On Mar 24, 2:22*am, tom wrote:
On 3/23/2010 7:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

your whole concept is malformed. *if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field

Equilibrium does not mean not moving.

I won't go any deeper since you have problems with things complex and go
into babble mode when confronted with them.

tom
K0TAR

oh, so you understand art's concept of 'static' and 'equilibrium'
enough to argue that side of it?? how do you 'equilibrium' and
'static particles' unless they aren't moving? equations please, show
your work, extra points for deriving how his magical levitating
diamagnetic neutrino fits into the equations. please, we need someone
who can fill in the gaps that art can't seem to do.

On 3/24/2010 6:20 PM, Dave wrote:
On Mar 24, 2:22 am, wrote:
On 3/23/2010 7:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

your whole concept is malformed. if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field

Equilibrium does not mean not moving.

I won't go any deeper since you have problems with things complex and go
into babble mode when confronted with them.

tom
K0TAR

oh, so you understand art's concept of 'static' and 'equilibrium'
enough to argue that side of it?? how do you 'equilibrium' and
'static particles' unless they aren't moving? equations please, show
your work, extra points for deriving how his magical levitating
diamagnetic neutrino fits into the equations. please, we need someone
who can fill in the gaps that art can't seem to do.

No, I don't understand Art's concepts, who could? But I do know that
equilibrium is not generally defined as "not moving". In fact motion is
not even mentioned. Look it up. I did.

And I have no argument with the current state of affairs within
Electromagnetic Fields and Waves, and no desire to argue it, either. It
was a big enough pain in school.

What makes you think I was arguing his side? I couldn't disagree with
him more.

tom
K0TAR

On Mar 24, 6:20*pm, Dave wrote:
On Mar 24, 2:22*am, tom wrote:

On 3/23/2010 7:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

your whole concept is malformed. *if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field

Equilibrium does not mean not moving.

I won't go any deeper since you have problems with things complex and go
into babble mode when confronted with them.

tom
K0TAR

oh, so you understand art's concept of 'static' and 'equilibrium'
enough to argue that side of it?? *how do you 'equilibrium' and
'static particles' unless they aren't moving? *equations please, show
your work, extra points for deriving how his magical levitating
diamagnetic neutrino fits into the equations. *please, we need someone
who can fill in the gaps that art can't seem to do.

I totally agree, Some body is needed to fill in the gaps that art is
unable to do

First, one has to explain equilibrium
Second, one has to explain the boundary laws
with respect to statics
making note that equilibrium must be
in place
Third, one has to make the field dynamic by
providing a
time varying field
Fourth, one has to add formally passive items
into the boundary
so that the entire dynamic field in
place is in a state of equilibrium.

Note: you may add radiators to the inside of
the boundary in the first
instance, but in the second instance
when you make them active
then they have to be both resonant as
well as a wavelength long
by firtue of also being a period One
can then applyMaxwells equations for radiation to the
final arbitrary boundar

Who ever manages to explain the above must
point out that the particles
that are ejected from inside the boundary are
immediately replaced fresh passive particles
that are outside the boundary looking for a diamagnetic surface to
reside upon where, in this instance, is aluminum or copper or any
other material that is diamagnetic such as the radiator

Who ever takes on this task of explaining the above to this
group so that they understand most assuredly has my respect .

On Mar 25, 5:28*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 24, 6:20*pm, Dave wrote:



On Mar 24, 2:22*am, tom wrote:

On 3/23/2010 7:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

your whole concept is malformed. *if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field

Equilibrium does not mean not moving.

I won't go any deeper since you have problems with things complex and go
into babble mode when confronted with them.

tom
K0TAR

oh, so you understand art's concept of 'static' and 'equilibrium'
enough to argue that side of it?? *how do you 'equilibrium' and
'static particles' unless they aren't moving? *equations please, show
your work, extra points for deriving how his magical levitating
diamagnetic neutrino fits into the equations. *please, we need someone
who can fill in the gaps that art can't seem to do.

I totally agree, Some body is needed to fill in the gaps that art is
unable to do

* * * * * * * * * * * *First, one has to explain equilibrium
* * * * * * * * * * * Second, one has to explain the boundary laws
with respect to statics
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * making note that equilibrium must be
in place
* * * * * * * * * * * *Third, one has to make the field dynamic by
providing a
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * time varying field
* * * * * * * * * * * Fourth, one has to add formally passive items
into the boundary
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *so that *the entire dynamic field in
place is in a state of equilibrium.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Note: you may add radiators to the inside of
the boundary in the first
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * instance, but in the second instance
when you make them active
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *then they have to be both resonant as
well as a wavelength long
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * by firtue of *also being a period * *One
can then applyMaxwells * * * * * * * *equations for radiation to the
final arbitrary *boundar

* * * * * * * * * * * * Who ever manages to explain the above must
point out that the particles
* * * * * * * * * * * that are ejected from inside the boundary are
immediately replaced * * * * * * * fresh * *passive * * * particles
that are outside the boundary looking for a diamagnetic surface to
reside upon where, in this instance, is aluminum or copper or any
other material that is *diamagnetic such as the radiator

* * * * *Who ever takes on this task of explaining the above to this
group so that they understand most assuredly has my respect .

Ive never seen Art apply Maxwell's equations. If he had really been
applying Maxwells equations he would have know that contra wound dummy
load he ranted about for so long would not work.

Jimmie

On Mar 25, 5:35*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Mar 25, 5:28*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Mar 24, 6:20*pm, Dave wrote:

On Mar 24, 2:22*am, tom wrote:

On 3/23/2010 7:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

your whole concept is malformed. *if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field

Equilibrium does not mean not moving.

I won't go any deeper since you have problems with things complex and go
into babble mode when confronted with them.

tom
K0TAR

oh, so you understand art's concept of 'static' and 'equilibrium'
enough to argue that side of it?? *how do you 'equilibrium' and
'static particles' unless they aren't moving? *equations please, show
your work, extra points for deriving how his magical levitating
diamagnetic neutrino fits into the equations. *please, we need someone
who can fill in the gaps that art can't seem to do.

I totally agree, Some body is needed to fill in the gaps that art is
unable to do

* * * * * * * * * * * *First, one has to explain equilibrium
* * * * * * * * * * * Second, one has to explain the boundary laws
with respect to statics
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * making note that equilibrium must be
in place
* * * * * * * * * * * *Third, one has to make the field dynamic by
providing a
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * time varying field
* * * * * * * * * * * Fourth, one has to add formally passive items
into the boundary
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *so that *the entire dynamic field in
place is in a state of equilibrium.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Note: you may add radiators to the inside of
the boundary in the first
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * instance, but in the second instance
when you make them active
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *then they have to be both resonant as
well as a wavelength long
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * by firtue of *also being a period * *One
can then applyMaxwells * * * * * * * *equations for radiation to the
final arbitrary *boundar

* * * * * * * * * * * * Who ever manages to explain the above must
point out that the particles
* * * * * * * * * * * that are ejected from inside the boundary are
immediately replaced * * * * * * * fresh * *passive * * * particles
that are outside the boundary looking for a diamagnetic surface to
reside upon where, in this instance, is aluminum or copper or any
other material that is *diamagnetic such as the radiator

* * * * *Who ever takes on this task of explaining the above to this
group so that they understand most assuredly has my respect .

Ive never seen Art apply Maxwell's equations. If he had really been
applying Maxwells equations he would have know that contra wound dummy
load he ranted about for so long would not work.

Jimmie

A slinky does "work" when it is contra wound .where a lumped load
cancels the other lumped load as Maxwell did not provide for them in
his equations,only distributed loads.
If you read Jasik's book he takes care to contra wind the coils, same
as one would do with traps. The so called slinky that one purchases
today are NOT contra wound
Jimmie, the group is looking for somebody who believes they
understand physics to explain what I cannot and you obviously perceive
yourself as an expert!
"Go for it!

On Mar 25, 7:24*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Jimmie, the group is looking for somebody ... to explain what I cannot...

Not quite. "The group" probably just hopes someday you will make
sense. Will that happen? You are sloppy and undisciplined, and the
probability that you can develop the ability to be coherent is
extremely small. The least you could do is read your messages once
before you post them.

On Mar 25, 7:24*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 25, 5:35*pm, JIMMIE wrote:



On Mar 25, 5:28*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Mar 24, 6:20*pm, Dave wrote:

On Mar 24, 2:22*am, tom wrote:

On 3/23/2010 7:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

your whole concept is malformed. *if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field

Equilibrium does not mean not moving.

I won't go any deeper since you have problems with things complex and go
into babble mode when confronted with them.

tom
K0TAR

oh, so you understand art's concept of 'static' and 'equilibrium'
enough to argue that side of it?? *how do you 'equilibrium' and
'static particles' unless they aren't moving? *equations please, show
your work, extra points for deriving how his magical levitating
diamagnetic neutrino fits into the equations. *please, we need someone
who can fill in the gaps that art can't seem to do.

I totally agree, Some body is needed to fill in the gaps that art is
unable to do

* * * * * * * * * * * *First, one has to explain equilibrium
* * * * * * * * * * * Second, one has to explain the boundary laws
with respect to statics
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * making note that equilibrium must be
in place
* * * * * * * * * * * *Third, one has to make the field dynamic by
providing a
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * time varying field
* * * * * * * * * * * Fourth, one has to add formally passive items
into the boundary
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *so that *the entire dynamic field in
place is in a state of equilibrium.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Note: you may add radiators to the inside of
the boundary in the first
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * instance, but in the second instance
when you make them active
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *then they have to be both resonant as
well as a wavelength long
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * by firtue of *also being a period * *One
can then applyMaxwells * * * * * * * *equations for radiation to the
final arbitrary *boundar

* * * * * * * * * * * * Who ever manages to explain the above must
point out that the particles
* * * * * * * * * * * that are ejected from inside the boundary are
immediately replaced * * * * * * * fresh * *passive * * * particles
that are outside the boundary looking for a diamagnetic surface to
reside upon where, in this instance, is aluminum or copper or any
other material that is *diamagnetic such as the radiator

* * * * *Who ever takes on this task of explaining the above to this
group so that they understand most assuredly has my respect .

Ive never seen Art apply Maxwell's equations. If he had really been
applying Maxwells equations he would have know that contra wound dummy
load he ranted about for so long would not work.

Jimmie

A slinky does "work" when it is contra wound .where a lumped load
cancels the other lumped load as Maxwell did not provide for them in
his equations,only distributed loads.
If you read Jasik's book he takes care to contra wind the coils, same
as one would do with traps. The so called slinky that one purchases
today are NOT contra wound
Jimmie, * the group is looking for somebody who believes they
understand physics to explain what I cannot and you obviously perceive
yourself as an expert!
"Go for it!

I seriously doubt if there is anyone here looking to have high school
physics explained to them.. Most already have that down pretty well.

JImmie