Roy if I have violated Newtons laws please inform me were I did that . I
admit you did not say that I did , but
surely you would not made a comment that was unrelated..............would
you ? I am only presenting a point of view, not to assure to all that I am
correct but to ascertain the error of that logic and certainly not to
advance the theory of perpetual motion even tho you may view me as an idiot
to ask such a silly question on this forum. If one is unsure even on the
most simple of things
then he is doomed to remain simple because he exposed his underbelly for
target practice.by asking for assistance

Art

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
The law of conservation of energy is a touchstone you should always use
as a reality check for whatever theory you have. If your theory leads to
a conclusion that contradicts that law, then either your theory is wrong
or there was an error in some step along the way from the theory to the
conclusion.

Or you belong to the perpetual motion machine crowd.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:

Points raised noticed and placed in my thoughts bag to digest.
With respect to radiation I revolve solidly about accedleratio during a
point in time, accelleration required to negotiat a turn which even at
constant speed create acceleration and lastly arangements that create
more
current without the loss of energy of which I see as coupling. Since I
am
pretty much self taught because of a loss of memory onslaught it is easy
to
build on sand without a true geoligists report which is not available
when
one works alone. Thus I am curious as to where exactly I have gone
astray by
not having a thorough education in R.F. workings. So if there is cycliic
increases of radiation per unit length then I see the same unit length
in
spiral form introduces an addition vector of forces that I translate
into
radiation, I have a history of not being able to adequately explaining
my
thought so hopefully the above will assist in explaining my thought
processes even tho they may seem totally rediculus to those edu8cated in
the
field of whom I ask for correction.
From how I see it I have not viotated any laws with this thinking but
now is
the time for me to put things in there proper place.and accepted without
rancour.
Regards
Art

You can rest assured that you haven't violated the law of conservation
of energy. Newton's laws aren't quite so absolute, so who knows, maybe
you did bend one or another. You wouldn't be the first -- do a web
search on "ultraviolet catastrophe".

Anyone should feel free to present a point of view. But if it
contradicts the law of conservation of energy, it's wrong.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:
Roy if I have violated Newtons laws please inform me were I did that . I
admit you did not say that I did , but
surely you would not made a comment that was unrelated..............would
you ? I am only presenting a point of view, not to assure to all that I am
correct but to ascertain the error of that logic and certainly not to
advance the theory of perpetual motion even tho you may view me as an idiot
to ask such a silly question on this forum. If one is unsure even on the
most simple of things
then he is doomed to remain simple because he exposed his underbelly for
target practice.by asking for assistance

Art

wrote:
With respect to radiation I revolve solidly about accedleratio during
a point in time, accelleration required to negotiat a turn which even
at constant speed create acceleration

You really *are* related to Stanley Unwin, aren't you?


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

You mean in the way I cripple the english language?
I guess I could be
Regards
Art
"Ian White, G3SEK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
With respect to radiation I revolve solidly about accedleratio during
a point in time, accelleration required to negotiat a turn which even
at constant speed create acceleration

You really *are* related to Stanley Unwin, aren't you?


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Art,
An interesting proposition. Acceleration of a radio wave.
If this succeeds, then does this mean that the wave travels 'faster' than
other waves?
If that's true - and the wave does travels faster - then it follows that the
*length* of the propogated wave would be shorter.
If the length is shorter - then we would perceive it as a shift in
frequency - because we assume all RF travels at the same speed.
For instance - if the wave 'started off' 2 meters long - and was accelerated
to double the speed, then the wavelength would be only one meter long.
Our assumptions may be invalid.
We can only base our responses on what we have learned, but if this is new,
then it folllows that we have not learned it yet.
Let's hear more about your theory.

" wrote in message
news:VH6Uc.324209$XM6.205186@attbi_s53...
Gentlemen
I have in the past alluded not only radiation from a straight element but
also the ADDITION of radiation
occuring from a bent element. Nobody has commented on the authentisity of
this statement and I have not come acros anything in my own collection of
books.
Now my present antenna consists of various loops connected in both a
clockwise and clockwise radiation form such that the circular polarisation
cancells leaving pure vertical polarisation.. The loops are separatred in
a
way that intercapacity of the spiral loops is reduced as well as circular
cancellation All of this is based on my gut feeling that R.F.current
flowing
around a circular radiating element. What I ask for for those who have a
deeper background of R.F. is verification of my assumption
that extra radiation becomes available.
Appreciate any comments on this irregular aproach as I cxannot find
guidance
in the books.
A serious question regarding added radiation from an element in the hope
that insight is provided even tho it may expose the fallacy of my aproach.
Thanks in advance
Art




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004

Hal Rosser wrote:
. . .
If that's true - and the wave does travels faster - then it follows that the
*length* of the propogated wave would be shorter.
If the length is shorter - then we would perceive it as a shift in
frequency - because we assume all RF travels at the same speed.
For instance - if the wave 'started off' 2 meters long - and was accelerated
to double the speed, then the wavelength would be only one meter long.
. . .

You're too late -- the hyper-light-speed antenna has already been
invented -- and patented. See U.S. patent #6,025,810. You'll have to do
some splicing if the following link is broken by word wrap. Or it's easy
to find at http://www.uspto.gov.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6025810

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy,
the link worked as-is
I saw a TV special (I think it was on Nova) talking about 'string theory' -
that antenna invention mentions mutliple dimensions - and so does the string
theory-
But they (nova) hypothesize that we would need 'gravity waves' (not EM
waves) to communicate into another dimension.


"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
You're too late -- the hyper-light-speed antenna has already been
invented -- and patented. See U.S. patent #6,025,810. You'll have to do
some splicing if the following link is broken by word wrap. Or it's easy
to find at http://www.uspto.gov.


http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6025810

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004

Hi Hal, nice to meet you
What I have is not really a prposition or a legitimate theory, it is just
something that apears to be in error but I do not understand why so I wanted
something we had to e4xplain in exams which came from first principles. It
was basic pricipals that I was looking for wether it be a comparison of area
under a current curve per unit length compared to area when applied to a
circle or even possibly a mathematical analusis. Roys says I am in error and
should accept it because he said so. He is knoweledgable but just his word
is not good enough.
Richard came in with his bag of tricks with the introduction of "power"
which if nothing is stated he is off and running with an augument on the
net. Ofcourse I did not fall for it, Soooooo I am reconciled to the fact
that
there is not enough pertinent knoweledge out there that can allow
reasonable discussion.
Still I find no discrace in asking the question even tho it may advertise my
own lack of knoweledge.
Note you referenced speed per unit length in terms of frequency where as I
was refering to a constant speed
where the energy input should have transpire3d into acceleration buyt
instead added another vector that like a race care going round a circular
circuit. This is going at constant speed all the time with the foot hard
nown on the accelorator to counteract centrifugal forces evidenced by a
spray of dirt that continues at a consistent rate and not in cyclic form if
one accelerates on a straight runway.
In both cases we have constant speeds but we also have a difference in
phases. Enough said. I have typed up the program to check things out again
which has amounted to 400 wire segments plus the use of 20 variables to
gauge the distances between each succesive coils so I can build the darn
thing again from scratch and thus satisfy myself
on the why's and where fores rather than partaking in what will become a
slanging thread that occurs in a somewhat regular fashion. If I am remiss on
missing an actual true posting that discusses in detaILwhat I was
asking for then please draw my attention to it as I seemed somehow to have
missed it
Very best regards
Art
,
"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
...
Art,
An interesting proposition. Acceleration of a radio wave.
If this succeeds, then does this mean that the wave travels 'faster' than
other waves?
If that's true - and the wave does travels faster - then it follows that
the
*length* of the propogated wave would be shorter.
If the length is shorter - then we would perceive it as a shift in
frequency - because we assume all RF travels at the same speed.
For instance - if the wave 'started off' 2 meters long - and was
accelerated
to double the speed, then the wavelength would be only one meter long.
Our assumptions may be invalid.
We can only base our responses on what we have learned, but if this is
new,
then it folllows that we have not learned it yet.
Let's hear more about your theory.

" wrote in
message
news:VH6Uc.324209$XM6.205186@attbi_s53...
Gentlemen
I have in the past alluded not only radiation from a straight element
but
also the ADDITION of radiation
occuring from a bent element. Nobody has commented on the authentisity
of
this statement and I have not come acros anything in my own collection
of
books.
Now my present antenna consists of various loops connected in both a
clockwise and clockwise radiation form such that the circular
polarisation
cancells leaving pure vertical polarisation.. The loops are separatred
in
a
way that intercapacity of the spiral loops is reduced as well as
circular
cancellation All of this is based on my gut feeling that R.F.current
flowing
around a circular radiating element. What I ask for for those who have a
deeper background of R.F. is verification of my assumption
that extra radiation becomes available.
Appreciate any comments on this irregular aproach as I cxannot find
guidance
in the books.
A serious question regarding added radiation from an element in the hope
that insight is provided even tho it may expose the fallacy of my
aproach.
Thanks in advance
Art




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:13:14 GMT, "
wrote:

Soooooo I am reconciled to the fact
that
there is not enough pertinent knoweledge out there that can allow
reasonable discussion.

In otherwords you are trolling.

No Richard I am not trolling I am very serious. At the same time I am always
wary of any aproach by you
as the subject always get shifted and then we are off to the races.
Cecil pointed it out correctly with respect to power. If you were to solve
a parallel circuit using complex circuit methyods the criteria is energy
conservation
but where individual parts change their form of energy s we cannot glibly
say that it revoves about
power or that I am referring to perpetual motion which is how Roy dismisses
the thread but with no supporting data.
Now you say that accelleration and decellaration of protons are not the true
basis for radiation
which certainly suggests that the subject is moot as the question starts off
with a fallacy.
Art

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:13:14 GMT, "
wrote:

Soooooo I am reconciled to the fact
that
there is not enough pertinent knoweledge out there that can allow
reasonable discussion.

In otherwords you are trolling.