|
antenna physics question
I have been struggling with this for some time
so maybe somebody can set me straight. We wind a flat plate spiral antenna and we get to a point where the center medium becomes saturated with flux. Now I add even more coils. What action does that precipitate? I would like to think that the Meissner effect ( perfect diamagnetism) then takes over and swamps the external magnetic field as with a superconductor ( ie opposite to that of a paramagnetic) The skin effect is thus removed allowing the current flow to the surface by allowing the atomic structure to relax, and add to the current already in place to allow fully efficient radiation as it now lies outside the confines of conductor resistance. This is my effort in determining what is it that drives the constant impedance attributes of a meander type array? Regards Art |
antenna physics question
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 13:32:09 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote: I have been struggling with this for some time so maybe somebody can set me straight. We wind a flat plate spiral antenna and we get to a point where the center medium becomes saturated with flux. Now I add even more coils. What action does that precipitate? I would like to think that the Meissner effect ( perfect diamagnetism) then takes over and swamps the external magnetic field as with a superconductor ( ie opposite to that of a paramagnetic) The skin effect is thus removed allowing the current flow to the surface by allowing the atomic structure to relax, and add to the current already in place to allow fully efficient radiation as it now lies outside the confines of conductor resistance. This is my effort in determining what is it that drives the constant impedance attributes of a meander type array? Regards Art no meissner, no diamagnetism no swamps no paramagnetics no relax, no outside, Whatever. Those broad band antennas work, that's for sure, without your ingredients. w. |
antenna physics question
On Nov 28, 3:32*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I have been struggling with this for some time so maybe somebody can set me straight. We wind a flat plate spiral antenna and we get to a point where the center medium becomes saturated with flux. Now I add even more coils. What action does that precipitate? I would like to think that the Meissner effect *( perfect diamagnetism) then takes over and swamps the external magnetic field as with a superconductor ( ie opposite to that of a paramagnetic) The skin effect is thus removed allowing the current flow to the surface by allowing the atomic structure to relax, and add to the current already in place to allow fully efficient radiation as it now lies outside the confines of conductor resistance. This is my effort in determining what is it that drives the constant impedance attributes of a meander type array? Regards Art Are you questioning your effort, or all the false theories you are conjuring? For you to truly see the light, you will need to build one of those antennas, and then do A/B comparison tests against a known benchmark such as the dipole. The fact that you will never even approach the efficiency of a dipole will then dissolve all your other theories into leftover turkey casserole. We could call it "Meander Casserole" if one were desiring to patent it and publish the recipe. :/ |
antenna physics question
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 13:32:09 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin wrote:
I have been struggling with this for some time You don't have to tell anyone about that in _this_ ng! |
antenna physics question
On Nov 28, 9:32*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I have been struggling with this for some time so maybe somebody can set me straight. We wind a flat plate spiral antenna and we get to a point where the center medium becomes saturated with flux. Now I add even more coils. What action does that precipitate? I would like to think that the Meissner effect *( perfect diamagnetism) then takes over and swamps the external magnetic field as with a superconductor ( ie opposite to that of a paramagnetic) The skin effect is thus removed allowing the current flow to the surface by allowing the atomic structure to relax, and add to the current already in place to allow fully efficient radiation as it now lies outside the confines of conductor resistance. This is my effort in determining what is it that drives the constant impedance attributes of a meander type array? Regards Art what is the 'medium' that gets saturated? |
antenna physics question
On 29 Nov,
K1TTT wrote: what is the 'medium' that gets saturated? Aether. -- BD Change lycos to yahoo to reply |
antenna physics question
On Nov 29, 4:42*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Nov 28, 9:32*pm, Art Unwin wrote: I have been struggling with this for some time so maybe somebody can set me straight. We wind a flat plate spiral antenna and we get to a point where the center medium becomes saturated with flux. Now I add even more coils. What action does that precipitate? I would like to think that the Meissner effect *( perfect diamagnetism) then takes over and swamps the external magnetic field as with a superconductor ( ie opposite to that of a paramagnetic) The skin effect is thus removed allowing the current flow to the surface by allowing the atomic structure to relax, and add to the current already in place to allow fully efficient radiation as it now lies outside the confines of conductor resistance. This is my effort in determining what is it that drives the constant impedance attributes of a meander type array? Regards Art what is the 'medium' that gets saturated? Air |
antenna physics question
On Nov 29, 4:42*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Nov 28, 9:32*pm, Art Unwin wrote: I have been struggling with this for some time so maybe somebody can set me straight. We wind a flat plate spiral antenna and we get to a point where the center medium becomes saturated with flux. Now I add even more coils. What action does that precipitate? I would like to think that the Meissner effect *( perfect diamagnetism) then takes over and swamps the external magnetic field as with a superconductor ( ie opposite to that of a paramagnetic) The skin effect is thus removed allowing the current flow to the surface by allowing the atomic structure to relax, and add to the current already in place to allow fully efficient radiation as it now lies outside the confines of conductor resistance. This is my effort in determining what is it that drives the constant impedance attributes of a meander type array? Regards Art what is the 'medium' that gets saturated? As a furthur background to the question. I modelled a two coil spring to make a closed circuit. Running thru the swr vs frequency I find that when I get into the Ghz realm the anti resonance value migrates to 52 ohms with low reactance escursions. Later the resistance value drops to single digits and then fraction of ohms together with slight reactance escursions with R being less than the wire used. At the same time gain shot up to the high twenties in cyclic form but with the extremely low impedance. The current flow at the feed point was 100% surge quickly dropping to a constant 25% current flow .I then made a 5 wire tape very close wound pancake about 24" dia which I placed inside a bowl shield which was grounded. This provided a fairly constant impedance with what appears to the ear to be a doubling of more of gain against a quiet background. I have nothing else to add except the computer program does have a precipetous drop in impedance which sort of alignes with superconductors when it changes over to perfect diamagnetic, where skin factor of the conductor is removed allowing current flow outside the conductor as shown by its low impedance. The pancakes (stacked ) with short length compared to a linear solenoid are fed at the center where surge current is at its highest and where all wires tape ends are electrically connected together to complete a closed mesh type tape. The same can be done with a 100 foot roll insect window mesh with the material backed by thin duct tape. Thus the point of the question, What propels the reverse swamping of the previously weak diamagnetic fields? Thanks for looking Art With the current leaving the conductor the two vectors for the most efficient elevation and thrust ( are vector with heliical spin) to the surface residing particles as shown by Gauss which also aligns with Maxwell. |
antenna physics question
On Nov 29, 7:35*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 29, 4:42*pm, K1TTT wrote: On Nov 28, 9:32*pm, Art Unwin wrote: I have been struggling with this for some time so maybe somebody can set me straight. We wind a flat plate spiral antenna and we get to a point where the center medium becomes saturated with flux. Now I add even more coils. What action does that precipitate? I would like to think that the Meissner effect *( perfect diamagnetism) then takes over and swamps the external magnetic field as with a superconductor ( ie opposite to that of a paramagnetic) The skin effect is thus removed allowing the current flow to the surface by allowing the atomic structure to relax, and add to the current already in place to allow fully efficient radiation as it now lies outside the confines of conductor resistance. This is my effort in determining what is it that drives the constant impedance attributes of a meander type array? Regards Art what is the 'medium' that gets saturated? As a furthur background to the question. I modelled a two coil spring to make a closed circuit. Running thru the swr vs frequency I find that when I get into the Ghz realm the anti resonance value migrates to 52 ohms with low reactance escursions. Later the resistance value drops to single digits and then fraction of ohms together with slight reactance escursions with R being less than the wire used. At the same time gain shot up to the high twenties in cyclic form but with the extremely low impedance. The current flow at the feed point was 100% surge quickly dropping to a constant 25% current flow .I then made a 5 wire tape very close wound pancake about 24" dia which I placed inside a bowl shield which was grounded. This provided a fairly constant impedance with what appears to the ear to be a doubling of more of gain against a quiet background. I have nothing else to add except the computer program does have a precipetous drop in impedance which sort of alignes with superconductors when it changes over to perfect diamagnetic, where skin factor of the conductor is removed allowing current flow outside the conductor as shown by its low impedance. The pancakes (stacked ) with short length compared to a linear solenoid are fed at the center where surge current is at its highest and where all *wires tape ends are electrically connected together to complete a closed mesh type tape. The same can be done with a 100 foot roll insect window mesh with the material backed by thin duct tape. Thus the point of the question, What propels the reverse swamping of the previously weak diamagnetic fields? Thanks for looking Art With the current leaving the conductor the two vectors for the most efficient elevation and thrust *( are vector with heliical spin) to the surface residing particles as shown by Gauss which also aligns with Maxwell. One thing I should mention is when the "surface" current flow begins the radiation pattern goes thru a 90 degree phase change( a connection to the EH driven antennas perhaps?) I am now re writing the program with the x and y coordinates interchanged to see if some clues come to light when f/b and gain figures change from the X to the Y axis Art |
antenna physics question
On Nov 29, 8:30*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 29, 7:35*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Nov 29, 4:42*pm, K1TTT wrote: On Nov 28, 9:32*pm, Art Unwin wrote: I have been struggling with this for some time so maybe somebody can set me straight. We wind a flat plate spiral antenna and we get to a point where the center medium becomes saturated with flux. Now I add even more coils. What action does that precipitate? I would like to think that the Meissner effect *( perfect diamagnetism) then takes over and swamps the external magnetic field as with a superconductor ( ie opposite to that of a paramagnetic) The skin effect is thus removed allowing the current flow to the surface by allowing the atomic structure to relax, and add to the current already in place to allow fully efficient radiation as it now lies outside the confines of conductor resistance. This is my effort in determining what is it that drives the constant impedance attributes of a meander type array? Regards Art what is the 'medium' that gets saturated? As a furthur background to the question. I modelled a two coil spring to make a closed circuit. Running thru the swr vs frequency I find that when I get into the Ghz realm the anti resonance value migrates to 52 ohms with low reactance escursions. Later the resistance value drops to single digits and then fraction of ohms together with slight reactance escursions with R being less than the wire used. At the same time gain shot up to the high twenties in cyclic form but with the extremely low impedance. The current flow at the feed point was 100% surge quickly dropping to a constant 25% current flow .I then made a 5 wire tape very close wound pancake about 24" dia which I placed inside a bowl shield which was grounded. This provided a fairly constant impedance with what appears to the ear to be a doubling of more of gain against a quiet background. I have nothing else to add except the computer program does have a precipetous drop in impedance which sort of alignes with superconductors when it changes over to perfect diamagnetic, where skin factor of the conductor is removed allowing current flow outside the conductor as shown by its low impedance. The pancakes (stacked ) with short length compared to a linear solenoid are fed at the center where surge current is at its highest and where all *wires tape ends are electrically connected together to complete a closed mesh type tape. The same can be done with a 100 foot roll insect window mesh with the material backed by thin duct tape. Thus the point of the question, What propels the reverse swamping of the previously weak diamagnetic fields? Thanks for looking Art With the current leaving the conductor the two vectors for the most efficient elevation and thrust *( are vector with heliical spin) to the surface residing particles as shown by Gauss which also aligns with Maxwell. One thing I should mention is when the "surface" current flow begins the radiation pattern goes thru a 90 degree phase change( a connection to the EH driven antennas perhaps?) I am now re writing the program with the x and y coordinates interchanged to see if some clues come to light when f/b and gain figures change from the X to the Y axis Art What happens after the magnetic field is saturated is excess energy then goes to increase the electric field which is enclosed inside a shield or Faraday cage for maximum density which produces two vectors equal to the two vectors created by gravity and spin as shown with the tipped vertical. These vectors arise fro a diamagnetic condition when the electrical field achieves satuaration or maximum density with a Farady shield. The importance of these two vectors is that we have the displacement vector which elevates particles or electrons at rest on the coil wire,. It is this vector which is equal and opposite to gravity that allows for ":straight line trajectory" of the negatively charged particle such that the other vector is free from constriction in all forms which is synonomous to equilibrium. Thus a solenoid can be seen as a radiator according to Maxwell where the magnetic vector is canceled for maximum efficiency. This also shows that the previous two element design where both elements are resonant within a boundary which must be included as a shield around the two element array for maximum efficiency. I find it completely fascinating that the two vectors I propose as Einstein's predicted version of the Standard Model turns up once again in this solenoid version of a radiator within a Faraday cage to which a horn is easily added. So this thread now comes to closure Regards Art |
antenna physics question
On 12/02/2010 11:44 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
What happens after the magnetic field is saturated is excess energy then goes to increase the electric field which is enclosed inside a shield or Faraday cage for maximum density which produces two vectors equal to the two vectors created by gravity and spin as shown with the tipped vertical. These vectors arise fro a diamagnetic condition when the electrical field achieves satuaration or maximum density with a Farady shield. The importance of these two vectors is that we have the displacement vector which elevates particles or electrons at rest on the coil wire,. It is this vector which is equal and opposite to gravity that allows for ":straight line trajectory" of the negatively charged particle such that the other vector is free from constriction in all forms which is synonomous to equilibrium. Thus a solenoid can be seen as a radiator according to Maxwell where the magnetic vector is canceled for maximum efficiency. This also shows that the previous two element design where both elements are resonant within a boundary which must be included as a shield around the two element array for maximum efficiency. I find it completely fascinating that the two vectors I propose as Einstein's predicted version of the Standard Model turns up once again in this solenoid version of a radiator within a Faraday cage to which a horn is easily added. So this thread now comes to closure Regards Art Art, Shirley, you can't be serious! (with apologies to the late, great Leslie Nielsen). Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO, -- John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337 |
antenna physics question
On Dec 3, 5:57*am, "J.B. Wood" wrote:
On 12/02/2010 11:44 PM, Art Unwin wrote: * What happens after the magnetic field is saturated is excess energy then goes to increase the electric field which is enclosed inside a shield or Faraday cage for maximum density which produces two vectors equal to the two vectors created by gravity and spin as shown with the tipped vertical. These vectors arise fro a diamagnetic condition when the electrical field achieves satuaration or maximum density with a Farady shield. The importance of these two vectors is that we have the displacement vector which elevates particles or electrons at rest on the coil wire,. It is this vector which is equal and opposite to gravity that allows for ":straight line trajectory" of the negatively charged particle such that the other vector is free from constriction in all forms which is synonomous to equilibrium. Thus a solenoid can be seen as a radiator according to Maxwell where the magnetic vector is canceled for maximum efficiency. This also shows that the previous two element design where both elements are resonant within a boundary which must be included as a shield around the two element array for maximum efficiency. I find it completely fascinating that the two vectors I propose as Einstein's predicted version of the Standard Model turns up once again in this solenoid version of a radiator within a Faraday cage to which a horn is easily added. So this thread now comes to closure Regards Art Art, Shirley, you can't be serious! (with apologies to the late, great Leslie Nielsen). *Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO, -- John Wood (Code 5520) * * * *e-mail: Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337 Yes, I am very serious about my findings. I am very sorry that others are unable to follow my same path to obtain the same joys of discovery. For some reason people cannot fathom the idea of equilibrium and that displacement current provides the equal of the gravity vector. There is no way a charge can travel in a straight line up to the heavens and down again without the neutralisation of gravity and without the auspices of spin . The same goes with respect to light according to the Zeeman effect Regards Art |
antenna physics question
On Dec 3, 2:46*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 3, 5:57*am, "J.B. Wood" wrote: On 12/02/2010 11:44 PM, Art Unwin wrote: * What happens after the magnetic field is saturated is excess energy then goes to increase the electric field which is enclosed inside a shield or Faraday cage for maximum density which produces two vectors equal to the two vectors created by gravity and spin as shown with the tipped vertical. These vectors arise fro a diamagnetic condition when the electrical field achieves satuaration or maximum density with a Farady shield. The importance of these two vectors is that we have the displacement vector which elevates particles or electrons at rest on the coil wire,. It is this vector which is equal and opposite to gravity that allows for ":straight line trajectory" of the negatively charged particle such that the other vector is free from constriction in all forms which is synonomous to equilibrium. Thus a solenoid can be seen as a radiator according to Maxwell where the magnetic vector is canceled for maximum efficiency. This also shows that the previous two element design where both elements are resonant within a boundary which must be included as a shield around the two element array for maximum efficiency. I find it completely fascinating that the two vectors I propose as Einstein's predicted version of the Standard Model turns up once again in this solenoid version of a radiator within a Faraday cage to which a horn is easily added. So this thread now comes to closure Regards Art Art, Shirley, you can't be serious! (with apologies to the late, great Leslie Nielsen). *Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO, -- John Wood (Code 5520) * * * *e-mail: Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337 Yes, I am very serious about my findings. I am very sorry that others are unable to follow my same path to obtain the same joys of discovery. For some reason people cannot fathom the idea of equilibrium and that displacement current provides the equal of the gravity vector. There is no way a charge can travel in a straight line up to the heavens and down again without the neutralisation of gravity and without the auspices of spin . The same goes with respect to light *according to the Zeeman effect Regards Art keep dreaming art... neither air nor aether can saturate or we would have many other weird phenomena than your antennas. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 3, 4:22*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 3, 2:46*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Dec 3, 5:57*am, "J.B. Wood" wrote: On 12/02/2010 11:44 PM, Art Unwin wrote: * What happens after the magnetic field is saturated is excess energy then goes to increase the electric field which is enclosed inside a shield or Faraday cage for maximum density which produces two vectors equal to the two vectors created by gravity and spin as shown with the tipped vertical. These vectors arise fro a diamagnetic condition when the electrical field achieves satuaration or maximum density with a Farady shield. The importance of these two vectors is that we have the displacement vector which elevates particles or electrons at rest on the coil wire,. It is this vector which is equal and opposite to gravity that allows for ":straight line trajectory" of the negatively charged particle such that the other vector is free from constriction in all forms which is synonomous to equilibrium. Thus a solenoid can be seen as a radiator according to Maxwell where the magnetic vector is canceled for maximum efficiency. This also shows that the previous two element design where both elements are resonant within a boundary which must be included as a shield around the two element array for maximum efficiency. I find it completely fascinating that the two vectors I propose as Einstein's predicted version of the Standard Model turns up once again in this solenoid version of a radiator within a Faraday cage to which a horn is easily added. So this thread now comes to closure Regards Art Art, Shirley, you can't be serious! (with apologies to the late, great Leslie Nielsen). *Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO, -- John Wood (Code 5520) * * * *e-mail: Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337 Yes, I am very serious about my findings. I am very sorry that others are unable to follow my same path to obtain the same joys of discovery. For some reason people cannot fathom the idea of equilibrium and that displacement current provides the equal of the gravity vector. There is no way a charge can travel in a straight line up to the heavens and down again without the neutralisation of gravity and without the auspices of spin . The same goes with respect to light *according to the Zeeman effect Regards Art keep dreaming art... neither air nor aether can saturate or we would have many other weird phenomena than your antennas. I am not dreaming! The magnetic field increases density until it reaches a maximum. The curve of B vs H clearly shows this in a similar curve to Hooke's Law for strength of materials. At the point of saturation the value of B comes to a halt and where H takes off and increases rapidly. I would imagine that if you searched the web under saturation magnetic fields or some other similar key words you will eventually find verification of what I have described. You might want to search under diamagnetic because you eventually come to the point where diamagnetic field predominates which puts you in the same position of superconductor where skin resistance is removed. I am extremely surprised that as a electrical engineer you never covered magnetics in depth. If you find verification on the absence of saturation in magnetic fields I will be more than happy to apologize for my lax memory of my early days. Up to now tho, you have never produced evidence or any reasoning to back up your comments or status as an electrical engineer, scientist or what have you!. Was it ever explained to you that levitation by fields is exactly equal in direction and value to gravity? How do you explain to amateurs how "straight line trajectory" is attained when explaining skip or are you going to deny that also? I look forward to reading your back up research statements that support your positions. Regards Art |
antenna physics question
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:22:53 -0800 (PST), some gomer wrote:
There is no way a charge can travel in a straight line up to the heavens and down again without the neutralisation of gravity and without the auspices of spin . How does one neutralize gravity? The anti-gravity of comic books? Let's see, the energy of an electromagnetic interaction is 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times greater than gravity. So, when an electron pushes a charge against gravity, it has 400dB more effect than gravity pulling back. In comic book terms, that is a Thousand, Billion, Billion, Billion times stronger than gravity. An ant weighs 0.003 grams, and the Earth weighs 5.9 x 10^27 g, so you would need 10000000000 planet Earths to replicate the neutralization between the energy of gravity and the energy of electromagnetic interaction (assuming the ant was an electron of ant-like proportions, energy-wise). Such is the sandtrap of neutralization across units of measure. It is much like the folks of 100 years ago claiming a car couldn't drive up a hill without a warp drive engine with a dilithium crystal controlled gravimetric field displacement manifold. As we all know (or almost all), Gene Roddenberry is the authority to turn to on the basis of this last claim being fulfilled some 50 years from now by Zefram Cochrane developing the first warp-capable starship. How we currently get to the top of hills in a car is considered as an example of superstitious mass hysteria. We can all rest assured that this meets the criteria of not coming from any text book because it hasn't happened yet. *Whew* Hence, it cannot be disproven. Don't rush to the patent office however, this is considered Post-Art. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
antenna physics question
On Dec 3, 7:46*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:22:53 -0800 (PST), some gomer wrote: There is no way a charge can travel in a straight line up to the heavens and down again without the neutralisation of gravity and without the auspices of spin . How does one neutralize gravity? *The anti-gravity of comic books? Let's see, the energy of an electromagnetic interaction is 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times greater than gravity. So, when an electron pushes a charge against gravity, it has 400dB more effect than gravity pulling back. *In comic book terms, that is a Thousand, Billion, Billion, Billion times stronger than gravity. An ant weighs 0.003 grams, and the Earth weighs 5.9 x 10^27 g, so you would need 10000000000 planet Earths to replicate the neutralization between the energy of gravity and the energy of electromagnetic interaction (assuming the ant was an electron of ant-like proportions, energy-wise). Such is the sandtrap of neutralization across units of measure. *It is much like the folks of 100 years ago claiming a car couldn't drive up a hill without a warp drive engine with a dilithium crystal controlled gravimetric field displacement manifold. As we all know (or almost all), Gene Roddenberry is the authority to turn to on the basis of this last claim being fulfilled some 50 years from now by Zefram Cochrane developing the first warp-capable starship. *How we currently get to the top of hills in a car is considered as an example of superstitious mass hysteria. We can all rest assured that this meets the criteria of not coming from any text book because it hasn't happened yet. **Whew* *Hence, it cannot be disproven. *Don't rush to the patent office however, this is considered Post-Art. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Just rubbish You are just being foolish. Have you never elevated anything using magnets? If you haven't then buy a kit to see it for yourself. The same is used in many places in science and Industry where transport is raised to avoid friction. I warrant that you probably can see same on video on the net or a frog suspended in air . If you cannot neutralize gravity then you cannot have straight line trajectory. Period. When a particle is raised from a surface then you do not have to account for friction when propelling or accelerating it. Thus all energy applied is used solely to achieve radiation without the burden of friction created by skin depth which is not accounted for in Maxwells equations as it reduces efficiency. As I said at the beginning you are just acting silly or being a fool.Or, have no understanding of the term equilibrium or Newtons laws for that matter. Now a question, Why did Maxwell use the term "displacement current" and what was he suggesting what was being displaced from the control of gravity? Now get going, collect a lot of random words. Put them in a container and shake it and pull out a word at a time as you normally do with any written response. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 4, 1:02*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 3, 4:22*pm, K1TTT wrote: On Dec 3, 2:46*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Dec 3, 5:57*am, "J.B. Wood" wrote: On 12/02/2010 11:44 PM, Art Unwin wrote: * What happens after the magnetic field is saturated is excess energy then goes to increase the electric field which is enclosed inside a shield or Faraday cage for maximum density which produces two vectors equal to the two vectors created by gravity and spin as shown with the tipped vertical. These vectors arise fro a diamagnetic condition when the electrical field achieves satuaration or maximum density with a Farady shield. The importance of these two vectors is that we have the displacement vector which elevates particles or electrons at rest on the coil wire,. It is this vector which is equal and opposite to gravity that allows for ":straight line trajectory" of the negatively charged particle such that the other vector is free from constriction in all forms which is synonomous to equilibrium. Thus a solenoid can be seen as a radiator according to Maxwell where the magnetic vector is canceled for maximum efficiency. This also shows that the previous two element design where both elements are resonant within a boundary which must be included as a shield around the two element array for maximum efficiency. I find it completely fascinating that the two vectors I propose as Einstein's predicted version of the Standard Model turns up once again in this solenoid version of a radiator within a Faraday cage to which a horn is easily added. So this thread now comes to closure Regards Art Art, Shirley, you can't be serious! (with apologies to the late, great Leslie Nielsen). *Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO, -- John Wood (Code 5520) * * * *e-mail: Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337 Yes, I am very serious about my findings. I am very sorry that others are unable to follow my same path to obtain the same joys of discovery. For some reason people cannot fathom the idea of equilibrium and that displacement current provides the equal of the gravity vector. There is no way a charge can travel in a straight line up to the heavens and down again without the neutralisation of gravity and without the auspices of spin . The same goes with respect to light *according to the Zeeman effect Regards Art keep dreaming art... neither air nor aether can saturate or we would have many other weird phenomena than your antennas. I am not dreaming! The magnetic field increases density until it reaches a maximum. The curve of B vs H clearly shows this in a similar curve to Hooke's Law for strength of materials. At the point of saturation the value of B comes to a halt and where H takes off and increases rapidly. I would imagine that if you searched the web under saturation magnetic fields or some other similar key words you will eventually find verification of what I have described. You might want to search under diamagnetic because you eventually come to the point where diamagnetic field predominates which puts you in the same position of superconductor where skin resistance is removed. I am extremely surprised that as a electrical engineer you never covered magnetics in depth. If you find verification on the absence of saturation in magnetic fields I will be more than happy to apologize for my lax memory of my early days. Up to now tho, you have never produced evidence or any reasoning to back up your comments or status as an electrical engineer, scientist or what have you!. Was it ever explained to you that levitation by fields is exactly equal in direction and value to gravity? How do you explain to amateurs how "straight line trajectory" is attained when explaining skip or are you going to deny that also? I look forward to reading your back up research statements that support your positions. Regards Art you are looking at curves for ferromagnetic materials that do have a saturation level... the point where all the magnetic dipoles in the material are lined up. for your quick browsing enjoyment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturation_%28magnetic%29 http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_14/4.html http://www.coilgun.info/theorymath/saturation.htm at least one of those specifically states that air core magnets do not saturate. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 4, 2:50*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 3, 7:46*pm, Richard Clark wrote: On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:22:53 -0800 (PST), some gomer wrote: There is no way a charge can travel in a straight line up to the heavens and down again without the neutralisation of gravity and without the auspices of spin . How does one neutralize gravity? *The anti-gravity of comic books? Let's see, the energy of an electromagnetic interaction is 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times greater than gravity. So, when an electron pushes a charge against gravity, it has 400dB more effect than gravity pulling back. *In comic book terms, that is a Thousand, Billion, Billion, Billion times stronger than gravity. An ant weighs 0.003 grams, and the Earth weighs 5.9 x 10^27 g, so you would need 10000000000 planet Earths to replicate the neutralization between the energy of gravity and the energy of electromagnetic interaction (assuming the ant was an electron of ant-like proportions, energy-wise). Such is the sandtrap of neutralization across units of measure. *It is much like the folks of 100 years ago claiming a car couldn't drive up a hill without a warp drive engine with a dilithium crystal controlled gravimetric field displacement manifold. As we all know (or almost all), Gene Roddenberry is the authority to turn to on the basis of this last claim being fulfilled some 50 years from now by Zefram Cochrane developing the first warp-capable starship. *How we currently get to the top of hills in a car is considered as an example of superstitious mass hysteria. We can all rest assured that this meets the criteria of not coming from any text book because it hasn't happened yet. **Whew* *Hence, it cannot be disproven. *Don't rush to the patent office however, this is considered Post-Art. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Just rubbish You are just being foolish. Have you never elevated anything using magnets? If you haven't then buy a kit to see it for yourself. The same is used in many places in science and Industry where transport is raised to avoid friction. I warrant that you probably can see same on video on the net or a frog suspended in air . If you cannot neutralize gravity then you cannot have straight line trajectory. Period. When a particle is raised from a surface then you do not have to account for friction when propelling or accelerating it. Thus all energy applied is used solely to achieve radiation without the burden of friction created by skin depth which is not accounted for in Maxwells equations as it reduces efficiency. As I said at the beginning you are just acting silly or being a fool.Or, have no understanding of the term equilibrium or Newtons laws for that matter. Now a question, Why did Maxwell use the term "displacement current" and what was he suggesting what was being displaced from the control of gravity? Now get going, collect a lot of random words. Put them in a container and shake it and pull out a word at a time as you normally do with any written response. you can oppose gravity, but you cannot neutralize it. yes, you can levitate with magnets, but if gravity were not still in operation the item would fly off into space due to centrifugal force. if just levitating something is evidence of neutralizing gravity then you can do it by just using pressurized air to lift something... of course you could theorize that the military has figured out how to neutralize gravity because they use hovercraft, that would make a nice conspiracy theory. |
antenna physics question
On Dec 4, 9:28*am, K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:50*am, Art Unwin wrote: On Dec 3, 7:46*pm, Richard Clark wrote: On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:22:53 -0800 (PST), some gomer wrote: There is no way a charge can travel in a straight line up to the heavens and down again without the neutralisation of gravity and without the auspices of spin . How does one neutralize gravity? *The anti-gravity of comic books? Let's see, the energy of an electromagnetic interaction is 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times greater than gravity. So, when an electron pushes a charge against gravity, it has 400dB more effect than gravity pulling back. *In comic book terms, that is a Thousand, Billion, Billion, Billion times stronger than gravity. An ant weighs 0.003 grams, and the Earth weighs 5.9 x 10^27 g, so you would need 10000000000 planet Earths to replicate the neutralization between the energy of gravity and the energy of electromagnetic interaction (assuming the ant was an electron of ant-like proportions, energy-wise). Such is the sandtrap of neutralization across units of measure. *It is much like the folks of 100 years ago claiming a car couldn't drive up a hill without a warp drive engine with a dilithium crystal controlled gravimetric field displacement manifold. As we all know (or almost all), Gene Roddenberry is the authority to turn to on the basis of this last claim being fulfilled some 50 years from now by Zefram Cochrane developing the first warp-capable starship. *How we currently get to the top of hills in a car is considered as an example of superstitious mass hysteria. We can all rest assured that this meets the criteria of not coming from any text book because it hasn't happened yet. **Whew* *Hence, it cannot be disproven. *Don't rush to the patent office however, this is considered Post-Art. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Just rubbish You are just being foolish. Have you never elevated anything using magnets? If you haven't then buy a kit to see it for yourself. The same is used in many places in science and Industry where transport is raised to avoid friction. I warrant that you probably can see same on video on the net or a frog suspended in air . If you cannot neutralize gravity then you cannot have straight line trajectory. Period. When a particle is raised from a surface then you do not have to account for friction when propelling or accelerating it. Thus all energy applied is used solely to achieve radiation without the burden of friction created by skin depth which is not accounted for in Maxwells equations as it reduces efficiency. As I said at the beginning you are just acting silly or being a fool.Or, have no understanding of the term equilibrium or Newtons laws for that matter. Now a question, Why did Maxwell use the term "displacement current" and what was he suggesting what was being displaced from the control of gravity? Now get going, collect a lot of random words. Put them in a container and shake it and pull out a word at a time as you normally do with any written response. you can oppose gravity, but you cannot neutralize it. *yes, you can levitate with magnets, but if gravity were not still in operation the item would fly off into space due to centrifugal force. *if just levitating something is evidence of neutralizing gravity then you can do it by just using pressurized air to lift something... of course you could theorize that the military has figured out how to neutralize gravity because they use hovercraft, that would make a nice conspiracy theory. I am anxious to look at the browsing hints you supplied in your other posting . But for the moment I want to look at the word "neutralize" which I refer to as generating a state of equilibrium. We are obviously intending the same meaning or observation so now I have to look up the dictionary to see what the problem is with the term "neutralize" Thank you |
antenna physics question
you can oppose gravity, but you cannot neutralize it.
Let's compare the force of gravity of earth to the force of electromagnetic interaction of electrons: Take a balloon, rub it against your hair, put the balloon close to the ground, pick up an ant with electromagnetic interaction, Gravity loses. If this were "anti-gravity" then patents would be used for wallpaper. (Have I just revealed a secret? Are there any new antenna designs appearing on WikiLeaks?) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
antenna physics question
On Dec 4, 9:23*am, K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 4, 1:02*am, Art Unwin wrote: On Dec 3, 4:22*pm, K1TTT wrote: On Dec 3, 2:46*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Dec 3, 5:57*am, "J.B. Wood" wrote: On 12/02/2010 11:44 PM, Art Unwin wrote: * What happens after the magnetic field is saturated is excess energy then goes to increase the electric field which is enclosed inside a shield or Faraday cage for maximum density which produces two vectors equal to the two vectors created by gravity and spin as shown with the tipped vertical. These vectors arise fro a diamagnetic condition when the electrical field achieves satuaration or maximum density with a Farady shield. The importance of these two vectors is that we have the displacement vector which elevates particles or electrons at rest on the coil wire,. It is this vector which is equal and opposite to gravity that allows for ":straight line trajectory" of the negatively charged particle such that the other vector is free from constriction in all forms which is synonomous to equilibrium. Thus a solenoid can be seen as a radiator according to Maxwell where the magnetic vector is canceled for maximum efficiency. This also shows that the previous two element design where both elements are resonant within a boundary which must be included as a shield around the two element array for maximum efficiency. I find it completely fascinating that the two vectors I propose as Einstein's predicted version of the Standard Model turns up once again in this solenoid version of a radiator within a Faraday cage to which a horn is easily added. So this thread now comes to closure Regards Art Art, Shirley, you can't be serious! (with apologies to the late, great Leslie Nielsen). *Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO, -- John Wood (Code 5520) * * * *e-mail: Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337 Yes, I am very serious about my findings. I am very sorry that others are unable to follow my same path to obtain the same joys of discovery. For some reason people cannot fathom the idea of equilibrium and that displacement current provides the equal of the gravity vector. There is no way a charge can travel in a straight line up to the heavens and down again without the neutralisation of gravity and without the auspices of spin . The same goes with respect to light *according to the Zeeman effect Regards Art keep dreaming art... neither air nor aether can saturate or we would have many other weird phenomena than your antennas. I am not dreaming! The magnetic field increases density until it reaches a maximum. The curve of B vs H clearly shows this in a similar curve to Hooke's Law for strength of materials. At the point of saturation the value of B comes to a halt and where H takes off and increases rapidly. I would imagine that if you searched the web under saturation magnetic fields or some other similar key words you will eventually find verification of what I have described. You might want to search under diamagnetic because you eventually come to the point where diamagnetic field predominates which puts you in the same position of superconductor where skin resistance is removed. I am extremely surprised that as a electrical engineer you never covered magnetics in depth. If you find verification on the absence of saturation in magnetic fields I will be more than happy to apologize for my lax memory of my early days. Up to now tho, you have never produced evidence or any reasoning to back up your comments or status as an electrical engineer, scientist or what have you!. Was it ever explained to you that levitation by fields is exactly equal in direction and value to gravity? How do you explain to amateurs how "straight line trajectory" is attained when explaining skip or are you going to deny that also? I look forward to reading your back up research statements that support your positions. Regards Art you are looking at curves for ferromagnetic materials that do have a saturation level... the point where all the magnetic dipoles in the material are lined up. *for your quick browsing enjoyment:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturat...saturation.htm at least one of those specifically states that air core magnets do not saturate. You are correct about the existance of the statement regarding saturation of air but that is playing on words comparing the very least of return for power applied versus a ferrite enclosed in a pocket of air. Now we have a situation that infers that it is when a ferrite attaines saturation then excess flux is retained by air such that force has made a transition from its previously linear form. But the fact is that the electric field also drops such that regardless of the increased size of the coil the flux containment of air is now dropping from the maximum point attained and cannot exceed that point. Now you can make the point that this is not truely a point of saturation because of the increasing flux requirement for minimum retainment but the real world shows that when the maximum point is reached, that point cannot be retained. Interesting subject., thanks for your interest Regards Art |
antenna physics question
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 |
antenna physics question
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. |
antenna physics question
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 |
antenna physics question
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 |
antenna physics question
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 |
antenna physics question
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 |
antenna physics question
On Dec 8, 1:52*pm, Sean Con wrote:
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. VG solar particles are attracted to diamagnetic surfaces ... I dont VG 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 Temperature is not involved. They form a skin or boundary with hoop stress some resistance leads to energy loss .. probably energy is being converted to heat, not loss. No energy conversion, they are at rest. Current flows to a radiator skin --- farady said it should be so -- charge must move to outer surface Excellent for maximum efficiency particles must be raised due to friction reasons.. most likely not. they dont feel friction, They must be placed in equilibrium otherwise you have a peeling action that is a loss. Now we have a single action and a equal reaction in place with no losses. but the do encounter collisions, and the emf is supplied to overcome the unwanted energy conversion during collisions. * Apparently particles in flight have a repelling force between them. Either way the two vectors of current and displacement is applied to the particle. Now this particle does not take off with a parabolic curve and fall to the ground because of gravity. The particle travels in a straight line. The two vectors applied to the particle are equal and opposite to Gravity and the rotation of the Earth 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. The electrons at rest are free electrons and are not part of the substance or mass upon which they rest. An example is the skin upon water which itself is a diamagnetic material. Place a magnet near the skin and it will repel or bend the skin surface. and the raising probably do not neutralize gravity, the field is putting. The problem here is the word neutralize. Gravity enforces itself with a vector that provides certain phenomina such as dragging a particle to the ground. If one renders that vector neutral by an equal and opposite force then our little particle carrying a charge is not affect by gravity and unless impacted by another vector or a magnetic field it will continue to travel in a straight line. 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" You do not turn Gravity off! You can have a vector working against gravity and in a loosing battle no less, but until that vector is equal and opposite to gravity the effects of gravity cannot be said to be neutralized. Remember, we are only relating to the vectors implied upon the particle alone according to boundary rules.and the "resultant" vector remains a straight line. regards s Regards Art |
antenna physics question
|
antenna physics question
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. |
antenna physics question
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 |
antenna physics question
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 |
antenna physics question
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 |
antenna physics question
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. |
antenna physics question
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 |
antenna physics question
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. |
antenna physics question
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. |
antenna physics question
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. :/ |
antenna physics question
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com