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

On Dec 9, 8:27*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
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

ah art, i'm glad to see you ran out of your meds again and are back in
good form.

Art Unwin wrote:

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.
Art KB9MZ....xg

Art, You have just mentioned a constraint on antennas that I was not aware
of. Specifically "the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be unity".

This is new to me. Please tell me how I go about making capacitance and
inductance equal so their ratio can be unity. How do you get the Farads and
Henries to cancel out, leaving a dimensionless number.

Can you give me some real world examples?

joe

On Dec 10, 8:37*am, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
*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.
Art KB9MZ....xg

Art, You have just mentioned a constraint on antennas that I was not aware
of. *Specifically "the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be unity".

This is new to me. Please tell me how I go about making capacitance and
inductance equal so their ratio can be unity. How do you get the Farads and
Henries to cancel out, leaving a dimensionless number.

Can you give me some real world examples?

joe

I will be happy to do so
Root L/C = 1

This means that L/C both of which are loss contributors are removed
from any formulae
Art

On Dec 10, 8:37*am, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
*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.
Art KB9MZ....xg

Art, You have just mentioned a constraint on antennas that I was not aware
of. *Specifically "the ratio of capacitance to inductance must be unity".

This is new to me. Please tell me how I go about making capacitance and
inductance equal so their ratio can be unity. How do you get the Farads and
Henries to cancel out, leaving a dimensionless number.

Can you give me some real world examples?

joe

Joe,
a better insight to my thinking that may help
When a member has little or no reactance via cancellation you can use
V=I.R.
When R becomes exceedingly small the member reaches a critical point
and will oscillate
When this happens current increases dramatically which therefore
increases radiation. If you view the current curve on a dipole the
current is of cyclic form whereas in the case where critical
resistance is reached
the current flow is of a very high value pulse which also drops fairly
rapidly until it reaches a low point before it gets to the end of a
period.
When the element oscillates it has become a mechanical movement BELOW
the current path
and as can be seen by comparing to water flow
the raggednes in terms of cross sectional area of flow has createrd
eddy currents which in electrical terms is equal to displacement
current
as it is the creation of displacement current.or coefficient of
discharge
This states why magnetics as used in non equilibrium structures such
as the Yagi cannot be as efficient as a Meander form which achieves
higher current which propels or provides for radiation..
What propelled the notion of waves instead of particles is 1 they
ignored Gaussian thrust towards equilibrium and 2 turned to the
increase in current because of the mechanical "wave" action which only
provides change in amplitude which is not enough to provide an
acceleration of charge on a particle resting on
water since that requires two vectors.( I say a resting particle where
as it was never clear what the "wave" was lifting or where it came
from. This because the force required to remove an electron from its
element habitat
required more force than that was available.
( Gravity is termed as the weaker force in the Std model)
The bottom line being, a radiating structure in equilibrium devoid of
reactance with low resistance is the only way current over and above
that supplied becomes available.
By the way the std yagi is not a closed circuit
as equilibrium requires because the half wave length floats, where as
a full wave or "period"
is consistent or in a steady state when "overshoot" occurs. Thus only
when it is resonant is it devoid of reactance which limits the
bandwidth. In the case of a Meander form
the magnetic field is not present in cyclic form
allowing for surface current flow for extended periods and is not
frequency dependant.
As I have stated before, with my antenna current distribution is via a
surge with rapid decay which is accepted in RC L circuitry.
Hope that clears things up for you
Regards
Art