On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:43:51 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

why to ask more?

Because everthing else was "magic" to you. Strange sort of
limitation, but there you are with a less than satisfactory answer.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 16 sep, 00:14, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:43:51 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

why to ask more?

Because everthing else was "magic" to you. *Strange sort of
limitation, but there you are with a less than satisfactory answer.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


No, this form of question "why to ask more?" it is ironic, in spanish
means that "you", not me, do not want to ask more. You stop the
questioning in a high level (as in software "high level" meaning)
useful descriptive model of the world and refuse to look for the
underlying process responsible of that. "Magic" for me it is = PRINT
"hello world", because beneath it is asm code for PRINT instruction,
more deep it is movement of bits inside the processor, more lower yet
it is the electricity. To explain all program operations perhaps we do
not need go beyond PRINT statement knowledge, but BASIC it is not the
end of the story...

Why do you think only you study boundary conditions...? it is the more
conventional form to treat the issue of reflections! All this speech
to refute accelerated electrolite charges radiation? Do better shows
to us why a ion vibrating due an electric field it is incapable to
radiate EM energy. Better yet, shows us that you has replicated the
paper's experiment and has got nil results. Until today we have only
scholastic rationalizations, not "bench work".
You said: "well... it is not so good as copper conductor, then it is
no good for me", that is not science! that is only your tastes :P You
do not want study or analize technical possibilities with your ham
fellows, you like quarreling!, hi hi, Be a good boy, dust off your
undergraduated Resnick and see Compton thinkings, interesting things
happen at the bottom :)

73 - Miguel

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:59:21 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Why do you think only you study boundary conditions...?

I have to think about that question for a while. At the risk of
translation problems,
1. I don't think only boundary conditions;
2. I don't think I am the only one who studies boundary conditions;
3. Boundary conditions are not incorrect solutions.

it is the more
conventional form to treat the issue of reflections! All this speech
to refute accelerated electrolite charges radiation?

Were you looking for an answer that refutes electrolite charges
radiation? Are YOU refuting electrolite charges radiation? Are
electrolite charges radiation the only solution? Is there radiation
if there are no electrolite charges? [You have already skipped past
dielectric lensing which refracts radiation too.]

Do better shows
to us why a ion vibrating due an electric field it is incapable to
radiate EM energy.

Why?

Better yet, shows us that you has replicated the
paper's experiment and has got nil results.

Why does it have to be nil?

Until today we have only
scholastic rationalizations, not "bench work".
You said: "well... it is not so good as copper conductor, then it is
no good for me",

I really said that? Looks like a bad translation with extra editing.
Maybe if you use my original post with cut-and-paste.

that is not science! that is only your tastes :P

"Mismatch" it is another magic word
Is this scientific?

You
do not want study or analize technical possibilities with your ham
fellows, you like quarreling!,

Hmmm, your argument sounds like conservative pleas. Look at second
quote above: "more conventional." I introduce another analytical
perspective and you appeal to old books reciting stale material:

hi hi, Be a good boy, dust off your
undergraduated Resnick and see Compton thinkings

Moldy too.

Your question that I long ago responded to was:
what other classical process could explain the EM earth reflection?
and you are very disappointed that I did not boringly repeat the SAME
dusty classical process!

Why did you ask?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 16 sep, 02:38, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:59:21 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Why do you think only you study boundary conditions...?

I have to think about that question for a while. *At the risk of
translation problems,
1. *I don't think only boundary conditions;
2. *I don't think I am the only one who studies boundary conditions;
3. *Boundary conditions are not incorrect solutions.

it is the more
conventional form to treat the issue of reflections! All this speech
to refute accelerated electrolite charges radiation?

Were you looking for an answer that refutes electrolite charges
radiation? *Are YOU refuting electrolite charges radiation? *Are
electrolite charges radiation the only solution? *Is there radiation
if there are no electrolite charges? *[You have already skipped past
dielectric lensing which refracts radiation too.]

Do better shows
to us why a ion vibrating due an electric field it is incapable to
radiate EM energy.

Why?

Better yet, shows us that you has replicated the
paper's experiment and has got nil results.

Why does it have to be nil?

Until today we have only
scholastic rationalizations, not "bench work".
You said: "well... it is not so good as copper conductor, then it is
no good for me",

I really said that? *Looks like a bad translation with extra editing.
Maybe if you use my original post with cut-and-paste.

that is not science! that is only your tastes :P
"Mismatch" it is another magic word

Is this scientific?

You
do not want study or analize technical possibilities with your ham
fellows, you like quarreling!,

Hmmm, your argument sounds like conservative pleas. *Look at second
quote above: "more conventional." * *I introduce another analytical
perspective and you appeal to old books reciting stale material:

hi hi, *Be a good boy, dust off your
undergraduated Resnick and see Compton thinkings

Moldy too.

Your question that I long ago responded to was:what other classical process could explain the EM earth reflection?

and you are very disappointed that I did not boringly repeat the SAME
dusty classical process! *

Why did you ask?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


SRI Richard I am not fond to eristics. Have a good day and thank you
for your company. Nos vemos!.

Miguel

On 9/16/2010 2:09 PM, lu6etj wrote:
On 16 sep, 02:38, Richard wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:59:21 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Why do you think only you study boundary conditions...?

I have to think about that question for a while. At the risk of
translation problems,
1. I don't think only boundary conditions;
2. I don't think I am the only one who studies boundary conditions;
3. Boundary conditions are not incorrect solutions.

it is the more
conventional form to treat the issue of reflections! All this speech
to refute accelerated electrolite charges radiation?

Were you looking for an answer that refutes electrolite charges
radiation? Are YOU refuting electrolite charges radiation? Are
electrolite charges radiation the only solution? Is there radiation
if there are no electrolite charges? [You have already skipped past
dielectric lensing which refracts radiation too.]

Do better shows
to us why a ion vibrating due an electric field it is incapable to
radiate EM energy.

Why?

Better yet, shows us that you has replicated the
paper's experiment and has got nil results.

Why does it have to be nil?

Until today we have only
scholastic rationalizations, not "bench work".
You said: "well... it is not so good as copper conductor, then it is
no good for me",

I really said that? Looks like a bad translation with extra editing.
Maybe if you use my original post with cut-and-paste.

that is not science! that is only your tastes :P
"Mismatch" it is another magic word

Is this scientific?

You
do not want study or analize technical possibilities with your ham
fellows, you like quarreling!,

Hmmm, your argument sounds like conservative pleas. Look at second
quote above: "more conventional." I introduce another analytical
perspective and you appeal to old books reciting stale material:

hi hi, Be a good boy, dust off your
undergraduated Resnick and see Compton thinkings

Moldy too.

Your question that I long ago responded to was:what other classical process could explain the EM earth reflection?

and you are very disappointed that I did not boringly repeat the SAME
dusty classical process!

Why did you ask?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


SRI Richard I am not fond to eristics. Have a good day and thank you
for your company. Nos vemos!.

Miguel



Richard is a pit bull. You riled him up. It happens. He can't help it.

tom
K0TAR