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.