"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:13:42 -0000, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

While gravity is often quoted as exhibiting the weakest force of the four
major forces, that force appears to exhibit effects at far longer ranges
than the other three.

Hi Mike,

Without pursuing the other three (you may resolve this in response),
the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the
distance between those bodies being acted upon. This is the same
relation to radiated power (in this case 100W) and the same two bodies
(if we are doing substitutions) if they are located in the far field.

In the near field, the force of radiation varies to the third power,
and in the very close field this power is substantial: if that remote
body is resonant, and in that near field, then it can absorb at least
half of that power or more.

Unfortunately, those who want to hoist Newton's corpse on their
shoulders for a parade celebrating their powers of insight; they
cannot offer that gravity is tweaked even by a thousandth part - and a
thousandth part is easily measured.

... At any substantial physical distance from a
point, gravitational force exerted per unit area is generally the largest
force observed.

This is, no doubt, a reference to nuclear forces where electric and
magnetic dominate in geometries larger than a bacteria. Perhaps
Arthur's levitating particles that dance to RF and leap off the
antenna are fried virii. Unfortunately, for Arthur's levitating
particles, the RF would have to be tuned to several thousand THz.
(Art, a sunlamp would do the same thing cheaper.)

...Gravity may seem to
be the weakest force here on earth

I dare say that any subjective test of that would invert the "sense"
of your statement.

, but at cosmic scales it rules supreme.

The human response aside, at cosmic scales you have cosmic mass in
relation to less than cosmic scale. That is, comparing two galaxies'
gravities is necessarily heavily leveraged with billions of suns, and
yet the distance between the two centers (of galaxies) is probably on
the order of 100's to 1000's of either galaxy's radius. Newton would
shrug that off as being unremarkable - still only square law stuff.
Newton would probably have expressed the force within 20% on the first
pass. Push those two galactic systems to the edges of the cosmos will
only reduce that force by the square law (it certainly won't increase
it).

However, none of this answers how gravity can be an all band antenna's
friend as much as Arthur would like to have them wed.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard

Art believes that gravity is the force that is holding unbound and by
inference, 'neutral' electrons (or possibly some other particle), to the
surface of his antenna radiating element. I personally doubt that gravity is
the main force involved, but for want of a better description of the
phenomenon, I am prepared to continue to let Art describe his antennas as
working by this mechanism. It is his theory and as he often reminds us, he
is primarily a practical hands on engineer and not an academic. If his
antennas work better than anything else of the same dimensions, then someone
will eventually arrive at the correct scientific explanation. In the
meantime I am content to let him continue to describe his antennas and their
workings in terms he understands. It certainly provides for a lot of debate
on r.r.a.a.

Cheers

Mike G0ULI

"Mike Kaliski" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:13:42 -0000, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

While gravity is often quoted as exhibiting the weakest force of the four
major forces, that force appears to exhibit effects at far longer ranges
than the other three.

Hi Mike,

Without pursuing the other three (you may resolve this in response),
the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the
distance between those bodies being acted upon. This is the same
relation to radiated power (in this case 100W) and the same two bodies
(if we are doing substitutions) if they are located in the far field.

In the near field, the force of radiation varies to the third power,
and in the very close field this power is substantial: if that remote
body is resonant, and in that near field, then it can absorb at least
half of that power or more.

Unfortunately, those who want to hoist Newton's corpse on their
shoulders for a parade celebrating their powers of insight; they
cannot offer that gravity is tweaked even by a thousandth part - and a
thousandth part is easily measured.

... At any substantial physical distance from a
point, gravitational force exerted per unit area is generally the largest
force observed.

This is, no doubt, a reference to nuclear forces where electric and
magnetic dominate in geometries larger than a bacteria. Perhaps
Arthur's levitating particles that dance to RF and leap off the
antenna are fried virii. Unfortunately, for Arthur's levitating
particles, the RF would have to be tuned to several thousand THz.
(Art, a sunlamp would do the same thing cheaper.)

...Gravity may seem to
be the weakest force here on earth

I dare say that any subjective test of that would invert the "sense"
of your statement.

, but at cosmic scales it rules supreme.

The human response aside, at cosmic scales you have cosmic mass in
relation to less than cosmic scale. That is, comparing two galaxies'
gravities is necessarily heavily leveraged with billions of suns, and
yet the distance between the two centers (of galaxies) is probably on
the order of 100's to 1000's of either galaxy's radius. Newton would
shrug that off as being unremarkable - still only square law stuff.
Newton would probably have expressed the force within 20% on the first
pass. Push those two galactic systems to the edges of the cosmos will
only reduce that force by the square law (it certainly won't increase
it).

However, none of this answers how gravity can be an all band antenna's
friend as much as Arthur would like to have them wed.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard

Art believes that gravity is the force that is holding unbound and by
inference, 'neutral' electrons (or possibly some other particle), to the
surface of his antenna radiating element. I personally doubt that gravity
is the main force involved, but for want of a better description of the
phenomenon, I am prepared to continue to let Art describe his antennas as
working by this mechanism. It is his theory and as he often reminds us, he
is primarily a practical hands on engineer and not an academic. If his
antennas work better than anything else of the same dimensions, then
someone will eventually arrive at the correct scientific explanation. In
the meantime I am content to let him continue to describe his antennas and
their workings in terms he understands. It certainly provides for a lot of
debate on r.r.a.a.

Cheers

Mike G0ULI

if only his antennas worked anywhere near as good as he dreams they do we
would all be lining up at his door to buy them.

On 23 Dec, 00:49, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:14:07 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

My understanding is that it only takes a moderate magnetic field
to levitate a free electron, which is a world of difference
from what you are saying

Hi Arthur,

The difference is I have experience in the matter, you don't. *All you
have to go on are books.

Let's just take one very simple example about magnetic fields and
electrons: The Magnetron!

Do you know what's in a Magnetron? *I doubt it. *You will have to look
it up in one of your books, whereas I've held on in my hands while
servicing a transmitter.

So, already knowing you haven't got a clue about what is in a
Magnetron, then I will tell you. *Cathode, Anode, and Magnet - nothing
else to get in the way.

So, there you have your magnet, and it is whopping big one too with a
whopping bloody field that goes waaaaaaaay beyond what you call
moderate (moderate is about 12 orders of magnitude toooooo small in
comparison!).

Does this magnet rip electrons right out of the metal? *It would rip
apart the metal first before that happened. *And yet electrons fly
from Cathode to Anode ONLY when the Cathode is HEATED! *What is more,
the magnet is utterly unnecessary for those electrons to flow.

Ever wonder why Cathodes (or filaments) are heated? *Well, in this
case (as in all other cases) because the Magnet doesn't have the oomph
to pull the electrons off the cold, cold Cathode. *If a magnet can't
do it, electrons are certainly not going to jump off an antenna - not
unless there is sufficient potential to cause corona. *Even then they
don't go very far - not even a foot. *Corona doesn't measurably add to
DX unless you are at sea signaling by semaphore.

Now, can you tell us what a "work function" is? *If you could, then
this nonsense about levitating electrons would collapse.

I will give you a week to do your research. * :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

My point is that the element being diamagnetic and generating a
magnetic field
will displace a free electon or particle from it's surface. The force
or magnetic
field, even tho moderate, levitating the particle has a reactive force
upon the
radiator. The succession of these reaction forces puts the radiator
into oscillation
since just like a pendulum there are two discharges of energy per
cycle.
This cycle of events replicate a tank circuit which is well documented
I am not requesting that a large item be levitated but only a small
particle which
by using the parameters put forward by Gauss is now free to remove
itself
from the given arbitary field. These free electrons, of which there
are many,
are so dense that they will appear as a wave as they move away from
the near field
where they search for another diagmatic resting place. If that new
resting place
is also resonant at the same frequency then the impacts will be a
mirror image of
that which created them thus providing a medium for the transfer of
communication.

The laws of the universe are very simple in nature tho experts strive
to make them difficult
Art

Art wrote:
"My understanding is that it only takes a moderate magnetic field to
levitate a free electron, which is a world of difference from what you
are saying."

Moderate fields make free electrons move moderately within and on the
surface of conductors.

Electron emission requires more energy than does conduction. Conduction
produces a magnetic field which can produce an electric field, etc.,
etc., etc..

No threshold must be exceeded to produce radiation from an antenna. The
weakest received signal must cause at least 50% of its received carrier
power to be re-radiated from an antenna of good conductivity.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 23 Dec, 13:21, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"My understanding is that it only takes a moderate magnetic field to
levitate a free electron, which is a world of difference from what you
are saying."



Moderate fields make free electrons move moderately within and on the
surface of conductors.

Pardon me but when a free electron or particle is resting on a
diamagnetic surface
in a electromagnetic field it moves ONLY in a directionm at right
angles to the
diagmatic surface and no other direction until the electro magnetic
field diminishes. The phrase" within and on a surface is somewhat
inaccurate"

Art

snip
regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 23 Dec, 21:18, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

...





On 23 Dec, 13:21, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"My understanding is that it only takes a moderate magnetic field to
levitate a free electron, which is a world of difference from what you
are saying."

snip
. However, electrons are not stripped off the diagmagnetic field
at all

Where in the article does it say that?
Could this be a opinion planted into somebody elses work
to give it false credability?
It has been said that certain particles ,known as free
electrons/static particles, will settle on a diamagnetic
material where as other materials will reject them.
These particles are levitated when exposed to a magnetic
field. Thus I find it important to know where what you
have stated is to be found and by whose authority since
it clearly contradicts the above.
Art


http://www.hfml.science.ru.nl/levitation-movies.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Art wrote:
"The phrase within or on the surface is somewhat inaccurate."

At risk of boring some to tears, please consult the 1955 opus of F.E.
Terman, pages 865 and 903 for radiation patterns of elemental and
1/2-wave doublets when currents flow in an axial direction on a
conductor. Recall that the conductor can be ever so thin and that
reciprocity rules in antennas.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Art wrote:
"It has been said that certain particles, known as free electrons/static
particles, will settle on a diamagnetic material where as other
materials will reject them."

Electrostatic precipitation and magnetic deflection are familiar
phenomena. Beyond interference and beam deflection, they have little to
do with signal radiation and propagation. Radiation simply happens when
a certain RF current flows along the surface of an isolated conductor
and the resulting fields get too far away to be recalled by the source.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 23 Dec, 23:13, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"It has been said that certain particles, known as free electrons/static
particles, will settle on a diamagnetic material where as other
materials will reject them."

Electrostatic precipitation and magnetic deflection are familiar
phenomena. Beyond interference and beam deflection, they have little to
do with signal radiation and propagation. Radiation simply happens when
a certain RF current flows along the surface of an isolated conductor
and the resulting fields get too far away to be recalled by the source.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Great. At last we have somebody familier with this particular
phenomina
who can specifically describe why such a phenomina has NOTHING to
do with RADIATION. Richard please share with us all your deep
knoweledge
on the subject, possibly starting with the reason why diamagnetic
materials are the material of choice for radiators and if possible
references of such in a book of the modern era.. You might also
want to diverge into what makes up what is called "skin depth"
and if it consists of the same when paramagnetic are used as
radiators.
You might also comment on why the chemeical makeup of such a skin
appeares to have a constituent of 'HO' compared to the normal paired
combination of 'H20' .Could you also comment on what creats the
vibrational attributes of a radiator and how it propagates
communication means thousands of miles by deflection from
shells around the earth and in other cases pierce these same shells.
In defience of gravity no less.
To say with such confidence that electrical precipitation and
magnetic deflection has NOTHING to do with radiation implies the
suggestion that you are equal to the masters of the past and
just waiting for the chance to add to science in the new millinium.
So Richard, here is your chance to expouse on radiation together with
quoting from different books in science in a point by point fashion
to supply credability to the discussion.
Side note, I will accept any chapter from Terman, Feynman, Einstein,
Planck e.t.c.if they specifically address the points raised above
as long as what they wrote is not altered to what you think they meant
as you have done in the past.
First, start with the difference between diamagnetic and paramagnetic
materials and why one is more favorable for antennas than the other.
It is very simple but it does force one to get involved with the
facts regarding radiation especially with respect to free electrons
as opposed to bonded electrons because there is a big difference here
that appears to be overlooked
Regards
Art

On 20 Dec, 09:03, art wrote:
snip By the way, it is the ELECTROMAGNETIC field that launches the
particles from the radiating surface and it is the MECHANICAL REACTIVE
FORCE that provides the mechanical resonance of the radiator *WHICH
JOINS THE THEORIES OF NEWTON AND . MAXWELL that Einstein struggled for
in vain.
For those that feel that mechanical laws of Newton cannot be used with
respech to electrical subjects( ala Roy) here is a chance for you to
prove your point.
Regards
Art Unwin, *a limey no less

I made an error int he above statement which I need to correct.
The particles used in the transition from Gauss are STATIC particles
of the inter galaxial kind which have the propensity to settle on
diamagnetic materials without rejection This being the same material
from which antennas are made of. When a majority of free electron
are in a ELECTROSTATIC field created by a change in voltage levitation
takes place on static particles. This is somewhat opposite to
ELECTROMAGNETIC levitation altho there are also other differences
which I need not to go into at this time. The circuit that providees
such conditions is a tank circuit where the radiator must be a
multiple
of one wave length to ensure equilibrium is maintained within
the Gaussian field
Art