Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Best dynamic mic ever made? | CB | |||
mopaarhoLICK made threats, now I make a promise! | CB | |||
Mr. Static - Index: The On-Line Resource for Static-Related Compliance Issues | Shortwave |