| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Physics forums censor ship
On the subject of particle wave duality with respect to radiation, I
pointed out to several physics forums that the gaussian law on statics is the same as that of a Faraday shield and when applied with a time varying field amounted to radiation per Maxwells laws. Both of these instances suggests particles with spin, probably helical. 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. This, of course, has happened to me. Reading further I see that physicists are plagued with "crackpots" mainly "engineers" who come up with theories that challenge fully accepted theories made by physicists with many years of math study that cannot be equaled by others! Since the particle has spin of helical form it makes me wonder if the helical action is what is referred to as a wave, but no answer is available which is also followed up by banning. ( lack of mathematical reasoning) We do not have moderators on this newsgroup, but just imagine how a few can determine the incorrectness of radiation or challenges to accepted science could stifle the whole idea of experimentation in our hobby and hold of progression within the hobby! Forums are not perfect by any means but the idea of moderators that can ban or censor free thought where only questions accepted are those that can be answered parrot fashion from the books just throws me for a loop. I know that censorship exists in many countries which are controlled by a few or a committee I sure hope that anything like physics censorship is not bestowed on this newsgroup. by moderators with brains of a higher calibre than those that post. Looking at how progress is defined by the Nobel prize I see that nominies can only be accepted by those "known" in the field. In other words, the poll of insiders make the choice. The nominees are then adjudicated by a committee of a dozen or so ( connected to the funds side) who then decide the winner. The bottom line is that the winner is determined by a group that wish to continue being thought as an insider or equivalent scientist by coat tailing a winner. Obviously we are still accepting that "all is known" in the sciences. But then, why do students have to buy those new expensive books each year if change has not come about? |
Physics forums censor ship
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: --- |
Physics forums censor ship
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. Looking thru the web I find that this is normal practice, tho they "may" know the answer they prefer to take the tack as some do on this group "because I said so". I can understand it from this group but from those who practice physics I do not. Maybe this rejection of outsiders is why things are in such a mess where they now even call other physicists "crackpots" when they stray from the accepted line. Like this group, they demand all, such as experimental results and mathematics but decline to do the same in rebuttal believing they are above it. I imagine that this must be the very case in present day colleges in the US and else ware! I suppose we can call it just being human and turf protection. |
Physics forums censor ship
|
Physics forums censor ship
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: --- |
Physics forums censor ship
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. |
Physics forums censor ship
|
Physics forums censor ship
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. |
Physics forums censor ship
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: --- |
Physics forums censor ship
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: --- |
Physics forums censor ship
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: --- |
Physics forums censor ship
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. |
Physics forums censor ship
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 |
Physics forums censor ship
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? |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
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. *:-) all above agreed with 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. Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it quite clear that static particles can become a dynamic field according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am working with. 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. Quite true 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 dont see it that way since a 4 ft dia mesh has many WL of wire contained for top band so it should be able to choose its own route for a particular frequency resonance. The more WL you have the more likely resonance would occur. 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. On my page I show instances of resonance using 6 inch samples of mesh which match the amateur bands so i see it as a huge step with respect to small radiators. also pundits state there is a need for smaller broadcast antennas( cross field) without ground plain. I personally see the advantage of double the skip distance even when ground situated. Military would see similar advantages. I see the confusion as purely my position that with respect to radio we simply have particles without evidence of waves and the fact that from a specific rule point equilibrium exists only at the period point and not 1/2WL. It is the recognition of this mathematical point that allows both resonance and equiulibrium which allows for compression. To use a 1/2 wl is a violation of the universal rule, simple as that. But proving that it is worthwhile, better and more convenient to Joe Public is a much harder sell. That is true but if there really is a true need for a technology for smaller volume radiators together with human shielding protection to go along side present miniaturization, then it will sell itself. 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. Yes, that is always true but I see as significant is that radiation can now be shielded when used and is not automatically sky wave at ground level and, ofcourse, that it is small. The old adage of putting up as much wire that you can is neatly solved with mesh while staying in equilibrium. What more can you want? How many questions do we see for an antenna without room for a ground plain? How many questions do we get for a broad band scanner antenna. How can a submarine transmitt with out detection trailing a humoungos radiator where the wash is seen for miles? How can we prevent moon dust from contaminating rockets. It just doesn't stop. When you can transmit from ground level without height interference to TOA you are effectively doubling the range for the same power. On top of that the public is easily convinced of its use when the advertisers state that damage to the brain cannot now possibly occur because of shielding. It just blows my mind that amateurs have lost interest in new antenna design based purely on a mob that denies the possibility that it cannot work without stating why.As for me I have no more need for a tower. Best regards Art Unwin The PTO did not turn down my response to questions regarding the first patent application so I assume it will be awarded in good time. Keep up the good work. Regards Mike G0ULI |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 6, 7:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where is made for displacement current to contain a static field. I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where From www.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." You are an idiot. |
Physics forums censor ship
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? |
Physics forums censor ship
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 02:13:43 -0000, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote: It isn't necessary to achieve 100% efficiency or to use a full wavelength radiator in order to broadcast (or receive) a radio signal. Hi Mike, You are right, however, I suppose Art will walk away from this topic as he had a month ago: On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 some gomer wrote: Following Maxwell's equations provides accountability of all forces and NEC programs are very capable of showing this by divulging that same 10% of missing energy. By the addition of considerable textual chaff (not included here), this last demand is saved from being embarrassingly close to: How about supplying some facts to back up your claims so they can be discussed? Any NEC program (expressly allowed in the first statement's premise) will show that a dipole: 1. In free space; 2. x coordinate -0.245714 wavelength; 3. x coordinate 0.245714 wavelength; 4. 11 segments; 5. 1mm diameter copper wire; 6. excited at first resonance Result: 97.5% So, clearly the first claim of 10% missing energy is a product of misinformation and is easily accounted by the allowable method (NEC) contained within the erroneous statement. However, let's examine the source of that 2.5% loss. If I were to simply use NEC's capacity to render the copper into perfect wire (no other changes made to the parts 1. through 6 above); then Result: 99.7% Whoops!!!!! no copper, and still not perfect? This, too, is accountable within NEC as accumulated math error of too few samples (segments). So, we simple amend part 4. above to increase the number of segments to 111; then Result: 100.00% ******************* I can fully expect the wheeze that the antenna is not in equilibrium (sic). Without pointing out that what is already 100.00% efficiency could not possibly be improved upon, I will instead increase the frequency of excitation to put that structure into equilibrium (sic); then Result: 100.00% or 0 improvement. Having indulged the fantasies of equilibrium (sic), it is time to press in the opposite direction, let's say to 1/10th equilibrium (sic); then Result: 100.00% Howsaboutthat!? ******************* So, using the allowable tools to investigate the claim of a missing 10% efficiency, it has been shown that this claim is wholly without merit and lacks any demonstrable basis. I don't expect any counter proof that will be expressed with the same professional level of specification offered here, nor performable within the 3 minutes it took me to do this (barring the time to type this all out). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 7, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote: 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. Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it quite clear that *static particles can become a dynamic field according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am working with. there is no exception for radio waves, they act as photon particles also, just like the ones at visible light frequencies and higher. this too has been accepted for many years. |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 7, 4:21*am, Art Unwin wrote:
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? It is impossible to read what you have stated. Has anyone seen your antennas, you old fraud? |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 7, 7:24*am, Dave wrote:
On Jan 7, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote: On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote: 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. Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it quite clear that *static particles can become a dynamic field according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am working with. there is no exception for radio waves, they act as photon particles also, just like the ones at visible light frequencies and higher. this too has been accepted for many years. David, I won't fight you but I would like to take advantage of your expertise. The question whether you may make a gaussian field dynamic such that Maxwells equations can be used is the beginning of this saga as the group will not accept it. So I will move on to the Faraday cage. There is an animation of what exactly happens on the web with respect to radio, you may want to look it up. But for openers you would get my attention in explaning this phenomina with the use of waves instead of the actions of mass or a particle. This is a sincere request as it seems discussion of duallity means talking past each other when there is a clear difference between the action of waves and those of particles,namely attraction. versus cancellation. You supplying this may get the subject back to a level plane of politeness where the postings will supply enlightment instead of derision. Thanks for reading Art |
Physics forums censor ship
Art Unwin wrote: On Jan 7, 7:24*am, Dave wrote: From www.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." |
Physics forums censor ship
"Bill" wrote in message ... On Jan 6, 7:29 pm, Art Unwin wrote: Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where is made for displacement current to contain a static field. I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where From www.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." You are an idiot. Bill, A trifle blunt and rather harsh. It's an analogy. The sun is producing heat by fusion rather than burning, but particles are thrown out from the solar surface in the solar wind and coronal mass ejections. Art has been pursuing his theory for years. It's one of the largest postings in the newsgroup. Mike G0ULI |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 7, 11:06*am, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message ... On Jan 6, 7:29 pm, Art Unwin wrote: Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where is made for displacement current to contain a static field. I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where Fromwww.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." You are an idiot. Bill, A trifle blunt and rather harsh. It's an analogy. The sun is producing heat by fusion rather than burning, but particles are thrown out from the solar surface in the solar wind and coronal mass ejections. Art has been pursuing his theory for years. It's one of the largest postings in the newsgroup. Mike G0ULI Mike It doesn't bother me what he says unless he addresses the subject. If I am wrong then I want to know why not to fight which is what he wants. I suppose we could ask for an explanation as to how a capacitor works since it seems to me that it does exactly the same as a Faraday shield or a Gaussian circle. I wouldn't mind dissent as long as they explain why. Yes, it has been years that this discussion has gone on and Richard and others have taken the position from the outset that a Gaussian circle can have no connection to radiation, but refuse to provide the reasons why this is so. Of course, if he is in error it is natural that he would like the subject to go away, if he is correct then he can easily accomplish what he wants. He does have choices. There is no doubt that he has his followers who are calling me stupid , idiot etc and possibly want me to respond by calling them homosexual or maybe worse , but none of that gets me to the point that I am seeking. I have done the work or experiments and now we are at the point of interpretation as to why those results occur since this is the usual point that errors can be made. All simple stuff. Actually, Mike, it is like being on Hyde park corner where many bring a box to stand on and start preaching to the crowd. Why they do it I do not know since most people snicker and then move on. |
Physics forums censor ship
Mike Kaliski wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message ... On Jan 6, 7:29 pm, Art Unwin wrote: Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where is made for displacement current to contain a static field. I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where From www.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." You are an idiot. Bill, A trifle blunt and rather harsh. It's an analogy. The sun is producing heat by fusion rather than burning, but particles are thrown out from the solar surface in the solar wind and coronal mass ejections. Art has been pursuing his theory for years. It's one of the largest postings in the newsgroup. Mike G0ULI Unfortunately it is not an analogy. Art believes this literally. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 7, 11:42*am, wrote:
Mike Kaliski wrote: "Bill" wrote in message .... On Jan 6, 7:29 pm, Art Unwin wrote: Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where is made for displacement current to contain a static field. I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where Fromwww.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." You are an idiot. Bill, A trifle blunt and rather harsh. It's an analogy. The sun is producing heat by fusion rather than burning, but particles are thrown out from the solar surface in the solar wind and coronal mass ejections. Art has been pursuing his theory for years. It's one of the largest postings in the newsgroup.. Mike G0ULI Unfortunately it is not an analogy. Art believes this literally. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- Let us presume you are correct and I should have introduced particles at rest on Earth and stated nothing more as the Introduction to the subject. What else do you want of me so that we can move on? Would this change your approach to the whole subject? In fact, can you accept the idea of particles entering the Earth's boundary so that we can move on with the discussion of static particles? |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 7, 4:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 7, 7:24*am, Dave wrote: On Jan 7, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote: On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote: 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. Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it quite clear that *static particles can become a dynamic field according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am working with. there is no exception for radio waves, they act as photon particles also, just like the ones at visible light frequencies and higher. this too has been accepted for many years. David, I won't fight you but I would like to take advantage of your expertise. The question whether you may make a gaussian field dynamic such that Maxwells equations can be used is the beginning of this saga as the group will not accept it. So I will move on to the Faraday cage. *There is an animation of what exactly happens on the web with respect to radio, you may want to look it up. But for openers you would get my attention in explaning this phenomina with the use of waves instead of the actions of mass or a particle. This is a sincere request as it seems discussion of duallity means talking past each other when there is a clear difference between the action of waves and those of particles,namely attraction. versus cancellation. You supplying this may get the subject back to a level plane of politeness where the postings will supply enlightment instead of derision. Thanks for reading Art duality applies to all frequencies of electromagnetic waves and photons... it all depends on which is more useful for whatever you are working on. particle physicists like photons because they can draw them in feynman diagrams nicely and they like to talk about them getting absorbed and emitted by valence electrons, engineers generally prefer waves and fields because they are easy to calculate over macroscopic distances using maxwell's equations. and i still say your extension of a time parameter in gauss's equation is unnecessary since the equation applies at all times. just because no 't' shows in the equation doesn't mean it is necessarily static, just that it is not an explicit function of time. actually if you study all 4 of maxwell's equations closely you will see that NONE of them are explicit functions of time. two of them do contain dervitives with respect to time, but none of them contains 't' as an independent variable. |
Physics forums censor ship
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:42Â*am, wrote: Mike Kaliski wrote: "Bill" wrote in message ... On Jan 6, 7:29 pm, Art Unwin wrote: Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where is made for displacement current to contain a static field. I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where Fromwww.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." You are an idiot. Bill, A trifle blunt and rather harsh. It's an analogy. The sun is producing heat by fusion rather than burning, but particles are thrown out from the solar surface in the solar wind and coronal mass ejections. Art has been pursuing his theory for years. It's one of the largest postings in the newsgroup. Mike G0ULI Unfortunately it is not an analogy. Art believes this literally. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- Let us presume you are correct and I should have introduced particles at rest on Earth and stated nothing more as the Introduction to the subject. What else do you want of me so that we can move on? Would this change your approach to the whole subject? In fact, can you accept the idea of particles entering the Earth's boundary so that we can move on with the discussion of static particles? Gibberish. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Physics forums censor ship
In article
, Bill wrote: On Jan 6, 7:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote: Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where is made for displacement current to contain a static field. I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where From www.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." You are an idiot. You Sir, are a Morooon (Bugs Bunny Definition) if you think the above has ANY basis in FACT.... I don't know where you get that the "Sun is burning" idea... Burning is Oxidation, and the sun is NOT oxidizing ANYTHING.... The Sun runs on FUSION... Hydrogen into Helium and higher Molecular Weight Atoms. this is NOT Oxidation... Best you leave the Physics and Chemistry to folks that actually paid attention is Jr. High School..... |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 7, 1:09*pm, Dave wrote:
On Jan 7, 4:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Jan 7, 7:24*am, Dave wrote: On Jan 7, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote: On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote: 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. Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it quite clear that *static particles can become a dynamic field according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am working with. there is no exception for radio waves, they act as photon particles also, just like the ones at visible light frequencies and higher. this too has been accepted for many years. David, I won't fight you but I would like to take advantage of your expertise. The question whether you may make a gaussian field dynamic such that Maxwells equations can be used is the beginning of this saga as the group will not accept it. So I will move on to the Faraday cage. *There is an animation of what exactly happens on the web with respect to radio, you may want to look it up. But for openers you would get my attention in explaning this phenomina with the use of waves instead of the actions of mass or a particle. This is a sincere request as it seems discussion of duallity means talking past each other when there is a clear difference between the action of waves and those of particles,namely attraction. versus cancellation. You supplying this may get the subject back to a level plane of politeness where the postings will supply enlightment instead of derision. Thanks for reading Art duality applies to all frequencies of electromagnetic waves and photons... it all depends on which is more useful for whatever you are working on. *particle physicists like photons because they can draw them in feynman diagrams nicely and they like to talk about them getting absorbed and emitted by valence electrons, engineers generally prefer waves and fields because they are easy to calculate over macroscopic distances using maxwell's equations. and i still say your extension of a time parameter in gauss's equation is unnecessary since the equation applies at all times. *just because no 't' shows in the equation doesn't mean it is necessarily static, just that it is not an explicit function of time. *actually if you study all 4 of maxwell's equations closely you will see that NONE of them are explicit functions of time. *two of them do contain derivitives with respect to time, but none of them contains 't' as an independent variable. One short point. Time is omitted because it is based on equilibrium alone where nothing is happening and all is balanced The Big bang was the instance that time began and equilibrium is broken by movement or energy exchange. It is the energy exchange subject which alone gives us the picture of change without which there is nothing. David Well that is a good opening or introduction, tho I wish you had not mentioned your thought of adding time to Maxwell as the response to that was explosive years ago. I hope that others will put that aside so we can concentrate on the main thrust of the problem. I will be very interested in what you will use as the subject for explanations to how the wave actually works. From the above, I really believe you have the background or track record to explain all and how things are working to the satisfaction of all. This could be exciting Regards Art |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 7, 1:21*pm, You wrote:
In article , *Bill wrote: On Jan 6, 7:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote: Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where is made for displacement current to contain a static field. I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where Fromwww.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." You are an idiot. You Sir, are a Morooon (Bugs Bunny Definition) if you think the above has ANY basis in FACT.... I don't know where you get that the "Sun is burning" idea... Burning is Oxidation, and the sun is NOT oxidizing ANYTHING.... The Sun runs on FUSION... Hydrogen into Helium and higher Molecular Weight Atoms. this is NOT Oxidation... Best you leave the Physics and Chemistry to folks that actually paid attention is Jr. High School..... Yes, you are correct, as is the comment regarding the number of basic colours. The introduction was meant to provide an outline to the subject without getting involved in Lepton and Neutrinos that in the past took away from the subject at hand namely, particles arriving from outside the Gaussian circle. When the above items were introduced on this newsgroup a lot of bad names went flying about, but there was one comment that stated, for this group it would be better to stick to particles than to speculate on the subject prior to entrance to the Earth's circle. Using the term Leptons and the number of different flavours or colour such as the three colours that are used in tv was really a mistake when considering the audience I was hoping for. More than 7K has viewed it according to QRZ but nobody siezed upon this to make a complaint, but then one hopes that this group is more knowledgable My sole intent of introducing the Sun was to link the Suns rotation cycles to the hobby of ham radio as we see it as an introduction and not to generate a science paper otherwise intrusion into the subject of nuclear decay would also have to be introduced, and it goes on. |
Physics forums censor ship
Art Unwin wrote:
make a complaint, but then one hopes that this group is more knowledgable My sole intent of introducing the Sun was to link the Suns rotation cycles to the hobby of ham radio as we see it as an introduction and not to generate a science paper otherwise intrusion into the subject of nuclear decay would also have to be introduced, and it goes on. And showing more of his ignorance or lack of attention to detail, it really doesn't matter which, he doesn't realize that fusion is not nuclear decay. Art should give it up, but he doesn't realize he's just flatass wrong about almost everything he says, so he never will. Either that or he's one of the nets most successful trolls. It matters little which. tom K0TAR |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 8, 2:19*am, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: make a complaint, but then one hopes that this group is *more knowledgable *My sole intent of introducing the Sun was to link the Suns rotation cycles to the hobby of ham radio as we see it as an introduction and not to generate a science paper otherwise intrusion into the subject of nuclear decay would also have to be introduced, and it goes on. And showing more of his ignorance or lack of attention to detail, it really doesn't matter which, he doesn't realize that fusion is not nuclear decay. Art should give it up, but he doesn't realize he's just flatass wrong about almost everything he says, so he never will. *Either that or he's one of the nets most successful trolls. *It matters little which. tom K0TAR Art would have us believe that objection to his abysmal ignorance is in fact censorship. So his persistence makes him a martyr, you see. |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 7, 7:50*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 7, 1:09*pm, Dave wrote: On Jan 7, 4:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Jan 7, 7:24*am, Dave wrote: On Jan 7, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote: On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote: 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. Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it quite clear that *static particles can become a dynamic field according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am working with. there is no exception for radio waves, they act as photon particles also, just like the ones at visible light frequencies and higher. this too has been accepted for many years. David, I won't fight you but I would like to take advantage of your expertise. The question whether you may make a gaussian field dynamic such that Maxwells equations can be used is the beginning of this saga as the group will not accept it. So I will move on to the Faraday cage. *There is an animation of what exactly happens on the web with respect to radio, you may want to look it up. But for openers you would get my attention in explaning this phenomina with the use of waves instead of the actions of mass or a particle. This is a sincere request as it seems discussion of duallity means talking past each other when there is a clear difference between the action of waves and those of particles,namely attraction. versus cancellation. You supplying this may get the subject back to a level plane of politeness where the postings will supply enlightment instead of derision. Thanks for reading Art duality applies to all frequencies of electromagnetic waves and photons... it all depends on which is more useful for whatever you are working on. *particle physicists like photons because they can draw them in feynman diagrams nicely and they like to talk about them getting absorbed and emitted by valence electrons, engineers generally prefer waves and fields because they are easy to calculate over macroscopic distances using maxwell's equations. and i still say your extension of a time parameter in gauss's equation is unnecessary since the equation applies at all times. *just because no 't' shows in the equation doesn't mean it is necessarily static, just that it is not an explicit function of time. *actually if you study all 4 of maxwell's equations closely you will see that NONE of them are explicit functions of time. *two of them do contain derivitives with respect to time, but none of them contains 't' as an independent variable. One short point. Time is omitted because it is based on equilibrium alone where nothing is happening and all is balanced The Big bang was the instance that time began and equilibrium is broken by movement or energy exchange. It is the energy exchange subject which alone gives us the picture of change without which there is nothing. no, time is omitted because it is irrelevant to an equation that applies 'at each instant' in time. so at any instant you can add up the charges inside the gaussian surface and know the total flux through the surface. the only 'equilibrium' is the equals sign that states that the total flux is equal to a function of the total charge. you can indeed have energy flow across the gaussian surface and the equals sign still applies at every instant in time. David Well that is a good opening or introduction, tho I wish you had not mentioned your thought of adding time to Maxwell as the response to that was explosive years ago. I hope that others will put that aside so we can concentrate on the main thrust of the problem. but what is the 'problem'. maxwell's equations as published for the last hundred years or more seem to work just fine to the limits of our measurement capabilities. I will be very interested in what you will use as the subject for explanations to how *the wave actually works. From the above, I really believe you have the background or track record to explain all and how things are working to the satisfaction of all. This could be exciting Regards Art No one knows how the wave 'actually' works, but we have maxwell's equations to tell us how to accurately model and predict configuration of fields and the propagation of waves. That is the one thing your 'theory' seems to be missing, in order for you to have a theory worth discussing it must first be put down in equations that describe something measurable so it can be verified versus reality... AND then it must predict something different from all other existing laws and theories. without those two conditions you are just a handwaving carnival hawker trying to sell patent medicine to people who aren't sick. |
Physics forums censor ship
On Jan 9, 8:06*am, Dave wrote:
On Jan 7, 7:50*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Jan 7, 1:09*pm, Dave wrote: On Jan 7, 4:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Jan 7, 7:24*am, Dave wrote: On Jan 7, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote: On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote: 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. Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it quite clear that *static particles can become a dynamic field according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am working with. there is no exception for radio waves, they act as photon particles also, just like the ones at visible light frequencies and higher. this too has been accepted for many years. David, I won't fight you but I would like to take advantage of your expertise. The question whether you may make a gaussian field dynamic such that Maxwells equations can be used is the beginning of this saga as the group will not accept it. So I will move on to the Faraday cage. *There is an animation of what exactly happens on the web with respect to radio, you may want to look it up. But for openers you would get my attention in explaning this phenomina with the use of waves instead of the actions of mass or a particle. This is a sincere request as it seems discussion of duallity means talking past each other when there is a clear difference between the action of waves and those of particles,namely attraction. versus cancellation. You supplying this may get the subject back to a level plane of politeness where the postings will supply enlightment instead of derision. Thanks for reading Art duality applies to all frequencies of electromagnetic waves and photons... it all depends on which is more useful for whatever you are working on. *particle physicists like photons because they can draw them in feynman diagrams nicely and they like to talk about them getting absorbed and emitted by valence electrons, engineers generally prefer waves and fields because they are easy to calculate over macroscopic distances using maxwell's equations. and i still say your extension of a time parameter in gauss's equation is unnecessary since the equation applies at all times. *just because no 't' shows in the equation doesn't mean it is necessarily static, just that it is not an explicit function of time. *actually if you study all 4 of maxwell's equations closely you will see that NONE of them are explicit functions of time. *two of them do contain derivitives with respect to time, but none of them contains 't' as an independent variable. One short point. Time is omitted because it is based on equilibrium alone where nothing is happening and all is balanced The Big bang was the instance that time began and equilibrium is broken by movement or energy exchange. It is the energy exchange subject which alone gives us the picture of change without which there is nothing. no, time is omitted because it is irrelevant to an equation that applies 'at each instant' in time. *so at any instant you can add up the charges inside the gaussian surface and know the total flux through the surface. *the only 'equilibrium' is the equals sign that states that the total flux is equal to a function of the total charge. *you can indeed have energy flow across the gaussian surface and the equals sign still applies at every instant in time. David Well that is a good opening or introduction, tho I wish you had not mentioned your thought of adding time to Maxwell as the response to that was explosive years ago. I hope that others will put that aside so we can concentrate on the main thrust of the problem. but what is the 'problem'. *maxwell's equations as published for the last hundred years or more seem to work just fine to the limits of our measurement capabilities. I will be very interested in what you will use as the subject for explanations to how *the wave actually works. From the above, I really believe you have the background or track record to explain all and how things are working to the satisfaction of all. This could be exciting Regards Art No one knows how the wave 'actually' works, but we have maxwell's equations to tell us how to accurately model and predict configuratio of fields and the propagation of waves. *That is the one thing your 'theory' seems to be missing, in order for you to have a theory worth discussing it must first be put down in equations that describe something measurable so it can be verified versus reality... AND then it must predict something different from all other existing laws and theories. O.K David Let us look at the Faraday cage or better still a shield. Faraday has shown that when one side is impinged upon by a ":wave" that it will separate into two components of "waves or fields". They will not stay as one but will separate into two separate energies or charges On one side of the conductor (electric field) and the other field will follow (magnetic) on the other side of the conductor. The time elapsed is equal to half a cycle or half a period of the frequency applied. During the next half cycle the charges as they are now on each side of the conductor are drawn opposite to each other with the conductor inbetween. Thus this second half of the cycle of time is taken up by movement or an accelleration of the charge inside the shield until it is exactly opposite(and equal) to the outside charge. The intenal charge has to move because it is out of phase with respect to the external charge thus it is forced to accelerate or decellerate if you will to its new position or resting place. While this internal charge is moving the flux that it is carrying is transformed into a time varying current such that the charge is now without energy and static and its energy in the form of a time varying current has moved on outside of the so called boundary in the same way it in initially entered our boundary. Thus at this point we have located the where abouts of all energies involved by adding all the "instances" of time ( dy/dx ) until the instances added up to a period of time for the frequency applied. At all times where the energies are at rest there is no accelleration and the energies dissapate into another form or state. As you can see David I have concentrated on energy asd opposed to its form where we applied an energy at the transmitter where it was reciprocated at the receiver. Mention of waves or particles have been deliberatly avoided and we have accounted for all forces or energies involved for a cycle. Now we do not have to let it rest there.We have Maxwells equations for radiation and with todays computors that same equation can be oriented such that if you input a radiator it will change the input to the metrics of Maxwells equations which is a wavelength to satisfy equilibrium. Thus the program only accepts input metrics that are included in Maxwells equations such that equilibrium is adhered to at all times When applying a radiator to such a computer program it will supply a accountability of all forces that follows the intents of Maxwell. Thus when the program has done its stuff it will supply a full accountability in terms of 100 percent, Thus I have supplied a sequence of "observables" that relate to the experimental results of Faraday. I then applied the same situation to the accepted Maxwell mathematical equations which also provided 100% accountability. Both of these approaches result as equals. To satisfy those who have positions of duallity I have used energy terms alone without the description of its carriers. So David, I have provided all for your dissemination, where you can break it up into scientific parts for comment including desired additions required to fortify a position. It is rather long and detailed but in no way can it be seen as "hand waving". At least you seem to be alone in sticking to physics without being dominated by emotions. One can easily hang a piece of mesh and connect it both to the ground and a radio and both charges will take a separate path since they are divided by a conductor into two separate entities. Best regards Art *without those two conditions you are just a handwaving carnival hawker trying to sell patent medicine to people who aren't sick. |
Physics forums censor ship
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. |
Physics forums censor ship
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. |
Physics forums censor ship
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 |
Physics forums censor ship
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:58 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com