[Art Unwin]

On Jan 6, 10:30*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:04*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Now physics forums have moderators with the power to ban questions
that challenge existing laws (waves) where as the questions and the
poster can be censored and banned.

Umm, no.

The moderated groups just don't want to be bothered by drooling crackpots
and raving mental patients.

If someone attempts to post something that has data and math to back up
a new idea, it will get posted.

If someone attempts to post a bunch of rambling nonsense, it won't.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

It depends on what they consider "nonsense". In my case they quoted
QED as being final, so I then tried to see what definition they had on
"waves" to see what the property they saw symbolized waves such as
helical waves, but they declined to discuss.

Or in other words you attempted to post a bunch of ramblings about
"helical waves" without any results or math and expected them to spoon
feed you the contents of generally available texts such as "QED: The
Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynman.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

How can you apply mathematics to an observation that matches
observations and conclusions to Faraday, Gauss, Maxwell and others?
A Gaussian boundary enclosing static particles can be made dynamic.
Same goes for a Faraday cage, both of which utelizes a time varying
field for radiation. At the same time Maxwells equations show that for
a given volume it must contain radiators that are of a wavelength
where the whole array is also resonant for 100% efficiency in
radiation.
As a lab technition I don't expect you to know the answers but it is
clear that in the instance of radiation the rate of change of a charge
is that of a particle. Where the determinations of Gauss and Faraday
match the equations of Maxwell ignoring the double slit experiment
which refers to high frequencies where change of state could occur.
Now you and others refer to such findings as nonsence or ramblings
but without supplying basis of same because you do not have the
knoweledge to explain your position, which is normal for the un
educated. You, yourself, have a long experience as a technician but it
is really the same experience over and over again thru the years where
you have learned to quote the required mantra for a particular niche
with little knowledge outside that niche, so your responses are in
line with your personal oft repeated experiences. For me, Gaussian
mention of static particles and the animated samples of the Faraday
cage on the web that also portray particles, both of which one can
apply the mathematics of Maxwell, is sufficient for me to represent
truth for radiation , despite others who say it is nonsense because,
well because they said so. Provide a reasonable rebuttal and you have
my attention, otherwise, concentrate on keeping the beakers clean as
well as the benches.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Art Unwin wrote in news:9e8de79b-123c-47fc-9187-
:

Provide a reasonable rebuttal and you have
my attention, otherwise, concentrate on keeping the beakers clean as
well as the benches.


Ok, you just lost my sympathy with that cheap shot, I don't care that it's
not aimed at me. You obviously didn't care about it before when I said I
sympathised. You're an idiot, and I'm putting you on the killfile so I don't
have to see what you say again. If you really want to win any kind of respect
you're on a hiding to nothing the way you're going. You sound like you want
to be as arrogant as those you affect to despise appear to you to be. At
which point it stops being about science at all.

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 6, 11:22*am, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Art Unwin wrote in news:9e8de79b-123c-47fc-9187-
:

Provide a reasonable rebuttal and you have
my attention, otherwise, concentrate on keeping the beakers clean as
well as the benches.

Ok, you just lost my sympathy with that cheap shot, I don't care that it's
not aimed at me. You obviously didn't care about it before when I said I
sympathised. You're an idiot, and I'm putting you on the killfile so I don't
have to see what you say again. If you really want to win any kind of respect
you're on a hiding to nothing the way you're going. You sound like you want
to be as arrogant as those you affect to despise appear to you to be. At
which point it stops being about science at all.

Suit yourself. It was he who used the words "nonsense, ramblings"
etc so I threw them back and will always do that. Now you bestow the
word "idiot" what should I say in return? For years he has slandered
me, just look at his record in the archives. Like many others who are
now getting old they seem to magnify their accomplishments and the
promotions they should have got for their endevours in life that some,
on the West Coast that is, suggest that they can see Russia from their
homes just to impress. So now you have become a judge with outstanding
qualities, O my! Don't often see people like you in East London as far
as I can remember, at least not for long.
As for science, all on this group say it is illegal to add a time
varying field to a static field to make it dynamic ,which equates to
Maxwells equations. If you don't agree with them then they have the
license to slam you. Good grief That is their standard on science that
they align with.

[[email protected]]

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:30Â*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:04Â*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Now physics forums have moderators with the power to ban questions
that challenge existing laws (waves) where as the questions and the
poster can be censored and banned.

Umm, no.

The moderated groups just don't want to be bothered by drooling crackpots
and raving mental patients.

If someone attempts to post something that has data and math to back up
a new idea, it will get posted.

If someone attempts to post a bunch of rambling nonsense, it won't.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

It depends on what they consider "nonsense". In my case they quoted
QED as being final, so I then tried to see what definition they had on
"waves" to see what the property they saw symbolized waves such as
helical waves, but they declined to discuss.

Or in other words you attempted to post a bunch of ramblings about
"helical waves" without any results or math and expected them to spoon
feed you the contents of generally available texts such as "QED: The
Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynman.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

How can you apply mathematics to an observation that matches
observations and conclusions to Faraday, Gauss, Maxwell and others?

With Maxwell's equations, which are a set of four partial differential
equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to their sources,
charge density and current density.

With Gauss's flux theorem, which is a law relating the distribution of
electric charge to the resulting electric field.

With Faraday's law of induction which relates the induced electromotive
force in a closed circuit to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux
through the circuit.

However, you can't with arm waving rambling.

snip rambling

As a lab technition I don't expect you to know the answers

I have never in my life been a lab technition (sic).

snip rambling

You, yourself, have a long experience as a technician

You have no clue what experience I have.

snip rambling

If you want to know why your rambling nonsense is rambling nonsense, read
an elementry electromagnetic text such as "Electromagnetics" by Kraus
and Carver.

Yeah, I know, hundreds of thousands of people who have studied the subject
for over a hundred years are all wrong while you have the "Truth" in
magic bouncing particles.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 6, 12:22*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:30*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:04*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Now physics forums have moderators with the power to ban questions
that challenge existing laws (waves) where as the questions and the
poster can be censored and banned.

Umm, no.

The moderated groups just don't want to be bothered by drooling crackpots
and raving mental patients.

If someone attempts to post something that has data and math to back up
a new idea, it will get posted.

If someone attempts to post a bunch of rambling nonsense, it won't.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

It depends on what they consider "nonsense". In my case they quoted
QED as being final, so I then tried to see what definition they had on
"waves" to see what the property they saw symbolized waves such as
helical waves, but they declined to discuss.

Or in other words you attempted to post a bunch of ramblings about
"helical waves" without any results or math and expected them to spoon
feed you the contents of generally available texts such as "QED: The
Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynman.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

How can you apply mathematics to an observation that matches
observations and conclusions to Faraday, Gauss, Maxwell and others?

With Maxwell's equations, which are a set of four partial differential
equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to their sources,
charge density and current density.

With Gauss's flux theorem, which is a law relating the distribution of
electric charge to the resulting electric field.

With Faraday's law of induction which relates the induced electromotive
force in a closed circuit to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux
through the circuit.

Reading the above means nothing, you have to understand it
However, you can't with arm waving rambling.

snip rambling

As a lab technition I don't expect you to know the answers

I have never in my life been a lab technition (sic).
Keep trying you should be able to master it



snip rambling

You, yourself, have a long experience as a technician

You have no clue what experience I have.
O yes I do, I read your postings in the archives to understand what
level you are.

snip rambling

If you want to know why your rambling nonsense is rambling nonsense, read
an elementry electromagnetic text such as "Electromagnetics" by Kraus
and Carver.
You mention Kraus who spent a lot of time messing with radiators that
were not in equilibrium. He was bound to the idea of waves that
cancel, where if he had considered particles his helix radiators would
be in the form of a closed circuit such as a ribbon line where
particle vectors are additive. His work on helix antennas are so
incomplete
since he does not account for all forces involved for radiation.
Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where provision is made
for displacement current to contain a static field. I have an example
of that on my page Unwin antennas where I specifically state the
rudiments of current flow. As yet nobody has supplied scientific data
to show that flow is otherwise. Thru out the ages it has been
understood that the datum line for the laws of physics is the state of
equilibrium such that all forces are accounted for. For radio this
requires the use of radiators of a full wavelength which supplies
equilibrium and resoinance. Yet for some reason many including Kraus
has rejected this undeniable fact, Thus when applying Maxwells
equations they can never attain 100 percent efficiency. This can ONLY
be attained when an array is resonant and in equilibrium as must be
the individual radiators that consist same. On top of that, there is
no reason that a radiator should be straight only that it is in a
state of equilibrium. Think about it in terms of boundary laws that
abide with the laws of Newton in every aspect. Model a ribbon helix
in equilibrium or a simple helix antenna of Krauss and compare which
is the best for yourself instead of being just a follower. Look up
Faraday shields on the web and determine how electric fields and
magnetic fields are cancelled thus leaving just a time vary current
that your receiver can use. Think about how you can accellerate a
charge when it is just a field without mass and acts as a wave Use
your brain if you have one.
Your quotation of Maxwells laws does not impress me one bit as you
obviously do not know how to use it because of the lack of
understanding.




Yeah, I know, hundreds of thousands of people who have studied the subject
for over a hundred years are all wrong while you have the "Truth" in
magic bouncing particles.

No, not all, a Iot is very much disputed outside this group

No, it is not my truths! It is those of the masters which are now
largely ignored by computer operators and the present day crop of
physicists
who now rely on probability mathematics as the proof of the truth.
And why do you think that Feyman described duality as a"strange
theory" which is based solely on the incorrect analysis of an
experiment that does not jive with those of the Masters?
Frankly, you are not much of a judge with respect to physics.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[[email protected]]

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:22Â*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:30Â*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:04Â*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Now physics forums have moderators with the power to ban questions
that challenge existing laws (waves) where as the questions and the
poster can be censored and banned.

Umm, no.

The moderated groups just don't want to be bothered by drooling crackpots
and raving mental patients.

If someone attempts to post something that has data and math to back up
a new idea, it will get posted.

If someone attempts to post a bunch of rambling nonsense, it won't.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

It depends on what they consider "nonsense". In my case they quoted
QED as being final, so I then tried to see what definition they had on
"waves" to see what the property they saw symbolized waves such as
helical waves, but they declined to discuss.

Or in other words you attempted to post a bunch of ramblings about
"helical waves" without any results or math and expected them to spoon
feed you the contents of generally available texts such as "QED: The
Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynman.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

How can you apply mathematics to an observation that matches
observations and conclusions to Faraday, Gauss, Maxwell and others?

With Maxwell's equations, which are a set of four partial differential
equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to their sources,
charge density and current density.

With Gauss's flux theorem, which is a law relating the distribution of
electric charge to the resulting electric field.

With Faraday's law of induction which relates the induced electromotive
force in a closed circuit to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux
through the circuit.

Reading the above means nothing, you have to understand it

Yep, which you obviously don't.

However, you can't with arm waving rambling.

snip rambling

As a lab technition I don't expect you to know the answers

I have never in my life been a lab technition (sic).
Keep trying you should be able to master it



snip rambling

You, yourself, have a long experience as a technician

You have no clue what experience I have.
O yes I do, I read your postings in the archives to understand what
level you are.

Oh, no you don't and you have no clue what I have done, what I do, or
what credentials I might have as I don't post such information.

snip ravings about "equilibrium"

I have yet to see a single equation from you that supports ANY of your
ranting nonsense.

snip ravings about "masters" and ignored "truth" revealed only to you


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Dave[_22_]]

On Jan 6, 7:49*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:22*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:30*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:04*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Now physics forums have moderators with the power to ban questions
that challenge existing laws (waves) where as the questions and the
poster can be censored and banned.

Umm, no.

The moderated groups just don't want to be bothered by drooling crackpots
and raving mental patients.

If someone attempts to post something that has data and math to back up
a new idea, it will get posted.

If someone attempts to post a bunch of rambling nonsense, it won't.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

It depends on what they consider "nonsense". In my case they quoted
QED as being final, so I then tried to see what definition they had on
"waves" to see what the property they saw symbolized waves such as
helical waves, but they declined to discuss.

Or in other words you attempted to post a bunch of ramblings about
"helical waves" without any results or math and expected them to spoon
feed you the contents of generally available texts such as "QED: The
Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynman.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

How can you apply mathematics to an observation that matches
observations and conclusions to Faraday, Gauss, Maxwell and others?

With Maxwell's equations, which are a set of four partial differential
equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to their sources,
charge density and current density.

With Gauss's flux theorem, which is a law relating the distribution of
electric charge to the resulting electric field.

With Faraday's law of induction which relates the induced electromotive
force in a closed circuit to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux
through the circuit.

Reading the above means nothing, you have to understand it

Yep, which you obviously don't.



However, you can't with arm waving rambling.

snip rambling

As a lab technition I don't expect you to know the answers

I have never in my life been a lab technition (sic).
Keep trying you should be able to master it

snip rambling

You, yourself, have a long experience as a technician

You have no clue what experience I have.
O yes I do, I read your postings in the archives to understand what
level you are.

Oh, no you don't and you have no clue what I have done, what I do, or
what credentials I might have as I don't post such information.

snip ravings about "equilibrium"

I have yet to see a single equation from you that supports ANY of your
ranting nonsense.

and you never will. just generic hand waving and wild rants with no
basis in reality.

[Mike Kaliski]

snip
I have an example
of that on my page Unwin antennas where I specifically state the
rudiments of current flow. As yet nobody has supplied scientific data
to show that flow is otherwise. Thru out the ages it has been
understood that the datum line for the laws of physics is the state of
equilibrium such that all forces are accounted for. For radio this
requires the use of radiators of a full wavelength which supplies
equilibrium and resoinance. Yet for some reason many including Kraus
has rejected this undeniable fact, Thus when applying Maxwells
equations they can never attain 100 percent efficiency. This can ONLY
be attained when an array is resonant and in equilibrium as must be
the individual radiators that consist same. On top of that, there is
no reason that a radiator should be straight only that it is in a
state of equilibrium. snip

Art,

I think this paragraph may be one of the reasons for all the protests. It
isn't necessary to achieve 100% efficiency or to use a full wavelength
radiator in order to broadcast (or receive) a radio signal. It may be
desirable, but it isn't necessary. Modern equipment has sufficient power to
overcome the inefficiencies when transmitting and can hear signals well
below the noise floor when receiving. A 50% efficient antenna is fine for
most applications and perhaps 10% or less will do at a pinch.

The patent office floors are littered with designs for better, more
effective mousetraps, but that 99 cent (pence) bit of wood with a powerful
spring will kill mice just as dead. :-)

The particle wave duality of electromagnetic waves was settled back in the
1930's and further refinements have only gone on to prove that
electromagnetic waves act as both particles and waves depending on
circumstances and measurement. There is nothing wrong in considering the
generation of an electromagnetic wave using particles, so long as the end
results are in agreement with measurements taken using standard scientific
equipment.

If your antenna calculations show 100% power transfer to the antenna and
100% power radiated, then that should be capable of being substantiated by
standard measuring techniques in the near and far fields.

If your antenna only shows these readings when a similar receiving antenna
is used and attached to the measuring equipment (rather than a standard
dipole) then you have either invented an entirely new field of physics, or
the calculations are wrong.

I'm sure your compact antennas do perform better than others contained
within similar physical dimensions. A full wavelength resonant radiator must
theoretically be better than a fractional or loaded system. But proving that
it is worthwhile, better and more convenient to Joe Public is a much harder
sell. Your ideas about particles might be correct, but do they give a better
understanding and predictions of antenna behaviour than the currently
accepted theories? In order to succeed, I would suggest that your theory
would need to match all current observations but then go on to make some new
predictions about antennas which can be measured and verified. That is the
way that western science has progressed since the Greek philosophers tried
to explain the world around them. Some Asian cultures are allegedly more
amenable to accepting that some things in the world are just the way they
are and require less stringent proof. It allowed them to leapfrog the West
and make significant practical developments of everyday useful stuff without
worrying about how it all worked exactly. The only problem with this
approach is that if you hit a wall in development, it usually isn't clear
how to make further improvements or solve the problem except by trial and
error.

Keep up the good work.

Regards

Mike G0ULI

[Bill[_4_]]

On Jan 7, 2:13*am, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:


Art,


I'm sure your compact antennas do perform better than
others contained within similar physical dimensions.


Mike G0ULI

WHAT antennas would those be?

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 6, 9:31*pm, Bill wrote:
On Jan 7, 2:13*am, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:



Art,

I'm sure your compact antennas do perform better than
others contained within similar physical dimensions.

Mike G0ULI

WHAT antennas would those be?

He clearly stated fractional and loaded antennas. What is so hard to
read what he stated?