslav lipka wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:58*am, tom wrot * He has never designed, never built, and never tested anything that performs like his claims. * Tom * * As you are so fond of saying, "you made the claim, you prove it", or is you claim as empty as you head. Jaro He head not empty. The truth in he claim is quite obvious for all to see. If old man Unwin had an antenna that actually performed with even half the gusto of his claims, he would not have to resort to pseudo science mumbo gumbo in order to try to convince people that he has. In fact, he wouldn't really have to explain a thing. He could just mount it on a pike and let it do the talking. But it's hard to claim radiation efficiency of 100% when you are using a contra wound dummy load. He might beat out Mike's light bulb dummy load, but by only a slim margin. My calculations show that any minor increase over the efficiency of a coax fed light bulb are not sufficient to cause the delusions of grandeur which seem to possess Unwin. So what say Jaroslav, o man o vision.. Can *you* prove that Art has designed, built and tested any miracle whip that performs as he claims? Hold my breath not, sayeth Yoda.. Chortle.. |
Physics forums censor ship
Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:50:47 -0000, wrote: Art Unwin wrote: David, the acceptance that equilibrium must prevail for toatal accountability states that one cannot use a 1/2 wave radiator as a basis for the application of Maxwells equations. Babbling nonsense. Actually there is much sense: there is no acceptance by anyone that equilibrium "must" prevail (whatever that means) but by the author and that Arthur stands alone. Such tests as these pride of authorships statements are, fall into the same category as oaths of allegience during the commie scare. "Are you now, or were you ever a member of the Gaussian Party?" "My attorney advises me that I have the right to remain equilibrated." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Nonsense; Maxwell's equations always apply and "equilibrium" is just babble. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
Physics forums censor ship
****** tear on dotted line and return ****************
Have we gotten any practical contra-example to the simple dipole being 100% efficient? You know, a real design that describes frequency, length, and width of wire? Well, no response as far as I can tell which means that Art cannot produce a simple description of wire gauge, wire length, and wire excited frequency (admittedly a pretty difficult demand to place upon a guru) for an antenna that is in equilibrium and displays efficiency better than the 100% which is commonly available from a simple dipole. From the Laotse Tao te king: "More words count less." |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 10, 11:08*am, jaroslav lipka wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:58*am, tom wrot * He has never designed, never built, and never tested anything that performs like his claims. * Tom * * As you are so fond of saying, "you made the claim, you prove it", or is you claim as empty as you head. Jaro How precious of Art to have a Slovak sock puppet. |
Physics forums censor ship
Richard Clark wrote in
: From the Laotse Tao te king: "More words count less." Hmm, on the subject of Chinese kings... "A king was pleased with the help of a warrior, and asked what the warrior would take as reward. The warrior said, a grain of rice on the first square of a chessboard, on one day, two on a second square, and the second day, until the board was used up. The story goes that with every doubling to 64 squares, the warrior bankrupted the king within two months." But I ask: how much rice CAN you fit on a chessboard? I wonder if Art might recognise that little homily, and my question, as a parallel to the effect that an antenna need not pointlessly strive for 100% efficiency, but instead to get a practical and useful propagation or low- noise collection. If you really want a tiny antenna, never mind inefficiency, catch what you can and use it. Ok, too many words from me. |
Physics forums censor ship
|
Physics forums censor ship
Bill wrote in news:3729714d-ed1e-4e8f-9e25-
: On Jan 10, 11:08*am, jaroslav lipka wrote: On Jan 10, 11:58*am, tom wrot * He has never designed, never built, and never tested anything that performs like his claims. * Tom * * As you are so fond of saying, "you made the claim, you prove it", or is you claim as empty as you head. Jaro How precious of Art to have a Slovak sock puppet. Two swipes with one backhander. An amusing skill. :) |
Physics forums censor ship
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:04:01 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote: Hmm, on the subject of Chinese kings... "A king was pleased with the help of a warrior, and asked what the warrior would take as reward. Actually, this is ascribed as the reward offered by an Indian Prince to the inventor of chess (which was invented in India) which had become the Prince's favorite game. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Physics forums censor ship
Richard Clark wrote in
: On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:04:01 -0600, Lostgallifreyan wrote: Hmm, on the subject of Chinese kings... "A king was pleased with the help of a warrior, and asked what the warrior would take as reward. Actually, this is ascribed as the reward offered by an Indian Prince to the inventor of chess (which was invented in India) which had become the Prince's favorite game. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Yeah, but that connects with a much greater mismatch. :) |
Physics forums censor ship
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:43:09 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote: Hmm, on the subject of Chinese kings... "A king was pleased with the help of a warrior, and asked what the warrior would take as reward. Actually, this is ascribed as the reward offered by an Indian Prince to the inventor of chess (which was invented in India) which had become the Prince's favorite game. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Yeah, but that connects with a much greater mismatch. :) As Paul Harvey would say "and now for the rest of the story" The inventor asked for this reward as you described and when the Prince discovered the cost, the Prince (using your analogy) mismatched the inventor's head from his body. No doubt something all inventors should consider as the price at some level.... 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Physics forums censor ship
Richard Clark wrote in
: On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:43:09 -0600, Lostgallifreyan wrote: Hmm, on the subject of Chinese kings... "A king was pleased with the help of a warrior, and asked what the warrior would take as reward. Actually, this is ascribed as the reward offered by an Indian Prince to the inventor of chess (which was invented in India) which had become the Prince's favorite game. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Yeah, but that connects with a much greater mismatch. :) As Paul Harvey would say "and now for the rest of the story" The inventor asked for this reward as you described and when the Prince discovered the cost, the Prince (using your analogy) mismatched the inventor's head from his body. No doubt something all inventors should consider as the price at some level.... 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Funny, nice use of 'mismatched'. I don't think I'm much of an inventor, the couple of things I came up with were small (zero-crossing switch, and analog modulated laser diode driver, laser power meter gain stage and scale/offset tweaker), built partly by trial and error, but they all worked reliably when I'd otherwise have needed bigger, more elaborate and more expensive answers made by other people. But likely have probably nothing to offer than can't be had better elsewhere. What they did do for me, generally, was firmly establish cost as an engineering unit. One day we might even measure it with an SI unit. Ò^O |
Physics forums censor ship
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:57:43 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote: analog modulated laser diode driver This is no slight accomplishment! 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Physics forums censor ship
Richard Clark wrote in
: On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:57:43 -0600, Lostgallifreyan wrote: analog modulated laser diode driver This is no slight accomplishment! 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Well, I have to be honest and say that I haven't truly finished it. :) It's based on an LM317. I have this LM317 fetish based on admiration for the old POW radio ideas, I really think it's cool that such a ubiquitous device can be applied so perversely to such amazing unintended uses, and given its chances of being found, designs based on it could be buuilt even if much of civilisation were 'bombed back to the stone age'. On a more prosaic level, it's dirt cheap, powerful, easy to build with, and contains useful features. The driver worked in my initial test to 50 KHz, better than the 10K most analog mod drivers seem to favour. I tested it with a square wave and the edges were sharp with no overshoot if I didn't push it too hard, and did some filtering with low ESR tantalums for supply decoupling. I later discovered LTspice. :) I modelled it with that and quickly saw the same waveshapes my 100 MHz scope had shown me, which was a nice reality check that proved that LTspice could likely similaute the design and let me improve it before rebuilding. I devised a circuit that cannot be overdriven, attempts to do so merely broaden the peak at max amplitude, it cannot overshoot, and will modulate to 200 KHz. The proof is in the pudding but the truth is I never got round to baking the pudding. Bought a slower version of the op-amp I needed but got mightily disillusioned about the laser show thing and felt that I'd either build it and gain nothing personally from it, or no-one would even care. Given what I'd seen, I think this is genuinely true, few would. I hadn't even decided if I was going for SMT or through hole, and it's a tough call because available parts seem to force a hybrid... Like the pitch-to-MIDI system I wanted to build as an adapted version of Doepfer's R2M control system, it got put on the back burner. But I spent a couple of years pulling together all the tooling and design files to do it, and when I find something to motivate me, I intend to finish both these projects. I think this is what's drawing me to SWL. The present stopped compelling me, so in a way I'm drawing on something that endured from further past, as a way to revive the spark that got me as far as I did get. I never found a way to gauge what I do, because most times I find little to suggest that what I do has anything that people can't find better elsewhere just by throwing money at it, and as they usually have more than me I tend to think they're probably right. But if I can find enough motivation just to do it even though it might amount to nothing, I will do it because I don't know what else I'm good for. Long spiel, but I think I needed to, as part of whatever I have to do to make it happen. Like Mulder, I want to beleive, I guess.. |
Physics forums censor ship
jaroslav lipka wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:58 am, tom wrot He has never designed, never built, and never tested anything that performs like his claims. Tom As you are so fond of saying, "you made the claim, you prove it", or is you claim as empty as you head. I have never said that, not even once. So how could I be fond of saying it? And Art has also not once posted a single measurement, a single equation or a single design. And you have never done anything but snipe. Yes, so do I, but I also occasionally make contributions, and my claims have always had numbers and measurements behind them. Do you know what measurements are? Jaro |
Physics forums censor ship
Actually, given my previous post, anyone familiar with all that is mentioned
in it can deduce how to build the diode driver and probably get lucky choosing the op-amp. I want to keep it under the hat I haven't got for now, but if someone comes up with it independently, go for it, I just hope it gets shared and not patented. People say no way 200 KHz analog proportional mod out of an LM317 as diode driver, but I'm fairly certain it's viable. LTspice certainly thinks so, and its output matches what I've seen of real output so I think I believe it. Not an antenna thing, so I'll leave it there. Nice to be able to talk of it though. Keeps it alive somehow. |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 10, 1:22*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 9, 3:46*pm, Dave wrote: On Jan 9, 9:27*pm, Art Unwin wrote: and the other approaches offered are not accepted by you for unspecified reasons. i have been very specific about why they are not acceptable, there are no specific equations that relate to something measurable, nor have you made any predictions of things that aren't already well described by existing laws and theories. David, the acceptance that equilibrium must prevail for toatal accountability states that one cannot use a 1/2 wave radiator as a basis for the application of Maxwells equations. maxwell's equations know nothing of the length of a conductor used as a radiator. in fact, they say nothing about a conductor at all. where in the equations is there even a length specified?? in the differential form everything is reduced to either a gradient or curl, there can of course be no length since everything is reduced to an instant in time or a single point in space. in the integral form they are done over volumes, over surfaces, or around closed loops, all with arbitrary boundaries. And in none of them is there a conductivity or resistivity term applied that would be necessary to model a conductive element. you might also be interested in this paragraph from Ramo, Whinnery, and Van Duzer's "Fields and Waves in Communicaiton Electronics" pg 237 section 4.07 that puts your insistence on adding a 't' to Gauss's law in perspective: "Equation (1) is seen to be the familiar form off Gauss's law utilized so much in chapter 2. Now that we are concerned with fields which are a function of time, the interpretation is that the electric flux flowing out of any closed surface AT A GIVEN INSTANT is equal to the charge enclosed by that surface AT THAT INSTANT." Emphasis is THEIRS not mine, they were obviously anticipating your objection and explaining why it isn't necessary to add a 't' to the equation. I would put the 3 of them against your dr friend any day of the week. |
Physics forums censor ship
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:55:34 -0800 (PST), Dave wrote:
maxwell's equations know nothing of the length of a conductor used as a radiator. in fact, they say nothing about a conductor at all. Does Maxwell even use the word resonance? Reactance? Or any word from the host of electrical components? Maxwell never even used the term Gauss to signify the strength of a field! And neither did Gauss. What DID Maxwell say about equilibrium? "About the beginning of this century, the properties of bodies were investigated by several distinguished French mathematicians on the hypothesis that they are systems of molecules in equilibrium. The somewhat unsatisfactory nature of the results of these investigations produced, especially in this country, a reaction in favour of the opposite method of treating bodies as if they were, so far at least as our experiments are concerned, truly continuous." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Physics forums censor ship
Dave wrote:
you might also be interested in this paragraph from Ramo, Whinnery, and Van Duzer's "Fields and Waves in Communicaiton Electronics" pg 237 section 4.07 that puts your insistence on adding a 't' to Gauss's law in perspective: "Equation (1) is seen to be the familiar form off Gauss's law utilized so much in chapter 2. Now that we are concerned with fields which are a function of time, the interpretation is that the electric flux flowing out of any closed surface AT A GIVEN INSTANT is equal to the charge enclosed by that surface AT THAT INSTANT." Emphasis is THEIRS not mine, they were obviously anticipating your objection and explaining why it isn't necessary to add a 't' to the equation. I would put the 3 of them against your dr friend any day of the week. Come on Dave, they are only engineers, or even _worse_ PHYSICISTS! They couldn't possibly compete with an intellect the likes of the one brought to us by Art. tom K0TAR |
Physics forums censor ship
David, the acceptance that equilibrium must prevail for toatal
accountability states that one cannot use a 1/2 wave radiator as a basis for the application of Maxwells equations. maxwell's equations know nothing of the length of a conductor used as a radiator. in fact, they say nothing about a conductor at all. where in the equations is there even a length specified?? in the differential form everything is reduced to either a gradient or curl, there can of course be no length since everything is reduced to an instant in time or a single point in space. in the integral form they are done over volumes, over surfaces, or around closed loops, all with arbitrary boundaries. And in none of them is there a conductivity or resistivity term applied that would be necessary to model a conductive element. you might also be interested in this paragraph from Ramo, Whinnery, and Van Duzer's "Fields and Waves in Communicaiton Electronics" pg 237 section 4.07 that puts your insistence on adding a 't' to Gauss's law in perspective: "Equation (1) is seen to be the familiar form off Gauss's law utilized so much in chapter 2. Now that we are concerned with fields which are a function of time, the interpretation is that the electric flux flowing out of any closed surface AT A GIVEN INSTANT is equal to the charge enclosed by that surface AT THAT INSTANT." Emphasis is THEIRS not mine, they were obviously anticipating your objection and explaining why it isn't necessary to add a 't' to the equation. I would put the 3 of them against your dr friend any day of the week. Has anybody noticed? This appears to be a pointless exercise. How can you explain such concepts to one who has no understanding of elementary math. 73, Frank |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 12, 3:30*pm, "Frank" wrote:
David, the acceptance that equilibrium must prevail for toatal accountability states that one cannot use a 1/2 wave radiator as a basis for the application of Maxwells equations. maxwell's equations know nothing of the length of a conductor used as a radiator. *in fact, they say nothing about a conductor at all. where in the equations is there even a length specified?? *in the differential form everything is reduced to either a gradient or curl, there can of course be no length since everything is reduced to an instant in time or a single point in space. *in the integral form they are done over volumes, over surfaces, or around closed loops, all with arbitrary boundaries. *And in none of them is there a conductivity or resistivity term applied that would be necessary to model a conductive element. you might also be interested in this paragraph from Ramo, *Whinnery, and Van Duzer's "Fields and Waves in Communicaiton Electronics" pg 237 section 4.07 that puts your insistence on adding a 't' to Gauss's law in perspective: "Equation (1) is seen to be the familiar form off Gauss's law utilized so much in chapter 2. *Now that we are concerned with fields which are a function of time, the interpretation is that the electric flux flowing out of any closed surface AT A GIVEN INSTANT is equal to the charge enclosed by that surface AT THAT INSTANT." Emphasis is THEIRS not mine, they were obviously anticipating your objection and explaining why it isn't necessary to add a 't' to the equation. *I would put the 3 of them against your dr friend any day of the week. Has anybody noticed? *This appears to be a pointless exercise. How can you explain such concepts to one who has no understanding of elementary math. 73, Frank what would happen if next time we all just ignored art? would that be fun or what! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:52 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com