On Jun 7, 2:06*am, tom wrote:
On 6/6/2010 8:27 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jun 6, 3:59 pm, *wrote:
yes, that is my opinion as a professional software developer who has
written simulation programs that model lightning on high voltage power
lines, on towers, and in ground conductors. *And also as a user of AO
from many years ago... that program is prone to optimizing into
unrealizable and obviously incorrect results, often first seen as
rapid changes in currents and gain values. * so if you really want to
continue, have fun, we all get a good laugh out of your naivety and
attempts to explain it with your own version of physics.

I have no problem with your view point and it is something I am
concerned about. Since I have followed this path however, every thing
is meshing
and I am reporting it as I do not fear failure. But to my mind I have
not hit anything to cause me to give up. On top of that nobody has
raised any particular points of discussion either. Remember it took me
years to convince all that extending Gauss
was OK and it provided arrays where all elements were resonant each of
which can be fed. So I was right there and everybody else was in
error, relying on books only and not there own education.
Now I am spreading my wings based on what the former has shown and
will re evaluate again when done. At each time I will continue to
share results
even if it finally shows some errors But I certainly will not stop
because of intuitions from the group which up to now has been proved
wrong. Nothing wrong with following the teachings of the books as
followers but I am attempting to be a leader in finding truths about
radiation. So far I have proved the presence of particles, realised
equilibrium in every way and now I appear to be proving that skin
depth is not a constant. A lot of work to do but as an engineer I knew
it would take a while and on top of that I supplied it to a academic
to break it down
as one always should get an independent evaluation. So far every thing
that Einstein predicted has shown up in my workings such that if he
had seen it there would have been no need for alternate physics
proposals, not that they were without success. The final point is that
it is accepted that the machinations of radiation have not yet been
proven and so far following thru with classical physics has provided
with interesting view points that oppose the present teachings. So I
am a fool to place my engineering experience in search of the truth
where others may be happy as things are.
So I am different from the rest and what is so bad about that? It is
for the group to show that I am inadequate from my aproach and to this
point all
that has been presented has been proven false and I still prevail. I
yearn for closure which could come from those really interested in the
outcome. But at the same time in their absence I will carry on.
Future info will be on the new thread since this one is now dead and
placed in the archives.
Regards
Art

Yup, meds.

STRONG meds!

On 6/7/2010 4:27 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On Jun 7, 2:06 am, wrote:
On 6/6/2010 8:27 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jun 6, 3:59 pm, wrote:
yes, that is my opinion as a professional software developer who has
written simulation programs that model lightning on high voltage power
lines, on towers, and in ground conductors. And also as a user of AO
from many years ago... that program is prone to optimizing into
unrealizable and obviously incorrect results, often first seen as
rapid changes in currents and gain values. so if you really want to
continue, have fun, we all get a good laugh out of your naivety and
attempts to explain it with your own version of physics.

I have no problem with your view point and it is something I am
concerned about. Since I have followed this path however, every thing
is meshing
and I am reporting it as I do not fear failure. But to my mind I have
not hit anything to cause me to give up. On top of that nobody has
raised any particular points of discussion either. Remember it took me
years to convince all that extending Gauss
was OK and it provided arrays where all elements were resonant each of
which can be fed. So I was right there and everybody else was in
error, relying on books only and not there own education.
Now I am spreading my wings based on what the former has shown and
will re evaluate again when done. At each time I will continue to
share results
even if it finally shows some errors But I certainly will not stop
because of intuitions from the group which up to now has been proved
wrong. Nothing wrong with following the teachings of the books as
followers but I am attempting to be a leader in finding truths about
radiation. So far I have proved the presence of particles, realised
equilibrium in every way and now I appear to be proving that skin
depth is not a constant. A lot of work to do but as an engineer I knew
it would take a while and on top of that I supplied it to a academic
to break it down
as one always should get an independent evaluation. So far every thing
that Einstein predicted has shown up in my workings such that if he
had seen it there would have been no need for alternate physics
proposals, not that they were without success. The final point is that
it is accepted that the machinations of radiation have not yet been
proven and so far following thru with classical physics has provided
with interesting view points that oppose the present teachings. So I
am a fool to place my engineering experience in search of the truth
where others may be happy as things are.
So I am different from the rest and what is so bad about that? It is
for the group to show that I am inadequate from my aproach and to this
point all
that has been presented has been proven false and I still prevail. I
yearn for closure which could come from those really interested in the
outcome. But at the same time in their absence I will carry on.
Future info will be on the new thread since this one is now dead and
placed in the archives.
Regards
Art

Yup, meds.

STRONG meds!

And all these miraculous claims without a shred of evidence or formulas
one can check.

And yet he prevails.