Ok, so the acceleration is in the phase-shifting between the adjacent coils
?
If I interpret that correctly, then its not a 'real' acceleration, but a
simulated acceleration - much like using pulsating DC to generate simulated
AC.
If you could describe it in terms a normal dummy like myself could
understand or at least draw a better picture, your theory may be taken more
seriously.
You say Roy's word is not good enough - But Roy has demonstrated his
expertise in this area time and time again.
I come here to learn from folks like Roy - and to inject some of my own
thoughts from time to time.
You come to the group asking for comments - and you got them.
You did not speak in terms of technical details - so a reply using technical
details may not be deserved.
There is no disgrace in asking questions (like you said) - but rejecting
expert opinions can be seen as a disgrace in some instances.


" wrote in message
news:dJeUc.269797$%_6.33856@attbi_s01...
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






---
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: 7/30/2004

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.

"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
...
Ok, so the acceleration is in the phase-shifting between the adjacent
coils
?
If I interpret that correctly, then its not a 'real' acceleration, but a
simulated acceleration - much like using pulsating DC to generate
simulated
AC.
Well radiation is certainly a series of "pulses" as the radiation consists
of enclosed
waves and yet the speed of generation is constant and only the constituents
of total energy
undergo change. This is how I visualise creation of radiation on a straight
element.
Now we come to a element that is circular. I still see the generation
of radiation as generated on a strraight radiator but I now see that the
radiation has a component
as shown by a added vector as in centrifugal force which because the
radiator is circular
is constant. Now I am not proposing a new theory I am asking for a an
explanation why this is fallacious
Art

If you could describe it in terms a normal dummy like myself could
understand or at least draw a better picture, your theory may be taken
more
seriously.
You say Roy's word is not good enough - But Roy has demonstrated his
expertise in this area time and time again.
I come here to learn from folks like Roy - and to inject some of my own
thoughts from time to time.


Don't we all ? But sometimes Roy's words of wisdom does not satisfy the
questioner
asks for the underpinnings of the statement. Roy feels an answer from him is
all that is required
as in the word of God and he is not interested in trivialities and may even
leave the group for a while

You come to the group asking for comments - and you got them.
You did not speak in terms of technical details - so a reply using
technical
details may not be deserved.

There is no disgrace in asking questions (like you said) - but rejecting
expert opinions can be seen as a disgrace in some instances.


I agree but a answer that states it does not obey natures laws if one cannot
supply the illustration on how it occurs
so any request for backup can easily be seen as rejection by some since the
words of God have been given

" wrote in
message
news:dJeUc.269797$%_6.33856@attbi_s01...
Hi Hal, nice to meet you
delete What I have is not really a prposition or a legitimate theory, it
is just
so

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:49:21 GMT, "
wrote:

No Richard I am not trolling I am very serious.

No Art, you are trolling. There is no one in this group who could
accelerate charge without power BUT YOU? Absurd in the extreme!

You have shown absolutely no interest in participating in a rational
discussion about the requirments of circular motion, but instead you
cavalierly discard all of established physics going back to Newton.

Hence your contempt of the topic clearly reveals you are trolling.

You are welcome to your opinion and it has been duly noted and you can now
move on. I have no intention
of accepting your bait for another raucuos R.R.A.A. battle upon which you
thrive upon to create division.


Art


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:49:21 GMT, "
wrote:

No Richard I am not trolling I am very serious.

No Art, you are trolling. There is no one in this group who could
accelerate charge without power BUT YOU? Absurd in the extreme!

You have shown absolutely no interest in participating in a rational
discussion about the requirments of circular motion, but instead you
cavalierly discard all of established physics going back to Newton.

Hence your contempt of the topic clearly reveals you are trolling.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:15:50 GMT, "
wrote:

You are welcome to your opinion and it has been duly noted and you can now
move on. I have no intention
of accepting your bait for another raucuos R.R.A.A. battle upon which you
thrive upon to create division.


More troll bait

" 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


Not knowing how you came to your conclusion no one can tell you why you are
wrong.. My uncle used to have a paint and body shop with a 57 Chevy up on a
pole in front of his shop. While the car would make an awful antenna it
would be futile to try to explain why. In another way of saying it would be
like explaining to a student how he missed a math problem when all he shows
is an answer. The best the instructor can do is tell him he is right or
wrong. In your case the instructor would not even be sure which problem he
had done.

Egad. Please go back and read my postings. All I've said is that you
can't violate the law of conservation of energy. You shouldn't believe
this fundamental principle because Roy says you should -- you should
believe it because you've got a grasp of high school level physics, and
if you don't have a grasp of high school level physics, perhaps you
should get one before getting too carried away with theories about the
nature of radiation.

Of course, ignorance is bliss. If you disbelieve or simply choose to
ignore conservation of energy, you're then able to make perpetual motion
machines and other wonders, including any number of miracle antennas.

And Art, quit whining that "Roy feels an answer from him is
all that is required as in the word of God". What's required is that you
take the effort to learn a little fundamental physics. I'm sure you can
find an adequate explanation of the law of conservation of energy on the
web if you have an aversion to books -- written by someone other than
Roy. I'm not going to spoon-feed it to a reluctant learner.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:
. . . 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. . .

Hal Rosser wrote:
. . . You say Roy's word is not good enough - But Roy has
demonstrated his expertise in this area time and time again. . .

wrote:
. . .But sometimes Roy's words of wisdom does not satisfy the
questioner
asks for the underpinnings of the statement. Roy feels an answer from him is
all that is required
as in the word of God and he is not interested in trivialities and may even
leave the group for a while . . .

" wrote in message
news:l9nUc.268067$a24.245272@attbi_s03...
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.


While I do not believe you are trolling I can understand why others would
believe you are. I was not certain for a long time. The problem seems to be
a lack of common knowledge between you and those whom you are trying to
converse. To explain to you why you are wrong you first have to be educated
in antenna theory at least to an elementary degree. Unfortunately you tend
to reject the knowledge that other have learned over time, You read and try
to bend facts to fit your own preconceived ideas instead of taking them at
their face value. Frankly trying to explain something to you is so tedious
that most people just give up. If you truly want to learn you should try a
classroom environment. This is the wrong place to get all the information
you want starting at the ground up.

" wrote in message
news:1wnUc.272613$%_6.270403@attbi_s01...

"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
...
Ok, so the acceleration is in the phase-shifting between the adjacent
coils
?
If I interpret that correctly, then its not a 'real' acceleration, but a
simulated acceleration - much like using pulsating DC to generate
simulated
AC.
Well radiation is certainly a series of "pulses" as the radiation consists
of enclosed
waves and yet the speed of generation is constant and only the
constituents
of total energy
undergo change. This is how I visualise creation of radiation on a
straight
element.
Now we come to a element that is circular. I still see the generation
of radiation as generated on a strraight radiator but I now see that the
radiation has a component
as shown by a added vector as in centrifugal force which because the
radiator is circular
is constant. Now I am not proposing a new theory I am asking for a an
explanation why this is fallacious
Art

If you could describe it in terms a normal dummy like myself could
understand or at least draw a better picture, your theory may be taken
more
seriously.
You say Roy's word is not good enough - But Roy has demonstrated his
expertise in this area time and time again.
I come here to learn from folks like Roy - and to inject some of my own
thoughts from time to time.


Don't we all ? But sometimes Roy's words of wisdom does not satisfy the
questioner
asks for the underpinnings of the statement. Roy feels an answer from him
is
all that is required
as in the word of God and he is not interested in trivialities and may
even
leave the group for a while

You come to the group asking for comments - and you got them.
You did not speak in terms of technical details - so a reply using
technical
details may not be deserved.

There is no disgrace in asking questions (like you said) - but rejecting
expert opinions can be seen as a disgrace in some instances.


I agree but a answer that states it does not obey natures laws if one
cannot
supply the illustration on how it occurs
so any request for backup can easily be seen as rejection by some since
the
words of God have been given

" wrote in
message
news:dJeUc.269797$%_6.33856@attbi_s01...
Hi Hal, nice to meet you
delete What I have is not really a prposition or a legitimate theory,
it
is just
so


You will not get a meaningful answer to this because it is not a meanigful
question. It is just techno-babble.
OK if your are trolling have a good laugh on me, You have rattled this
monkey's cage. If not, I feel for you. You have serious problems.