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, 10:10*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..

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.

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