"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

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: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.