On Dec 5, 12:51*pm, Sean Con wrote:
Hi ...
SNIP


Hi Sean
Re acceleration of charge.
First I have little training in physics so I am not pre programmed. I
am an old retired mechanical engineer
Stating facts as I see them.

Adding time variant to a Gaussian field results in Maxwell equation
for radiation establishing a particle as a carrier of charge. Solar
particles are attracted to diamagnetic surfaces which are also used
for radiators.
Only one resistance reflects energy supplied to a charge. the other
resistance of skin depth is a loss.When a external magnetic field is
removed from a radiator so is skin depth and current flows on the
surface. For Maximum efficiency the particle must be raised for
friction reasons and a displacement current does just that. Now a
Faraday cage I see as a separation
of fields imposed on a particle,The magnetic portion stays on the
outside of the shield and the electric field alignes itself on the
inside
cancels leaving only AC current , a reverse of radiation transmission
For a solenoid we have all the above features, A Faraday shield around
a radiator. The radiator is a Meander form and resistive or non
frequency relevant. Now the radiator is energized for transmission B
reaches saturation
energy transferred to H until the coil becomes diamagnetic. The
displacement current raises resting particle neutralizing gravity and
is in equilibrium.All energy applied to the particle is now equal to
acceleration of charge for maximum efficiency such that the thrust and
spin allows for straight line trajectory. All the above can be seen
from superconductor reaction equivilency. The two vectors of thrust
and helical spin applied to the particle are Newtons reaction to
Earth's position in the Universe and reflected by the two vectors of a
time variant current which is also the same as
a boundary break to release a particle from a Gaussian field during
the Big Bang and the basic forces envisaged by Einstein for the
Standard Model ala the twisted ladder of life itself.
Regards
Art xg

On Dec 5, 1:52*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 5, 12:51*pm, Sean Con wrote:

Hi ...
SNIP

Hi Sean
Re acceleration of charge.
First I have little training in physics so I am not pre programmed. I
am an old retired mechanical engineer
Stating facts as I see them.

Adding time variant to a Gaussian field results in Maxwell equation
for radiation establishing a particle as a carrier of charge. Solar
particles are attracted to diamagnetic surfaces which are also used
for radiators.
Only one resistance reflects energy supplied to a charge. the other
resistance of skin depth is a loss.When a external magnetic field is
removed from a radiator so is skin depth and current flows on the
surface. For Maximum efficiency the particle must be raised for
friction reasons and a displacement current does just that. Now a
Faraday cage I see as a separation
of fields imposed on a particle,The magnetic portion stays on the
outside of the shield and the electric field alignes itself on the
inside
cancels leaving only AC current , a reverse of radiation transmission
For a solenoid we have all the above features, A Faraday shield around
a radiator. The radiator is a Meander form and resistive or non
frequency relevant. Now the radiator is energized for transmission B
reaches saturation
energy transferred to H until the coil becomes diamagnetic. The
displacement current raises resting particle neutralizing gravity and
is in equilibrium.All energy applied to the particle is now equal to
acceleration of charge for maximum efficiency such that the thrust and
spin allows for straight line trajectory. All the above can be seen
from superconductor reaction equivilency. The two vectors of thrust
and helical spin applied to the particle are Newtons reaction to
Earth's position in the Universe and reflected by the two vectors of a
time variant current which is also the same as
a boundary break to release a particle from a Gaussian field during
the Big Bang and the basic forces envisaged by Einstein for the
Standard Model ala the twisted ladder of life itself.
Regards
Art *xg

Searn
It has taken me several years to convince some
of the transition from electrostatics of Gauss to the Mathematics of
Maxwell to establish particles instead of waves., Probably the cgs
units create confusion. I would have liked to start from the "double
slit" experiment which has created a monkey fist stuck in a jar. If
only people could step back from a stubborn position
it would be an easy transfer of thought from a double slit experiment
to one of a array of slot antennas to get things back on track. The
last few years has taught me that many see passing the amateur radio
exam as a passport equivalent into the society of physics and the
protector of printed books of the ARRL so I am clearly outnumbered
with respect to the resistance to change.

On 12/5/2010 3:01 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 5, 1:52 pm, Art wrote:
On Dec 5, 12:51 pm, Sean wrote:

Hi ...
SNIP

Hi Sean
Re acceleration of charge.
First I have little training in physics so I am not pre programmed. I
am an old retired mechanical engineer
Stating facts as I see them.

Adding time variant to a Gaussian field results in Maxwell equation
for radiation establishing a particle as a carrier of charge. Solar
particles are attracted to diamagnetic surfaces which are also used
for radiators.
Only one resistance reflects energy supplied to a charge. the other
resistance of skin depth is a loss.When a external magnetic field is
removed from a radiator so is skin depth and current flows on the
surface. For Maximum efficiency the particle must be raised for
friction reasons and a displacement current does just that. Now a
Faraday cage I see as a separation
of fields imposed on a particle,The magnetic portion stays on the
outside of the shield and the electric field alignes itself on the
inside
cancels leaving only AC current , a reverse of radiation transmission
For a solenoid we have all the above features, A Faraday shield around
a radiator. The radiator is a Meander form and resistive or non
frequency relevant. Now the radiator is energized for transmission B
reaches saturation
energy transferred to H until the coil becomes diamagnetic. The
displacement current raises resting particle neutralizing gravity and
is in equilibrium.All energy applied to the particle is now equal to
acceleration of charge for maximum efficiency such that the thrust and
spin allows for straight line trajectory. All the above can be seen
from superconductor reaction equivilency. The two vectors of thrust
and helical spin applied to the particle are Newtons reaction to
Earth's position in the Universe and reflected by the two vectors of a
time variant current which is also the same as
a boundary break to release a particle from a Gaussian field during
the Big Bang and the basic forces envisaged by Einstein for the
Standard Model ala the twisted ladder of life itself.
Regards
Art xg

Searn
It has taken me several years to convince some
of the transition from electrostatics of Gauss to the Mathematics of
Maxwell to establish particles instead of waves., Probably the cgs
units create confusion. I would have liked to start from the "double
slit" experiment which has created a monkey fist stuck in a jar. If
only people could step back from a stubborn position
it would be an easy transfer of thought from a double slit experiment
to one of a array of slot antennas to get things back on track. The
last few years has taught me that many see passing the amateur radio
exam as a passport equivalent into the society of physics and the
protector of printed books of the ARRL so I am clearly outnumbered
with respect to the resistance to change.

Sean

Amusing isn't he? He's written thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of
line of this, none exactly the same.

If you want to start a "discussion" with him it will never end unless he
says it does, and often not then.

73
tom
K0TAR

On Dec 5, 9:05*pm, tom wrote:
On 12/5/2010 3:01 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



On Dec 5, 1:52 pm, Art *wrote:
On Dec 5, 12:51 pm, Sean *wrote:

Hi ...
SNIP

Hi Sean
Re acceleration of charge.
First I have little training in physics so I am not pre programmed. I
am an old retired mechanical engineer
Stating facts as I see them.

Adding time variant to a Gaussian field results in Maxwell equation
for radiation establishing a particle as a carrier of charge. Solar
particles are attracted to diamagnetic surfaces which are also used
for radiators.
Only one resistance reflects energy supplied to a charge. the other
resistance of skin depth is a loss.When a external magnetic field is
removed from a radiator so is skin depth and current flows on the
surface. For Maximum efficiency the particle must be raised for
friction reasons and a displacement current does just that. Now a
Faraday cage I see as a separation
of fields imposed on a particle,The magnetic portion stays on the
outside of the shield and the electric field alignes itself on the
inside
cancels leaving only AC current , a reverse of radiation transmission
For a solenoid we have all the above features, A Faraday shield around
a radiator. The radiator is a Meander form and resistive or non
frequency relevant. Now the radiator is energized for transmission B
reaches saturation
energy transferred to H until the coil becomes diamagnetic. The
displacement current raises resting particle neutralizing gravity and
is in equilibrium.All energy applied to the particle is now equal to
acceleration of charge for maximum efficiency such that the thrust and
spin allows for straight line trajectory. All the above can be seen
from superconductor reaction equivilency. The two vectors of thrust
and helical spin applied to the particle are Newtons reaction to
Earth's position in the Universe and reflected by the two vectors of a
time variant current which is also the same as
a boundary break to release a particle from a Gaussian field during
the Big Bang and the basic forces envisaged by Einstein for the
Standard Model ala the twisted ladder of life itself.
Regards
Art *xg

Searn
It has taken me several years to convince some
of the transition from electrostatics of Gauss to the Mathematics of
Maxwell to establish particles instead of waves., Probably the cgs
units create confusion. I would have liked to start from the "double
slit" experiment which has created a monkey fist stuck in a jar. If
only people could step back from a stubborn position
it would be an easy transfer of thought from a double slit experiment
to one of a array of slot antennas to get things back on track. The
last few years has taught me that many see passing the amateur radio
exam as a passport equivalent into the society of physics and the
protector of printed books of the ARRL so I am clearly outnumbered
with respect to the resistance to change.

Sean

Amusing isn't he? *He's written thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of
line of this, none exactly the same.

If you want to start a "discussion" with him it will never end unless he
says it does, and often not then.

73
tom
K0TAR

Probably just a lonely old fart, could be any of us in a few years.
Sounds like some of us are already getting there.I knew a guy that
worked with him, said he was pretty sharp back in the day.

Jimmie

the displacement current raises resting particle neutralizing gravity
and
is in equilibrium.


Ok every one ..

the gausian field does result in maxwells equation. thats right.
solar particles are attracted to diamagnetic surfaces ... I dont
understand this. they have magnetic field lines frozen to them, if the
temperature is below some critical value, and are attracked bz other
magnetic field lines. thats a big story from MHD

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

Current flows to a radiator skin --- farady said it should be so --
charge must move to outer surface

for maximum efficiency particles must be raised due to friction
reasons.. most likely not.
they dont feel friction, but the do encounter collisions, and the emf is
supplied to overcome the unwanted energy conversion during collisions.
They probably do not raise at surface because of efficiency issues, most
likely, as much as I know, they leave surface because ot surface is full
of electrons supplied from the electrode by the emf.

and the raising probably do not neutralize gravity, the field is putting
a larger force than gravity on those particles.

I can imagine gravity being turned off, but for that i would expect the
force to arise from a mass field, or something which has no component
along gravity. Art, how do you be sure that this force is "turning off"
or neutralizing gravity, and not just "working against gravity"



regards
s

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
objective in light of the topics discussed here.

for maximum efficiency particles must be raised due to friction
reasons.. most likely not.

Must be...likely not. This is a curious self-annulment of a
statement. Basically it erases itself as a concept. One has to
wonder why bandwidth was expended in its expression.

they dont feel friction, but the do encounter collisions,

Particles "feel?" Well, if we were to descend to anthropomorphizing
inanimate objects, then what would friction feel like but one bumping
into another? Again, a curious self-annulling statement and more
wasted bandwidth.

and the emf is
supplied to overcome the unwanted energy conversion during collisions.

"Unwanted?" Putting that "feeling" (now psychological) aside, we now
have spontaneous energy (emf) springing out of the void? A cure for
entropy has been discovered.

They probably do not raise at surface because of efficiency issues,

Efficiency has now become an actor ("because of")?

most
likely, as much as I know, they leave surface because ot surface is full
of electrons supplied from the electrode by the emf.

Ah, the source of emf! Well, that being said (and I am not sure that
saying it is enough), how much emf is required to accomplish this feat
of leaving the surface?

and the raising probably do not neutralize gravity, the field is putting
a larger force than gravity on those particles.

I can imagine gravity being turned off, but for that i would expect the
force to arise from a mass field, or something which has no component
along gravity. Art, how do you be sure that this force is "turning off"
or neutralizing gravity, and not just "working against gravity"

Asking for explanations is not nearly as useful, or even productive,
as asking for solutions. As with my question above about "How much
emf?", the solution to that is a number with units of measure. If the
number is unsuitable for a solution, no amount of explanation will
replace that. If no number is offered, there is no explanation.

Words may be written, but they amount to fantasy only. Only the
patent office will publish fantasy that conventional publishing would
discard.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

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, 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, 8:11*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
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

Sean, let us review the initial question again but this time with
respect to the Faraday shield.
You may have seen a yagi antenna inside a circle or boundary to
explain a mathematical point. Well boundary rules state internally
must be in a state of equilibrium and a yagi antenna
is clearly not in equilibrium. Now a air solenoid
can be considered in a state of equilibrium which is resistive because
it is a meander form.
Its strength can be determined by K n sq/length
so we only need the solenoid to be the width of two wire where a
closed circuit is formed which is a requirement of equilibrium.If this
solenoid/
pancake antenna is placed inside a Faraday cage it can radiate a
signal if an opening in the cage is supplied. To receive the Faraday
shield can revert to a time varying current because both the
electrical and magnetic field which are the constituent part of the
current can only travel on the surface of the cage i.e. one field on
the inside and the other on the inside so they each cancel leaving
only the applied current in its singular form. One can argue about the
presence of skin depth but it is really of no concern here.
Now let us consider transmit. The pancake when energized will generate
a non frequency dependent radiating field which means it has a
bandwidth that can cover all amateur bands with a constant impedance
of 50 ohms as long as enough wire is used. It does this when the cage
being diamagnetic repels the magnetic field generated by the solenoid
which one can declared as non contributrary to RF generation.
This way we have isolated radiation generating force from non
productive forces such as element resistance both in transmit and
recieve
thus proving the reciprical effect.
When the above is applied to Nec programs in the form of a helix in a
closed circuit form it shows that if enough wire is present you can
get a very broard band where the gain increases to the high 20s dbi as
the magnetic field is rejected by the Faraday shield and where the
reactance deviations are so small that the arrangement can be
considered non frequency relevent. Key points in this discussion is
equilibrium ala closed circuit that is resistive and the presence of a
diamagnetic field that does not get swamped by a magnetic field that
removes skin effect interfering with the movement of current to the
outside of the confines of a element.
Now to make one of these radiaters one can use computer conductor tape
strips stapled together and wound in between two flat plywood boards
to a minimum of 2 ft dia and feed at the center. When removing the
board spray a skin of foam over the pancake so that it can be easily
handles. Tho the tape are electrically connected the current flow will
still be the same as a contiuous wire or radiater. The pancake can be
placed directly on the ground inside of a
bowl made of wire mesh where the outside of the bowl is directly
grounded close by to syphon off noise.
Sorry about not using a spell checker to fend off the hyeanas.
Cheers and beers
Art