On May 23, 4:49*pm, K1TTT wrote:
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.

I have not printed the article as yet and I admit that I had not noted
the earlier publication date. I thought the publication was just one
year old.
I believe it to be interesting enough to get a print out but it will
be difficult to get a full list of comments
which usually as interesting as the article itself.

On May 23, 4:45*pm, joe wrote:
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.

Joe, I have not seen a description of a photon and I believe a sample
is yet to be maintained.
Possibly the accelleration of a neutrinos and the resulting collision
will separated the charge from the neutron so one can see if it is
accompanied by a morsel of mass. I say that because as the neutrinos
is the smallest mass known which leads to the maximum speed of light.
Thus collision should not be able to separate the neutrino alone and
only separate attatchments.
But my readings on the subject is some what limited.

On May 23, 4:38*pm, joe wrote:
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.

Certainly if you consider I sq R and the removal of losses made by
penetrations into the metal . But there are other considerations such
as the swamping of diamagnetic action in air after near removal from
the metal itself because the change in eddies strength changes every
thing.
I cannot explain the mechanics of what is actually happening and can
only be guided by what the programs infer. Intimate discussion of the
above is more than welcome. Especially the realization of maximum
radiation determined by the time needed for the replacement of the
ejected particle which probably occurrs before minimum impedance is
reached. I cannot imagine the addition of zero or negative values in
the equation since only the contents of the boundary is relevent in
accountability for all forces as I see it based on
Newtons laws. Joe your comment are the first review that is willing to
discuss the merits of my work and I sure welcome it so that closure
can be reached



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?

On May 23, 9:55*am, 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
Now Cecil you never did observe actual electrons let alone a stream !




glow that traveled at the speed of light to my
Now Cecil you have no way of knowing what the speed was or even the
timing function required by the eyeball.

eyes which evolved to
detect photons, not electrons.

Where is that stated in print? It has to be in print to be true right?
Cant you reference an eyeball to function the same as a Faraday cage
because a brain requires an electrical circuit?


Since photons can do that,
Does the eyeball have counters to count the dropping photons or what.

why is there
a need to introduce the concept of invisible, undetectable, massless,
virtual electrons in free space?
I have no idea what physisist presented to show that there was a need


What is the electron density of free
space?

Gulp!
Space is homogenous in electron content? If so
how can a solar stream exist?

Cecil, as a side note I posted about coils radiating
since you were responsible for record length threads as to whether and
how they radiate. I lost track how all that fell out after the first
year of the record postings. Did you beat out the detractors?
Art


--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On 05/23/2010 03:09 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 23, 4:45 pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 23, 1:15 pm, wrote:
On May 23, 6:01 pm, "Szczepan 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.

Can I rain on your parade? Light is just super high frequency RF. There
is no such thing as a photon but scientists still use that to explain
things in human terms for the unknowing masses. The best way I can
describe a photon is that it is one wavelength of light at any given
wavelength or frequency if you will. If a star or even our own sun gave
off photons at the rate of burn then it would very soon be an ex-star.
There are very few people who can think at the needed level for this
kind of thing, so let the argument continue. Really silly thinking that
there are red photons, green, yellow, etc.

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.

Joe, I have not seen a description of a photon and I believe a sample
is yet to be maintained.
Possibly the accelleration of a neutrinos and the resulting collision
will separated the charge from the neutron so one can see if it is
accompanied by a morsel of mass. I say that because as the neutrinos
is the smallest mass known which leads to the maximum speed of light.
Thus collision should not be able to separate the neutrino alone and
only separate attatchments.
But my readings on the subject is some what limited.

On May 20, 10:54*pm, "Irv Finkleman" wrote:
O Jeez! Here we go again!!!! All this about vortices sounds like spin to me.

Irv VE6BP

Exactly. Imagine a tornado which is a macro scale version of the
vortice seen as a displacement current
as a series of capacitors along side the current flow
within which there is circular flow. This is no different
to the laminar flow in a firemans hose. Put projections inside the
hose and you can get multiple vortices because of the lamina
friction.You probably have heard of "curl" with respect to antennas
and yes that is described with respect to vortices. So it is not so
far out to see a tornado
as a cloud enclosed by neutrons in terms of a skin tension. This all
goes back to the release of a small particle from the boundary
enclosing the big band
where rotation is applied to same via the levered fracture in the
boundary as it momentarily loses equilibrium. For the above tornadoes
are seen as the swirling action between capacitor plates comprised of
ground and the upper layers. The capacitor plates perform the same
action as a "idler" wheel so that ejected rotations of particles have
the same spin.
Review vortices if only to get a physical idea how the term "curl"
fits in with respect to lamina flow which you can then expand to
magnetic lines or field of a magnet for a better understanding of
transitions. Everything on Earth can be described by the two vectors
created at the big bang down to the two vectors of gravity and
rotation where rotary flow introduces lamina slip and the adherence to
Newtons laws including his equations for acceleration. All the above
is thoroughly seen under boundary laws which are centuries old, when
static fields are transformed into a dynamic field. Nothing new, no
new laws or equations but just a different method of connecting the
known dots determined by past physics to produce a closed circuit
similar to the tank circuit in parallel
Art

Uzytkownik "Art Unwin" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 23, 4:34 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

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 intellect

Do not worry. Maxwell is an excellent writter and his English also.
Everything is wrote in English and next in Math. The math is to calculate.
We do not calculate enything.

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

Maxwell described the rotational oscillations.
Gauss dynamic field is simply the longitudinal oscillations (like sound).

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

Nice reading.
S*

Uzytkownik "joe" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 23, 4:34 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

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.

If you are fluent in Maxwell's time math:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...e. pdf&page=1

Wikisource is easy to citations,
S*

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
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.

They ara carries of the electric waves.

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.

You simply like the EM and photons. It is your choose.
S*

"Bill Baka" wrote
...
On 05/23/2010 03:09 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 23, 4:45 pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 23, 1:15 pm, wrote:
On May 23, 6:01 pm, "Szczepan 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.

Can I rain on your parade? Light is just super high frequency RF. There is
no such thing as a photon but scientists still use that to explain things
in human terms for the unknowing masses. The best way I can describe a
photon is that it is one wavelength of light at any given wavelength or
frequency if you will.

It is math for it (Doulong). If a cristal is kicked it radiate diffrent
frequences. But not all and for a limited time.
Higher frequency bigger energy. But such packets are longer than one
wavelengh. It is a coherency of radiation.

If a star or even our own sun gave off photons at the rate of burn then it
would very soon be an ex-star.
There are very few people who can think at the needed level for this kind
of thing, so let the argument continue. Really silly thinking that there
are red photons, green, yellow, etc.

Some substances emitt only one or only a few wavelengh. Sodium emits yellow.
(Sodium emitts yellow packets?).
S*