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

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:40:12 GMT, "
wrote:

Richard I need more explanation than that because power is somewhat
irrelevant.

You then broach the remainder of your post in terms of acceleration -
which requires power, and deceleration which begats power.

There is no room for "extra" in the power budget.

Radiation in my mind (and I must be now worst off than I really thougt) is
accelleration and decelleration of current

I recognize this as a commonplace expression in this group (not unique
to you by any means). It is one of the most ill-conceived statements
ever to come down the pike and your conundrum (as for others) in
trying to retrofit it into a theory is part and parcel to its poor
analogy.

I need it explained
in every day language

Hi Art,

The plain, every day language of budgets is there. If you cannot
balance that simple ledger, then you have scant chance of
understanding the larger enigma.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

wrote:
I suspect it has to do with relative phase angles but I need it explained
in every day language

Art, a single RF traveling-wave wire has a natural Z0 in the
ballpark of 600 ohms which sets the V/I (E/H field) ratio.
The feedpoint current and the current at any point on a
standing-wave antenna is the phasor sum of the forward current
and the reflected current. Vf/If and Vr/Ir remain in the
ballpark of 600 ohms but Vf+Vr and If+Ir vary up and down
the wire. The current is high at a 1/2WL dipole feedpoint
because If and Ir are in phase at that point. The current is
low at a 1WL dipole feedpoint because If and Ir are out of
phase at that point. But If is approximately the same for
both antennas and Ir is approximately the same for both antennas.

That's why the superposed If+Ir at the bottom of a loading
coil is not usually equal to the superposed If+Ir at the
top of a loading coil. Each of the two currents indeed has
close to a constant magnitude through the coil but the phases
of If and Ir are changing in opposite directions. Thus their
sums are different except for the special case where the
relative phase difference is equal at both ends of the coil.

But for understanding RF radiation, If is fairly constant
and Ir is fairly constant, and each of those currents cause
radiation. Thinking about a terminated Rhombic Vs an unterminated
Rhombic will separate the two processes out in your mind.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

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

What about the assertion that net energy obeys the conservation
of energy principle but individual energy components do not
have to?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

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.