| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
I made a time varying field addition to a static field in equilibrium
some time back. All on this group said it was and still is B.S.! It was this finding that created the basis of a new antenna science that I have shared with this group and with page Unwin antennas. If one goes to http://www.james-clerk-maxwell.com/ one can read in better in detail a description of my findings in a much better way than I can fully explain where a mathematical error existed when changing from MKS units 150 years ago when utelizing the laws of statics in antenna design. My findings are in the patents loosely described on my page Unwin antennas! The author of the paper goes on to say how this error has placed physics back to the middle ages or something like that and for my self I have the feeling that this error was the sole reason for Einstein not solving the Standard model before he gave up and moved on to start the idea of Quantum physics. For myself I am very comfortable with the idea that communication is by the "particle" as a carrier of the charge and not the often much quoted "wave." In addition I would point out that the array I gave in another thread is further proof of the correctness of what I have stated which is according to Maxwells equations where accountability is made of all forces. All antenna text books as well as those in physics will now have to be updated to reflect the above findings I am so pleased that I have been found not guilty of spreading B.S. in the amateur radio community and thus exposing spammers for what they really are. In summation it is now possible to make antennas in a smaller volume such that a radiator for top band can now be placed upon a tower or in a small garden as envisaged by Mr Moxon who has since become a SK. Regards Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk) |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
Art Unwin wrote:
I made a time varying field addition to a static field in equilibrium some time back. All on this group said it was and still is B.S.! It was this finding that created the basis of a new antenna science that I have shared with this group and with page Unwin antennas. If one goes to http://www.james-clerk-maxwell.com/ One finds another crank web site put up by an Aether kook. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Feb 26, 11:08*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I made a time varying field addition to a static field in equilibrium some time back. All on this group said it was and still is B.S.! *It was this finding that created the basis of a new antenna science that I have shared with this group and with page Unwin antennas. If one goes to * * * * * * * * * * * * *http://www.james-clerk-maxwell.com/ one can read in better in *detail a description of my findings in a much better way than I can fully explain where a mathematical error existed when changing from MKS units 150 years ago when utelizing the laws of statics in antenna design. My findings *are in the patents loosely described on my page *Unwin antennas! The author of the paper goes on to say how this error has placed physics back to the middle ages or something like that and for my self I have the feeling that this error was the sole reason for Einstein not solving the Standard model before he gave up and moved on to start the idea of Quantum physics. For myself I am very comfortable with the idea that communication is by the "particle" as a carrier of the charge and not the often much quoted "wave." In addition I would point out that the array I gave in another thread is further proof of the correctness of what I have stated which is according to Maxwells equations where accountability is made of all forces. All antenna text books as well as those in physics will now have to be updated to reflect the above findings I am so pleased that I have been found not guilty of spreading B.S. in the amateur radio community and thus exposing spammers for what they really are. In summation it is now possible to make antennas in a smaller volume such that a radiator for top band can now be placed upon a tower or in a small garden as envisaged by Mr Moxon who has since become a SK. Regards Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk) Yep the mesh antenna is pure BS. In efficient antennas the DC resistance of the antenna is usually quite small, values in the 1/100ths or 1/1000th of ohms would be expected. Normally the RF impedance of the antenna is hundreds or thousands of times greater than this. Under these conditions most of the power is going to be radiated and only a small part radiated as heat. In the case of the mess antenna the feed point impedance of the antenna is what you would expect the DC resistance to be( around 1/100th of an ohm) . This means most of your power is going to be used to heat wire. Congratulation Art, you have made another Dummy Load. Jimmie |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Feb 27, 12:33*am, JIMMIE wrote:
On Feb 26, 11:08*pm, Art Unwin wrote: I made a time varying field addition to a static field in equilibrium some time back. All on this group said it was and still is B.S.! *It was this finding that created the basis of a new antenna science that I have shared with this group and with page Unwin antennas. If one goes to * * * * * * * * * * * * *http://www.james-clerk-maxwell.com/ one can read in better in *detail a description of my findings in a much better way than I can fully explain where a mathematical error existed when changing from MKS units 150 years ago when utelizing the laws of statics in antenna design. My findings *are in the patents loosely described on my page *Unwin antennas! The author of the paper goes on to say how this error has placed physics back to the middle ages or something like that and for my self I have the feeling that this error was the sole reason for Einstein not solving the Standard model before he gave up and moved on to start the idea of Quantum physics. For myself I am very comfortable with the idea that communication is by the "particle" as a carrier of the charge and not the often much quoted "wave." In addition I would point out that the array I gave in another thread is further proof of the correctness of what I have stated which is according to Maxwells equations where accountability is made of all forces. All antenna text books as well as those in physics will now have to be updated to reflect the above findings I am so pleased that I have been found not guilty of spreading B.S. in the amateur radio community and thus exposing spammers for what they really are. In summation it is now possible to make antennas in a smaller volume such that a radiator for top band can now be placed upon a tower or in a small garden as envisaged by Mr Moxon who has since become a SK. Regards Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk) Yep the mesh antenna is pure BS. In efficient antennas the DC resistance of the antenna is usually quite small, values in the 1/100ths or 1/1000th of ohms would be expected. Normally the RF impedance of the antenna is hundreds or thousands of times greater than this. Under these conditions most of the power is going to be radiated and only a small part radiated as heat. In the case of the mess antenna the feed point impedance of the antenna is what you would expect the DC resistance to be( around 1/100th of an ohm) . This means most of your power is going to be used to heat wire. Congratulation Art, you have made another Dummy Load. Jimmie No Jimmie, the function of a Faraday shield is not the same as a wire antenna. It's function is to cancel the arriving fields to obtain the time varing current which is the product of same so it can be used by a radio. There are plenty of descriptions on the web showing how the fields are separated and then cancelled by the movement of charge which in turn generates the current that the radio can use. The movement to cancel each other is an accelleration of charge which is the prime mover of communication. |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Feb 27, 4:08*am, Art Unwin wrote:
I made a time varying field addition to a static field in equilibrium some time back. All on this group said it was and still is B.S.! *It was this finding that created the basis of a new antenna science that I have shared with this group and with page Unwin antennas. From Art's web page http://unwinantennas.com/ "THE NATURE OF LIGHT AND RADIATION WITH RESPECT TO PARTICLES OF THE UNIVERSE "The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of light thru a window. "The particles produced by the Sun are called Leptons where the difference between them is the colour of light that they can emit. Thus 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. When the pressure increases beyond a certain point the Sun's boundary is unable to contain them so they escape to the tune of millions per unit of time and float to all different directions." And so on... |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Feb 26, 11:10*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: I made a time varying field addition to a static field in equilibrium some time back. All on this group said it was and still is B.S.! It was this finding that created the basis of a new antenna science that I have shared with this group and with page Unwin antennas. If one goes to * * * * * * * * * * * * *http://www.james-clerk-maxwell.com/ One finds another crank web site put up by an Aether kook. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. An "Aether kook" is one that recognises that if you rub two dielectrics together you generate a charge, the basis of communication. You do this when it is dry and you walk across a carpet that has resistance or rubbing two balloons together. The same thing happens in reverse when the atmosphere or wind/atmosphere brushes against matter at ground level, again there is a charge generated. Now we look at a particle moving thru the Aether, again a charge is generated. In this instance hams know that the impedance of the air is 377 ohms so the particle is generating a charge just like the other instances. It also does the same in the weather cycle with clouds. As hams we are all very familiar with the idea of what would appear to be nothing actually has a resistance of a dielectric thus it cannot be nothing if it can generate friction. The Aether argument started years ago and is directly connected to the time varying field made dynamic as Newton envisioned. Thus it is static charge that is the basics of physics and electricity is a subset of that and thus we must re examine all physics analysis done in the last 100 years to see how this mathematical error slanted things the wrong way. A partical duallity is just a very small part of what must now be re examined. All of this is a culmination of what I have stated before where physics relied to much on mathematical numbers instead of the observations that provided those numbers which has now put physics behind over a century. In other words mathematics became a priority over observation which is the core of the Universe. |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Feb 27, 11:13*am, Bill wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:08*am, Art Unwin wrote: I made a time varying field addition to a static field in equilibrium some time back. All on this group said it was and still is B.S.! *It was this finding that created the basis of a new antenna science that I have shared with this group and with page Unwin antennas. From Art's web pagehttp://unwinantennas.com/ "THE NATURE OF LIGHT AND RADIATION WITH RESPECT TO PARTICLES OF THE UNIVERSE "The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of light thru a window. "The particles produced by the Sun are called Leptons where the difference between them is the colour of light that they can emit. Thus 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. When the pressure increases beyond a certain point the Sun's boundary is unable to contain them so they escape to the tune of millions per unit of time and float to all different directions." And so on... xxxxxxxxx Thanks for printing it again tho full completion of the article would be much more rewarding |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Feb 27, 5:39*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Feb 27, 11:13*am, Bill wrote: On Feb 27, 4:08*am, Art Unwin wrote: I made a time varying field addition to a static field in equilibrium some time back. All on this group said it was and still is B.S.! *It was this finding that created the basis of a new antenna science that I have shared with this group and with page Unwin antennas. From Art's web pagehttp://unwinantennas.com/ "THE NATURE OF LIGHT AND RADIATION WITH RESPECT TO PARTICLES OF THE UNIVERSE "The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of light thru a window. "The particles produced by the Sun are called Leptons where the difference between them is the colour of light that they can emit. Thus 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. When the pressure increases beyond a certain point the Sun's boundary is unable to contain them so they escape to the tune of millions per unit of time and float to all different directions." And so on... xxxxxxxxx Thanks for printing it again tho full completion of the article would be much more rewarding yeah, i'm sure everyone would want to read it again just to get a good laugh. almost as good as the aetherist's non-profit organization's site. i wonder how many donations they get? maybe you should join up with them art, you would probably fit right in with your 3 color leptons that can't recreate the whole electromagnetic spectrum.... you do realize that everything from dc to gamma rays are all the same phenomena, electromagnetic waves, right? or are they just manifestations of your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos? |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
Art Unwin wrote:
On Feb 26, 11:10Â*pm, wrote: Art Unwin wrote: I made a time varying field addition to a static field in equilibrium some time back. All on this group said it was and still is B.S.! It was this finding that created the basis of a new antenna science that I have shared with this group and with page Unwin antennas. If one goes to Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*http://www.james-clerk-maxwell.com/ One finds another crank web site put up by an Aether kook. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. An "Aether kook" is one that recognises that if you rub two dielectrics together you generate a charge, the basis of communication. Nope, an "Aether kook" is any gibbering idiot that belives there is an "aether". No aether: http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth...omalis0704.pdf No Lorentz violation: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...5-5/index.html Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010) http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929 -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Feb 27, 12:25*pm, Dave wrote:
From Art's web pagehttp://unwinantennas.com/ "THE NATURE OF LIGHT AND RADIATION WITH RESPECT TO PARTICLES OF THE UNIVERSE "The Sun is very hot because it is burning. And so on... xxxxxxxxx Thanks for printing it again tho full completion of the article would be much more rewarding yeah, i'm sure everyone would want to read it again just to get a good laugh. * Just the name of this thread is a good laugh.. IE: bend the rules so the error in thinking becomes truth. :( Make Maxwell applicable for what? Contra wound dummy loads? BTW, my cat has new zircon encrusted mittens.. :) |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
|
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
Art Unwin wrote:
In this instance hams know that the impedance of the air is 377 ohms No Art, the impedance of free space is 377 ohms. Air changes it a bit, just not enough that we care. tom K0TAR |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Feb 27, 6:39*pm, tom wrote:
wrote: Thanks for printing it again tho full completion of the article would be much more rewarding yeah, i'm sure everyone would want to read it again just to get a good laugh. * Just the name of this thread is a good laugh.. IE: bend the rules so the error in thinking becomes truth. :( Make Maxwell applicable for what? Contra wound dummy loads? BTW, my cat has new zircon encrusted mittens.. *:) They'd go good with the zircon encrusted tweezers I use at my Montana dental floss farm. tom K0TAR You must still beware the Huskies and yellow snow. |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Feb 27, 5:46*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: In this instance hams know that the impedance of the air is 377 ohms No Art, the impedance of free space is 377 ohms. *Air changes it a bit, just not enough that we care. tom K0TAR Yes, you are correct and I misspoke! The point I was trying to make that space as we know it, yes free space, has a resistance value tha same as the carpet and balloons that I described earlier. This resistance gives substance that the atmosphere is a true substance or a dielectric and not just nothing or an empty space. After all, if it was a true nothing or vacuum then outside forces upon the boundary with in which it exists would compress that boundary until it really did not exist. This same explanation explains why a plane or a satellite can transmit and receive a radio signal because in each case it qualifies as a Farady cage. As to whether we care or not is dependent on whether we need the outer layers around earth that sectionalize the boundary around earth because it is our boundary that hold the layers in position to provide frictional qualities against the communication particles. The bottom line is that the eather is not just nothing but a sea of particles separated by charge and can just as easily land on a sattellite or impinge on the high density magnetic field at our magnetic poles where light is created. I would also point out that the speed of light is determined by "white light" which thus limits the visible spectrum of light seen at the poles. Bottom line is that our outer space is not just nothing but is a dielectric substance that has a measurable resistance which puts us back fully into the camp of Newton from which we strayed 100 years ago. The mathematical error is real and just like a check book that doesn't balance time competes against its correction.Remember that all this is a result of illness which forced me back in years where my vocablery was that of a child and consisted of what, why, when, e.tc that reflects human curiousity and where one is forced to start from the same datum line which is one of first principles and not blind acceptance as our experiences and education system rewards. |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Feb 28, 12:56*am, Art Unwin wrote:
Yes, you are correct and I misspoke! oh no! i never thought i would see this! The point I was trying to make that space as we know it, yes free space, has a resistance value tha same as the carpet and balloons that I described earlier. resistance, reactance, impedance, they are all the same i guess in your world. This same explanation explains why a plane or a satellite can transmit and receive a radio signal because in each case it qualifies as a Farady cage. then why can a plastic model plane transmit a radio signal? speed of light is determined by "white light" which thus limits the visible spectrum of light seen at the poles. is that why its dark at the poles in winter? they run out of magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos? I thought the speed of all electromagnetic waves was equal in free space.... but thats just a pesky fact that you are free to ignore in your own little world i guess. Remember that all this is a result of illness which forced me back in years where my vocablery was that of a child ah, now it all makes sense... you need your meds refilled! |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
BillyBobMarley wrote:
On Feb 27, 6:39 pm, tom wrote: wrote: Thanks for printing it again tho full completion of the article would be much more rewarding yeah, i'm sure everyone would want to read it again just to get a good laugh. Just the name of this thread is a good laugh.. IE: bend the rules so the error in thinking becomes truth. :( Make Maxwell applicable for what? Contra wound dummy loads? BTW, my cat has new zircon encrusted mittens.. :) They'd go good with the zircon encrusted tweezers I use at my Montana dental floss farm. tom K0TAR You must still beware the Huskies and yellow snow. I'll stick with blessed pancakes with stolen margareen on them. tom K0TAR |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
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? |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Mar 1, 12:02*pm, 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? It is not unusual for those involved in physics to see engineers as trash. But physicist have relied so much on mathematics to the point of covering up errors that it is now really the science of plagarism.I don't know what your achievement in life are but it would appear you are talking as a physicist possibly with a phd. Earlier we had a phd from MIT post that the error I allude to is indeed an error which occured when the cgs system was replaced I therefore suggest that you and others should scan the web with respect to errors made in physics and how they have been covered up. I suggest you start with the errors of Maxwell and follow thru to see how these errors have been magnified via plagarism. I am an engineer and not a physicist such as you which puts me in the position of being able to check mathematics and discern mathematical errors. I gave you a paper that echoes the mathematical errors that I pointed out in a much more readable and scientific fashion. So with the extensive knoweledge you seem to suggest you have why not critique the math presented in the article and show to others from a physics standpoint the paper is in error? This would be so much informative in sending a string of posts to defame me which is an example of free speech since it has no scientific analysis to prove your point. This is why I do not respond to you since you provide no facts of interest only spam as with a few others on this newsgroup. If indeed you do have a doctorate in the subject or some notable achievement in this area you will have my attention but at the moment the only evidence i see is one of spam. |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
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 |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
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? That he may be, but Green is one of the three primary colors. At least in additive color mode Red Blue Green. If you are talking about subtractive color, it is Cyan Magenta Yellow. Add black and it becomes the standard printing system. - Mike - |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote: Do you really think green is a primary color, you great braying jackass? That he may be, but Green is one of the three primary colors. At least in additive color mode Red Blue Green. If you are talking about subtractive color, it is Cyan Magenta Yellow. Add black and it becomes the standard printing system. True, but the "primariness" of the colors in these various color systems are far from universal. These colors are "primary" only with regard to the visual systems of human beings (and some other primates) which have a particular type of three-pigment visual receptor system. Animals which have significantly different visual pigments in their optic receptors (and there are many!) would tend to have a different response than humans to various mixtures of red, green, and blue light... e.g. the "red light plus green light equals a yellow color" mixing trick would not necessarily work for them, as this is a perceptual "trick" of the human visual system. Although human eyes may not be able to distinguish between a red/green mix, and a true narrow-band yellow, a spectrograph (or a simple prism!) will demonstrate that they're very different! If Art is actually claiming that there's some sort of binding or correspondence between the three families of leptons, and the "three primary colors" as seen by humans, then the only such correspondence I'm aware of is that both have the number "three" associated with them. There's no physical correspondence deeper than that, to the best of my knowledge. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
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. |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Mar 1, 2:03*pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
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? That he may be, but Green is one of the three primary colors. At least in additive color mode Red Blue Green. If you are talking about subtractive color, it is Cyan Magenta Yellow. Add black and it becomes the standard printing system. * * * * - Mike - Thank you |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Mar 1, 2:45*pm, (Dave Platt) wrote:
In article , Michael Coslo wrote: Do you really think green is a primary color, you great braying jackass? That he may be, but Green is one of the three primary colors. At least in additive color mode Red Blue Green. If you are talking about subtractive color, it is Cyan Magenta Yellow. Add black and it becomes the standard printing system. True, but the "primariness" of the colors in these various color systems are far from universal. *These colors are "primary" only with regard to the visual systems of human beings (and some other primates) which have a particular type of three-pigment visual receptor system. Animals which have significantly different visual pigments in their optic receptors (and there are many!) would tend to have a different response than humans to various mixtures of red, green, and blue light... e.g. the "red light plus green light equals a yellow color" mixing trick would not necessarily work for them, as this is a perceptual "trick" of the human visual system. *Although human eyes may not be able to distinguish between a red/green mix, and a true narrow-band yellow, a spectrograph (or a simple prism!) will demonstrate that they're very different! If Art is actually claiming that there's some sort of binding or correspondence between the three families of leptons, and the "three primary colors" as seen by humans, then the only such correspondence I'm aware of is that both have the number "three" associated with them. *There's no physical correspondence deeper than that, to the best of my knowledge. -- Dave Platt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: *http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior * I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will * * *boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! David I am not ruling it out since I cannot personally state there is a lepton for every color or hue. What I am deducing that particles arrive on earth in the millions per cubic metre serching for a place to rest on earth recognising at the same time the connection between light(colour and particles) W#e see evidence of this every day where they seek a diamagnetic surface one of which is water where they form a skin on the surface and where this surface can be transformed by the addition of soap. The whole discussion is really about the standard model which became visual to me when I added a time vary field to a boundary containing static particles. I was unaware at that point of the huge disagreements in physics about the errors of maxwell. Either way the only avenue I had to pursue my thinking was to assume that programmers had kept faithfully to Maxwells equations alone. When I got hold of an optimizer I operated it with toally disconnected figures so that I could not be accused of propelling an answer that I would like., The results are on my page showing clearly the requirement of equilibrium. I am not considered a skilled programmer and I am unable to fathom the truth of my program. As always I went to an academic out of state who was familiar with antennas and physics for verification by using other alternative programs where he confirmed my findings. Whether my attempt at the standard model may be worthless the arrays that I was lead to were new ,correct and probably of some use. They in no way represent an effort to disprove the duallity theorem because that doesn"t state that the particle in question doesn't change form ,only that they have similar properties. Yes there are spammers attacking me but as yet nobody has proved that my deductions are not correct. I don't listen to spammers but I do listen to those who have a modicom of interest into how radiation works since the true answers are not in any of the books.On the subject of the word "soot" being rediculled it becomes obvious that the spammer is quite old, possibly a redneck who lived in his early days where coal supplied the heat. The word "soot" is certainly not confined to coal burning which can be affirmed in many places. Finally I am amazed that billions are still being spent at Cern when there is so much division on the question of particles and waves and where the divisions between physicists that have been unable to open discussion, where the physics leadership has declared it to be frozen to further discussion. Again a error in a check book does not correct itself overtime! An error stays an error until it is recognised and action taken. If a formula is correct when using CGS units there is absolutely no good reason that formulas derived using standard units should not amount to the same conclusions thus forcing professors to take their heads out of the sand. Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ.......xg |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Mar 1, 3:38*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 1, 2:45*pm, (Dave Platt) wrote: In article , Michael Coslo wrote: Do you really think green is a primary color, you great braying jackass? That he may be, but Green is one of the three primary colors. At least in additive color mode Red Blue Green. If you are talking about subtractive color, it is Cyan Magenta Yellow. Add black and it becomes the standard printing system. True, but the "primariness" of the colors in these various color systems are far from universal. *These colors are "primary" only with regard to the visual systems of human beings (and some other primates) delete David Platt made a comment on the subject of colour with reference to who defines colour. Animal eyes are different to human eyes in many ways including physical distance apart. angles of eyeball placement etc. It doesn't hurt to think about what an eyeball is and its function. A eyeball to my mind is nothing but a small FaradyCage that is impinged upon by charge carrying particles where the impact is transformed into a electric current so it may traverse the brain. Their is really no way to descriminate the amount of filtering, prisms and oils that is around with the species , or in the differences of different brain abilities to decipher the character of different colors. So I would imagine that some species can not identify the color as humans see it and may not even discern color from black and white. So nobody should take the step of assumption and making it a fact. Thanks to all you made the correscting comments Art |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
Dave Platt wrote in part:
If Art is actually claiming that there's some sort of binding or correspondence between the three families of leptons, and the "three primary colors" as seen by humans, then the only such correspondence I'm aware of is that both have the number "three" associated with them. There's no physical correspondence deeper than that, to the best of my knowledge. That may be so, but my point is that if a person says that green is a primary color, it is not incorrect. It isn't even a mmatter of wht other animals see, they can come up with their own color theory. I use the different systems every day, from when I worked in a darkroom and used Cyan MAgenta yellow, to present day RGB for television and computer work, and CMYK for print. They work. As for Art's theory, people assign colors, or funny names as a tool of understanding. The greenness or redness is only that, an electromagnetic oscillation at a frequency our eyes see as green. Side note: there is no magenta in the spectrum, so there are some who are loathe to call it a primary color. - Mike - |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Mar 2, 8:34*am, Michael Coslo wrote:
Dave Platt wrote in part: If Art is actually claiming that there's some sort of binding or correspondence between the three families of leptons, and the "three primary colors" as seen by humans, then the only such correspondence I'm aware of is that both have the number "three" associated with them. *There's no physical correspondence deeper than that, to the best of my knowledge. That may be so, but my point is that if a person says that green is a primary color, it is not incorrect. It isn't even a mmatter of wht other animals see, they can come up with their own color theory. I use the different systems every day, from when I worked in a darkroom and used Cyan MAgenta yellow, to present day RGB for television and computer work, and CMYK for print. They work. As for Art's theory, people assign colors, or funny names as a tool of understanding. The greenness or redness is only that, an electromagnetic oscillation at a frequency our eyes see as green. Side note: there is no magenta in the spectrum, so there are some who are loathe to call it a primary color. * * * * - Mike - Were you aware that Maxwell gave a lecture to the Royal Society in England on this very subject of primary colours? Presumably he was persueing a connection with waves and particles or something like that. As for electromagnetic oscillation at a given frequency, that is beyond my pay grade, but I do have difficulty with discerning differences between blue and green the same as the 10% of the population! |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
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? |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
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 - |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
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 |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
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 |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
Bill wrote:
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? It's been obvious to me since kindergarten that if I roll a ball on the floor, it comes to a stop all by itself. Then in high school them edjukated egg-heads tried to tell me it'll just keep going. No telling what them guys with advanced degrees must believe! But I've been lookin' for the blue dots on my color TV, and couldn't find any. Musta been designed by one of them eggheads and not by a kindergarten pupil. Can't possibly work. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Bill wrote: 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? It's been obvious to me since kindergarten that if I roll a ball on the floor, it comes to a stop all by itself. Then in high school them edjukated egg-heads tried to tell me it'll just keep going. No telling what them guys with advanced degrees must believe! But I've been lookin' for the blue dots on my color TV, and couldn't find any. Musta been designed by one of them eggheads and not by a kindergarten pupil. Can't possibly work. Oops, found the blue dots. But no yellow. So how can it make the "primary" color yellow? Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
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 |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:24:05 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote: Were you aware that Maxwell gave a lecture to the Royal Society in England on this very subject of primary colours? Yep. See: http://www.greatreality.com/color/ColorMaxwell.htm He created the first color photograph using his idea of 3 primary colors (red, blue, yellow) but without sensitivity to red or green. Maxwell left a few unanswered questions about his method of color photogrpahy: http://www.greatreality.com/color/ColorDidMKnow.htm Maxwell had a good start, but not the whole answer: http://www.greatreality.com/ColorPrimary.htm -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
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. |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
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? |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Mar 2, 7:41*pm, 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. So I can believe School of Color or my own lying eyes... |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
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. |
A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 20:20:42 -0800 (PST), Bill wrote:
On Mar 2, 7:41*pm, 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. So I can believe School of Color or my own lying eyes... You can believe your eyes for two different cases of primary color - transmission (additive) and reflection (subtractive) - and one of those examples will say your eyes are lying. Jeff's example can be tested quite simply (and was suggested by Roy). Take a displayed image (on your computer) of a photo of your swatch of your two colors, yellow and blue, mixed on a piece of paper in exactly the fashion of your kindergarten experience. Arrange it so the paper has yellow and blue margins merging into your green center. As I said, display your art work on your monitor. Place a very strong magnifying glass near the display to observe the areas at the pixel level (I had to use 20X) You will find, true to your experience that the green pels of the display correspond to the green area of the mixed colors. You will find blue pels that correspond to the blue area of mixed colors. However, you will find no yellow pels in the yellow pigment you mixed with the blue - those pels are red and green. So, looking at the transmitted light of a reflected light image would have your eyes witnessing that there was absolutely no yellow in your original finger paint. The evidence available to your own eyes (and everyone else) would say that Red+Green+Blue=Green Do you believe that? It is your own yellow pigment that you took a picture of and examined on your own computer. Your eyes are lying to you. Color is an illusion of the mind and nothing else but a convention of terminology. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:14 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com