Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 - |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |