On 5/19/2010 10:47 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 10, 12:35 pm, Art wrote:
I just completed a experiment with my antenna optimizer program where
I had a dipole in free space and where I increased the diameter until
it was close to.003 ohms resistive
What this means is the current flow is right at the surface where
there is no skin depth
penetration involved and thus close to zero material resistance. This
means that the total resistance is the radiation resistance of the
surface encapsulating particles. The radiation was 35 db in a shape
close to that of a sphere. (when the resistance of the aluminum dipole
went to zero the radiation went to a perfect sphere) Efficiency was
stated at 100% efficient pointing to 100% accountability for all
forces involved and where losses were at a minimum.
Regards
Art

Extra information
When resonant at 50 ohms resistive the donut shape was evident and
provided by two vortices.
As the resonant value dropped so did the depth of the two vortices
At 5 ohms resistive the vortice depth really started to reduce in
depth.In other words as the vortice reduced so did the skin depth and

Wow! I'd really like to see this vortex, sorry these vortices, that you
have produced.

Is the rotation right or left handed?

This is REALLY COOL!

Please post the file and which optimizer software that you are using.

Thanks!

tom
K0TAR

On May 19, 11:09*pm, tom wrote:
On 5/19/2010 10:47 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



On May 10, 12:35 pm, Art *wrote:
I just completed a experiment with my antenna optimizer program where
I had a dipole in free space and where I increased the diameter until
it was close to.003 ohms resistive
What this means is the current flow is right at the surface where
there is no skin depth
penetration involved and thus close to zero material resistance. This
means that the total resistance is the radiation resistance of the
surface encapsulating particles. The radiation was 35 db in a shape
close to that of a sphere. (when the resistance of the aluminum dipole
went to zero the radiation went to a perfect sphere) Efficiency was
stated at 100% efficient pointing to 100% accountability for all
forces involved and where losses were at a minimum.
Regards
Art

Extra information
When resonant at 50 ohms resistive the donut shape was evident and
provided by two vortices.
As the resonant value dropped so did the depth of the two vortices
At 5 ohms resistive the vortice depth really started to reduce in
depth.In other words as the vortice reduced so did the skin depth and

Wow! *I'd really like to see this vortex, sorry these vortices, that you
have produced.

Is the rotation right or left handed?

This is REALLY COOL!

Please post the file and which optimizer software that you are using.

Thanks!

tom
K0TAR

The presence of these vortices are used to determine imperfections in
materials during manufacturing processes. Removing the presence of
such is the primary reason for laminations instead of solids in the
manufacture of transformers.I am surprised that you are not familiar
with the concept of skin depth when at the same time you consider
yourself as an expert with respect to antennas. The antenna program I
use is
AO Pro purely because it has an optimizer to ensure Maxwell's
equations are adhered to as well as accountability for all vectors
involved. Planar devices are quite efficient such as the Yagi but
planar devices are not in equilibrium which is a requirement of
Maxwell's equations! I imagine that with any program you could fiddle
with a dipole
construction such that it was resonant at a very low impedance to
obtain a progression for radiation
pattern /volume versus impedance if it does not posses optimization
abilities. The free EZNEC program probably will be good enough.
As far as vortices are concerned the same two vectors used with
antennas are also evident with the Earth's weather system. For
instance, a tornado
or a whirlpool presents a vortice by virtue of the intersection of two
vectors involved. Remove one intersecting vector and the vortice
disappears. This is an example of what Einstein saw with respect to
his leanings on the unified theory.

On 5/19/2010 11:45 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
Wow! I'd really like to see this vortex, sorry these vortices, that you
have produced.

Is the rotation right or left handed?

This is REALLY COOL!

Please post the file and which optimizer software that you are using.

Thanks!

tom
K0TAR

The presence of these vortices are used to determine imperfections in
materials during manufacturing processes. Removing the presence of
such is the primary reason for laminations instead of solids in the
manufacture of transformers.I am surprised that you are not familiar
with the concept of skin depth when at the same time you consider
yourself as an expert with respect to antennas. The antenna program I
use is
AO Pro purely because it has an optimizer to ensure Maxwell's
equations are adhered to as well as accountability for all vectors
involved. Planar devices are quite efficient such as the Yagi but
planar devices are not in equilibrium which is a requirement of
Maxwell's equations! I imagine that with any program you could fiddle
with a dipole
construction such that it was resonant at a very low impedance to
obtain a progression for radiation
pattern /volume versus impedance if it does not posses optimization
abilities. The free EZNEC program probably will be good enough.
As far as vortices are concerned the same two vectors used with
antennas are also evident with the Earth's weather system. For
instance, a tornado
or a whirlpool presents a vortice by virtue of the intersection of two
vectors involved. Remove one intersecting vector and the vortice
disappears. This is an example of what Einstein saw with respect to
his leanings on the unified theory.

Oh that's right, I forgot. You use my god child. I asked Brian to do
that program for 2 or 3 years before he finally did. I was the alpha
tester on it and other of his programs.

You do know that's just MiniNEC, right? With all the problems MiniNEC
has included for your computing pleasure.

It's off frequency - low. And it gets worse as the wire diameter
INCREASES. Which is what you are doing in your example.

It also doesn't like bent wires, as in things that don't meet at 180
degrees. It breaks down completely at less than 28 degrees.

It doesn't like adjacent segments that are in a ratio greater than 2 to 1.

And it doesn't like adjacent wires that are closer than .23 of a segment
length.

Given some of the things you have posted that you have modeled, I'd
guess that you break a minimum of 1, normally 2, and sometimes 3 of the
above conditions.

No wonder your stuff acts abnormal.

And you are using this tool to attempt to prove your twisted theories
about Maxwell's equations? That's like using a chain saw to do brain
surgery.

tom
K0TAR

On May 20, 6:54*pm, tom wrote:
On 5/19/2010 11:45 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



Wow! *I'd really like to see this vortex, sorry these vortices, that you
have produced.

Is the rotation right or left handed?

This is REALLY COOL!

Please post the file and which optimizer software that you are using.

Thanks!

tom
K0TAR

The presence of these vortices are used to determine imperfections in
materials during manufacturing processes. Removing the presence of
such is the primary reason for laminations instead of solids in the
manufacture of transformers.I am surprised that you are not familiar
with the concept of skin depth when at the same time you consider
yourself as an expert with respect to antennas. The antenna program I
use is
AO Pro purely because it has an optimizer to ensure Maxwell's
equations are adhered to as well as accountability for all vectors
involved. Planar devices are quite efficient such as the Yagi but
planar devices are not in equilibrium which is a requirement of
Maxwell's equations! I imagine that with any program you could fiddle
with a dipole
construction such that it was resonant at a very low impedance to
obtain a progression for radiation
pattern /volume versus impedance if it does not posses optimization
abilities. The free EZNEC program probably will be good enough.
As far as vortices are concerned the same two vectors used with
antennas are also evident with the Earth's weather system. For
instance, a tornado
or a whirlpool presents a vortice by virtue of the intersection of two
vectors involved. Remove one intersecting vector and the vortice
disappears. This is an example of what Einstein saw with respect to
his leanings on the unified theory.

Oh that's right, I forgot. *You use my god child. *I asked Brian to do
that program for 2 or 3 years before he finally did. *I was the alpha
tester on it and other of his programs.

You do know that's just MiniNEC, right? *With all the problems MiniNEC
has included for your computing pleasure.

It's off frequency - low. *And it gets worse as the wire diameter
INCREASES. *Which is what you are doing in your example.

It also doesn't like bent wires, as in things that don't meet at 180
degrees. *It breaks down completely at less than 28 degrees.

It doesn't like adjacent segments that are in a ratio greater than 2 to 1..

And it doesn't like adjacent wires that are closer than .23 of a segment
length.

Given some of the things you have posted that you have modeled, I'd
guess that you break a minimum of 1, normally 2, and sometimes 3 of the
above conditions.

No wonder your stuff acts abnormal.

And you are using this tool to attempt to prove your twisted theories
about Maxwell's equations? *That's like using a chain saw to do brain
surgery.

tom
K0TAR

All very interesting Tom but frankly you lack credibility. As with
other posts of yours you do not provide specifics and more than often
express opinions. I personally am as pleased as punch in what I
purchased from Brian and I certainly do not believe he would foist on
the ham community anything but his best. Knowing that he is not
exactly a peoples person I suspect he would not shy from a clash with
you when you distribute your personal opinions. So I can imagine why
such a person like you would jump at the chance to savage another's
personality. For my part I use the program strictly for his adherence
to Maxwell's equations which is the approach that I take. This allows
for an over check most times when ensuring
that arrays proffered meet the condition of equilibrium of each part
and all of the provided
array. I doubt very much you would have strayed beyond the Yagi and
other planar designs when testing, but then you are not short of
claiming anything that may boost your position in life.
Thanks for your operative points offered and I will certainly consider
them within the specific technical confines which you so gently
provided.
Regards
Art

On 5/20/2010 7:40 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
Oh that's right, I forgot. You use my god child. I asked Brian to do
that program for 2 or 3 years before he finally did. I was the alpha
tester on it and other of his programs.

You do know that's just MiniNEC, right? With all the problems MiniNEC
has included for your computing pleasure.

It's off frequency - low. And it gets worse as the wire diameter
INCREASES. Which is what you are doing in your example.

It also doesn't like bent wires, as in things that don't meet at 180
degrees. It breaks down completely at less than 28 degrees.

It doesn't like adjacent segments that are in a ratio greater than 2 to 1.

And it doesn't like adjacent wires that are closer than .23 of a segment
length.

Given some of the things you have posted that you have modeled, I'd
guess that you break a minimum of 1, normally 2, and sometimes 3 of the
above conditions.

No wonder your stuff acts abnormal.

And you are using this tool to attempt to prove your twisted theories
about Maxwell's equations? That's like using a chain saw to do brain
surgery.

tom
K0TAR

All very interesting Tom but frankly you lack credibility. As with
other posts of yours you do not provide specifics and more than often
express opinions. I personally am as pleased as punch in what I
purchased from Brian and I certainly do not believe he would foist on
the ham community anything but his best. Knowing that he is not

It was his best, but based on MiniNEC. He couldn't change that. He did
tweak things in YO because it was special purpose, but I believe he left
the engine in AO pretty much alone.

exactly a peoples person I suspect he would not shy from a clash with
you when you distribute your personal opinions. So I can imagine why
such a person like you would jump at the chance to savage another's
personality. For my part I use the program strictly for his adherence
to Maxwell's equations which is the approach that I take. This allows
for an over check most times when ensuring

It adheres to MiniNEC's core. Which adhere to Maxwell no more and no
less than that. And it has serious and known shortcomings, which you
seem to want to wish away. Brian did a great, hell spectacular, job
with what he started with, but he couldn't make the problems with
MiniNEC disappear. No one has done anything like it that is available
at the prices he charged since then. But the user needs to understand
the limitations of the product.

that arrays proffered meet the condition of equilibrium of each part
and all of the provided

AO knows nothing of the equilibrium of which you speak.

array. I doubt very much you would have strayed beyond the Yagi and
other planar designs when testing, but then you are not short of
claiming anything that may boost your position in life.

You have no idea what I have done, designed or built. But I would bet
I've built more, and that it works better than anything you have come up
with unless you copied it from someone else.

tom
K0TAR

On 5/20/2010 7:40 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

All very interesting Tom but frankly you lack credibility. As with
other posts of yours you do not provide specifics and more than often
express opinions.

And this comment from someone who never states anything about his
miracle antennas except the fact that they are miraculous.

Yes, you are Mr. Credibility!

tom
K0TAR

On May 20, 8:21*pm, tom wrote:
On 5/20/2010 7:40 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



All very interesting Tom but frankly you lack credibility. As with
other posts of yours you do not provide specifics and more than often
express opinions.

And this comment from someone who never states anything about his
miracle antennas except the fact that they are miraculous.

Yes, you are Mr. Credibility!

tom
K0TAR

Tom I try to provide the specifics with respect to my posts because
without them there can be no discussion. I do get discussions and
generally they
are not as nice as I would like them to be but others do get involved
while at the same time providing worth while comments such as the
continuity of the donut shape which forced me to reconsider. As far as
minninec is concerned I had no other choice since I required an
optimiser but even so minninec surely has its problems the same as
NEC. If and when NEC tries the optimiser aproach I suspect they will
incorporate minninec in some way. As far as the faults you pointed to
I can't imagine not placing segment opposite each other for close
spaced elements or in fact placing much confidence in bent angles in
the area below 30 degrees whether it be eznec or minninec.
When I started to look away from yagi's and planar devices I followed
the standard rules of mathematics with respect to equilibrium and
Maxwell's rules, I was very pleased that the mininec
conformed to my expectations. This however, did not stop me from
getting confirmation else where using NEC4. So again I have no reason
not to trust
AO any time before I distrust myself when I am more than willing to
declare what I did and who I am. The reason I do respond to your posts
is to encourage you to use free speech and thus force you to disclose
what sort of person you are to other members of the group, and not for
its technical content. I have on my page unwinantennas a sample of an
array ( diversity array)that conforms to my thinking with respect to
Maxwells equations
which were fully revealed to me by the expansion of
Gauss theorem from static to dynamic in every way,
which provided the evidence of particles as the carrier of radiation.
Since nobody on this group is willing to understand the meanings of
equilibrium in physics or the legitamacy of changing static parameters
to dynamic, minninec did supply the backing for my thoughts in every
way which no other program that was available was capable of.
Have a happy day
Art

On 5/20/2010 9:14 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

Tom I try to provide the specifics with respect to my posts because
without them there can be no discussion. I do get discussions and
generally they
are not as nice as I would like them to be but others do get involved
while at the same time providing worth while comments such as the
continuity of the donut shape which forced me to reconsider. As far as
minninec is concerned I had no other choice since I required an
optimiser but even so minninec surely has its problems the same as
NEC. If and when NEC tries the optimiser aproach I suspect they will
incorporate minninec in some way. As far as the faults you pointed to
I can't imagine not placing segment opposite each other for close
spaced elements or in fact placing much confidence in bent angles in
the area below 30 degrees whether it be eznec or minninec.
When I started to look away from yagi's and planar devices I followed
the standard rules of mathematics with respect to equilibrium and
Maxwell's rules, I was very pleased that the mininec
conformed to my expectations. This however, did not stop me from
getting confirmation else where using NEC4. So again I have no reason
not to trust
AO any time before I distrust myself when I am more than willing to
declare what I did and who I am. The reason I do respond to your posts
is to encourage you to use free speech and thus force you to disclose
what sort of person you are to other members of the group, and not for
its technical content. I have on my page unwinantennas a sample of an
array ( diversity array)that conforms to my thinking with respect to
Maxwells equations
which were fully revealed to me by the expansion of
Gauss theorem from static to dynamic in every way,
which provided the evidence of particles as the carrier of radiation.
Since nobody on this group is willing to understand the meanings of
equilibrium in physics or the legitamacy of changing static parameters
to dynamic, minninec did supply the backing for my thoughts in every
way which no other program that was available was capable of.
Have a happy day
Art

And yet you never, ever, give numbers that define your antennas,
excepting the almost planar example antenna. Which doesn't work all
that well, actually.

You have to present some examples of things that actually work well
before you are considered credible.

And given your claims, you are expected to show antennas that are
demonstrably better than current designs.

So far you have not done any of the above.

tom
K0TAR


tom
K0TAR

O Jeez! Here we go again!!!! All this about vortices sounds like spin to me.

Irv VE6BP

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