A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
 

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:41:04 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://www.schoolofcolor.com/acatalog/Blue_and_Yellow.html
A pure yellow and a pure blue would make black not green,
a pure red and a pure blue would also produce black.

I left my crayons at home so I can't try it.

Hi Jeff,

I went to your link above, and spent some time browsing. I came
across the statement you offer - and mo
I have attempted to offer a total reassessment of the principles
underlying color mixing. It is, I believe, the first major break away
from the traditional and limited concepts that have caused artists
and others who work with color so many problems.

..... Classic Unwin writing there = Buy my idea to find out how.

I have met with soooo many inventors to listen to their pitch for
venture capital, and like this example above, they all hedge their
presentation by obfuscating. To a man (or woman), they all perceive
that their "secret sauce" is too valuable to reveal.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
 

Bill wrote:

Not when I was doing my fingerpaints in Kindergarten. When I wanted
green, I mixed blue and yellow. As you all attained your advanced
degrees, did you learn otherwise?

It's been obvious to me since kindergarten that if I roll a ball on the
floor, it comes to a stop all by itself. Then in high school them
edjukated egg-heads tried to tell me it'll just keep going. No telling
what them guys with advanced degrees must believe!

But I've been lookin' for the blue dots on my color TV, and couldn't
find any. Musta been designed by one of them eggheads and not by a
kindergarten pupil. Can't possibly work.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Bill wrote:

Not when I was doing my fingerpaints in Kindergarten. When I wanted
green, I mixed blue and yellow. As you all attained your advanced
degrees, did you learn otherwise?

It's been obvious to me since kindergarten that if I roll a ball on the
floor, it comes to a stop all by itself. Then in high school them
edjukated egg-heads tried to tell me it'll just keep going. No telling
what them guys with advanced degrees must believe!

But I've been lookin' for the blue dots on my color TV, and couldn't
find any. Musta been designed by one of them eggheads and not by a
kindergarten pupil. Can't possibly work.

Oops, found the blue dots. But no yellow. So how can it make the
"primary" color yellow?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
 

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:32:32 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:41:04 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://www.schoolofcolor.com/acatalog/Blue_and_Yellow.html
A pure yellow and a pure blue would make black not green,
a pure red and a pure blue would also produce black.

I left my crayons at home so I can't try it.

Hi Jeff,

I went to your link above, and spent some time browsing. I came
across the statement you offer - and mo
I have attempted to offer a total reassessment of the principles
underlying color mixing. It is, I believe, the first major break away
from the traditional and limited concepts that have caused artists
and others who work with color so many problems.

.... Classic Unwin writing there = Buy my idea to find out how.

Good point. The author is selling a book. I wouldn't expect him to
disclose too many of his "discoveries" or one might not need to buy
the book.

I wouldn't exactly call it "classic Unwin writing". The difference is
that the author of the color book is intentionally creating confusion
so that the only solution for the reader is to purchase the book. This
is a common marketing ploy. A clear explanation would not require a
book to show how it works. A not so clear explanation does. Art has
the right idea, but isn't selling anything, so that's out. His style
of writing would be very useful, if he didn't over-do it. For example,
the right approach would be a long series of one-line comments that
everyone can agree with. Make it sound like a beginning of a logical
argument, but it can also just be some marginally related factoids.
After a series of generally agreed upon statements, drop in a dubious
factoid and immediately generate an "obvious" conclusion. If Art did
that, instead of starting with multiple dubious factoids, it would
probably be quite effective.

It's not really a new method. Cults and special interest groups have
been dealing with mysteries since the dawn of civilization. For
example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_Mysteries
2000 years ago, we would be debating the merits of how the various
deities control antenna gain, VSWR, pattern, and propagation. The
sales pitch today is similar. Spoon feed the GUM (great unwashed
masses) with small portions of truth. When they become complacent,
shovel manure down their gullible throats.

I have met with soooo many inventors to listen to their pitch for
venture capital, and like this example above, they all hedge their
presentation by obfuscating. To a man (or woman), they all perceive
that their "secret sauce" is too valuable to reveal.

Same here. In the late 1990's, I doing sanity checks on business
plans for venture capitalists. Before handing someone a few million
dollars, running a sanity check was considered useful. Much of the
technology was little better than science fiction, but was so well
written, that it was difficult to detect. Some even had patents.
Gorgeous desktop publishing and graphics were great for gift wrapping.
Even the serious ones tended to camouflage shaky areas under a cloud
of technobabble and obfuscation.

Here's a classic:
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2004/03/22/story5.html
Patents: 6765479 and 5982276
Using a MASER to couple 2.4Gbits/sec to power lines for what's now
called BPL (broadband power line) to the GUM.



--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
 

On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:24:05 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

Were you aware that Maxwell gave a lecture to the Royal Society in
England on this very subject of primary colours?

Yep. See:
http://www.greatreality.com/color/ColorMaxwell.htm
He created the first color photograph using his idea of 3 primary
colors (red, blue, yellow) but without sensitivity to red or green.
Maxwell left a few unanswered questions about his method of color
photogrpahy:
http://www.greatreality.com/color/ColorDidMKnow.htm
Maxwell had a good start, but not the whole answer:
http://www.greatreality.com/ColorPrimary.htm

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
 

On Mar 2, 8:46*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:32:32 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:



On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:41:04 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://www.schoolofcolor.com/acatalog/Blue_and_Yellow.html
* A pure yellow and a pure blue would make black not green,
* a pure red and a pure blue would also produce black.

I left my crayons at home so I can't try it.
Hi Jeff,

I went to your link above, and spent some time browsing. *I came
across the statement you offer - and mo
I have attempted to offer a total reassessment of the principles
underlying color mixing. It is, I believe, the first major break away
from the traditional and limited concepts that have caused artists
and others who work with color so many problems.

.... Classic Unwin writing there = Buy my idea to find out how.

Good point. *The author is selling a book. *I wouldn't expect him to
disclose too many of his "discoveries" or one might not need to buy
the book.

I wouldn't exactly call it "classic Unwin writing". *The difference is
that the author of the color book is intentionally creating confusion
so that the only solution for the reader is to purchase the book. This
is a common marketing ploy. *A clear explanation would not require a
book to show how it works. *A not so clear explanation does. Art has
the right idea, but isn't selling anything, so that's out. His style
of writing would be very useful, if he didn't over-do it. For example,
the right approach would be a long series of one-line comments that
everyone can agree with. *Make it sound like a beginning of a logical
argument, but it can also just be some marginally related factoids.
After a series of generally agreed upon statements, drop in a dubious
factoid and immediately generate an "obvious" conclusion. If Art did
that, instead of starting with multiple dubious factoids, it would
probably be quite effective.

It's not really a new method. *Cults and special interest groups have
been dealing with mysteries since the dawn of civilization. *For
example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_Mysteries
2000 years ago, we would be debating the merits of how the various
deities control antenna gain, VSWR, pattern, and propagation. *The
sales pitch today is similar. *Spoon feed the GUM (great unwashed
masses) with small portions of truth. *When they become complacent,
shovel manure down their gullible throats.

I have met with soooo many inventors to listen to their pitch for
venture capital, and like this example above, they all hedge their
presentation by obfuscating. *To a man (or woman), they all perceive
that their "secret sauce" is too valuable to reveal.

Same here. *In the late 1990's, I doing sanity checks on business
plans for venture capitalists. *Before handing someone a few million
dollars, running a sanity check was considered useful. *Much of the
technology was little better than science fiction, but was so well
written, that it was difficult to detect. *Some even had patents.
Gorgeous desktop publishing and graphics were great for gift wrapping.
Even the serious ones tended to camouflage shaky areas under a cloud
of technobabble and obfuscation.

Here's a classic:
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2004/03/22/story5.html
Patents: 6765479 and 5982276 *
Using a MASER to couple 2.4Gbits/sec to power lines for what's now
called BPL (broadband power line) to the GUM.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
#http://802.11junk.com* * * * * * *
#http://www.LearnByDestroying.com* * * * * * * AE6KS

Ok. Jeff. What did I do wrong? I am still being trashed because of my
statement.
I started off with the statement that if you add a time varying field
to a arbitrary Gaussian border containing static particles, in
equilibrium, then Maxwells laws for radiation was applicable. My
education was based around cgs units.
Every body stated at that point that it was incorrect, ala you can't
mix static particles with waves, or something like that. The group
never backed off from the position that the statement was in error and
the arguement and insults went on for a few months. Then a Phd from
MIT chimed in and stated I was correct and explained why. He also was
then trashed by all.
The group have not, as yet, moved away from that position.
What should I have done so as to continueing sharing my work since
denial of my statement stopped all necessary explanations ,as the
statement was the discovery upon which antennas and radiation
advancement was based upon. Note I was sharing my discovery not
concealing it as Richard said.

A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
 

On Mar 3, 3:17*am, Art Unwin wrote:

the arguement and insults went on for a few months. Then a Phd from
MIT chimed in and stated I was correct and explained why. He also was
then trashed by all.

Wasn't he from BU with a degree from Cornell?

A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
 

On Mar 2, 7:41*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

http://www.schoolofcolor.com/acatalog/Blue_and_Yellow.html
* *A pure yellow and a pure blue would make black not green,
* *a pure red and a pure blue would also produce black.

So I can believe School of Color or my own lying eyes...

A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
 

On Mar 2, 10:17*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 2, 8:46*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:





On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:32:32 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:41:04 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://www.schoolofcolor.com/acatalog/Blue_and_Yellow.html
* A pure yellow and a pure blue would make black not green,
* a pure red and a pure blue would also produce black.

I left my crayons at home so I can't try it.
Hi Jeff,

I went to your link above, and spent some time browsing. *I came
across the statement you offer - and mo
I have attempted to offer a total reassessment of the principles
underlying color mixing. It is, I believe, the first major break away
from the traditional and limited concepts that have caused artists
and others who work with color so many problems.

.... Classic Unwin writing there = Buy my idea to find out how.

Good point. *The author is selling a book. *I wouldn't expect him to
disclose too many of his "discoveries" or one might not need to buy
the book.

I wouldn't exactly call it "classic Unwin writing". *The difference is
that the author of the color book is intentionally creating confusion
so that the only solution for the reader is to purchase the book. This
is a common marketing ploy. *A clear explanation would not require a
book to show how it works. *A not so clear explanation does. Art has
the right idea, but isn't selling anything, so that's out. His style
of writing would be very useful, if he didn't over-do it. For example,
the right approach would be a long series of one-line comments that
everyone can agree with. *Make it sound like a beginning of a logical
argument, but it can also just be some marginally related factoids.
After a series of generally agreed upon statements, drop in a dubious
factoid and immediately generate an "obvious" conclusion. If Art did
that, instead of starting with multiple dubious factoids, it would
probably be quite effective.

It's not really a new method. *Cults and special interest groups have
been dealing with mysteries since the dawn of civilization. *For
example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_Mysteries
2000 years ago, we would be debating the merits of how the various
deities control antenna gain, VSWR, pattern, and propagation. *The
sales pitch today is similar. *Spoon feed the GUM (great unwashed
masses) with small portions of truth. *When they become complacent,
shovel manure down their gullible throats.

I have met with soooo many inventors to listen to their pitch for
venture capital, and like this example above, they all hedge their
presentation by obfuscating. *To a man (or woman), they all perceive
that their "secret sauce" is too valuable to reveal.

Same here. *In the late 1990's, I doing sanity checks on business
plans for venture capitalists. *Before handing someone a few million
dollars, running a sanity check was considered useful. *Much of the
technology was little better than science fiction, but was so well
written, that it was difficult to detect. *Some even had patents.
Gorgeous desktop publishing and graphics were great for gift wrapping.
Even the serious ones tended to camouflage shaky areas under a cloud
of technobabble and obfuscation.

Here's a classic:
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2004/03/22/story5.html
Patents: 6765479 and 5982276 *
Using a MASER to couple 2.4Gbits/sec to power lines for what's now
called BPL (broadband power line) to the GUM.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
#http://802.11junk.com** * * * * *
#http://www.LearnByDestroying.com** * * * * * AE6KS

Ok. Jeff. What did I do wrong? I am still being trashed because of my
statement.
I started off with the statement that if you add a time varying field
to a arbitrary Gaussian border containing static particles, in
equilibrium, then Maxwells laws for radiation was applicable. My
education was based around cgs units.
Every body stated at that point that it was incorrect, ala you can't
mix static *particles with waves, or something like that. The group
never backed off from the position that the statement was in error and
the arguement and insults went on for a few months. Then a Phd from
MIT chimed in and stated I was correct and explained why. He also was
then trashed by all.
The group have not, as yet, moved away from that position.
What should I have done so as to continueing sharing my work since
denial of my statement stopped all necessary explanations ,as the
statement was the discovery upon which antennas and radiation
advancement was based upon. Note I was sharing my discovery not
concealing it as Richard said.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The only antenna you have shown so far is just a warped up Yagi. This
is nothing like you described"randomly placed full wavelength
elements in equalibrium". The antenna you described is just a slightly
messsed up Yagi with a slightly messed up radiation pattern. It seems
like you should be able to learn from your own data that you havent
done anything new.Why dont you model the antenna as you described it.
Full wavelength radiators fed in phase and randomly placed"

Jimmie.

A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
 

On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 20:20:42 -0800 (PST), Bill wrote:

On Mar 2, 7:41*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

http://www.schoolofcolor.com/acatalog/Blue_and_Yellow.html
* *A pure yellow and a pure blue would make black not green,
* *a pure red and a pure blue would also produce black.

So I can believe School of Color or my own lying eyes...

You can believe your eyes for two different cases of primary color -
transmission (additive) and reflection (subtractive) - and one of
those examples will say your eyes are lying.

Jeff's example can be tested quite simply (and was suggested by Roy).
Take a displayed image (on your computer) of a photo of your swatch of
your two colors, yellow and blue, mixed on a piece of paper in exactly
the fashion of your kindergarten experience. Arrange it so the paper
has yellow and blue margins merging into your green center.

As I said, display your art work on your monitor. Place a very strong
magnifying glass near the display to observe the areas at the pixel
level (I had to use 20X) You will find, true to your experience that
the green pels of the display correspond to the green area of the
mixed colors. You will find blue pels that correspond to the blue
area of mixed colors. However, you will find no yellow pels in the
yellow pigment you mixed with the blue - those pels are red and green.
So, looking at the transmitted light of a reflected light image would
have your eyes witnessing that there was absolutely no yellow in your
original finger paint. The evidence available to your own eyes (and
everyone else) would say that Red+Green+Blue=Green Do you believe
that? It is your own yellow pigment that you took a picture of and
examined on your own computer. Your eyes are lying to you.

Color is an illusion of the mind and nothing else but a convention of
terminology.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC