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

However, what is primary for one discipline is not primary for another
discipline. For instance, in color photography and in its negatives,
the colors are Cyan, Magenta, and -ahem- Yellow. This is the
difference between additive primaries and subtractive primaries.

These colors are actually dual band modes
Cyan is Blue + Green
Magenta is Blue + Red
Yellow is Green + Red

There is also the opponency color system that contains, as colors,
Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow.

However, color is a perception and has absolutely no connection to
sub-atomic leprechauns. All light emanates from electron orbital
displacements (aka charge acceleration).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mar 1, 1:57*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

However, what is primary for one discipline is not primary for another
discipline. *For instance, in color photography and in its negatives,
the colors are Cyan, Magenta, and -ahem- Yellow. *This is the
difference between additive primaries and subtractive primaries.

These colors are actually dual band modes
Cyan is Blue + Green
Magenta is Blue + Red
Yellow is Green + Red

There is also the opponency color system that contains, as colors,
Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow.

However, color is a perception and has absolutely no connection to
sub-atomic leprechauns. *All light emanates from electron orbital
displacements (aka charge acceleration).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Thank you Richard for an explanation that I did not supply.
It also has not been ruled out that a lepton cannot change its
frequency
when it emerges from the boundary of the Sun until it arrives on
earth.
Either way it is a minor point in the discussion of communication.
It would be better if a separate discussion was posted for the
spammers as to how many colours are visible in the aurora beaurilas to
where the other colours come from and let them fight from there.

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?

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?

There are different ways to come up with colors, transmitted or
reflected. And the magic is that they will perform differently depending
on the mode.

You were actually using subtractive mode - Cyan-magenta-yellow. Your
blue and yellow combined and there you have it - green. Just like it was
supposed to.

Note that you color mixing fails at the lower and upper end. where the
color mixing won't be able to produce pure white or black. But for
colors in the middle of the range, it works well. That's why printers
use a cyan-magenta-yellow-and black model, with percentages rather than
steps.

We'll just ignore the anti-education zinger. Not sure what that's about.
This isn't rocket surgery.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.