On Dec 8, 10:21*pm, Sean Con wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:52:21 +0100, Sean Con
wrote:

It is difficult to separate the report from the reporter here (if, in
fact, such a distinction exists):

some resistance leads to energy loss .. probably energy is being
converted to heat, not loss.

Heat is not loss if heat is your objective. *This is a curious

boy... what is happening here - i feel lost

firstly, Art, temperature IS involved, when we are talking about solar
wind plasmas

second, richard, i guess my sentencing style is confusing
"some resistance leads to energy loss .. " -- this is copied from art's
previous message (if you follow the messages, you would notice the
copying)

"probably energy is being converted to heat, not loss." -- this is what
i commented

probably now you see why some other sentences appear self contradicting
because the first part is art's message, second part is what i write

and sorry for writing "feel", english is not my mother language, but i
believe you understood what i wanted to express

.....

Art, can you please contact me to my email address directly, because i
feel people dont like us discussing something.

you can see my email address in the message, can you please also make
some diagrams etc.. ?

thank you

no, please do continue on here!! it helps keep the rest of us amused
watching art spin new bafflegab in response to questions. just don't
expect any of it to make sense.

On Dec 8, 4:21*pm, Sean Con wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:52:21 +0100, Sean Con
wrote:

It is difficult to separate the report from the reporter here (if, in
fact, such a distinction exists):

some resistance leads to energy loss .. probably energy is being
converted to heat, not loss.

Heat is not loss if heat is your objective. *This is a curious

boy... what is happening here - i feel lost

firstly, Art, temperature IS involved, when we are talking about solar
wind plasmas

second, richard, i guess my sentencing style is confusing
"some resistance leads to energy loss .. " -- this is copied from art's
previous message (if you follow the messages, you would notice the
copying)

"probably energy is being converted to heat, not loss." -- this is what
i commented

probably now you see why some other sentences appear self contradicting
because the first part is art's message, second part is what i write

and sorry for writing "feel", english is not my mother language, but i
believe you understood what i wanted to express

.....

Art, can you please contact me to my email address directly, because i
feel people dont like us discussing something.

you can see my email address in the message, can you please also make
some diagrams etc.. ?

thank you

You are correct, the group does not like this sort of thing being
discussed and so will attack you.But to go private is to run away from
them.
None of them have offered alternative solutions
or even addressed the problem so they present no harm to any
discussion as it is all beyond their ken
Cheers and beers
Art

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:21:20 +0100, Sean Con
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:52:21 +0100, Sean Con
wrote:

It is difficult to separate the report from the reporter here (if, in
fact, such a distinction exists):

some resistance leads to energy loss .. probably energy is being
converted to heat, not loss.

Heat is not loss if heat is your objective. This is a curious

boy... what is happening here - i feel lost



firstly, Art, temperature IS involved, when we are talking about solar
wind plasmas

second, richard, i guess my sentencing style is confusing

That is why I said separating the report from the reporter (who is the
author of what is being written?) is a strain.

"some resistance leads to energy loss .. " -- this is copied from art's
previous message (if you follow the messages, you would notice the
copying)

I have long since abandoned reading Art. If the sense of my response
to your post is any indicator, then you can well imagine the waste of
time in that pursuit.

Let's just look at this isolated, attributed quote you have re-framed.
Look between the quotes you offer - not much said there that isn't
already obvious. However, valid quotes in isolation are one thing,
but stringing them together does not bring any authenticity to a
"theory."

In other words, cut and paste phrases is not a logical argument.

"probably energy is being converted to heat, not loss." -- this is what
i commented

Then there is a problem that is attributable to you. If you want
heat, then that is not loss in the conventional sense. You have not
clarified your intent.

probably now you see why some other sentences appear self contradicting
because the first part is art's message, second part is what i write

You need to employ the conventions of newsgroup etiquette, then. The
fashion of my interlacing your comments and mine clearly distinguish
who is the author. This is done by the distinct characters that are
inserted by a news-reader. This is an automatic feature.

and sorry for writing "feel", english is not my mother language, but i
believe you understood what i wanted to express

But I could not distinguish you from Art to be able "to give you the
benefit of the doubt."

Art, can you please contact me to my email address directly, because i
feel people dont like us discussing something.

Why don't you email him directly?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Dec 8, 5:09*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 8, 10:21*pm, Sean Con wrote:



In article ,
says...

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:52:21 +0100, Sean Con
wrote:

It is difficult to separate the report from the reporter here (if, in
fact, such a distinction exists):

some resistance leads to energy loss .. probably energy is being
converted to heat, not loss.

Heat is not loss if heat is your objective. *This is a curious

boy... what is happening here - i feel lost

firstly, Art, temperature IS involved, when we are talking about solar
wind plasmas

second, richard, i guess my sentencing style is confusing
"some resistance leads to energy loss .. " -- this is copied from art's
previous message (if you follow the messages, you would notice the
copying)

"probably energy is being converted to heat, not loss." -- this is what
i commented

probably now you see why some other sentences appear self contradicting
because the first part is art's message, second part is what i write

and sorry for writing "feel", english is not my mother language, but i
believe you understood what i wanted to express

.....

Art, can you please contact me to my email address directly, because i
feel people dont like us discussing something.

you can see my email address in the message, can you please also make
some diagrams etc.. ?

thank you

no, please do continue on here!! *it helps keep the rest of us amused
watching art spin new bafflegab in response to questions. *just don't
expect any of it to make sense.

Sean, I agree, stand your ground.There are a few good people in this
group it is just that some post more than others without content. If
their posts have no content for debate then they are of no interest to
you. You personally had no trouble with respect to particles while
others are still struggling with it So your expectations of them to
provide info is just misplaced. It is my belief that they reject
Maxwells addition with respect to displacement current as they do not
understand and also deny simple levitation.
As a radio ham you knew before hand as you that skip represented
straight line trajectory
and you easily recognized the tran as well as the
transition from static to dynamic. I am sure you also know that only
units used by Mawell represent the path
to maximum efficiency in radiation as well as
the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be
unity. At the same time you must also be aware that once the particle
is raised it is in equilibrium the same as the maglev train removes
friction from the equation.
For efficiency in radiation you are only interested in radiation
resistance and once applied current rises to the surface of a
conductor the particle has nothing to resist the applied current
accelerating it. What is important in all these transitions is the
term diamagnetic which REJECTS a magnetic field whereas a magnet
attracts. Forsuperconductors
a similar thing happens in that the conductor becomes diamagnetic and
rejects a magnetic field, it is no longer intrinsically carrying a
current. The idea to explain straight line trajectory of a charge was
the notion that no mass was involved for gravity to act upon.
Not only does Gauss point to the error in this thinking but 20th
century experiments show that mass is present. But all still resist
change
but have nothing, but nothing, and thus keep their hands clenched
inside the cookie jar.
Now look at the Yagi antenna, it is not in equilibrium and it actively
uses magnetism as its driving force. It certainly does a good job in
producing productive gain in a particular direction but for efficiency
it is miserable when compared to a dish radiator. Why? because it
deals with two separate resistances where Maxwell implies only one.
Efficiency means that all work done is solely to produce a said
requirement without unrequired and incidental loss.
Now think about the reciprocal of transmission
with the Faraday shield in mind. It is the only thing that separates
electrical and magnetic charge/fields to leave just current., Now put
a radiator inside such that the fields produced
changes the enclosure to a diamagnetic structure. I will leave you to
figure out the rest with respect to what flows on the surface and not
within the shield just like a superconductor.
Start off with a radiator where a field can increase no more such that
it moves to increase another field to generate an exceedingly strong
field while reducing the field from which it was transferred. Now
watch for the hyena howls from those who resist change and see what
they have to offer.
Regards
Art KB9MZ....xg

On Dec 8, 4:21*pm, Sean Con wrote:


Art, can you please contact me to my email address directly, because i
feel people dont like us discussing something.

Actually, quite the opposite. I think he's a hoot, and look
forward to his posts. It's better than the comedy channel.
Feel free to carry on.

On Dec 8, 8:18*pm, wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:21*pm, Sean Con wrote:



Art, can you please contact me to my email address directly, because i
feel people dont like us discussing something.

Actually, quite the opposite. I think he's a hoot, and look
forward to his posts. It's better than the comedy channel.
Feel free to carry on.

Sean, the poster is qualified to speak into a microphone as he has a
ham licence. However he freely admits to not graduating from high
school, so please judge his comments on his background. He is not the
only one in this group that has ham licence and feels qualified
in physics to a University level.
Anybody can post an opinion on this newsgroup
even tho the title has a suggestion of some antenna expertise. On the
other side oif the coin there are a few qualified and degreed with
respect to antennas but refuse to get involved
verbally with spammers on the side lines. We had a guy with a
doctorate from MIT who came aboard to explain Gauss contribution with
respect to amalgamating static with dynamic which you noted equaled
Maxwell's equation for radiation, but he left after they trashed his
mathematical input. Most still think that Gaussian input to Maxwells
laws only with respect to magnetics and nothing else despite being
shown the mathematics of the addition of a time variant to a Gaussian
boundary. Only a few understand the importance of equilibrium no less
or what it means, even tho it has been explained to them more than
once.
Everybody is mentioned in the archives with copies of their past
postings. You should get the message after viewing some of those, most
of which is just spam with zero content.
Stand fast
Art

On Dec 8, 9:47*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 8, 8:18*pm, wrote:

On Dec 8, 4:21*pm, Sean Con wrote:

Art, can you please contact me to my email address directly, because i
feel people dont like us discussing something.

Actually, quite the opposite. I think he's a hoot, and look
forward to his posts. It's better than the comedy channel.
Feel free to carry on.

Sean, the poster is qualified to speak into a microphone as he has a
ham licence. However he freely admits to not graduating from high
school, so please judge his comments on his background. He is not the
only one in *this group that has ham licence and feels qualified
in physics to a University level.

I'm sure it must chap your ass to no end, that someone
who was expelled from high school knows more about
antennas than you do.
But this type of retort is about all you can expect from
an individual who's qualifications and training in antenna
theory or even physics in general are no greater than mine.

For one thing, they don't teach antenna theory in high school.
So it's obvious that anyone that does know any amount of
antenna theory did not learn it in high school, unless they
learned it on their own. I was building antennas when I was in
Junior High. So I was already learning antenna theory before
I even got to High School. How about you?

You do not know physics on a university level, so I fail to
see how your complaint carries any weight at all.
But the real irony is that you whine about my education,
but yet you can't even spell license. :/
It would be pathetic if it were not so damn hilarious.

I talk about real antennas. Not conjured mumbo jumbo
pseudo science theories.
You are the only person I know that tries to explain
the operation of a device that doesn't even exist.
And yes, I find it hilarious. Deal with it.

On Dec 8, 10:15*pm, wrote:
On Dec 8, 9:47*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Dec 8, 8:18*pm, wrote:

On Dec 8, 4:21*pm, Sean Con wrote:

Art, can you please contact me to my email address directly, because i
feel people dont like us discussing something.

Actually, quite the opposite. I think he's a hoot, and look
forward to his posts. It's better than the comedy channel.
Feel free to carry on.

Sean, the poster is qualified to speak into a microphone as he has a
ham licence. However he freely admits to not graduating from high
school, so please judge his comments on his background. He is not the
only one in *this group that has ham licence and feels qualified
in physics to a University level.

I'm sure it must chap your ass to no end, that someone
who was expelled from high school knows more about
antennas than you do.
But this type of retort is about all you can expect from
an individual who's qualifications and training in antenna
theory or even physics in general are no greater than mine.

For one thing, they don't teach antenna theory in high school.
So it's obvious that anyone that does know any amount of
antenna theory did not learn it in high school, unless they
learned it on their own. I was building antennas when I was in
Junior High. So I was already learning antenna theory before
I even got to High School. *How about you?

You do not know physics on a university level, so I fail to
see how your complaint carries any weight at all.
But the real irony is that you whine about my education,
but yet you can't even spell license. *:/
It would be pathetic if it were not so damn hilarious.

I talk about real antennas. Not conjured mumbo jumbo
pseudo science theories.
You are the only person I know that tries to explain
the operation of a device that doesn't even exist.
And yes, I find it hilarious. Deal with it.

Well you do admit to no high school graduation
and appear to be proud of it so it is a bit silly for you to throw
stones being such an easy target. Now if you were willing to learn and
debate we all could judge what you have to offer. I do agree that you
had a lot of experience with different antennas during your CB
days.Your interpretation of your experiments
however may vary from others. I f you do have some knoweledge that is
pertinent to my comments or overthrow them your standing within the
group may well rise but you appear to have nothing to share other than
spam.

On Dec 8, 10:36*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


Well you do admit to no high school graduation
and appear to be proud of it *so it is a bit silly for you to throw
stones being such an easy target.

Being as I was expelled, I really didn't have much say so
in the matter. Easy target? Don't make me laugh..
How many people do you see claiming what I write
is mumbo jumbo pseudo science horse caca?

How many for you?

I rest my case.. :/

Now if you were willing to learn and
debate we all could judge what you have to offer.

More than once I've shot down a few of your silly
theories with a single shot. I didn't even have to reload.
Of course, you either fail to comprehend, or you totally
ignore. I consider that a personal problem which is
out of my control. You can lead a jackass to water,
but damned if you can make one drink it..

I do agree that you
had a lot of experience with different antennas during your CB
days.

My CB days? Art, you are a braying jackass.
I built my first 40 meter transmitter from junk parts when
I was in the 8th grade. I was a SWL well before then.

But even I were into CB's, what difference would that make?
Absolutely none. Radios operated on 27 mhz seem
to follow all the same rules as ones operated on 28 mhz
last time I looked.

Are you claiming special properties for CB radios?

Your interpretation of your experiments
however may vary from others.

What experiments would those be?
I've done hundreds of them..

I f you do have some knoweledge that is
pertinent to my comments or overthrow them your standing within the
group may well rise but you appear to have nothing to share other than
spam.

My first post in this thread detailed a simple way
for you to prove or disprove all of your pseudo science
theories. It was so simple, even a caveman could do it.
But not that crap for brains Art Unwin... Noooooooooo!
He's still lost in the fog, clutching at straws, and
barking at the levitating neutrinos.

And trying to figure out how to spell knowledge. :/

On Dec 8, 11:07*pm, wrote:
On Dec 8, 10:36*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



Well you do admit to no high school graduation
and appear to be proud of it *so it is a bit silly for you to throw
stones being such an easy target.

Being as I was expelled, I really didn't have much say so
in the matter. *Easy target? Don't make me laugh..
How many people do you see claiming what I write
is mumbo jumbo pseudo science horse caca?

How many for you?

I rest my case.. *:/

Now if you were willing to learn and
debate we all could judge what you have to offer.

More than once I've shot down a few of your silly
theories with a single shot. I didn't even have to reload.
Of course, you either fail to comprehend, or you totally
ignore. I consider that a personal problem which is
out of my control. You can lead a jackass to water,
but damned if you can make one drink it..

I do agree that you
had a lot of experience with different antennas during your CB
days.

My CB days? *Art, you are a braying jackass.
I built my first 40 meter transmitter from junk parts when
I was in the 8th grade. I was a SWL well before then.

But even I were into CB's, what difference would that make?
Absolutely none. Radios operated on 27 mhz seem
to follow all the same rules as ones operated on 28 mhz
last time I looked.

Are you claiming special properties for CB radios?

Your interpretation of your experiments
however may vary from others.

What experiments would those be?
I've done hundreds of them..

I f you do have some knoweledge that is
pertinent to my comments or overthrow them your standing within the
group may well rise but you appear to have nothing to share other than
spam.

My first post in this thread detailed a simple way
for you to prove or disprove all of your pseudo science
theories. It was so simple, even a caveman could do it.
But not that crap for brains Art Unwin... Noooooooooo!
He's still lost in the fog, clutching at straws, and
barking at the levitating neutrinos.

And trying to figure out how to spell knowledge. *:/

So what is the reason you inserted yourself into this thread? What is
it that you wanted to offer to this thread? Do you have a problem with
the levitation of neutrinos that you just can't let go?Just pull out a
point stated in this thread and supply a reasoned technical approach
as to why it couldn't possibly be so. Perhaps you can start with the
Gaussian contribution with respect to particles instead of waves which
got you started way back when.
Your choice and chance to share your technical expertise with respect
to radiation and where you have a quarrel with what I present or
propose. So Sean as you can see there is considerable opposition to
talk in technical terms about radiation where SWR discussions
is considered to be the cusp of ham radio.