All the laws of the universe are directly a reflection of the action
that Newtons laws
pertain to. All Newtons laws pertain to relative movement of mass
which is comprised of time, mass and relative distance to form a state
of equilibrium.
We all know how mechanical laws are conneted to Newton but how is
electricity essentially the same? We all know that magnetism is a
reflection of the smallest dipole
relative angle at any point in time. We also know that this dipole can
also turn during a period of time such that the magnetic field of
force at any point in time is reflected by the angle that the dipole
takes. This dipole in electrical terms is a microsom of the large
mechanical forces in relative movement.
For electricity the dipole takes up an alignment that reflect the
current flow at any point and place in time. Thus with a dc current
all the dipoles aligne with each other with respect to the current
flow in a two dimensional form. When applying an alternating current
we are also really applying a DC current but with a rotational or
three degrees of freedom such that at any point in time all dipole
alignment reflect the torque angle at that particular point which is
NOT the same as any other dipole point alignment.
Thus when current is not applied the molecular dipole arrangement fall
back to the directions it had prior to the onset of current to provide
a stated of equilibrium.
In the case of a DC current supplied the microscopic dipoles ALL have
the same alignement and when the current ceases to be applied the
dipoles still stay in alignment with each other. So in effect ,the
movement of the micro dipole in electricity is exactly the same as a
mechanical element where all the forces of the electrical dipoles are
summated. There are difference with mechanical elements which can be
determined by its mass and structural make up such as how they perform
in a magnetic field. Earlier we expressed the strength of a magnetic
field is measured in part by the angular position of its resident
dipoles.For a true magnet formed with a ferrous material the
atmosphere can permeate all of the material as it changing its
composition, but in the initial state the total mass is a reflection
of the number of inherrent dipoles which in summation is a measure of
the potential energy contained. With a current carrying
element such as aluminum when it is exposed to the atmoshere it
immediately forms a barrier to prevent the ongoing penetration of
oxidtion. Thus when a current is applied
it can only affect the dipoles in the protective skin depth of the
pattina and not affect the internal unoxidizes material where it can
oxidize and decay as with a ferrous material.
Thus the pattina can only hold a smaller number of dipoles which
reflects a smaller potential energy for generating a magnetic field.
Thus both electrical and mechanical
formats surround the facts of potential energy and kinetic energy when
in a state of equilibrium as espoused by Newtons laws.
Have a happy day
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG (uk)

On 17 Jan, 18:42, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

...





All the laws of the universe are directly a reflection of the action
that Newtons laws
pertain to. All Newtons laws pertain to relative movement of mass
which is comprised of time, mass and relative distance to form a state
of equilibrium.
We all know how mechanical laws are conneted to Newton but how is
electricity essentially the same? We all know that magnetism is a
reflection of the smallest dipole
relative angle at any point in time. We also know that this dipole can
also turn during a period of time such that the magnetic field of
force at any point in time is reflected by the angle that the dipole
takes. This dipole in electrical terms is a microsom of the large
mechanical forces in relative movement.
For electricity the dipole takes up an alignment that reflect the
current flow at any point and place in time. Thus with a dc current
all the dipoles aligne with each other with respect to the current
flow in a two dimensional form. When applying an alternating current
we are also really applying a DC current but with a rotational or
three degrees of freedom such that at any point in time all dipole
alignment reflect the torque angle at that particular point which is
NOT the same as any other dipole point alignment.
Thus when current is not applied the molecular dipole arrangement fall
back to the directions it had prior to the onset of current to provide
a stated of equilibrium.
In the case of a DC current supplied the microscopic dipoles ALL have
the same alignement and when the current ceases to be applied the
dipoles still stay in alignment with each other. So in effect ,the
movement of the micro dipole in electricity is exactly the same as a
mechanical element where all the forces of the electrical dipoles are
summated. There are difference with mechanical elements which can be
determined by its mass and structural make up such as how they perform
in a magnetic field. Earlier we expressed the strength of a magnetic
field *is measured in part by the angular position of its resident
dipoles.For a true magnet formed with a ferrous material the
atmosphere can permeate all of the material as it *changing its
composition, but in the initial state the total mass is a reflection
of the number of inherrent dipoles which in summation is a measure of
the potential energy contained. With a current carrying
element such as aluminum when it is exposed to the atmoshere it
immediately forms a barrier to prevent the ongoing penetration of
oxidtion. Thus when a current is applied
it can only affect the dipoles in the protective skin depth of the
pattina and not affect the internal unoxidizes material where it can
oxidize and decay as with a ferrous material.
Thus the pattina can only hold a smaller number of dipoles which
reflects a smaller potential energy for generating a magnetic field.
Thus both electrical and mechanical
formats surround the facts of potential energy and kinetic energy when
in a state of equilibrium as espoused by Newtons laws.
Have a happy day
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG (uk)

The casual reader of the ng should realize that this insane posting is not
representative of the technical background of ham radio operators.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know. that statement was made a decade ago by W7EL and he started
up a storm of auguements
on this newsgroup which pushed off so many knoweledgable engineers/
radio hams. Problem was that W7EL choose hismelf as the adjudicator as
what is right and what was wrong! Knoweledgable did not always agree
with W7EL but with the diatribes thrown they choose to leave. Now you
also have chosen to be the adjudicator in conjunction with W7EL!
Give me a break.
Art Unwin KB9MZ...xg (uk)

AI4QJ wrote:
"art" wrote in message
...
All the laws of the universe are directly a reflection of the action
that Newtons laws
pertain to. All Newtons laws pertain to relative movement of mass
which is comprised of time, mass and relative distance to form a state
of equilibrium.
We all know how mechanical laws are conneted to Newton but how is
electricity essentially the same? We all know that magnetism is a
reflection of the smallest dipole
relative angle at any point in time. We also know that this dipole can
also turn during a period of time such that the magnetic field of
force at any point in time is reflected by the angle that the dipole
takes. This dipole in electrical terms is a microsom of the large
mechanical forces in relative movement.
For electricity the dipole takes up an alignment that reflect the
current flow at any point and place in time. Thus with a dc current
all the dipoles aligne with each other with respect to the current
flow in a two dimensional form. When applying an alternating current
we are also really applying a DC current but with a rotational or
three degrees of freedom such that at any point in time all dipole
alignment reflect the torque angle at that particular point which is
NOT the same as any other dipole point alignment.
Thus when current is not applied the molecular dipole arrangement fall
back to the directions it had prior to the onset of current to provide
a stated of equilibrium.
In the case of a DC current supplied the microscopic dipoles ALL have
the same alignement and when the current ceases to be applied the
dipoles still stay in alignment with each other. So in effect ,the
movement of the micro dipole in electricity is exactly the same as a
mechanical element where all the forces of the electrical dipoles are
summated. There are difference with mechanical elements which can be
determined by its mass and structural make up such as how they perform
in a magnetic field. Earlier we expressed the strength of a magnetic
field is measured in part by the angular position of its resident
dipoles.For a true magnet formed with a ferrous material the
atmosphere can permeate all of the material as it changing its
composition, but in the initial state the total mass is a reflection
of the number of inherrent dipoles which in summation is a measure of
the potential energy contained. With a current carrying
element such as aluminum when it is exposed to the atmoshere it
immediately forms a barrier to prevent the ongoing penetration of
oxidtion. Thus when a current is applied
it can only affect the dipoles in the protective skin depth of the
pattina and not affect the internal unoxidizes material where it can
oxidize and decay as with a ferrous material.
Thus the pattina can only hold a smaller number of dipoles which
reflects a smaller potential energy for generating a magnetic field.
Thus both electrical and mechanical
formats surround the facts of potential energy and kinetic energy when
in a state of equilibrium as espoused by Newtons laws.
Have a happy day
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG (uk)


The casual reader of the ng should realize that this insane posting is not
representative of the technical background of ham radio operators.



Art is entitled to his opinions which are no more crazy than, say,
Christian dominionism, or "creation science." They may be wrong and
hard to make sense of, but at least they're honest and
original.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

"Tom Donaly" wrote in
:

Art is entitled to his opinions which are no more crazy than, say,
Christian dominionism, or "creation science." They may be wrong and
hard to make sense of, but at least they're honest and
original.

Art's ideas are no more crazy than those you compared them to, but those
ideas are a whole lot crazier than Art's!

- 73 d eMike N3LI -

Tom Donaly wrote:
AI4QJ wrote:
"art" wrote in message

Thus the pattina can only hold a smaller number of dipoles which
reflects a smaller potential energy for generating a magnetic field.
Thus both electrical and mechanical
formats surround the facts of potential energy and kinetic energy when
in a state of equilibrium as espoused by Newtons laws.
Have a happy day
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG (uk)


The casual reader of the ng should realize that this insane posting is
not representative of the technical background of ham radio operators.


Art is entitled to his opinions which are no more crazy than, say,
Christian dominionism, or "creation science." They may be wrong and
hard to make sense of, but at least they're honest and
original.

If they are wrong, they aren't honest. They're simply bad science and
not worthy of our time. One of Art's biggest problems is that he writes
in kooky generalities and never ever provides specifics. I've asked him
three times for information on his 18 foot 160m antenna. All I've
gotten in response is a bad tap dance.

I have no choice but to put him down as a lonely old eccentric, a few
degrees off level.

Dave K8MN

Mike Coslo wrote:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in
:

Art is entitled to his opinions which are no more crazy than, say,
Christian dominionism, or "creation science." They may be wrong and
hard to make sense of, but at least they're honest and
original.

Art's ideas are no more crazy than those you compared them to, but those
ideas are a whole lot crazier than Art's!

- 73 d eMike N3LI -


Oh yeah, the premise(s) you state are self evident! Rocks turning into
biological organisms. Krist, mundane really--for the "wackos way of
thinking." Everyone else realizes it take a mind to "create/make
something." You damn bizarre idiot! ROFLOL

Gawd, and you think it would be easy for someone to follow logic ...

JS

John Smith wrote:

...
Gawd, and you think it would be easy for someone to follow logic ...

JS

And then, these damn kooks have the sheer gall to poke fun at Art?
Geesh, they must not have mirrors to look in!

JS

"Dave Heil" wrote in message

(snip) I have no choice but to put him down as a lonely
old eccentric, a few
degrees off level.

Dave K8MN


-------------


"Judge not lest ye be judged"

I come here to learn and converse with others of similar
interests. Unfortunately, the atmosphere here is very
hostile and uninviting. Who the hell wants to argue all of
the time? Not me.

Many of you are far more educated than I, but many of you
demonstrate precisely why I chose not to be brainwashed with
a formal education. Many cannot see past the end of their
noses, yet they insist upon laying down the law regarding
what is acceptable science and what is not. As though anyone
actually knows anything at all.

Each and every day there are new announcements that reshape
our scientific paradigm. Who can keep up? It was while I was
trying to keep up that I finally realized that the more we
learn, the more we should realize that nothing is certain.
Yet the same young/old coots are in here argueing day after
day that what they learned in the 1940's and 50's, 60's,
70's, 80's, 90's and now the 20's, is the Gospel Truth. I
wish you could see just how silly you appear to others. I'm
not pointing the finger at anyone in particular.

Let's not forget that one's educational level has nothing to
do with native IQ.


Ed, NM2K

On Jan 18, 3:36 am, "Ed Cregger" wrote:

Yet the same young/old coots are in here argueing day after
day that what they learned in the 1940's and 50's, 60's,
70's, 80's, 90's and now the 20's, is the Gospel Truth. I
wish you could see just how silly you appear to others. I'm
not pointing the finger at anyone in particular.

But on the other hand many of those theories have been tested
over and over again in all those years. If they pass the continued
test of time, I trust them more than I do bafflegab that usually
breaks these fairly well proven theories with no prior testing done
of the new theories.
I have nothing against trying new ideas, but they should at
least be tested and proven in the real world before they are
unleashed as "fact", or that I need to "recognize" something
that is obviously not the case, already proven through years of
repeated testing.
I've told Art many times... If you build it and it works, they will
come. He refuses.
When a person proclaims that they have a new theory which will
likely break the laws of older proven theory, it's that persons
obligation to prove his case, not the other way around.
And to do that requires getting off ones rear to build and test
the real deal, in the real world and letting the chips fall where
they may.
Art claims to have an 18 ft antenna for 160m on his tower,
but on the other hand he says he does not operate.
So how is he going to test it?
And if it's going to be a fair test, he needs a reference antenna.
If I claimed to have a small antenna that was equal in efficiency
to a full size antenna, I would A/B compare it to a full size
antenna.
If the chips fell in an undesirable manner, I would scrap the
thing, and move on to something else.
It's not like it would be the end of the world.
Art never gets this far. So due to a lack of actual testing, it's
like a dog chasing it's tail, while barking at the moon at the
same time.
I'm all for new ideas, and I surely know that in the history of
the world, people will likely see things much differently 200
years from now, than they do today.
That's a given..
All I'm saying is... Don't feed me a turd and call it steak,
without tasting it first. I can smell the difference in most
cases just from my own prior experiences.
If I thought a 18 ft element could equal a full size element
on 160m, you can bet I would already have one in the air.
But I know just from prior testing with just half size dipoles
using efficient Hi-Q loading coils at optimum locations, that
even they couldn't quite match up. I had to go to a "Z" dipole
to get close to full size efficiency.
So when I hear stories of small radiators wound with thin
22 gauge wire in a "to me" perverted contra wound method,
and this is supposed to be the answer to all our prayers,
please excuse me if I don't rush out to nominate Art for the
Nobel prize in physics without a little real world
demonstration. Using a real full size antenna to compare
it with would be nice.
I would expect no less from even an alien if he promised a
free lunch deal like that. Or myself for that matter.
MK

On Jan 18, 3:36 am, "Ed Cregger" wrote:
snip

Many of you are far more educated than I, but many of you
demonstrate precisely why I chose not to be brainwashed with
a formal education. Many cannot see past the end of their
noses, yet they insist upon laying down the law regarding
what is acceptable science and what is not. As though anyone
actually knows anything at all.

snip

Let's not forget that one's educational level has nothing to
do with native IQ.

Ed, NM2K

You are correct to say that education has nothing to do with IQ.
Faraday had little formal training, yet his arduous work is now
exalted by naming one of the basic electromagnetic laws after him. But
I take issue with the idea that you can't actually know anything at
all. For instance, electrodynamic theory was developed 150 years ago,
and the KNOWN successful results of that are numerous.

Newtonian mechanics held up well for hundreds of years. A whole
industrial revolution was built on it. Yet some pesky observations by
Michelson and Morley regarding the invariant speed of light found it
wanting. Relativistic mechanics subsumed Newtonian mechanics, but
Einstein didn't invalidate Newton. I believe the mathematical term
"embedding" applies.

I am currently re-studying the original theory of Maxwell, et. al.,
with the intent of finding some chink in the armor. Tesla reported
longitudinal electromagnetic wave phenomena, which contradicts the now-
standard theory that EM waves can ONLY be transversal. Using Maxwell's
original quaternion equations, before Heviside simplified them into
the now-standard vector form, one can derive longitudinal wave
components. If those exist, does that prove you don't know how to
operate a ham radio? No, it just means you're radiating something in
addition to what you expect.

You CAN know something and apply it. You just need to realize that
what you know isn't complete, and never can be.