On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:46:36 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

I wouldn't exactly call it "classic Unwin writing".

Well, let's return to the claim:
A pure yellow and a pure blue would make black not green,
and examine the specifics "pure" yellow for instance and see where the
author leads us courtesy of amazon's "look inside" feature for this
book. Chapter three's title reads:
"Pure reds, yellows, and blues do not exist"

Makes it pretty difficult (and absurd) to test the author's claim when
that author pens an entire chapter in self-negation out of the box.

This is a classic Unwinism. (Compare Art's patent for a yagi that has
a reflector with a length shorter than resonance, and a director
length longer than resonance.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

This has been beaten by an Englishman, Claude Friese-Greene, in 1927
with an additive system of only two colors: red and green. Note,
there is no blue, no yellow. I will quote a fuller description below.

For those who believe their eyes and the yellow of blond hair, and the
blue of the sky check out 5 seconds into:
Helmsdale, Scotland (1926) at youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVy5gMTps3Q
There are also natural skin tones and reds too.

One can consider the blue of the Thames river in
The Thames opposite the Tower of London, London (1926)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BCfx651YQY

Then there is the classic
The Open Road London (1927)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwahIQz0o-M

Taken from Claude Friese-Greene's Colour Process
By BBC History:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/program...ocess_03.shtml
The film he used was panchromatic and so able to record colour in tones of black and white. He also used a revolving colour filter wheel on the lens with one red filter, one orange and the other clear.

The processed film was then stained with red and green using a mechanical process on alternate frames. It was then meant to be down to the viewer to effectively do the rest - when projected at a fast enough speed, the eye plays a trick on the brain and creates the illusion of a broader colour spectrum.

So, the primary colors your eye would believe come from
red/orange/green - something more suitable to Halloween than a colour
travelogue.

The original Technicolor (1916) was similar with an identical color
process (red and green) which had two separate color frames with
overlapping projection. Needless to say, the Technicolor we are used
to abandoned the first three versions of the two color methods to give
us the three color "The Adventures of Robin Hood."

I will repeat the cogent point about colour:
the eye plays a trick on the brain and creates the illusion of a broader colour spectrum.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:35:38 -0800 (PST), Bill wrote:

On Mar 1, 7:57 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:02:05 -0800 (PST), Bill wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:39 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
we have three types of Leptons each able to produce one of the
primary colours, red, green or yellow. Thus we have three types of
Leptons each able to produce one of the primary colours, red, green or
yellow.
And so on...
xxxxxxxxx
Thanks for printing it again tho full completion of the article would
be much more rewarding
Do you really think green is a primary color, you great braying
jackass?
Green is a primary color - RGB

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?

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.

Respectfully guys, Mixing colors like that doesn't give you black. And
it's pointless telling Bill that his mixing of Yellow and blue didn't
give him green.

If you place a dark blue gel in front of you, then place a dark yellow
gel in front of that, it will certainly look black (though black isn't a
color) But that's because all the frequencies are pretty well filtered
out. That is what this guy who wrote that book is probably trying to
say. That and a dollar gets ya a down payment on a cuppa at Starbucks.

Just as an experiment, Make three circles in a paint program. Each
circle is on a different layer

Color one 255 red 0 green and blue.

The next 255 green, 0 others.

last one of 255 blue, 0 others.

So we now have three circles of the different primiary colors, the ones
I learned about in 7th grade art class and have been using since the
early 80's.

So we take the circles, and overlap them so that they cover each other
in parts, yet leave most of their surface open.

Mike you idjit, they just cover each other up! SO let's try to make a
transmission system on a solid piece of paper. Can be done, it can.

Make each color 50 percent transparent. There's a possibility you might
need to arrange the layers a bit. sending one or the other to the back.

I did this, and viola! Got the red green and blue on the outside.
they're looking a little pale, but they're the pure colors. Let's look
in the overlap. Where blue and green overlap is a nice shade of cyan,
blue and red is magenta, but what's this? Green and red is kinda brown!

This is a problem of the surface not being able to function exactly like
transmission. But if you check your color tables, brown is just a darker
version of yellow.

So we have the RGB, or the CYM primary colors.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:

BTW all this primary color business is pretty elementary stuff. Could
some folks be arguing about it just because "Art said it, it must be wrong"?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Mar 2, 10:10*pm, Bill wrote:
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?

He was the one that took off running when he saw the light.
Never to return. Nada..zilch.. zip..
He never amounted to more than plastic filler in the overall
scheme of things. And the filler didn't stick too well.. :/

Art is like a dog that chases it's tail. He's trying to validate
an antenna that doesn't exist. If one could build a decently
radiating dummy load on a stick, it would already be on the
market. In this area, an Isotron would be a close example
of what he thinks he has. But note that the builders of the
Isotron do not proclaim it to have magical properties, nor
do they try to explain it's operation using mumbo gumbo
technobabble. Even they seem to realize that the feedline
is doing a large part of the radiating. :/

The same could be said for directive arrays using cockeyed
skewed angle radiators. If there was some magical property
to these designs, they would already be on the market.
There has been some uses of swept back radiators in the
past, but not quite the same thing as Art proposes.
And they do not try to proclaim they break or ignore the
rules of science.
Art gave one example of a skewed angle yagi months back.
I modeled one in about 4 minutes using conventional
yagi elements that handily beat his design in both gain
and F/B ratio. His designs are inferior.
He is good entertainment though.

On Mar 4, 7:44*am, wrote:
On Mar 2, 10:10*pm, Bill wrote:

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

This time I will respond to your silliness. I will try to put it as
simply as possible as you have stated your highest achievement was
junior high school after which you stumbled and thus did not go any
further.





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?

He was the one that took off running when he saw the light.
Never to return. Nada..zilch.. zip..
He showed mathematically that I was correct. Theoretical physicists
use the cgs system of units the same as I was taught. When a book
along while ago decided to us SI units he made a mathematical error
which changed the whole concept of the law Because of plagarism all
school and college books now print this same error.


He never amounted to more than plastic filler in the overall
scheme of things. And the filler didn't stick too well.. *:/

Art is like a dog that chases it's tail. He's trying to validate
an antenna that doesn't exist. If one could build a decently
radiating dummy load on a stick, it would already be on the
market.

No it would not be on the market has I hold the patent and it is based
on the cgs standard
which is known to be correct





In this area, an Isotron would be a close example
of what he thinks he has. But note that the builders of the
Isotron do not proclaim it to have magical properties, nor
do they try to explain it's operation using mumbo gumbo
technobabble.

I have nev er claimed magical properties. When the cgs system is
applied to modern days antenna designs the results show higher
efficiencies in being sensitive to ALL SIGNALS
that arrive and where the same array needs a smaller volume than the
yag and is not limited to a single polarity signal. In other words
the computer programs are now proven to follow the laws of Maxwell
where all forces are accounted for.

Even they seem to realize that the feedline
is doing a large part of the radiating. :/

This has certainly been the case for many frauds foisted onto the ham
community but it is not applicable to all arrays that differ from the
Yagi and it is not applicablke in this case according to the accepted
NEC programs





The same could be said for directive arrays using cockeyed
skewed angle radiators. If there was some magical property
to these designs, they would already be on the market.

It would be great if they were as I would have a piece of that cake
but I have not taken on any commercial deals.


There has been some uses of swept back radiators in the
past, but not quite the same thing as Art proposes.
And they do not try to proclaim they break or ignore the
rules of science.

Tis not I who is breaking the rules of science but academia in
Universities and schools!


Art gave one example of a skewed angle yagi months back.
I modeled one in about 4 minutes using conventional
yagi elements that handily beat his design in both gain
and F/B ratio. His designs are inferior. *


I and the others on the group would love to see a model of your
sampling so this whole question of whether the NEC programs are in
error as well as my judgement.
As an engineer I passed well beyond the point of junior high school so
I take your limited education for what it is and try to decifer what
you really mean. But you are so far off with your deductions that I
can only assume the true reasons for your postings is insult and spam
where the true use of this forum is to educate one self regarding
amateur antennas.
Some may not agree with that format but free speech always rules.


He is good entertainment though.

On Mar 4, 4:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:44*am, wrote:

On Mar 2, 10:10*pm, Bill wrote:
snip art's blathering

He is good entertainment though.


not so much any more, getting too repetitious. time for something new
now. this latest kick on cgs vs si is just a weird side show. all
the good engineering texts show the constants converted to multiple
units. for instance in Jackson they show the equations in
Electrostatic units (esu), Electromagnetic units (emu), Gaussian,
Heaviside-Lorentz, and Rationalized MKSA. The equations still
represent the same things, only the constants are changed to confuse
the uneducated... thats how we engineers tell who is who, by the units
they choose and the direction of their current flow.

for instance, art chooses cgs, which is incomplete, much like his
thought processes. and he probably thinks current flows from negative
to positive, and he seems to prefer cartesian coordinates. That puts
him firmly in the crackpot physicist zone. I prefer Gaussian units
and positive to negative flow in cartesian coordinates which marks me
as an electrical engineer educated in eletromagnetics... though i am
also happy with rationalized mksa as used in ramo whinnery and van
duzer's communcations electronics text.

On Mar 4, 10:20*am, Art Unwin wrote:


This time I will respond to your silliness. I will try to put it as
simply as possible as you have stated your highest achievement was
junior high school after which you stumbled and thus did not go any
further.

A whiny bitchette like you has no idea what I've done or not done
since junior high school.
So screw you and the hobby horse you rode in on Mr. Unwin.




He showed mathematically that I was correct.

Don't make me have to whip out the archives.. again...




I have nev er claimed magical properties. When the cgs system is
applied to modern days antenna designs the results show higher
efficiencies in being sensitive to ALL SIGNALS
that arrive and where the same array needs a smaller volume than the
yag and is not limited to a single polarity signal. *In other words
the computer programs are now proven to follow the laws of Maxwell
where all forces are accounted for.

Well, may the forces be with you... chortle..




This has certainly been the case for many frauds foisted onto the ham
community but it is not applicable to all arrays that differ from the
Yagi and it is not applicablke in this case according to the accepted
NEC programs

Damn Art, for such an educated *******, you spell like a 4th
grader with the stomach flu...




It would be great if they were as I would have a piece of that cake
but I have not taken on any commercial deals.

I wouldn't be hold that bad breath if I were you..


There has been some uses of swept back radiators in the
past, but not quite the same thing as Art proposes.
And they do not try to proclaim they break or ignore the
rules of science.

Tis not I who is breaking the rules of science but academia in
Universities and schools!

Of course... :/ Everyone has crap for brains, except Art..


I and the others on the group would love to see a model of your
sampling so this whole question of whether the NEC programs are in
error as well as my judgement.

If you weren't such a whiny horses ass I might. But since you
are, bite me. I'm not going to do any work for you.

As an engineer I passed well beyond the point of junior high school so
I take your limited education for what it is and try to decifer what
you really mean. But you are so far off with your deductions that I
can only assume the true reasons for your postings is insult and spam
where the true use of this forum is to educate one self regarding
amateur antennas.
Some may not agree with that format but free speech always rules.

Well, excuse the hell out of me. But until you build and
test one of these conglomerations against other known
standards, I'll take it that your vast education was a waste of
time and money. Your blithering rants an education of things RF?
Give me a break, you silly old man..

wrote:
On Mar 4, 10:20 am, Art Unwin wrote:
snip
As an engineer I passed well beyond the point of junior high school so
I take your limited education for what it is and try to decifer what
you really mean. But you are so far off with your deductions that I
can only assume the true reasons for your postings is insult and spam
where the true use of this forum is to educate one self regarding
amateur antennas.
Some may not agree with that format but free speech always rules.

Well, excuse the hell out of me. But until you build and
test one of these conglomerations against other known
standards, I'll take it that your vast education was a waste of
time and money. Your blithering rants an education of things RF?
Give me a break, you silly old man..


I don't think I would have held back quite so much. He certainly
deserves anything you care to say to him.

I'll take what ever you've learned in school and since then, over what
Art, WHO IS NOT AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER BY THE WAY, has to say about any
subject involving electrons and especially a subject dear to the hearts
of many here - Fields and Waves.

He is an idiot and a fool, and doesn't know anything about what he rants
about on this and other newsgroups.

I hope I was clear in my disapproval of Art (Im rite and EVEREE WON ELSE
IS RONG!) Unwin and everything he states. He is absolute proof that the
US patent system needs to be junked and rebuilt from scratch.

tom
K0TAR