|
Computer model experiment
On May 21, 1:07*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Alternate electric field from the ends of the dipole kicks the electrons in the space and they oscillate (longitudinal electric waves). How much I^2*R loss is there in the plasma conductors of free space? How far into space does the electron plasma effect extend? If electrons can flow from a cold aluminum element in a vacuum, why does a vacuum tube need a special heated cathode? -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Computer model experiment
"Cecil Moore" wrote ... On May 21, 1:07 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Alternate electric field from the ends of the dipole kicks the electrons in the space and they oscillate (longitudinal electric waves). How much I^2*R loss is there in the plasma conductors of free space? Oscillations are not travelling. Loss are only when something travel between obstacles. How far into space does the electron plasma effect extend? As far as light do. If electrons can flow from a cold aluminum element in a vacuum, why does a vacuum tube need a special heated cathode? Also exists the field emission. But it is harmfull for antennas if it is in form of sparks. The high voltage kicks the electrons in the neighbourhood. Probably the electrons flow (and come back - but it is not symetrical)) from a cold aluminum element. Anenna radiate if VSWR is low. It means that not all come back. S* |
Computer model experiment
On May 22, 6:49*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"Cecil Moore" ... On May 21, 1:07 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Alternate electric field from the ends of the dipole kicks the electrons in the space and they oscillate (longitudinal electric waves). How much I^2*R loss is there in the plasma conductors of free space? Oscillations are not travelling. Loss are only when something travel between obstacles. How far into space does the electron plasma effect extend? As far as light do. If electrons can flow from a cold aluminum element in a vacuum, why does a vacuum tube need a special heated cathode? Also exists the field emission. But it is harmfull for antennas if it is in form of sparks. The high voltage kicks the electrons in the neighbourhood. Probably the electrons flow (and come back - but it is not symetrical)) from a cold aluminum element. Anenna radiate if VSWR is low. It means that not all come back. S* so over a period of time if the electrons keep flowing away from an antenna it should become positively charged. and the longer it operates the higher the charge. unfortunately this is not the case, antennas do not give off electrons any more than they have magical levitating neutrinos like art prefers. |
Computer model experiment
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci ... On May 22, 6:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Also exists the field emission. But it is harmfull for antennas if it is in form of sparks. The high voltage kicks the electrons in the neighbourhood. Probably the electrons flow (and come back - but it is not symetrical)) from a cold aluminum element. Anenna radiate if VSWR is low. It means that not all come back. S* so over a period of time if the electrons keep flowing away from an antenna it should become positively charged. and the longer it operates the higher the charge. unfortunately this is not the case, Is antena grounded? All circuits are closed. The receiver antenna also do not become negatively charged. The Earth closes the circuit. antennas do not give off electrons any more than they have magical levitating neutrinos like art prefers. 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* |
Computer model experiment
On May 22, 1:07*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ... On May 22, 6:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Also exists the field emission. But it is harmfull for antennas if it is in form of sparks. The high voltage kicks the electrons in the neighbourhood. Probably the electrons flow (and come back - but it is not symetrical)) from a cold aluminum element. Anenna radiate if VSWR is low. It means that not all come back. S* so over a period of time if the electrons keep flowing away from an antenna it should become positively charged. *and the longer it operates the higher the charge. *unfortunately this is not the case, Is antena grounded? All circuits are closed. The receiver antenna also do not become negatively charged. The Earth closes the circuit. antennas do not give off electrons any more than they have magical levitating neutrinos like art prefers. 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* Because of comments made I decided to abandon the idea of increasing the diameter of the dipole which really is a bit off the wall and decided instead to change frequency applied to obtain a low to near zero impedance. This approach did not result in a truly spherical radiation pattern and nor did it remove vortices ! The pattern when cut always revealed a figure 8 somewhere. Never the less, peak gain produced by the program always produced a larger volume pattern when impedance was a minimum. This certainly implies that because of the loss of skin the element impedance was lowered and thus the radiation would increase. Of course it depends on the observer to interprete observations where others may well differ.( A sure certainty in this group) I am beginning to see an analogy between radiation elements and water, where water being diamagnetic would attract particles. Looking at it in radiating terms, the current would flow within the intersection point outside the water and propel the individual particles from or part of the skin which really is an encapsulation surface of a material other than water. Since mass inside the boundary does not change because of instant replacement the boundary mathematical approach would still hold. Of course, if the skin was actually made of particles the addition of soap to the radiator surface would render it immune to radiation if bubbles were not created thus leaving a diminishing surface area of broken skin.Hopefully I have supplied enough material to anger those who are sure they know all about radiation and thus provoke them to finally declare exactly what is happening in a scientific manner ala details, details,details Regards Art |
Computer model experiment
On May 22, 8:01*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 22, 1:07*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ... On May 22, 6:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Also exists the field emission. But it is harmfull for antennas if it is in form of sparks. The high voltage kicks the electrons in the neighbourhood. Probably the electrons flow (and come back - but it is not symetrical)) from a cold aluminum element. Anenna radiate if VSWR is low. It means that not all come back. S* so over a period of time if the electrons keep flowing away from an antenna it should become positively charged. *and the longer it operates the higher the charge. *unfortunately this is not the case, Is antena grounded? All circuits are closed. The receiver antenna also do not become negatively charged. The Earth closes the circuit. antennas do not give off electrons any more than they have magical levitating neutrinos like art prefers. 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* Because of comments made I decided to abandon the idea of increasing the diameter of the dipole which really is a bit off the wall and decided instead to change frequency applied to obtain a low to near zero impedance. This approach did not result in a truly spherical radiation pattern and nor did it remove vortices ! The pattern when cut always revealed a figure 8 somewhere. Never the less, peak gain produced by the program always produced a larger volume pattern when impedance was a minimum. This certainly implies that because of the loss of skin the element impedance was lowered and thus the radiation would increase. Of course it depends on the observer to interprete observations where others may well differ.( A sure certainty in this group) I am beginning to see an analogy between radiation elements and water, where water being diamagnetic would attract particles. Looking at it in radiating terms, the current would flow within the intersection point outside the water and propel the individual particles from or part of the skin which really is an encapsulation surface of a material other than water. Since mass inside the boundary does not change because of instant replacement the boundary mathematical approach would still hold. Of course, if the skin was actually made of particles the addition of soap to the radiator surface would render it immune to radiation if bubbles were not created thus leaving a diminishing surface area of broken skin.Hopefully I have supplied enough material to anger those who are sure they know all about radiation and thus provoke them to finally declare exactly what is happening in a scientific manner ala details, details,details Regards Art you really must chat with mr. b. now that you are talking about water waves you are both on the same 'wavelength' so to speak. |
Computer model experiment
On May 22, 6:07*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ... On May 22, 6:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Also exists the field emission. But it is harmfull for antennas if it is in form of sparks. The high voltage kicks the electrons in the neighbourhood. Probably the electrons flow (and come back - but it is not symetrical)) from a cold aluminum element. Anenna radiate if VSWR is low. It means that not all come back. S* so over a period of time if the electrons keep flowing away from an antenna it should become positively charged. *and the longer it operates the higher the charge. *unfortunately this is not the case, Is antena grounded? All circuits are closed. The receiver antenna also do not become negatively charged. The Earth closes the circuit. antennas do not give off electrons any more than they have magical levitating neutrinos like art prefers. 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 now have to be grounded. how are antennas on satellites grounded?? do satellites become massive positive charges in space as they keep shooting off electrons... 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. |
Computer model experiment
On May 22, 4:41*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On May 22, 8:01*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On May 22, 1:07*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ... On May 22, 6:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Also exists the field emission. But it is harmfull for antennas if it is in form of sparks. The high voltage kicks the electrons in the neighbourhood. Probably the electrons flow (and come back - but it is not symetrical)) from a cold aluminum element. Anenna radiate if VSWR is low. It means that not all come back. S* so over a period of time if the electrons keep flowing away from an antenna it should become positively charged. *and the longer it operates the higher the charge. *unfortunately this is not the case, Is antena grounded? All circuits are closed. The receiver antenna also do not become negatively charged. The Earth closes the circuit. antennas do not give off electrons any more than they have magical levitating neutrinos like art prefers. 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* Because of comments made I decided to abandon the idea of increasing the diameter of the dipole which really is a bit off the wall and decided instead to change frequency applied to obtain a low to near zero impedance. This approach did not result in a truly spherical radiation pattern and nor did it remove vortices ! The pattern when cut always revealed a figure 8 somewhere. Never the less, peak gain produced by the program always produced a larger volume pattern when impedance was a minimum. This certainly implies that because of the loss of skin the element impedance was lowered and thus the radiation would increase. Of course it depends on the observer to interprete observations where others may well differ.( A sure certainty in this group) I am beginning to see an analogy between radiation elements and water, where water being diamagnetic would attract particles. Looking at it in radiating terms, the current would flow within the intersection point outside the water and propel the individual particles from or part of the skin which really is an encapsulation surface of a material other than water. Since mass inside the boundary does not change because of instant replacement the boundary mathematical approach would still hold. Of course, if the skin was actually made of particles the addition of soap to the radiator surface would render it immune to radiation if bubbles were not created thus leaving a diminishing surface area of broken skin.Hopefully I have supplied enough material to anger those who are sure they know all about radiation and thus provoke them to finally declare exactly what is happening in a scientific manner ala details, details,details Regards Art you really must chat with mr. b. *now that you are talking about water waves you are both on the same 'wavelength' so to speak. Is that a good example of what you call conversation? Waves and wavelength !!! Talk with Mister B? I would do that at a drop of the hat if the outcome was that you wouldn't engage me in conversation for a hundred years as you promised him. I left you a clue with respect to water and the collecting of Neutrinos but again I over estimated your interlect I don't think I can go much lower, you as a person has already hit rock bottom. Hey a question for you. Richard lives alone, so does Kotar .Possibly the other regular hacker also. Would I be correct that you also have to live alone as you seem to fit the standard model of driving people away? |
Computer model experiment
On 5/22/2010 3:01 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
I am beginning to see an analogy between radiation elements and water, where water being diamagnetic would attract particles. Looking at it in radiating terms, the current would flow within the intersection point outside the water and propel the individual particles from or part of the skin which really is an encapsulation surface of a material other than water. Since mass inside the boundary does not change because of instant replacement the boundary mathematical approach would still hold. Of course, if the skin was actually made of particles the addition of soap to the radiator surface would render it immune to radiation if bubbles were not created thus leaving a diminishing surface area of broken skin.Hopefully I have supplied enough material to anger those who are sure they know all about radiation and thus provoke them to finally declare exactly what is happening in a scientific manner ala details, details,details Regards Art Reminds me of a comment an engineer made to me in jest "We're making up **** as fast as we can!". And that's about all that needs to be said about Art's latest journey into fairyland. tom K0TAR |
Computer model experiment
On 5/22/2010 7:08 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
Is that a good example of what you call conversation? Waves and wavelength !!! Talk with Mister B? I would do that at a drop of the hat if the outcome was that you wouldn't engage me in conversation for a hundred years as you promised him. I left you a clue with respect to water and the collecting of Neutrinos but again I over estimated your interlect I don't think I can go much lower, you as a person has already hit rock bottom. Hey a question for you. Richard lives alone, so does Kotar .Possibly the other regular hacker also. Would I be correct that you also have to live alone as you seem to fit the standard model of driving people away? So desperation is setting in now. He is grasping at straws about which he has no knowledge. Let's try a similar useless tactic! Have you stopped beating your wife Art? tom K0TAR |
Computer model experiment
On May 22, 7:43*pm, tom wrote:
On 5/22/2010 7:08 PM, Art Unwin wrote: Is that *a good example of what you call conversation? * Waves and wavelength !!! Talk with Mister B? I would do that at a drop of the hat if the outcome was that you wouldn't engage me in conversation for a hundred years as you promised him. I left you a clue with respect to water and the collecting of Neutrinos but again I over estimated your interlect * I don't think I can go much lower, you as a person has already hit rock bottom. Hey a question for you. Richard lives alone, so does Kotar .Possibly the other regular hacker also. Would I be correct that you also have to live alone as you seem to fit the standard model of driving people away? So desperation is setting in now. *He is grasping at straws about which he has no knowledge. Let's try a similar useless tactic! Have you stopped beating your wife Art? tom K0TAR Tom I just can't see you holding your tongue or being civil for any length of time! It is quite obvious that you have to live alone. Me? I just celebrated my 50th anniversary with my wife. Monday we all celebrate my daughters wedding anniversary where all the tribe will appear. Another great evening on the horizon. Eat your heart out. And yes, you called it right, your comment was a useless tactic. |
Computer model experiment
On 5/22/2010 8:09 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
So desperation is setting in now. He is grasping at straws about which he has no knowledge. Let's try a similar useless tactic! Have you stopped beating your wife Art? tom K0TAR Tom I just can't see you holding your tongue or being civil for any length of time! It is quite obvious that you have to live alone. Me? I just celebrated my 50th anniversary with my wife. Monday we all celebrate my daughters wedding anniversary where all the tribe will appear. Another great evening on the horizon. Eat your heart out. And yes, you called it right, your comment was a useless tactic. Just as useless as yours, since you know nothing of what you speak about myself and others. That was my point. Duh. tom K0TAR |
Computer model experiment
On 5/22/2010 8:09 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
So desperation is setting in now. He is grasping at straws about which he has no knowledge. Let's try a similar useless tactic! Have you stopped beating your wife Art? tom K0TAR Tom I just can't see you holding your tongue or being civil for any length of time! It is quite obvious that you have to live alone. Me? I just celebrated my 50th anniversary with my wife. Monday we all celebrate my daughters wedding anniversary where all the tribe will appear. Another great evening on the horizon. Eat your heart out. And yes, you called it right, your comment was a useless tactic. And you didn't, as usual, answer the question. Have you stopped beating your wife? tom K0TAR |
Computer model experiment
On May 22, 8:54*pm, tom wrote:
On 5/22/2010 8:09 PM, Art Unwin wrote: So desperation is setting in now. *He is grasping at straws about which he has no knowledge. Let's try a similar useless tactic! Have you stopped beating your wife Art? tom K0TAR Tom I just can't see you holding your tongue or being civil for any length of time! It is quite obvious that you have to live alone. Me? I just celebrated my 50th anniversary with my wife. Monday we all celebrate my daughters wedding anniversary where all the tribe will appear. Another great evening on the horizon. Eat your heart out. And yes, you called it right, your comment was a useless tactic. And you didn't, as usual, answer the question. *Have you stopped beating your wife? tom K0TAR I imagine the beating of a wife would procede the sessation of the above so you would know nothing about the latter until desertion came about. Some time ago I saw a man argueing with himself which was the mirror image of himself as he looked outside. Is that where you get your experience from and your need to win at all times? |
Computer model experiment
On 5/22/2010 9:26 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
I imagine the beating of a wife would procede the sessation of the above so you would know nothing about the latter until desertion came about. Some time ago I saw a man argueing with himself which was the mirror image of himself as he looked outside. Is that where you get your experience from and your need to win at all times? I generally continue until things are resolved, while you just start a new thread. tom K0TAR |
Computer model experiment
On May 22, 9:36*pm, tom wrote:
On 5/22/2010 9:26 PM, Art Unwin wrote: I imagine the beating of a wife would procede the sessation of the above so you would know nothing about the latter until desertion came about. Some time ago I saw a man argueing with himself which was the mirror image of himself as he looked outside. Is that where you get your experience from and your need to win at all times? I generally continue until things are resolved, while you just start a new thread. tom K0TAR Is that how your ex wife characterised you after you challenged her every day after day? I start a new thread in the hope of getting rid of you. But when I talk antennas you turn to trash because you know nothing else other than being a hate full and evil person . Read your own past postings some time and characterise the person behind what you read. Not very pleasing right! |
Computer model experiment
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci ... 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* |
Computer model experiment
On May 23, 9:34*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* argh, one wikipedia article and you are an expert. good bye cruel usenet, i have real antennas to work on... including the ferromagnetic pointy ended non-grounded and yet uncharged ones that art can't explain. you guys enjoy your delusions. |
Computer model experiment
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. Since photons can do that, why is there a need to introduce the concept of invisible, undetectable, massless, virtual electrons in free space? What is the electron density of free space? -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Computer model experiment
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 |
Computer model experiment
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. |
Computer model experiment
"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* |
Computer model experiment
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. |
Computer model experiment
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. |
Computer model experiment
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 |
Computer model experiment
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? |
Computer model experiment
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? |
Computer model experiment
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. |
Computer model experiment
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. |
Computer model experiment
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. |
Computer model experiment
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. |
Computer model experiment
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. |
Computer model experiment
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? |
Computer model experiment
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 |
Computer model experiment
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. |
Computer model experiment
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 |
Computer model experiment
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* |
Computer model experiment
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* |
Computer model experiment
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* |
Computer model experiment
"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* |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com