On May 23, 11:02*am, Richard Fry wrote:
On May 21, 3:55*am, Roy Lewallen wrote:

So what should we expect the gain of a very short dipole
*to be if we could make one with no (resistive) loss?

An "infinitesimal," center-fed, linear dipole has a peak directivity/
gain of 1.5, or 1.76 dBi. *Getting any r-f energy to flow on it takes
some real heroics, *though.

RF

I don't think a pursuit of destroying Ohms laws is going to prove
anything.Preservation of time is a must with respect to accelleration
of charge. Would it not be better to operate within Ohms law with a
dipole of "near" zero resistance and then apply a time varying current
from one resonant frequency to another.You then obtain a trend of the
change in volume of radiation. I suspect that the maximum radiation
volume could be reached prior to zero impedance dependent on the
particle transfer and replacement time. Working within existing laws
and environments narrows the variables and narrows the scope of the
eventual debate around the findings. The subject is determination of
maximum volume of radiation which has nothing to do with "gain" using
existing definitions.I see nothing unreasonable in using a computer
program to extract data provided by changes of applied frequency.

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
On May 22, 1:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
How far into space does the electron plasma effect extend?

As far as light do.

When I was in college, I observed a stream of electrons emitting a
glow that traveled at the speed of light to my eyes which evolved to
detect photons, not electrons.

Your hears detect the air particle oscillations. Your eyes detect the
electrons oscillations.

Since photons can do that, why is there
a need to introduce the concept of invisible, undetectable, massless,
virtual electrons

Electrons are detectable and have mass.

in free space? What is the electron density of free space?

Now everybody meassure it:
http://www.academicjournals.org/ijli...%20et%20al.pdf
S*

On May 23, 5:37*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 23, 11:02*am, Richard Fry wrote:

On May 21, 3:55*am, Roy Lewallen wrote:

So what should we expect the gain of a very short dipole
*to be if we could make one with no (resistive) loss?

An "infinitesimal," center-fed, linear dipole has a peak directivity/
gain of 1.5, or 1.76 dBi. *Getting any r-f energy to flow on it takes
some real heroics, *though.

RF

I don't think a pursuit of destroying Ohms laws is going to prove
anything.Preservation of time is a must with respect to accelleration
of charge. Would it not be better to operate within Ohms law with a
dipole of "near" zero resistance and then apply a time varying current
from one resonant frequency to another.You then obtain a trend of the
change in volume of radiation. I suspect that the maximum radiation
volume could be reached prior to zero impedance dependent on the
particle transfer and replacement time. Working within existing laws
and environments narrows the variables and narrows the scope of the
eventual debate around the findings. The subject is determination of
maximum volume of radiation which has nothing to do with "gain" using
existing definitions.I see nothing unreasonable in using a computer
program to extract data provided by *changes of applied frequency.

max volume equals 0dbi gain, by definition. not very practical and
hard to achieve in a real antenna. for most 'normal' applications we
have some kind of preferred direction so directional antennas from
simple dipoles to big dishes are more useful.

On May 23, 6:01*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Electrons are detectable and have mass.


ah yes, that ugly little thing called mass... because electrons have
mass they can not travel at c, therefore they can not be the carriers
of electromagnetic radiation. also, it is well known that photons
have no rest mass and no charge, both of which disqualify the electron
also. you should really talk to art, he is much closer with his
magical levitating diamagnetic neutrino.

On May 23, 4:34*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On May 22, 6:07 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



I am using only old theories proved by experiments. Art is probably
trying
to do the new.
The same was with Maxwell. He did the new. May be that Art's hipothesis
the
teachers adopt to teaching.
S*
antennas do not have to be grounded.

"A wire that runs from the motor to the machine's frame to absorb stray
electric charge. Chassis ground is used when it is not possible to connect a
grounding conductor into the earth. "

" how are antennas on satellites
grounded??

To chassis. Your mobile phone also.

*do satellites become massive positive charges in space as
they keep shooting off electrons...

They mainly transmit. So chassis is enough. Chassis must has the large area
to dissipate/absorb the electrons from space.

again, this is going no where,

when you have read another hundred years of science and are ready to
believe what has been well proven over that time period maybe we can
have a conversation.

Take a glance at:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force
And tell us what is your opinion on Maxwell's model of the aether..

S*

Hi Mister S
Thank you for supplying reference for the article in the phylisophical
journal. Most of it is beyond my interlect
but a quick review show that the tenents of his explanation
are based first on the requirement of equilibrium
That particles is the center of discussion
That vortices are present to provide a displacement force
And the connection between electrostatic and light
functions. Nowhere do I see reference to Gauss law of statics and the
progression to a dynamic field which makes
his paper some what astounding for him to come up with this paper
without these clues that have been hidden for so long. I intend to get
a print out of all four portions of this paper in the hope I can
cherry pick some portions that I can understand from the paper. As
always one of the most important things are the responses from his
peers which
usually are accompanied by science analysis rather than relyinging on
base intuitions without supporting facts from the ham community.
Thanks again
Art

On May 23, 1:15*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On May 23, 6:01*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



Electrons are detectable and have mass.

ah yes, that ugly little thing called mass... because electrons have
mass they can not travel at c, therefore they can not be the carriers
of electromagnetic radiation. *also, it is well known that photons
have no rest mass and no charge, both of which disqualify the electron
also. *you should really talk to art, he is much closer with his
magical levitating diamagnetic neutrino.

Oh my. ! The above is the silliest thing I have heard in a long while,
but I am very glad you presented it
as an example of your private analysis. It shows that tho free speech
is viable what is contained in the enunciation is not necessarily
anything other than trash. And I just love that position of yours
"it is 'well known' that photons have no rest mass and no charge".
Don't you have to repeat that a 1000 times before it can be considered
true?

Art Unwin wrote:
On May 23, 4:34 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On May 22, 6:07 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



I am using only old theories proved by experiments. Art is probably
trying
to do the new.
The same was with Maxwell. He did the new. May be that Art's hipothesis
the
teachers adopt to teaching.
S*
antennas do not have to be grounded.
"A wire that runs from the motor to the machine's frame to absorb stray
electric charge. Chassis ground is used when it is not possible to connect a
grounding conductor into the earth. "

" how are antennas on satellites
grounded??

To chassis. Your mobile phone also.

do satellites become massive positive charges in space as
they keep shooting off electrons...

They mainly transmit. So chassis is enough. Chassis must has the large area
to dissipate/absorb the electrons from space.

again, this is going no where,
when you have read another hundred years of science and are ready to
believe what has been well proven over that time period maybe we can
have a conversation.

Take a glance at:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force
And tell us what is your opinion on Maxwell's model of the aether..

S*

Hi Mister S
Thank you for supplying reference for the article in the phylisophical
journal. Most of it is beyond my interlect



So much so that neither of you noticed that the article is scanned and
ocr'ed from somewhere resulting in none of the equations being
faithfully represented. For most I would expect this to result in
difficulty understanding the principles presented.

but a quick review show that the tenents of his explanation
are based first on the requirement of equilibrium
That particles is the center of discussion
That vortices are present to provide a displacement force
And the connection between electrostatic and light
functions. Nowhere do I see reference to Gauss law of statics and the
progression to a dynamic field which makes
his paper some what astounding for him to come up with this paper
without these clues that have been hidden for so long. I intend to get
a print out of all four portions of this paper in the hope I can
cherry pick some portions that I can understand from the paper. As
always one of the most important things are the responses from his
peers which
usually are accompanied by science analysis rather than relyinging on
base intuitions without supporting facts from the ham community.
Thanks again
Art


Art, is there any chance your high observed gain is because antenna has
very low impedance that the currents may be overly elevated from the
voltage source used in your model?

Low impedance leading to higher current leading to higher fields being
generated leading to higher perceived gain.


If you can choose antenna parameters that result in negative resistance,
does this really mean your model is working properly under the
conditions you are using?

Art Unwin wrote:
On May 23, 1:15 pm, K1TTT wrote:
On May 23, 6:01 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



Electrons are detectable and have mass.
ah yes, that ugly little thing called mass... because electrons have
mass they can not travel at c, therefore they can not be the carriers
of electromagnetic radiation. also, it is well known that photons
have no rest mass and no charge, both of which disqualify the electron
also. you should really talk to art, he is much closer with his
magical levitating diamagnetic neutrino.

Oh my. ! The above is the silliest thing I have heard in a long while,
but I am very glad you presented it
as an example of your private analysis. It shows that tho free speech
is viable what is contained in the enunciation is not necessarily
anything other than trash. And I just love that position of yours
"it is 'well known' that photons have no rest mass and no charge".
Don't you have to repeat that a 1000 times before it can be considered
true?



Art,

Please enlighten us.

What is the mass of a proton at rest?

Please quantify the charge of a photon.

On May 23, 7:14*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 23, 1:15*pm, K1TTT wrote:

On May 23, 6:01*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Electrons are detectable and have mass.

ah yes, that ugly little thing called mass... because electrons have
mass they can not travel at c, therefore they can not be the carriers
of electromagnetic radiation. *also, it is well known that photons
have no rest mass and no charge, both of which disqualify the electron
also. *you should really talk to art, he is much closer with his
magical levitating diamagnetic neutrino.

Oh my. ! The above is the silliest thing I have heard in a long while,
but I am very glad you presented it
as an example of your private analysis. It shows that tho free speech
is viable what is contained in the enunciation is not *necessarily
anything other than trash. And I just love that position of yours
"it is 'well known' that photons have no rest mass and no charge".
Don't you have to repeat that a 1000 times before it can be considered
true?

isn't that your method... keep repeating the same garbage hoping it
catches on.

On May 23, 6:28*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 23, 4:34*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On May 22, 6:07 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

I am using only old theories proved by experiments. Art is probably
trying
to do the new.
The same was with Maxwell. He did the new. May be that Art's hipothesis
the
teachers adopt to teaching.
S*
antennas do not have to be grounded.

"A wire that runs from the motor to the machine's frame to absorb stray
electric charge. Chassis ground is used when it is not possible to connect a
grounding conductor into the earth. "

" how are antennas on satellites
grounded??

To chassis. Your mobile phone also.

*do satellites become massive positive charges in space as
they keep shooting off electrons...

They mainly transmit. So chassis is enough. Chassis must has the large area
to dissipate/absorb the electrons from space.

again, this is going no where,

when you have read another hundred years of science and are ready to
believe what has been well proven over that time period maybe we can
have a conversation.

Take a glance at:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force
And tell us what is your opinion on Maxwell's model of the aether..

S*

Hi Mister S
Thank you for supplying reference for the article in the phylisophical
journal. Most of it is beyond my interlect
but a quick review show that the tenents of his explanation
are based first on the requirement of equilibrium
That particles is the center of discussion
That vortices are present to provide a displacement force
And the connection between electrostatic and light
*functions. Nowhere do I see reference to Gauss law of statics and the
progression to a dynamic field which makes
his paper some what astounding for him to come up with this paper
without these clues that have been hidden for so long. I intend to get
a print out of all four portions of this paper in the hope I can
cherry pick some portions that I can understand from the paper. As
always one of the most important things are the responses from his
peers which
usually are accompanied by science analysis rather than relyinging on
base intuitions without supporting facts from the ham community.
Thanks again
Art

much is beyond your intellect... however you should note that gauss's
law wasn't published until about 6 years after that article, so it
would be surprising if it was referenced. that article is also well
before maxwell had published his works that contain his completed set
of equations describing electromagnetic fields... so it is not
surprising that some of what is in there was undoubtedly incorrect
guesses and suppositions based on earlier observations.